AdamJT13 v. The Horde

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In some games it most certainly does. It varies depending on the opponents weaknesses and strengths. You keep harping on Adam's stats and I keep telling you they do not carry the day. As I've stated many times, a great running game greatly enhances the passing game and elevates the passing efficiency stats. They are mutually beneficial to the other. I'll end this with one thing and I've got to head out. Ask every coach in the NFL how important a good running game and a good run defense is. I guarantee you what every one will say and I'll take their opinion over yours and Adam's stats.

You can repeat yourself all you like but in order for it to hae merit it needs to have some basis beyond ideological statements. You basically have a nice hypothesis at this point and have proven nothing. Adam looks at the outcome of all games empirically. You're assuming your outcome.

Bill Parcells used to say what Adams says in his press conferences all the time: how it was attempts that mattered not efficiency. How about you speak for yourself and not 'every coach in the NFL?'

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Yeah, but it was an invalid point to the issue at hand.

That's an opinion.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Situational football is tactics. Planning run/pass splits is strategy. If your strategy to win is to run the ball well in order to win youre not going to get a sure return. If you use running tactics on 3rd and 1 or in the red zone? Sure.

 

[Nightman]

You can repeat yourself all you like but in order for it to hae merit it needs to have some basis beyond ideological statements. You basically have a nice hypothesis at this point and have proven nothing. Adam looks at the outcome of all games empirically. You're assuming your outcome.

Bill Parcells used to say what Adams says in his press conferences all the time: how it was attempts that mattered not efficiency. How about you speak for yourself and not 'every coach in the NFL?'

When Pete Carroll was asked about the Seahawks' commitment to the run and to being a truly balanced team last November, he offered probably the best summation of his overall philosophy:


"It's the most consistent, proven championship formula in the history of this game," he declared confidently.


He followed that up by winning the Super Bowl.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1/...hers-russell-wilson-cam-newton-marshawn-lynch

 

[MichaelWinicki]

When Pete Carroll was asked about the Seahawks' commitment to the run and to being a truly balanced team last November, he offered probably the best summation of his overall philosophy:

"It's the most consistent, proven championship formula in the history of this game," he declared confidently.

He followed that up by winning the Super Bowl.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1/...hers-russell-wilson-cam-newton-marshawn-lynch

That's a valid point.

They also had one what many consider a great defense and it was one that was at the top of the league in defensive passing efficiency meaning their offense had about the easiest job in the NFL.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When Pete Carroll was asked about the Seahawks' commitment to the run and to being a truly balanced team last November, he offered probably the best summation of his overall philosophy:

"It's the most consistent, proven championship formula in the history of this game," he declared confidently.

He followed that up by winning the Super Bowl.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1/...hers-russell-wilson-cam-newton-marshawn-lynch

I was arguing against 'every NFL coach' and was disproving a negative. If you want to try the to appeal to authority that is great but besides the point I was making. Balanced means you run and pass it doesn't mean you have to run the ball well.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

But my point is still accurate, they did win the SB in '91.

But in the context of what you were saying, what they did in 1991 was largely irrelevant in 1993. They were a bad team in 1993, not even close to being good and yes, sometimes bad teams beat good teams, but they were undoubtedly a bad team.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

That's an opinion.

When considering the age of the players in Washington in 1993 vs 1991 and the amount of starters gone, as well as the success of each team, how is the success of the 1991 team relevant when discussing the 1993 team?

 

[MichaelWinicki]

But in the context of what you were saying, what they did in 1991 was largely irrelevant in 1993. They were a bad team in 1993, not even close to being good and yes, sometimes bad teams beat good teams, but they were undoubtedly a bad team.

At that point... the first game of the 1993 season, they were coming off of a 9-7 season.

And they were playing a home opener vs. their most hated rival who had just won a Super Bowl.

You think the Commanders were fired up to beat the Cowboys?

I'm thinking yes.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

When considering the age of the players in Washington in 1993 vs 1991 and the amount of starters gone, as well as the success of each team, how is the success of the 1991 team relevant when discussing the 1993 team?

OK, then let's look at the '92 Washington team that was 9-7.

Maybe for your next magic trick you can tell me how little drop off there was between Emmitt Smith and Derrick Lassic.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

At that point... the first game of the 1993 season, they were coming off of a 9-7 season.

And they were playing a home opener vs. their most hated rival who had just won a Super Bowl.

You think the Commanders were fired up to beat the Cowboys?

I'm thinking yes.

Fired up or not, they were a bad team that beat a team that went on to win the SB.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Fired up or not, they were a bad team that beat a team that went on to win the SB.

Yeah.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

OK, then let's look at the '92 Washington team that was 9-7.

Emmitt played in both games...went for a buck 40 in one game and 99 yards in the other, so why are they relevant to the topic at hand

Maybe for your next magic trick you can tell me how little drop off there was between Emmitt Smith and Derrick Lassic.

where am I using magic or even making an assumption. It's a fact that the 1993 Commanders team wasn't good. It's a fact that they had a different coach than the team that won in 1991, it's a fact that they had multiple starters gone from that team and it's a fact that a lot of those guys didn't even play football the following year. They just weren't the same team and I don't see how they are relevant to the topic at hand

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Emmitt played in both games...went for a buck 40 in one game and 99 yards in the other, so why are they relevant to the topic at hand



where am I using magic or even making an assumption. It's a fact that the 1993 Commanders team wasn't good. It's a fact that they had a different coach than the team that won in 1991, it's a fact that they had multiple starters gone from that team and it's a fact that a lot of those guys didn't even play football the following year. They just weren't the same team and I don't see how they are relevant to the topic at hand

And Derrick Lassic was a lousy backup... Is it a surprise he didn't do well.

I'm going to do the amazing and bring this back to topic about AdamJT13 vs. the hoards.

Tell us how AdamJT13 is wrong.

 

[speedkilz88]

So was Jimmy Johnson an idiot for trading up a few spots in the 1st round costing an extra 3rd round pick and selecting Emmitt Smith?

 

[alicetooljam]

You forget this too..

And THAT GUY had a high wonderlic score...guess he never heard the advice "never eat yellow snow"

 

[Rogerthat12]

And THAT GUY had a high wonderlic score...guess he never heard the advice "never eat yellow snow"

Old Zeke was having a good old time, caution to the wind...lol!

 

[Manwiththeplan]

And Derrick Lassic was a lousy backup... Is it a surprise he didn't do well.

I'm going to do the amazing and bring this back to topic about AdamJT13 vs. the hoards.

Tell us how AdamJT13 is wrong.

Not sure if the stat is correct, but someone in this thread posted that from 1992-1995 the same passing/stopping the pass correlation was true, so if that doesn't at least say stats don't tell the full story, then I don't know what will.

But to answer your question, I agree with his larger point that passing/stopping the pass is what wins in the NFL today. I don't want to speak for him since has not posted in this thread and haven't looked at all his arguments, so I'll just repeat what I said earlier, which is having a running game as a threat makes Romo a more efficient QB.

 

[alicetooljam]

The Horde: YES WE GOT ZEKE!!1!

AdamJT13: Unfortunately, decades' worth of statistical evidence shows that rushing effectiveness has little correlation to winning. *cites said evidence in painstaking detail*

The Horde: That's stoopid! Zeke is da man!

AdamJT13: Elliott may very well be a good player. But his ability to run the ball has little bearing on whether the Cowboys win. The evidence clearly demonstrates that teams win when they pass the ball better than their opponents.

The Horde: Well...that's just your opinion man!

AdamJT13: Actually, that's a fact, not an opinion.

The Horde: But but but running teh ball makes Romo better! Just like in 2014 with Murray!

AdamJT13: There's no correlation between rushing effectiveness and passing effectiveness. *cites evidence in support of claim* In 2014, for example, the Cowboys won the games where they passed the ball better than their opponents and lost the games where they didn't. There was no correlation between Murray's rushing effectiveness in those games and Romo's passing effectiveness. *cites evidence in support of claim*

The Horde: ARE YOU BLIND? OF COURSE HAVING A DOMINANT RUN GAME HELPS DO YOU EVEN WATCH DA GAMES YOU *?#$

AdamJT13: Yes, I watched and charted every game, just like I've done for many years. What evidence do you have in support of your assertion?

The Horde: iM to busy to look it up but everyone says so

AdamJT13: *closes eyes, takes a deep breath, exhales*

All this means....we have finally proven....AdamJT....IS NOT STEVEN JONES! :cues the x-files music:

 

[Toruk_Makto]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on both your points. I don't believe the only difference between Rogers and Romo are a good pass defense. There have been some times that Rogers has not had good defenses and has done more than Romo in those years. Not knocking Romo, because I think Rogers and Brady are 2 of the top 3 QBs of this era, with Manning being in there as well, and thus I do think he's not as good as them.

And second, I just don't see Ramsey as a generational talent. How is he better than Peterson who came out in 2011 (this generation)? Or Richard Sherman (who wasn't a great prospect, but I don't think Ramsey projects to be as good) or Joe Haden (2010)?

If Ramsey turned out as good as any of those guys...man...

Instead we got a RB.