AdamJT13 v. The Horde

[MichaelWinicki]

Schooled, that is hilarious Mr President of the A13 fan club

Especially when the formula is more like a recipe of football truths

Pass Well
+ limit Turnovers and Sacks
+ good pass Defense
+ Defensive INTs
+ Defensive Sacks
80% chance of winning..............Duh.....but that also means up to 4 teams a week lose using the secret recipe

You might as well say that teams that lead in the 4th quarter win 80% of the time, so you should try to get the lead by scoring points and limiting your opponent from scoring points

And not one of those things has to do with an efficient running game.

Shocking.

 

[windward]

Yep, Ravens another great example. Flucco was passing for 100 yards a game when they won it. Quite clearly you DONT need an all world QB if you have a top notch D. And especially when combined with a top notch running game.

He was actually throwing for about 239 yards a game and was the more efficient passer throughout the playoffs.

 

[BourbonBalz]

Did you read the context and progression of the postings? I said we needed Romo in our 2014 run heavy scheme to convert 3rd downs/sustain the run heavy drives and he led the league in efficiency; he's more vital to the team than Zeke for 17' playoff hope/success.

It's a given that ALL NFL teams' QB are the most important player on the team. I don't think anybody that knows anything about the game would say otherwise. That wasn't the point. The point that has been debated is whether a strong ground game is an important factor to winning. In my opinion there's zero doubt that it is. Is it any more important than a strong passing game? NO! I think they're equally important in most instances. A balanced offense is always the best way to go. Defenses hate it. It makes their job much more difficult. It keeps them guessing. It wears them down physically and mentally. It also protects your own defense by keeping them off the field. This is NOT rocket science. As I said in another thread, I don't need mindless stats to tell me what I already know by playing the game and watching it for going on 50 years.

 

[BigStar]

He was actually throwing for about 239 yards a game and was the more efficient passer throughout the playoffs.

He was being sarcastic, I didn't get it yet either

 

[BigStar]

It's a given that ALL NFL teams' QB are the most important player on the team. I don't think anybody that knows anything about the game would say otherwise. That wasn't the point. The point that has been debated is whether a strong ground game is an important factor to winning. In my opinion there's zero doubt that it is. Is it any more important than a strong passing game? NO! I think they're equally important in most instances. A balanced offense is always the best way to go. Defenses hate it. It makes their job much more difficult. It keeps them guessing. It wears them down physically and mentally. It also protects your own defense by keeping them off the field. This is NOT rocket science. As I said in another thread, I don't need mindless stats to tell me what I already know by playing the game and watching it for going on 50 years.

And we need Romo to attain the balanced offense? We don't have a great D, so we can't solely rely on the running game. What are you arguing?

 

[Doomsday101]

It's a given that ALL NFL teams' QB are the most important player on the team. I don't think anybody that knows anything about the game would say otherwise. That wasn't the point. The point that has been debated is whether a strong ground game is an important factor to winning. In my opinion there's zero doubt that it is. Is it any more important than a strong passing game? NO! I think they're equally important in most instances. A balanced offense is always the best way to go. Defenses hate it. It makes their job much more difficult. It keeps them guessing. It wears them down physically and mentally. It also protects your own defense by keeping them off the field. This is NOT rocket science. As I said in another thread, I don't need mindless stats to tell me what I already know by playing the game and watching it for going on 50 years.

Your right and that is not in just recent times, QB have always been a big part of the game. Guys like Johnny U was a big reason for the colts success or Roger Staubach or Bradshaw. The position is very important and while things have changed to favor the passing game it does not change the fact for several teams the run game gives them the balanced attack and helps in the passing game by keeping them in down and distance situation which keep the defense guessing.

 

[erod]

It's a given that ALL NFL teams' QB are the most important player on the team. I don't think anybody that knows anything about the game would say otherwise. That wasn't the point. The point that has been debated is whether a strong ground game is an important factor to winning. In my opinion there's zero doubt that it is. Is it any more important than a strong passing game? NO! I think they're equally important in most instances. A balanced offense is always the best way to go. Defenses hate it. It makes their job much more difficult. It keeps them guessing. It wears them down physically and mentally. It also protects your own defense by keeping them off the field. This is NOT rocket science. As I said in another thread, I don't need mindless stats to tell me what I already know by playing the game and watching it for going on 50 years.

I'll add....

There isn't one formula for winning. Putting an elite back behind an elite line is a pretty dadgum good idea no matter what.

Terrell Davis had a couple of monster years for Elway. Emmitt did it for Troy. Can you imagine if Adrian Peterson could have played with a legit quarterback when he was young? His one year with an old Farve was pretty special.

 

[Doomsday101]

And we need Romo to attain the balanced offense? We don't have a great D, so we can't solely rely on the running game. What are you arguing?

Was important to have Troy along with Emmitt to maintain balance in the attack?

 

[BrassCowboy]

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Football isn't a game always measured in data and stats and measurables. Sometimes, there's a factor that be observed even if it can't be quantified. It's called the "it" factor in some cases and intuition and instincts in others.

Just saying.

Yea, I'll admit I'm in the camp that believes the threat of a good running game increases the effectiveness of Romo. Brady and Rogers have proven they can win without a running game, but as much as I'm a Romo fan, I don't think he's as good as either. I think even prior to 2014, when Murray was running well, Romo was more efficient in his passing and even if he passed for more yards and TDs in the other games, his best work was when he did not need to light up the score board.

 

[Doomsday101]

I'll add....

There isn't one formula for winning. Putting an elite back behind an elite line is a pretty dadgum good idea no matter what.

Terrell Davis had a couple of monster years for Elway. Emmitt did it for Troy. Can you imagine if Adrian Peterson could have played with a legit quarterback when he was young? His one year with an old Farve was pretty special.

And that may come to past as Bridgewater continues to develop. No question a quality QB along with a threat like Peterson would be a perfect storm for the Vikes. Yet for much of AD career he has not had that QB to provide the passing threat.

 

[BigStar]

Was important to have Troy along with Emmitt to maintain balance in the attack?

So if Romo goes down, we lose that balance instantly. Back to my initial point? Wasn't a remarkable one I thought tbh...

 

[Common Sense]

Of course, it's entirely possible that an NFL running game is a lot like Carmelo Anthony. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...layer-and-what-advanced-stats-miss-about-him/

 

[BourbonBalz]

And we need Romo to attain the balanced offense? We don't have a great D, so we can't solely rely on the running game. What are you arguing?

I don't have a clue what you're even asking. My post was as clear as they come. Keep reading and maybe you'll figure it out.

 

[BigStar]

I don't have a clue what you're even asking. My post was as clear as they come. Keep reading and maybe you'll figure it out.

Reading the thread would help you out instead of clicking the last page to argue

 

[Doomsday101]

So if Romo goes down, we lose that balance instantly. Back to my initial point? Wasn't a remarkable one I thought tbh...

We lose when defense does not fear the passing attack and focus on the run. In Minn over the last several years teams have focused on stopping or slowing down the vikes running game because they did not fear the passing attack. I am not saying passing is not important all I have said is running for many teams is a big key to their offensive success.

 

[BourbonBalz]

So if Romo goes down, we lose that balance instantly. Back to my initial point? Wasn't a remarkable one I thought tbh...

Damn dude, if ANY team loses it's QB for a long period (especially the entire year) they're likely done. Where have you seen anyone post otherwise?

 

[Manwiththeplan]

All I see is that DAL was 59-16 with 3 SB titles with Emmitt at his best......thanks

I think that was his point. That the correlation between passing/running and winning is the same as it was in the 90s, yet no one would try and say the running game did not improve the passing game.

 

[BourbonBalz]

Reading the thread would help you out instead of clicking the last page to argue

I've read the entire thread, thank you very much, and the one that brought this one to life. Did you?

 

[Toruk_Makto]

How long did Emmitt last? Ladanian Tomlinson? Jerome Bettis? Adrian Peterson? Marshawn Lynch?

A lot longer than 4 years.

If your pick has to be a hall of Famer for it to be justified...You dun goofed.