Rushing to help the Defense

[CATCH17]

I appreciate that, but I am talking about imposing your will on the other team....running when they know it, in the fourth when a first down wins the game......wearing them down mentally and physically with the Stampede of OLmen.....safties and corners not wanting to stick their shoulders in there any more...snatching back the momentum after an opponent scores

Tony is not Tom Brady and we aren't made to convert a ton of third downs.....we don't have the discipline to consistently run a hurry up, no huddle offense....Tony got hurt last year on a play that had 0 protection but he didn't immediately throw the ball...Brady has no OL but throws the ball < 2secs....even Costa could protect that long

Like I said....nothing bad comes from having a dominating running game...only good

We don't run a lot of the routes that allow Brady to do that either.

Everything is down field for us. It puts a ton of pressure on your OL and Jason Garrett was doing these same things with scrubs along the OL.

 

[Alexander]

We don't run a lot of the routes that allow Brady to do that either.

Everything is down field for us. It puts a ton of pressure on your OL and Jason Garrett was doing these same things with scrubs along the OL.

If the key is passing successfully like is being hypothesized in this thread, we need to be scrapping the same thing we have been doing since Garrett began as an offensive coordinator.

We have one of the more primitive passing games in the business and when Romo is not able to make it look good, it is exposed.

 

[Sydla]

Lies, damned lies and statistics

You just produce volumes of numerical diarrhea and expect us to un-learn all the basic footballs truths we have lived our whole lives.....times may be a changin' but there is nothing bad that comes from a dominating rushing attack....

LOL.

 

[jazzcat22]

I believe my own eyes and research.

Church is wrong. He just is. Just because he plays football doesn't mean he's right in this matter. The 2014 defense was "better" because the offense was efficient and scored a lot of points and put the defense into positions where teams were trying to score to keep up. If he had said that, he'd have been right.

And the fact you think your RB A & B example somehow refutes the "rest" argument is hilarious.

.....that's all....no need to comment....

 

[jazzcat22]

Us? Anyway, "TOP is worthless without a lead" does not equal "bad things come from a dominating rushing attack."

Send all your stats and analysis to Jason and Scott...ask them what do the think...I am pretty sure they will say...we plan to run the ball, control the clock, rest our defense, and then run the ball down their throats more.....
As @bkight13 said, it's basic fundamental football that has been played and worked for, well, since football started.

 

[percyhoward]

Send all your stats and analysis to Jason and Scott...ask them what do the think...I am pretty sure they will say...we plan to run the ball, control the clock, rest our defense, and then run the ball down their throats more.....
As @bkight13 said, it's basic fundamental football that has been played and worked for, well, since football started.

Jason and Scott could probably answer this one: Why didn't controlling the clock work for three of these teams? :

1. Atlanta 3:05
2. Seattle 3:01
3. Dallas 3:00
4. Minnesota 2:54
5. San Diego 2:54

 

[DeaconMoss]

Playing with a lead and a rested defense are big helps for sure

 

[Idgit]

Playing with a lead and a rested defense are big helps for sure

The lead is what helps. NFL defenses don't really get tired over the course of thirty or so game minutes of play with breaks in between each play and position substitutions. Any more than the offenses they're playing, anyway.

"They're tired" is something a commentator might say when a defense is on the ropes late in a game, but if they're on the ropes it's because they can't stop anybody and not because of a conditioning problem. Individual player might be winded or out of shape, sure, but even that's just a matter of a quick rotation out and then back in again.

 

[Sydla]

.....that's all....no need to comment....

LOL at thinking NFL players are infallible.

 

[Nightman]

The lead is what helps. NFL defenses don't really get tired over the course of thirty or so game minutes of play with breaks in between each play and position substitutions. Any more than the offenses they're playing, anyway.

"They're tired" is something a commentator might say when a defense is on the ropes late in a game, but if they're on the ropes it's because they can't stop anybody and not because of a conditioning problem. Individual player might be winded or out of shape, sure, but even that's just a matter of a quick rotation out and then back in again.

You have got to be kidding....have you ever watched football?....teams get gassed all the time, especially after getting pounded by the big uglies up front

 

[Nightman]

How do you stay so patient with typing the same stuff up every offseason? I'd go crazy.

I don't even think bkight was here previously, but these arguments can be cut and pasted after every season.

I have been here for a long time and have seen all the Adam arguments.....he presents a good case but it always falls short......why is the team doing everything to re-create 2014 if that is the wrong way.....every winning team we had has used a strong run game.....Aikman wasn't a big yardage guy and tony had his best year by far when Murray ripped off 1850 yards.....you and Adam and percy can find stats to bolster your argument but the playoffs and titles don't correlate

No one has still provided any negatives for having a strong run game because that would be as absurd as saying having good defense or special teams is irrelevant....Adam's theory still fails 3-4 times every week....doesn't sound like a very solid rule

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Jason and Scott could probably answer this one: Why didn't controlling the clock work for three of these teams? :

1. Atlanta 3:05
2. Seattle 3:01
3. Dallas 3:00
4. Minnesota 2:54
5. San Diego 2:54

You're dealing with ideologues. As such you are wasting your time as no amount of data will deter them from their idea. This isn't the first time you've pointed out how their 'truth' is not universal.

 

[Nightman]

LOL at thinking NFL players are infallible.

the coaches don't agree with you, the owner doesn't agree with you and the players don't agree with you but still have a strong emoji game

 

[Nightman]

You're dealing with ideologues. As such you are wasting your time as no amount of data will deter them from their idea. This isn't the first time you've pointed out how their 'truth' is not universal.

because it is a meaningless snippet.....what universal truth can you glean from those 5 lines of data????

 

[Sydla]

I have been here for a long time and have seen all the Adam arguments.....he presents a good case but it always falls short......why is the team doing everything to re-create 2014 if that is the wrong way.....every winning team we had has used a strong run game.....Aikman wasn't a big yardage guy and tony had his best year by far when Murray ripped off 1850 yards.....you and Adam and percy can find stats to bolster your argument but the playoffs and titles don't correlate

No one has still provided any negatives for having a strong run game because that would be as absurd as saying having good defense or special teams is irrelevant....Adam's theory still fails 3-4 times every week....doesn't sound like a very solid rule

Holy $%#%$.

The reason why no one has provided any negatives for having a strong running game is BECAUSE NO ONE SAID THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH HAVING A STRONG RUNNING GAME.

 

[Nightman]

Holy $%#%$.

The reason why no one has provided any negatives for having a strong running game is BECAUSE NO ONE SAID THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH HAVING A STRONG RUNNING GAME.

Wrong....Adam's whole premise is that a strong running game is irrelevant.....he said as long as you hand it off 15-20 times a game it doesn't matter whether you gain 20 or 100 yards

 

[Sydla]

Wrong....Adam's whole premise is that a strong running game is irrelevant.....he said as long as you hand it off 15-20 times a game it doesn't matter whether you gain 20 or 100 yards

That's not the same as saying it's bad to have a strong running game, which is what you seem to be asking people to explain to you.

I bet if you asked Adam if he could have a really great passing offense with a cruddy rushing offense and a really great passing offense with a really great rushing offense, he'd take the latter.

People aren't saying having a great rushing attack is bad. What people, well at least myself, are saying is some of you are over-exaggerating the effects a strong running game has.

 

[Idgit]

I have been here for a long time and have seen all the Adam arguments.....he presents a good case but it always falls short......why is the team doing everything to re-create 2014 if that is the wrong way.....every winning team we had has used a strong run game.....Aikman wasn't a big yardage guy and tony had his best year by far when Murray ripped off 1850 yards.....you and Adam and percy can find stats to bolster your argument but the playoffs and titles don't correlate

No one has still provided any negatives for having a strong run game because that would be as absurd as saying having good defense or special teams is irrelevant....Adam's theory still fails 3-4 times every week....doesn't sound like a very solid rule

This arguments been made in detail many times. Including the spending of limited resources on areas that don't really affect the outcomes of games. You might not accept the arguments, but they've all been made.

 

[Sydla]

It's hard for some to grasp but we are seeing all over sports that "conventional" thinking might have actually been wrong now that we have more advanced ways to look at things. Look at strikeouts in baseball. Long viewed as the scourge of baseball, the constant "shorten up" with two strikes chatter, etc.

Turned out strikeouts were no worse than any other out and in fact there wasn't much correlation after analyzing the stats between a team striking out a lot meaning they couldn't win. The Red Sox, Phillies teams that punished people with their offenses in the mid to late last decade struck out a ton but bludgeoned teams offensively.

 

[Nightman]

It's hard for some to grasp but we are seeing all over sports that "conventional" thinking might have actually been wrong now that we have more advanced ways to look at things. Look at strikeouts in baseball. Long viewed as the scourge of baseball, the constant "shorten up" with two strikes chatter, etc.

Turned out strikeouts were no worse than any other out and in fact there wasn't much correlation after analyzing the stats between a team striking out a lot meaning they couldn't win. The Red Sox, Phillies teams that punished people with their offenses in the mid to late last decade struck out a ton but bludgeoned teams offensively.

Yeah tell that to Chuck Noll, Don Shula, Vince Lombardi, Joe Gibbs, JJohnson, MShanahan, Pete Caroll,,etc