Trent Dilfer calls out the run-loving dinosaurs

[Benny Blue Boy]

I was a Cali district finalist in debate years ago. I know exactly what "straw man" means and have been refreshed this evening with your multiple examples.

Your flavor this evening has been argumentum absurdum....latin for taking your opponents argument to the extreme.

You spoke of 80% run or pass advocates...when there aren't any such advocates on this forum. Not one.

Then you proposed that I advocated a "lousy" running game. Again a straw man of the Arg Abs variety.

This guy is cracking me up. If it's true or not this guy is trying to act fancy and show credentials on a dallas cowboys message board. Obviously he must be a little um...um...eagles fan? Yeah it's a passing league and in about 5 years it will probably be a running league again. It's how these things seem to work historically. And yeah the best team usually does win. Football is an inexact science. And i'll welcome the running style back when it comes back because we all know it will...sheesh.

 

[alancdc]

I saw that as well. It made me

That being said, I'm all for balance. Keeping a defense off-balance is more important than almost anything else. But I like to pass to set up the run however, which is what Dilfer is referring to.

Agree with you on this. If you watch any games on a given Sunday the defensive backs have NO shot. The game is so heavily weighted on the passing game it really is a shame. Seriously, illegal contact is getting WAY out of hand, and is gonna cost someone a playoff game. You are telling me it is a "fair" rule on 3rd and 35 that a WR can go 8 yards downfield, initiate contact in many cases, and get a flag for an AUTOMATIC 1st down? If I were a coach on a 3rd and "long" I would have my 3rd WR simply TRY to make contact to make the official call it. The calls in the Ravens game and Denver game this weekend were game changing, but until they change the rules do as SD does and CHUCK IT DOWNFIELD BABY!

 

[JohnsKey19]

It's a passing league and the Rams were the first to figure it out.

It certainly didn't hurt that the key offensive positions on that team were being manned by HOFers(locks) playing in the prime of their careers. It's not hard to figure anything out when you've got Warner, Pace, Faulk, Bruce and Holt on the field.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Well, a great running game and a mediocre passing game will get you in a bind quickly if your opposition jumps out to a 2 possession lead.

Look at the teams with the best running games this season. Jets are currently in the playoffs, as the #6 seed. Behind them is Tennessee, Carolina, Miami, and New Orleans. Three of the top 5 rushing attacks will be fishing in another week. Take it a step further, and half of the top 10 rushing attacks won't make the playoffs.

Now look at the best passing teams. 8 of the top 10 passing teams are in the playoffs, and it could end up being 9 of the 10.

Interesting. However, it has little bearing on my central premise. I stated that teams aren't likely to be successful unless they can threaten opponents with both the run and the pass. In other words, offenses should not be one dimensional.

Currently, most teams with prolific ground games in terms of yardage are one dimensional because they're masking a quarterback deficiency.

I never once asserted that teams must possess dominant running games to be successful. Quite the opposite, actually.

 

[speedkilz88]

I would like to see a play action pass on some of those 2nd and 1 or 3rd and 1.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

I was a Cali district finalist in debate years ago.

Seriously? Did everyone else get sick?

I know exactly what "straw man" means and have been refreshed this evening with your multiple examples.

No. I don't think you do...as we will soon see.

Your flavor this evening has been argumentum absurdum....latin for taking your opponents argument to the extreme.

You spoke of 80% run or pass advocates...when there aren't any such advocates on this forum. Not one.

You mean "reductio ad absurdum?"

That doesn't really apply either.

I stated that fans tend to be "extremist" in their views. It was a general comment, and certainly not directed at anyone specific. However, it's quite telling you would take it so personally.

Then you proposed that I advocated a "lousy" running game. Again a straw man of the Arg Abs variety.

Really? Where did I propose that you "advocated a lousy running game"? A master debater such as yourself should be able to point it out with ease.

 

[alancdc]

Look no further than Miami-Indy earlier this year. I think Miami had the ball for like 45 minutes and lost. What you do with it when you get it means more than anything.

 

[Vtwin]

Interesting. However, it has little bearing on my central premise. I stated that teams aren't likely to be successful unless they can threaten opponents with both the run and the pass. In other words, offenses should not be one dimensional.

Currently, most teams with prolific ground games in terms of yardage are one dimensional because they're masking a quarterback deficiency.

I never once asserted that teams must possess dominant running games to be successful. Quite the opposite, actually.

Exactly.

Today's championships are won by the QB's who make plays. Stans to reason if you have a very good QB you are going to have a very good passing game.

Of course if you have very little threat in the running game opposing defenses can focus entirely on stopping your passing game making their job easier.

You have to be able to pass AND run to consistently win in today's NFL. Rule changes have made it a pass happy league but with no threat to run you'll win some but you'll lose more then yuor share against the best teams.

Adrian Peterson has without a doubt impoved the Vikings passing game.

The Saints have real threat lining up in the backfield.

How many would be open to trading Felix Jones and T Choice for their equal value in receivers?

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Hey Silverbear, where are you? Time to break out those One Trick Pony lyrics.

 

[Cover 2]

Seriously? Did everyone else get sick?



No. I don't think you do...as we will soon see.



You mean "reductio ad absurdum?"

That doesn't really apply either.

I stated that fans tend to be "extremist" in their views. It was a general comment, and certainly not directed at anyone specific. However, it's quite telling you would take it so personally.



Really? Where did I propose that you "advocated a lousy running game"? A master debater such as yourself should be able to point it out with ease.

 

[Doomsday101]

I agree passing is important however teams who are capable of running and passing effectively makes it easier to keep defense off balance. You force the defense to make a choice of how they want to die. If teams want to commit 8 or 9 on the line of scrimmage and leave their secondary more exposed great but by the same token you want to let an offense gash you with the run and pound on you that is a great way to break a teams will.

I look at it like this the passing game is like a head shot in boxing and the running game is like a body shot in boxing and a boxer who is able to attack the body and force the opponent to cover up will only expose the head for some open shots.

If the running game did not mean that much coaches would not stack the line to stop it they do it because they know what a strong running game can do

 

[ScipioCowboy]

I didn't say that. In reality, a team with a good passing game will be only marginally better with a good running game than they would be with a lousy running game. And a team with a great passing game and a lousy running game will win more than a team with a good passing game and a great running game.

If the ability to run or pass could be classified as ONLY "great," good" or "lousy," these would be the rankings for their levels of success (assuming all of their defenses were equal) --

1. Great pass, great run
2. Great pass, good run
3. Great pass, lousy run
4. Good pass, great run
5. Good pass, good run
6. Good pass, lousy run
7. Lousy pass, great run
8. Lousy pass, good run
9. Lousy pass, lousy run

And most likely, there's a gap between Nos. 3 and 4 and between Nos. 6 and 7.

The same would be true for defenses. If you can stop the pass very well, you're better off, no matter how well you can stop the run.

According to your list, the more successful teams are those capable of threatening opponents both running and passing. This is precisely what I said.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

So our '92 team wouldn't be able to win in today's NFL? I don't buy that for a minute.

 

[AmericasTeam31]

How did Tennessee win 7 out of 8 games with no threat of a passing game?

Oh yeah, they have a 2,000 yard back... And a running threat at QB too...

I think balance is the answer, the ability to exploit the weakest link of a defense. And I think that is what we are getting better at. We have good enough balance to exploit most defenses to a victory, while being able to stop them defensively at the same time...

 

[Doomsday101]

How did Tennessee win 7 out of 8 games with no threat of a passing game?

Oh yeah, they have a 2,000 yard back... And a running threat at QB too...

I think balance is the answer, the ability to exploit the weakest link of a defense. And I think that is what we are getting better at. We have good enough balance to exploit most defenses to a victory, while being able to stop them defensively at the same time...

I agree. I also think when facing very good pass rushing teams you better be able to run the ball if not they will pin their ears back and get after your QB. The QB may get off his passes but he will take a pounding and after a while those hits start to add up.

 

[Hoofbite]

So our '92 team wouldn't be able to win in today's NFL? I don't buy that for a minute.

Me either.

I was diggin around some stats not too long ago and I'm pretty sure that it was the 92 or 93 Cowboys who were the most balanced SB winner in the last 15-20 years.

I'm talking balance.....I'll see which one it was.

Looks like it was the 95 team.

494 passes
495 runs

 

[Alweezy]

You can look at the Vikings and see the differnce in philosophy from this year and last year.

Last year it was all AD and teams did not respect Jackson and that team was good but not elite.

This year, they improve their QB, shift into a passing team and become elite in just one year.

It's a Passing League. Players are just too big and fast now to be beaten up all day on the ground. But speed is so important right now if you can spread a team out, it can expose a lot of vunerabilities in even the best defenses.

 

[anava]

It's all about the new fields, there are no more soggy tore up fields. Most fields are heated now days, so you have ideal field conditions year around.

 

[Doomsday101]

You can look at the Vikings and see the differnce in philosophy from this year and last year.

Last year it was all AD and teams did not respect Jackson and that team was good but not elite.

This year, they improve their QB, shift into a passing team and become elite in just one year.

It's a Passing League. Players are just too big and fast now to be beaten up all day on the ground. But speed is so important right now if you can spread a team out, it can expose a lot of vunerabilities in even the best defenses.

Passing is important but you mention Minn. when Peterson was picking up the yards Minn was winning games but over the last few game the Vike run offense has not played well and neither has the vike offense as a whole.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Nope. If you can pass and stop the pass, it barely matters how well you can run or stop the run.

Bingo!

Very well said.