NFL Week 9 thread

[LongTimeListener]

Most recent champions haven't been too good at running the ball and were not all that committed to it, statistically.

Regardless, my bigger point was that Brees and the Saints have been pretty successful in the playoffs, and I was just wondering how much better they needed to do to satisfy Devil. Maybe a 10-0 record and three Super Bowls, would that be enough?

This depends on how you look at things statistically. If you look at in terms of total yardage, that doesn't necessarily tell you the story. Looking at it in terms of yards per carry tells you more.

Super Bowl teams since 2010 and their YPC (and rank):

2010 Green Bay 3.8 (27th) Pittsburgh 4.1 (17th)
2011 NY Giants 3.5 (32nd) New England 4.0 (21st)
2012 Baltimore 4.3 (13th) San Francisco 5.1 (3rd)

And of course the 49ers' average was heavily influenced by the running of Kaepernick, which is not really the grinding running game you're talking about.

Short yardage can be important if that's what a team is set up to do. But not concentrating on it is hardly an impediment to winning.

 

[amraeder]

Most recent champions haven't been too good at running the ball and were not all that committed to it, statistically.

Regardless, my bigger point was that Brees and the Saints have been pretty successful in the playoffs, and I was just wondering how much better they needed to do to satisfy Devil. Maybe a 10-0 record and three Super Bowls, would that be enough?

This depends on how you look at things statistically. If you look at in terms of total yardage, that doesn't necessarily tell you the story. Looking at it in terms of yards per carry tells you more.

Super Bowl teams since 2010 and their YPC (and rank):

2010 Green Bay 3.8 (27th) Pittsburgh 4.1 (17th)
2011 NY Giants 3.5 (32nd) New England 4.0 (21st)
2012 Baltimore 4.3 (13th) San Francisco 5.1 (3rd)

And of course the 49ers' average was heavily influenced by the running of Kaepernick, which is not really the grinding running game you're talking about.

Short yardage can be important if that's what a team is set up to do. But not concentrating on it is hardly an impediment to winning.

AND, I'd argue that the read option with Kaep was a lot harder to defend in short yardage situations last year than many of the more traditional short-yardage offense. (Carolina's a great short yardage team. Toblert's part of that, since he's a bowling ball. But Cam's ability to keep it, hand defenses having to honor that, is a big help, too)

 

[joe king]

The 49ers runsghing average is infliuenbced first and foremost by the fact that Frank Gore is a machine.

Most recent champions haven't been too good at running the ball and were not all that committed to it, statistically.

Regardless, my bigger point was that Brees and the Saints have been pretty successful in the playoffs, and I was just wondering how much better they needed to do to satisfy Devil. Maybe a 10-0 record and three Super Bowls, would that be enough?

This depends on how you look at things statistically. If you look at in terms of total yardage, that doesn't necessarily tell you the story. Looking at it in terms of yards per carry tells you more.

Currently the Saints' best runner, Pierre Thomas, averages 3.5 yards per carry. In the Saints' Super Bowl winning season (2009), he averaged 5.9 yards per carry.

Thus, yes, Thomas was an effective runner during the Super Bowl run in terms of statistics, but isn't now, if you look at yards per carry — even though Thomas had less than 800 yards rushing in 14 regular-season games in 2009.

I do believe the days of backs who regularly gets 35 or more attempts per game and churn out 100-yard games on a weekly basis are fading away. But that doesn't mean you can't have a running game that works well, even if it's not individuals putting up gaudy totals every game.

This is a pet peeve of mine.

There has never, ever been an era in which backs regularly got 35 or more rushing attempts per game. In fact, there hasn't even been an era in which running backs regularly averaged 25 carries per game.

The record for most carries in a season is 416 (Larry Johnson, 2006), which averages out to 26 per game. That's the record. The record for a 14-game season is Walter Payton's 339 in 1977 (the last 14-game season) -- 24 per game. No one ever ran the ball 300 times in a 12-game season (25 per game). A cursory glance seems to show the 12-game mark is 290 by Jim Brown in 1959.

And those are the records. A normal featured back didn't even get than many carries.

Jim Brown, considered by many the ultimate workhorse back, averaged fewer than 20 rushing attempts per game in his career (OK, it was 19.99, but still...). Emmitt Smith, the career leader in rushing attempts and yards, carried 19.5 times per game. Payton was a stud horse -- he ran 20.2 times per game for his career. Eric Dickerson, 20.5.

No one averages 35 or even 25 carries per game, and they never have.

Sorry. Just had to get that out of my system.

 

[Steak Snabler]

Along those lines ... people who make a big deal out of a 1,000-yard season don't realize that in a 16-game schedule you only have to average 62.5 yards per game.

In this day and age, 1,500 should be the benchmark for a great running back season.

 

[old_tony]

Packers just placed Jermichael Finley on season-ending IR.

 

[albert77]

Most recent champions haven't been too good at running the ball and were not all that committed to it, statistically.

Regardless, my bigger point was that Brees and the Saints have been pretty successful in the playoffs, and I was just wondering how much better they needed to do to satisfy Devil. Maybe a 10-0 record and three Super Bowls, would that be enough?

I think one thing that maybe skews the perception of the Saints' recent run is how tantalizingly close they came to playing (and quite possibly winning) three straight Super Bowls.

In 2010, if they just don't let Marshawn Lynch run through their defense like a pinball machine, they beat Seattle, which would have sent them to Chicago to play an in-over-their-head Bears team, then gotten Green Bay at home in the NFC championship. And a win there puts them against an overachieving Steelers team in SB 45.

In 2011, all they had to do was not make Alex Smith look like Tom Brady in the last 90 seconds and-or put somebody besides a safety in single coverage on Vernon Davis and they beat the 49ers. They then get the Giants at home, a team they'd already curb-stomped at home earlier in the season.

From my seat as a Saints' fanboy, the real issue for them wasn't their average running game but a defense that broke down at the worst possible moments. And we've already seen them do that this season against Brady and the Pats.

 

[JC]

Most recent champions haven't been too good at running the ball and were not all that committed to it, statistically.

Regardless, my bigger point was that Brees and the Saints have been pretty successful in the playoffs, and I was just wondering how much better they needed to do to satisfy Devil. Maybe a 10-0 record and three Super Bowls, would that be enough?

I think one thing that maybe skews the perception of the Saints' recent run is how tantalizingly close they came to playing (and quite possibly winning) three straight Super Bowls.

In 2010, if they just don't let Marshawn Lynch run through their defense like a pinball machine, they beat Seattle, which would have sent them to Chicago to play an in-over-their-head Bears team, then gotten Green Bay at home in the NFC championship. And a win there puts them against an overachieving Steelers team in SB 45.

In 2011, all they had to do was not make Alex Smith look like Tom Brady in the last 90 seconds and-or put somebody besides a safety in single coverage on Vernon Davis and they beat the 49ers. They then get the Giants at home, a team they'd already curb-stomped at home earlier in the season.

From my seat as a Saints' fanboy, the real issue for them wasn't their average running game but a defense that broke down at the worst possible moments. And we've already seen them do that this season against Brady and the Pats.

That's one **** load of ifs. I don't consider a team that loses to a 7-9 playoff team close to winning a Super Bowl, let alone presuming they'd just win 3 more games.

 

[poindexter]

haha - the 2010 scenario had them winning four playoff games that they didn't actually win to help their mythical threepeat.

The 2011 scenario was much more realistic with only three theoretical games they didn't win.

They were thisclose.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I met Alyssa Milano once doing a baseball story. Unfortunately, she saw my wedding ring.

If I didn't have the wife and two kids at the time, Alyssa and I would probably be together now. Granted, that's a big if.

 

[93Devil]

Most recent champions haven't been too good at running the ball and were not all that committed to it, statistically.

Regardless, my bigger point was that Brees and the Saints have been pretty successful in the playoffs, and I was just wondering how much better they needed to do to satisfy Devil. Maybe a 10-0 record and three Super Bowls, would that be enough?

I missed the Air Flacco era.

 

[LongTimeListener]

You miss a lot of stuff, Devil.

 

[Mark2010]

The Packers "Super Bowl window" from the 2010 run three years ago pretty much closed before all of this.

Yet, if a healthy Rodgers is in the playoffs, the Packers have a puncher's change but only if Seattle or San Francisco is having an off day. Even a 100% Rodgers-led Green Bay team isn't a lock to beat Carolina. The Packers have tons of flaws.

Like the fact most of their defensive starters and two key receivers are also out injured. Yeah, that doesn't help much.

 

[Mark2010]

Most recent champions haven't been too good at running the ball and were not all that committed to it, statistically.

Regardless, my bigger point was that Brees and the Saints have been pretty successful in the playoffs, and I was just wondering how much better they needed to do to satisfy Devil. Maybe a 10-0 record and three Super Bowls, would that be enough?

The Saints in 2009-10 were the last team to win the Super Bowl that was even close to being the best in the league that given year. The last three champions came within a whisker of missing the playoffs and then got hot in January. Maybe that will happen again.

 

[93Devil]

You miss a lot of stuff, Devil.

Like those pass-happy Ravens?

 

[LongTimeListener]

You miss a lot of stuff, Devil.

Like those pass-happy Ravens?

They finished 15th in the league in passing yards, 11th in rushing yards and 12th in YPC. They weren't "pass-happy" or "run-happy." In the playoffs they threw for 1,102 yards in four games and ran for 539, a higher ratio than their regular-season totals.

In any case, I said "most." That is without question the case. But even the Ravens qualify as a team that's plenty happy to pass and not the cloud-of-dust mentality we were debating.

But, I forget. You don't even know or care what we're talking about. You just jump on something you perceive as slightly incorrect and turn it into some kind of discussion nobody even knew was taking place.

It's like every day you set out to prove YankeeFan right.

 

[albert77]

Most recent champions haven't been too good at running the ball and were not all that committed to it, statistically.

Regardless, my bigger point was that Brees and the Saints have been pretty successful in the playoffs, and I was just wondering how much better they needed to do to satisfy Devil. Maybe a 10-0 record and three Super Bowls, would that be enough?

I think one thing that maybe skews the perception of the Saints' recent run is how tantalizingly close they came to playing (and quite possibly winning) three straight Super Bowls.

In 2010, if they just don't let Marshawn Lynch run through their defense like a pinball machine, they beat Seattle, which would have sent them to Chicago to play an in-over-their-head Bears team, then gotten Green Bay at home in the NFC championship. And a win there puts them against an overachieving Steelers team in SB 45.

In 2011, all they had to do was not make Alex Smith look like Tom Brady in the last 90 seconds and-or put somebody besides a safety in single coverage on Vernon Davis and they beat the 49ers. They then get the Giants at home, a team they'd already curb-stomped at home earlier in the season.

From my seat as a Saints' fanboy, the real issue for them wasn't their average running game but a defense that broke down at the worst possible moments. And we've already seen them do that this season against Brady and the Pats.

That's one **** load of ifs. I don't consider a team that loses to a 7-9 playoff team close to winning a Super Bowl, let alone presuming they'd just win 3 more games.

Point taken. In fact, I would tend to agree with you. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, etc.

My point is that the Saints racked up 34 points and Brees threw for well over 400 against Seattle that night, plenty enough to win. If they play even average defense against a 7-9 team, it's no contest and the rest of the bracket sets up pretty well for them. I think they'd have beaten Chicago, which would have meant playing the Packers at home in a potential shootout in the NFC championship.

Same with the Niners game. They scored, what, 32 points and Brees had another big game, including a go-ahead TD with under two minutes to play. If Greggggg ****ing Williams had called even a competent defensive game, they're going back to play the Giants at home.

Which I guess proves your point. To be a true championship team, you have to be good in all phases of the game and the Saints weren't. It just means that Brees' 5-3 record in the playoffs, which admittedly ain't shabby, is a little diminished because it could easily have been better.

 

[93Devil]

You miss a lot of stuff, Devil.

Like those pass-happy Ravens?

They finished 15th in the league in passing yards, 11th in rushing yards and 12th in YPC. They weren't "pass-happy" or "run-happy." In the playoffs they threw for 1,102 yards in four games and ran for 539, a higher ratio than their regular-season totals.

In any case, I said "most." That is without question the case. But even the Ravens qualify as a team that's plenty happy to pass and not the cloud-of-dust mentality we were debating.

But, I forget. You don't even know or care what we're talking about. You just jump on something you perceive as slightly incorrect and turn it into some kind of discussion nobody even knew was taking place.

It's like every day you set out to prove YankeeFan right.

That really sounds like balanced to me.

LTL, you have it out for me so badly that you trip all over self every time I post just to prove me wrong. It's your SOP.

 

[joe king]

You miss a lot of stuff, Devil.

Like those pass-happy Ravens?

They finished 15th in the league in passing yards, 11th in rushing yards and 12th in YPC. They weren't "pass-happy" or "run-happy." In the playoffs they threw for 1,102 yards in four games and ran for 539, a higher ratio than their regular-season totals.

In any case, I said "most." That is without question the case. But even the Ravens qualify as a team that's plenty happy to pass and not the cloud-of-dust mentality we were debating.

But, I forget. You don't even know or care what we're talking about. You just jump on something you perceive as slightly incorrect and turn it into some kind of discussion nobody even knew was taking place.

It's like every day you set out to prove YankeeFan right.

I normally try to stay out of these pissing contests, but LTL is severely misinterpreting what Devil said about the running game.

He never said a word about a being run-heavy or run-first, or a "cloud of dust" mentality. He said teams have a better chance when they have balance -- or at least a strong enough running game to run when they have to -- and are not one-dimensional passing teams. So your numbers regarding the Ravens pretty much back up his point rather than refuting it.

You certainly have a legitimate debate regarding the Saints and their relative success recently, and you can surely debate whether his premise is valid. But get his premise right. Accusing Devil of saying teams have to be built around the running game to win championships is simply not correct.

Here are the quotes:

The Packers "Super Bowl window" from the 2010 run three years ago pretty much closed before all of this.

Yet, if a healthy Rodgers is in the playoffs, the Packers have a puncher's change but only if Seattle or San Francisco is having an off day. Even a 100% Rodgers-led Green Bay team isn't a lock to beat Carolina. The Packers have tons of flaws.

Their window is still wide open. They have a legit running back, which gives them something that resembles balance on offense.

One-dimensional teams have more trouble in the playoffs than balanced teams. Just ask Marino, Brees and Manning.

Brees is 5-3 in the playoffs with the Saints, with 20 touchdowns and 3 interceptions.

And even with those amazing passing stats, his team is not winning as much as they would if they had a strong runner or at least the ability to get short yardage on the ground when the game calls for short yardage running.

 

[Steak Snabler]

My quibble was not with his premise (which may or may not be true), but with his inclusion of Brees. I disagree that 5-3 in the playoffs with a Super Bowl ring is considered less-than-successful.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

The contemporary evaluation of quarterbacks on this board, Steak, would seem to be at least three and preferably more Super Bowl wins and no playoff losses whatsoever. All losses mean either the QB has failed or the team is inherently flawed.