NFL Week 9 thread

[joe king]

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.

I get that. You were on solid ground. I was just saying LTL unfairly characterized 93Devil's argument.

 

[LongTimeListener]

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.

I get that. You were on solid ground. I was just saying LTL unfairly characterized 93Devil's argument.

Oy. Devil's argument was that the Saints going 5-3 with a Super Bowl ring wasn't good enough because they weren't balanced enough.

In the ensuing discussion, when I said "most" teams win championships without all that special or balanced an attack, he noted one that he thought didn't. So, OK, only two-thirds of the last three champions sucked as running teams. Burned me!

This has taught me one thing, Devil is not to be taken seriously, a lesson I was slow in learning but am fully up on now.

 

[93Devil]

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.

I get that. You were on solid ground. I was just saying LTL unfairly characterized 93Devil's argument.

Oy. Devil's argument was that the Saints going 5-3 with a Super Bowl ring wasn't good enough because they weren't balanced enough.

In the ensuing discussion, when I said "most" teams win championships without all that special or balanced an attack, he noted one that he thought didn't. So, OK, only two-thirds of the last three champions sucked as running teams. Burned me!

This has taught me one thing, Devil is not to be taken seriously, a lesson I was slow in learning but am fully up on now.

Are you saying the Giants did not have a running game?

Bradshaw and Jacobs did give them some balance.

The outliers are the Colts, Packers, Saints and 2000 Rams.

The other 43 Super Bowl champions could pound the ball on the ground if needed, and that includes the Patriots with Smith and Dillon.

 

[JackReacher]

Yeah. That Rams Super Bowl team couldn't run the ball for ****.

 

[joe king]

Yeah. That Rams Super Bowl team couldn't run the ball for ****.

Yeah, that Faulk guy was crap. I'd rather have Kevin.

 

[93Devil]

Yeah. That Rams Super Bowl team couldn't run the ball for ****.

All right, you guys are making my case for me.

If they needed a seven-minute drive at the end of the game or a big third-and-one needed to be picked up, I don't think those teams were built to do that. If you think that's the case, then I will disagree.

Balance means you can run the ball when you want to and throw when you want to, not run draws when the other team is dropping safeties deep.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Are you saying the Giants did not have a running game?

The 2011 New York Giants finished 32nd in the NFL in rushing yards and 32nd in the NFL in yards per carry.

There are 32 teams in the NFL.

 

[old_tony]

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.

I get that. You were on solid ground. I was just saying LTL unfairly characterized 93Devil's argument.

Oy. Devil's argument was that the Saints going 5-3 with a Super Bowl ring wasn't good enough because they weren't balanced enough.

In the ensuing discussion, when I said "most" teams win championships without all that special or balanced an attack, he noted one that he thought didn't. So, OK, only two-thirds of the last three champions sucked as running teams. Burned me!

This has taught me one thing, Devil is not to be taken seriously, a lesson I was slow in learning but am fully up on now.

Are you saying the Giants did not have a running game?

Bradshaw and Jacobs did give them some balance.

The outliers are the Colts, Packers, Saints and 2000 Rams.

The other 43 Super Bowl champions could pound the ball on the ground if needed, and that includes the Patriots with Smith and Dillon.

The Packers ran the ball very well in the post-season.
Wild Card round victory at Eagles -- Starks, 23 carries, 123 yards; team total 138 rushing yards
Division Round victory at Falcons -- Team totaled 96 rushing yards while Rodgers threw for 366 in 48-21 winl Kuhn and Rodgers rushing TDs
NFC Championship at Bears -- Team ran for 120 in 21-14 win. Starks and Rodgers each had rushing TD
Super Bowl vs. Steelers -- Only ran for a combined 50 yards, but only tried 13 times. They liked their matchups in the passing game.

It's a passing league. But the key is being able to run when you need to. I'd say with three of the four games totaling 96 or more, they could run when they needed to. They averaged 101 per game in the post-season.

 

[93Devil]

Are you saying the Giants did not have a running game?

The 2011 New York Giants finished 32nd in the NFL in rushing yards and 32nd in the NFL in yards per carry.

There are 32 teams in the NFL.

You know you win Super Bowls with the players you put on the field for that game and not stat sheets, right?

But somehow that team ran for 170+ yards against the Falcons in the first round of the playoffs. Then they ran for 100+ yards against the Pats in the SB.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nyg/2011_games.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nyg/2011.htm

During that season, Bradshaw and Jacobs were dinged up, but with both healthy for the playoffs, guess what happened? They ran the ball and it opened up the passing game even more for Eli.

 

[old_tony]

Are you saying the Giants did not have a running game?

The 2011 New York Giants finished 32nd in the NFL in rushing yards and 32nd in the NFL in yards per carry.

There are 32 teams in the NFL.

But in their four playoff games, they ran for 172, 95, 85 and 114. I would say they could run the ball when they made it a priority. Again, it's a passing league and they passed first. But they definitely could run if they chose to. They averaged 116.5 in the post-season.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Holy Christ, you guys.

The Falcons were awful.

In the other three games, the Giants averaged 3.6 YPC.

I don't even know what the **** we are talking about anymore. So let me return to this:

Devil said Drew Brees' .625 winning percentage and Super Bowl ring with the Saints is a disappointment because New Orleans never had a sufficient short-yardage game. I thought that was a ridiculous statement and an impossibly high standard.

I also said that kind of short-yardage game is not a necessity to win anymore. As fate would have it, there were only three occasions in the Patriots-Giants Super Bowl that the Giants faced third down with three yards or less to go, and they passed all three times.

The whole idea that you have to have a short-yardage attack is an anachronism. If you have one, great. If you don't, you can live without it.

ETA: I looked up their playoff games against the Packers and Niners too. Counting the Super Bowl too, in that situation -- third or fourth down, three yards or less -- they threw eight passes, took three sacks and ran three times, twice unsuccessfully. So in 14 instances where it was a viable possibility, their vaunted short-yardage running game succeeded one time. And they also got stuffed for a 4-yard loss on second-and-goal at the 1 in one of those games. So, yeah. Short yardage.

 

[Sam Mills 51]

Yeah. That Rams Super Bowl team couldn't run the ball for ****.

All right, you guys are making my case for me.

If they needed a seven-minute drive at the end of the game or a big third-and-one needed to be picked up, I don't think those teams were built to do that. If you think that's the case, then I will disagree.

Balance means you can run the ball when you want to and throw when you want to, not run draws when the other team is dropping safeties deep.

No, 93Devil, we're not making your case. We're destroying your case ... not that it takes a lot of work.

Marshall Faulk could pick up tough yards, but later on in his career, he didn't go looking for collisions and piles of humanity to push around. He could pick up three yards on 3rd-and-2, but why run the halfback lead when this guy - an excellent receiver as well - could run a wheel route for a big play or flare out for a screen and turn a first down into a touchdown. Or Kurt Warner could find one of Isaac Bruce or Torry Holt open because defenses and their coordinators rightfully game-planned against Faulk and prayed that Warner and the wideouts couldn't link up often enough?

But keep on digging, 93Devil. You do it exceedingly well too often.

 

[93Devil]

Yeah. That Rams Super Bowl team couldn't run the ball for ****.

All right, you guys are making my case for me.

If they needed a seven-minute drive at the end of the game or a big third-and-one needed to be picked up, I don't think those teams were built to do that. If you think that's the case, then I will disagree.

Balance means you can run the ball when you want to and throw when you want to, not run draws when the other team is dropping safeties deep.

No, 93Devil, we're not making your case. We're destroying your case ... not that it takes a lot of work.

Marshall Faulk could pick up tough yards, but later on in his career, he didn't go looking for collisions and piles of humanity to push around. He could pick up three yards on 3rd-and-2, but why run the halfback lead when this guy - an excellent receiver as well - could run a wheel route for a big play or flare out for a screen and turn a first down into a touchdown. Or Kurt Warner could find one of Isaac Bruce or Torry Holt open because defenses and their coordinators rightfully game-planned against Faulk and prayed that Warner and the wideouts couldn't link up often enough?

But keep on digging, 93Devil. You do it exceedingly well too often.

Wow, I didn't know Faulk played for an ACC school.

The greatest passing teams of the last 40 years have at most one Super Bowl win, but balanced teams like Pittsburgh (two occasions), New York, San Fran, Dallas (two occasions), Washington and others have racked up multiple Super Bowl wins.

To me, that's a trend.

 

[BTExpress]

The outliers are the Colts, Packers, Saints and 2000 Rams.

The one year the Colts won a SB title, they did it in a monsoon that --- logically --- would be the undoing of a finesse passing team.

Yet they ran for 191 yards --- picked up 12 of their 24 first downs by rushing --- and held the ball more than 38 minutes.

They also ran for more than 100 yards in each of their playoff games and outrushed their playoff opponents 604-331.

It's amazing how a stigma can stick with a team, regardless of the facts.

 

[outofplace]

Yeah. That Rams Super Bowl team couldn't run the ball for ****.

All right, you guys are making my case for me.

If they needed a seven-minute drive at the end of the game or a big third-and-one needed to be picked up, I don't think those teams were built to do that. If you think that's the case, then I will disagree.

Balance means you can run the ball when you want to and throw when you want to, not run draws when the other team is dropping safeties deep.

The correct answer here would be to admit that you ****ed up by including the 2000 Rams on that list first before moving on.

 

[JackReacher]

This was fun and all, but I'm heading over to the Week 10 thread to get an update on Percy Harvin. FINGERS CROSSED!!!

 

[Sam Mills 51]

Yeah. That Rams Super Bowl team couldn't run the ball for ****.

All right, you guys are making my case for me.

If they needed a seven-minute drive at the end of the game or a big third-and-one needed to be picked up, I don't think those teams were built to do that. If you think that's the case, then I will disagree.

Balance means you can run the ball when you want to and throw when you want to, not run draws when the other team is dropping safeties deep.

No, 93Devil, we're not making your case. We're destroying your case ... not that it takes a lot of work.

Marshall Faulk could pick up tough yards, but later on in his career, he didn't go looking for collisions and piles of humanity to push around. He could pick up three yards on 3rd-and-2, but why run the halfback lead when this guy - an excellent receiver as well - could run a wheel route for a big play or flare out for a screen and turn a first down into a touchdown. Or Kurt Warner could find one of Isaac Bruce or Torry Holt open because defenses and their coordinators rightfully game-planned against Faulk and prayed that Warner and the wideouts couldn't link up often enough?

But keep on digging, 93Devil. You do it exceedingly well too often.

Wow, I didn't know Faulk played for an ACC school.

The greatest passing teams of the last 40 years have at most one Super Bowl win, but balanced teams like Pittsburgh (two occasions), New York, San Fran, Dallas (two occasions), Washington and others have racked up multiple Super Bowl wins.

To me, that's a trend.

Not quite as trendy as your ability to put your foot in your mouth, followed by a weak attempt at a putdown while you're backpedaling so fast you trip over your own feet.

Thanks for playing ...