Running at the same rate? You pointed out that there have been 4 2000 yard rushers since 1997. Again, thats not even really the issue and also 2 of those were the 90s when there was a greater necessity to have balance.
Greater necessity?? The research I provided to you shows that it is team's best interest to pass. Has always been.
But beyond that, there really isnt as great a need to have balance.
Never has been, really.
Its much easier to get away with being pass happy now. 13 years ago, Jimmy Johnson knew this and was trying to draft running backs to complement Dan Marino. Thats really not as much of an issue now.
Also, back in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and the 00's. And you don't think teams draft running backs to fit needs?? James Addai and LaDanian Tomlinson (the early oughts version) are on the phone for you.
See my comment above. The rules have made is so beneficial to pass that teams can get away with a lack of balance now. The issue isnt, nor has it ever been that you cant run now. It seems like 80% of your posts have lacked relevance because youve been chasing the wrong issue.
Did you not see my last post where I showed a study that says passing has correlated more to winning than running??? Sounds to me that smart offensive coordinators know what they are doing.
Ill have to drill more into his numbers later.
Can't wait for your hard hitting analysis, on something I'm willing to bet you clearly do not understand.
Youre a little late, guy.
I'm late because you keep moving the goal post back on your argument. Also, my posts have lacked relevance to you because you don't want to accept them, not that they don't have meaning.
Yeah, I remember in the late 80s when someone looked at statistics and concluded the most meaningful stat was yards per pass. But when you look at the 80s and 90s, the vast majority of teams that won, had very strong running games.
Yes, that complemented their very good passing games. What a shocker that good teams in the 80's and 90's were able to do both very well.
I think if you look at the SB winners during those years, the winning teams most often will be the team that had the most rushing yards.
You don't think a small part of that is running out the clock late in games when they have leads???
Now, in the last 10 years, its like something you do when youre not passing.
GFY. You can't, and apparently never have been able to, win football games without a good passing attack (save the year 2000). That does not dismiss the fact that yes, you still need a decent amount of balance and a good running game. That is why guys like LT, Westbrook, Stephen Jackson, and Frank Gore are very rich men.
There have been instances when a lack of a running game has bitten teams in the ass, take the 07 Pats for example. They fell in love with the pass but the fact that they didnt cultivate a running game reinforces what Im saying
.
Point to me where I have ever said that a team didn't need a running game? Interesting you cite the 07 Pats as your example, when they lost that game to a team who passed for 50 yards more than they averaged in the regular season, and where held to one of the lowest rushing outputs all season - but ok. It's not like they won the game on a last second pass or anything.
Again, in 1997 Jimmy Johnson was on a never ending quest to upgrade their running game, meanwhile the 97 Pats ignored it largely because they felt they could. Why did the Pats feel like they could and Jimmy Johnson see it as a necessity?
Your hardon for Jimmy Johnson aside, it couldn't possibly be because a smart guy like Jimmy Johnson knew that a good running game would open up the passing game more???
I appreciate that youve changed your approach to this discussion and re-tailored your arguments but, like I said, in the late 80s some guy thought he had it figured out that yards per pass play was the most important stat. 10 years later Jimmy Johnson is on a crusade to find a running game. There are different moving pieces. Its still important to defend the run (teams load up against Peterson more than Favre) but the rule changes are the variable that has drastically changed things.
More Jimmy Johnson. Ugh.
More dismissing of stats. Ugh.
Defense lines up against the run. Ugh.
Dismissing the findings of the history of the NFL. Ugh.
Again, and let me put this in bold so as to emphasive my point,
I have never argued that a team shouldn't run the ball, nor should the offensive play calling not be balanced. Haven't said either of those. My aim throughout all of this has been to show that a. teams still run the ball just as much as they have in the past and b. the new passing rules have meant nothing as far as how much a team decides to pass.
Have some of the new rules made it easier to pass?? Sure, I've never denied that. But for you to dismiss all of the statistics I've given you, and to dismiss the findings of a guy smarter than both of us is just silly. I might be reshaping my argument, but at least I'm putting more thought into any of this than just laying out anecdotes.
Youve been saying stuff like this even before you figured out what was going on and re-tailored your argument. When youre the last person involved in a discussion to figure out whats going on, this kind of posturing and chest pounding looks silly.
Fair enough, but until you can provide me with anything that disproves what I posted about passing in 2010 meaning just as much as it did since Super Bowl 1, I'm going to declare victory.
