Nice history lesson, Barry. It has absolutely nothing to do with the 2004 Rams, but nice history lesson still the same.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Barry
The Ravens, Broncos, Panthers, Packers, and Cowboys were the only playoff clubs that ran more than they passed, mostly because they either had great runners and offensive lines, or lousy passers, and also play outdoors.
|
You've already missed the point, Barry. As you say, these teams all ran MORE than they passed last season. You go on to say how several of their stats are worse than top passing teams. And to that I say, of course they're worse off. Nobody is arguing that our offense should consist of passing on less than half of our downs. That would be complete nonsense and would stall our high-octane offense.
An offense will be just as predictable by passing less than half as it is when you pass on 80% of the downs as we're doing now.
Maybe you're confused by the term "balanced". A balanced offense is not a 50/50 split between pass and run. In fact, I would say that a 50/50 split is very much out of balance in today's NFL. And the teams you mentioned that run more than pass are very much out of "balance". But then again so are we with our 80/20.
What's so wrong with say 60/40 or even 65/35. Shouldn't we at least make opposing defenses think we might, possibly, run now and then? Can't you at least see that a more "balanced" offense would, in fact, open up the passing game to bigger gains.
Barry, I'm sure you deal with fans that talk off the top of their head and say things like we should be running more than half the time, but we both know that's not the solution. Just as passing 80% of the time is not the solution either, which should be evident by watching the Saints drop 7 guys into coverage, begging us to run. If our 5 or 6 blockers can't stop their 4, then we've got bigger problems anyway. However, we will never know unless we at least attempt to establish a running game.