Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 53
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,180
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pinstripe power View Post
    it's a pass first league in the sense that the rules and structure favor the passing game. that doesn;t mean it wins you plkayoff games. balance wins you playoff games. look at the giants last year. they were probably the most blanced team (weren;t great at anything, but good at everything) and they won while teams like baltimore and san fran had obvious offensive weaknesses while new england, green bay and the siants had major defensive weaknesses.


    balance wins championships
    You don't even need balance when it comes down to it. Just an offense that can score and a defense that can make the other team not score. That's how I look at it

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    52,937
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by j11430 View Post
    You don't even need balance when it comes down to it. Just an offense that can score and a defense that can make the other team not score. That's how I look at it
    that is balance................

    doing just one is unbalanced
    30 Team Stadium Checklist: 10 to go

    1) Yankees 2) Orioles 3) Rays 4) Red Sox 5) Mets 6) Braves 7) Phillies 8) Nationals 9) Marlins 10) Pirates 11) Padres 12) Astros 13) Mariners 14) Twins 15) Cubs 16) White Sox 17) Cardinals 18) Indians 19) Tigers 20) Royals

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,005
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by j11430 View Post
    The last 9 teams that have won the superbowl have had what would be (at the time) considered elite quarterbacks and very effective passing games overall.

    There are many ways to get to the playoffs. But the best proven way to win it all is to have a great signal caller.
    I would argue that the 2004 Patriots, the 2006 Steelers and the 2008 Giants did not have elite quarterbacks at the time. Also in the three years prior to your cutoff the 2001 Ravens, 2002 Patriots and, 2003 Buccaneers all had below average quarterbacks.

    I agree that the best way to win a Superbowl is to have an elite quarterback, however teams without that luxury should stop passing so much and commit to a balanced attack.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    6,077
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Eaglesfan05 View Post
    ...I agree that the best way to win a Superbowl is to have an elite quarterback, however teams without that luxury should stop passing so much and commit to a balanced attack.
    Only if they can.

    A team can only play the game with the personnel they have. If the best of two bad options is to pass the ball with a less than elite QB, so be it.

    I hope we can agree that a good rushing attack is far more than just a good RB just like a good passing attack is more than a top QB.
    Bill Parcells: "You are what your record says you are."

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    15,227
    vCash
    1500
    Balance is only good if the team can both run and pass effectively. For example, would the Lions like to be more balanced? Hell yeah they would. But they can't run the ball effectively and consistently, so unless your definition of balance is more 3 and outs meaning the horrible Lions D has to make more stops I don't see how that would have helped them. The Lions moved the ball just fine up and down the field with the passing game although they did struggle finishing drives. Running ineffectively would have done nothing to help the offense.
    2014 Adopt-A-Lion: Golden Tate

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    52,937
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by FortDetroit View Post
    Balance is only good if the team can both run and pass effectively. For example, would the Lions like to be more balanced? Hell yeah they would. But they can't run the ball effectively and consistently, so unless your definition of balance is more 3 and outs meaning the horrible Lions D has to make more stops I don't see how that would have helped them. The Lions moved the ball just fine up and down the field with the passing game although they did struggle finishing drives. Running ineffectively would have done nothing to help the offense.
    you aren't balanced if you dont do one well. simpl running and passing eqwually doesnt make you balanced.


    and the lions prove my point. they arent a good running team, aren't a good defense but can throw, yet thelast few seaosn they made the playoffs once and were one and done, mostly because they couldn't stop the saints at all
    30 Team Stadium Checklist: 10 to go

    1) Yankees 2) Orioles 3) Rays 4) Red Sox 5) Mets 6) Braves 7) Phillies 8) Nationals 9) Marlins 10) Pirates 11) Padres 12) Astros 13) Mariners 14) Twins 15) Cubs 16) White Sox 17) Cardinals 18) Indians 19) Tigers 20) Royals

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,005
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by FortDetroit View Post
    Balance is only good if the team can both run and pass effectively. For example, would the Lions like to be more balanced? Hell yeah they would. But they can't run the ball effectively and consistently, so unless your definition of balance is more 3 and outs meaning the horrible Lions D has to make more stops I don't see how that would have helped them. The Lions moved the ball just fine up and down the field with the passing game although they did struggle finishing drives. Running ineffectively would have done nothing to help the offense.
    The Patriots and Broncos are two of the NFL's most balanced offenses and the run the ball respectively for 4.2 YPC and 3.8 YPC. The Lions run the ball for 4.1 YPC yet refused to stick to their running game. Passing may move the ball more effectively up and down the field but if the defense is consistently expecting pass they will sit back and recognize which leads to more interceptions and small windows in the redzone.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,005
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by subroc View Post
    I hope we can agree that a good rushing attack is far more than just a good RB just like a good passing attack is more than a top QB.
    Yes as a former offensive lineman I can definitely agree to that

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    15,227
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pinstripe power View Post
    you aren't balanced if you dont do one well. simpl running and passing eqwually doesnt make you balanced.


    and the lions prove my point. they arent a good running team, aren't a good defense but can throw, yet thelast few seaosn they made the playoffs once and were one and done, mostly because they couldn't stop the saints at all
    exactly. that is what I am saying.
    2014 Adopt-A-Lion: Golden Tate

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    15,227
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Eaglesfan05 View Post
    The Patriots and Broncos are two of the NFL's most balanced offenses and the run the ball respectively for 4.2 YPC and 3.8 YPC. The Lions run the ball for 4.1 YPC yet refused to stick to their running game. Passing may move the ball more effectively up and down the field but if the defense is consistently expecting pass they will sit back and recognize which leads to more interceptions and small windows in the redzone.
    Actually, the only place the Lions WERE actually effective running the ball this season was in the redzone. They were 6th in rushing TDs this season and only had 3 runs over 20 yards on the year IIRC.

    Also, I think judging running games just by their YPC is extremely misleading. The Lions were running against 6 man boxes all season and the games in which they did actually try to establish a running game, they couldn't move the ball at all and the offense stalled out.


    Furthermore, the Patriots and Bronco's offenses aren't good because they are "balanced", they are good because they have Brady and Manning as QB's. Whether they ran an all out passing offense or were more balanced, because they have elite QBs they would still be top tier offenses. Plus, those teams always jump out to leads in their games (mainly due to having Brady/Manning) and hence are able to run the ball more rather than have to pass to catch up. Like I said....what's the chicken and what's the egg?
    Last edited by FortDetroit; 01-05-2013 at 02:21 PM.
    2014 Adopt-A-Lion: Golden Tate

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,180
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pinstripe power View Post
    that is balance................

    doing just one is unbalanced
    I thought you were talking offensive balance. My bad.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    3,546
    vCash
    1500
    I don't buy the whole passing teams win more or running teams win more....to me it's quite simple, teams run their offense through their best player....AD is the best running back maybe even best player in the league, nobody can stop him, so obviously we're going to run the ball

    The Lions have the best receiver maybe of all time, so they're going to pass

    The saints, Pats, Broncos, Packers all have the great QBs so they're gunna pass

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,417
    vCash
    1000
    Passing efficiency is very correlated with winning percentage. A lot more so than rush efficiency.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,180
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Patriot Pride View Post
    Passing efficiency is very correlated with winning percentage. A lot more so than rush efficiency.
    Key word: efficiancy. It doesn't matter how often you do it. If you do it well when it matters, you'll be more successful

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    3,014
    vCash
    1500
    The league has developed into a high scoring league. If you can't score in bunches, you've got a problem. So the plod the ball down the field style of offensive doesn't succeed in today's NFL.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •