RayClay

When teams are always behind, they have to throw a lot.

Teams that are ahead run the ball.

__________________

RayClay

What's the matter, too subtle?

Relating to picking up disgruntled receivers with great numbers on terrible teams?

__________________

Brownfan80

I didn't comment simply just for the fact that I didn' want to humor another thread about WRs. lol Nothing personal.

And yes, I think you have a point, but that the relationship isn't mutually exclusive.

Holt and Harrison often lead the league in important categories consistently, but the outcomes of their respective teams seasons are often quite different (until they both end in a loss, anyway).

cstjohn17

Generally true, ideally you want a balance between pass and rush unless you are so dominant in one area that you can offset the difference. If one area is behind the other I would rather have the run be stronger especially with the defense doing well. The stats say the passing attack should be improved.

Examples - 2004 Pats - the best offense of the Superbowl teams
- hard to game plan, they could beat you either way, 27 PPG is sweet
27.3 PPG
- pass yards - 10th in NFL, 224 YPG, 3600 yards
- rush yards - 7th in NFL, 133.4 YPG, 2124 yards
- this is an ideal balance

Compare this to 2006 which was not a good offensive year.
- fell behind, forced to pass or ineffective run forced to pass
23.7 PPG
- in the playoffs, a good team with a good coach saw the imbalance and tried to take away the pass ( since their was no threat of the run)
- pass yards - 2nd in NFL, 257.5 YPG, 4120 yards
- rush - 24th in NFL, 94.5 YPG, 1512 yards

2006 YTD and projections
- pass offense needs to be increased for a better balance
- points per game needs to be brought up
- current trend is to ignore deep pass, cram box and stuff the run
- 21.6 PPG
- pass - 18 in NFL, 197.8 YPG, projected 3164
- rush - 6th in the NFL, 139.0 YYG projected 2224

JoeSixPat

No - I think everyone understands that teams throw a lot when behind... but no matter how good or bad the Patriots record is, it wouldn't make Reche Caldwell a better WR.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

RayClay

That's why I posted it. With all the hysteria about picking up highly paid, disgruntled receivers I thought it deserved a mention.

You could mentionthe colts also. However, they still only get credit for one win and risk losing games on interceptions.

Just thought this skews statistics and needs to be mentioned.

And I'll go on record with being happy with Reche Caldwell so far. For a 2nd - 4th receiver he's caught the ball and taken a hell of a hit.

__________________

PonyExpress

Harrison, Wayne, Holt, Owens, Moss in Minnesota, Chris Carter, Jerry Rice, Michael Irvin, Sterling Sharpe, Rod Smith, Steve Smith, Isaac Bruce, Gary Clark, Art Monk, the list is endless. Receivers on playoff caliber and championship caliber teams often post spectacular numbers.

RayClay

The Colts are an excellent team that passes a lot also. Nevertheless, when evaluating relevance of statistics, I don't think you can ignore this phenomenon.

The Raiders had 202 total passes to receivers in 2005 record(4-12).

By contrast Super Bowl winners with excellent QBs.

1984 49ers 138 (15-1)
1988 49ers 123 (10-6)
1989 49ers 152 (14-2)
2004 Patriots 162 (14-2)

Very tedious adding this stuff up on pro-reference. If anyone wants to find contrary data, be my guest.

__________________

RayClay

One should factor in the easy catches against prevent defenses too.

__________________