- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 29,794
- Reaction score
- 20,459
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.He is a highjacking troll because he refuted your claims with facts?
but when someone's just decided that facts can go to hell, there isn't much other option.
Almost ALL teams, even run-focused teams, pass more than run.
The 2006 Superbowl Bears passed 514 times, ran 504 times.
The 2000 champion Baltimore Ravens passed 504 times against 511 rushes, a 47/53 ratio. Even in a clearly run-heavy team with a crappy QB it was almost 50/50. Almost all teams pass more than they run, even on run-heavy teams.
What more garbage do you have?
This is hilarious considering you look like a fool on the previous page with your disproved theory that pass/run ratio indicates if a team is run-focused or not.
Only 5 teams ran more than they passed, and that included teams that were quarterbacked by Vince Young, David Garrard and JaMarcus Russell, so it was likely more of a necessity than a choice.
Go and look at the first page. You're the McDaniels ball washer who brings him up every chance you get, the discussion was about something else before you joined. You're a hijacking troll who can't make a solid case for why using shotgun over 50% of all plays, and over 3/4 of passing plays, is a good thing.
You didn't disprove anything. The only claim that I made was that the Steelers were more pass-focused than the Patriots
2.) How many times do I have to post 27-5, 16-0?
You post winning records but ignore failures and make excuses for not getting rings... just like a 2003-2004 Colts fan. You guys will never understand why you keep getting stuffed by more physical defenses in the playoffs.
Don't you mean guaranteed 3.4 yards per play (or, I see what you mean if it's 4 downs and guaranteed)? What about an offense with twice as many yards every play with twice as much variance? Hypothetically speaking. Better, worse, or same? I say worse. The lower variance is more valuable.
There's a reason it's rare to see teams win rings in which their main bread and butter is about being pass-heavy (in the NFL), home runs or power hitters (MLB), or fast-break and 3-pointers (NBA).
Well I'm hope they run it 90% of the time this year...they are incredibly effective in it both running and passing and they should run plenty of plays out of it this year...
You clearly don't understand statistics, causation, or correlation.
Continually re-posting our record over the past 2 years, is not support for the fact we used shotgun so much. Our team is loaded with talent on both sides of the ball, we had a favorable schedule for two years, and also multiple other factors.
The 1998 Vikings went 15-1. It doesn't mean anything, their style of play was exposed along with the 01 Rams, 04 Colts, and 07 Pats.
Go and look at the first page. You're the McDaniels ball washer who brings him up every chance you get, the discussion was about something else before you joined. You're a hijacking troll who can't make a solid case for why using shotgun over 50% of all plays, and over 3/4 of passing plays, is a good thing.
Why? Gee maybe giving them a half second advance on the throw maybe. Or maybe giving the Brady/Cassel a bit of breathing room back there. Or maybe giving them a clearer view right off the bat
Any one of those could easily answer why they felt comfortable, but all that will get brushed aside until someone strokes your ego and gives you the answer that you want
You clearly don't understand statistics, causation, or correlation.
Continually re-posting our record over the past 2 years, is not support for the fact we used shotgun so much. Our team is loaded with talent on both sides of the ball, we had a favorable schedule for two years, and also multiple other factors.
The 1998 Vikings went 15-1. It doesn't mean anything, their style of play was exposed along with the 01 Rams, 04 Colts, and 07 Pats.
However, I think you take the point too far in the other direction. It's not as if ball control offenses really are that much more predictable. They still can have plenty of no-gain plays.
The 1998 Vikings scored 27 points in the NFCCG and lost by a FG in overtime after Gary Anderson missed his first FG of the year.
What's interesting, is that the same excuse-making could be done for ANY of the MANY non-physical, pass happy offenses in NFL history. But, the result is always the same at the end of those stories: no ring.