...and it turns out you really are this dense; because your attempt at a counter-point does absolutely nothing to address the issues that I brought up in the first place.
Let's recap: You cited Ridley's games w/ 20+ rush attempts in their correlation to wins. Ok. But I (and a few others) already told you that rushing attempts will go up because the winning team will want to run out the clock. Likewise, a team that is losing will most often keep throwing. A pretty simple point.
Now do me a favor and go re-read your counter-argument, what I just, quoted above. You posted the rushing yards-per-quarter in an attempt to refute...uh...what, exactly? I mean, what does Ridley's yards-per-quarter have to do with your "20+rush-attempts" argument, or the criticism made against it? I really have to take a step back and wonder how to connect-the-dots here, because it sounds like you have no clue as to what is being discussed. Have you done anything to even address, let alone refute, my aforementioned argument? No. In fact I have to wonder if you even grasped the argument in the first place, because randomly going from citing winning games with 20+ rush attempts to a breakdown of rushing yards-per-quarter really does nothing to support your own argument, let alone refute mine.
I mean, the best I can infer -- and I have to take a few leaps in logic, here -- is that you trying to infer that The Patriots don't run the ball that much in the 4th with a lead, or something. Well, If so?
A) You've randomly switched from rush attempts to rush yards, so your point (whatever it may be) is moot.
B) The yards-per-Q stats do not make any distinction between winning games and losing games; so again, your point (er, what?) is moot.
C) Even if we ignore the above; The simple fact that a winning team will try to run out the clock in the 4th does not mean that they will have more rush attempts (let alone yards) in the 4th than in any other quarter, or their stats are artificially inflated, or whatever. All it means is that they'll tack on some extra rushes that probably wouldn't have happened if they were losing. That's an easy way to go up from a number of rushing attempts in the mid-to-late teens, to going into the twenties. Something that probably wouldn't have happened if they were losing in the 4th, and thus still throwing in the last minute to regain a lead. That's why 20+ rushes correlate to wins.
So yeah, you've done very little to support your own argument. Hell, you really haven't even stayed on topic. But hey? Look on the bright-side, you've totally supported my point about how dense you are. Congrats!
