Sal Paolantonio opinion - agree or not?

[Ring 6]

assuming you throw more AND you are better on a per throw basis, then yeah it does work that way.

throwing the ball in the modern NFL is more effective than running the ball, on a per play and total basis. all of the best offenses now have ridiculous passing attacks (the Pats this year, Colts for most of these years, the Vikings and Rams before them) are all historically great offenses, and they were all built on great passing attacks.

teams that don't throw the ball a lot aren't doing it b/c running is better, they are doing it b/c they aren't good enough to have a passing attack.

if every team could throw the ball 45 times a game and be effective doing it (like the Pats), every team would.

What?
How long have you actually been a football fan?
You are entirely backwards.


First, Favre was NOT better on a per throw basis.

Secondly, it seems that you are saying GB lost because they threw because they could win that way, and Denver won because they ran because they have to since they couldnt throw. That is moronic.

Secondly, even the Patriots dont throw 45 times a game. And you have it backwards. If you COULD run and never have to throw, every team would chose to do that. You have less turnover risk, you control the clock, you beat your opponent into submission. You get a lead, you protect it.

 

[Ring 6]

assuming you throw more AND you are better on a per throw basis, then yeah it does work that way.

throwing the ball in the modern NFL is more effective than running the ball, on a per play and total basis. all of the best offenses now have ridiculous passing attacks (the Pats this year, Colts for most of these years, the Vikings and Rams before them) are all historically great offenses, and they were all built on great passing attacks.

teams that don't throw the ball a lot aren't doing it b/c running is better, they are doing it b/c they aren't good enough to have a passing attack.

if every team could throw the ball 45 times a game and be effective doing it (like the Pats), every team would.

Again, here, you are saying passing is more effective on a per play basis in todays NFL. That is so obtuse.
It has ALWAYS BEEN more effective on a per play basis, but what you are looking at is average statistics, and acting as if every play was average.

Pass plays are much more likely to result in zero, much more likely to result in large gains, and much more likely to result in negative plays in sacks or turnovers.
Zero or negative plays AFFECT THE SUCCESS OF THE NEXT PLAY.
Running plays are less big reward, less risk.

You cannot POSSIBLY have any understanding of football, if you think that since OVERALL the average pass play nets more yards than the average run play BASED ON THE WAY PLAYS ARE NOW CALLED, that teams would always throw the ball if they could, and be willing to accept greater risk. It is mindboggling that you could believe that.

 

[Deus Irae]

assuming you throw more AND you are better on a per throw basis, then yeah it does work that way.

No, it doesn't. Again, Dilfer proves this theory to be completely nonsensical. Big Ben also tends to destroy this argument as well, although he stunk out the joint in the Super Bowl.

throwing the ball in the modern NFL is more effective than running the ball, on a per play and total basis. all of the best offenses now have ridiculous passing attacks (the Pats this year, Colts for most of these years, the Vikings and Rams before them) are all historically great offenses, and they were all built on great passing attacks.

Once again, you get it wrong. Pittsburgh didn't win the Super Bowl because of a "ridiculous passing attack".

teams that don't throw the ball a lot aren't doing it b/c running is better, they are doing it b/c they aren't good enough to have a passing attack.

if every team could throw the ball 45 times a game and be effective doing it (like the Pats), every team would.

You just keep making false assumptions. A team with a lousy defense, for example, will usually want to run the ball more in order to keep their defense off the field.

 

[Ring 6]

No, it doesn't. Again, Dilfer proves this theory to be completely nonsensical.




Once again, you get it wrong. Pittsburgh didn't win the Super Bowl because of a "ridiculous passing attack".




You just keep making false assumptions. A team with a lousy defense, for example, will usually want to run the ball more in order to keep their defense off the field.

Dilfer is an interesting issue.
Trent Dilfer doesnt have great QB skills. And everyone automatically throws out there that the defense was so good that you could have had Grandma Dilfer at QB and they would have won.
The reality IF YOU WATCHED THAT TEAM, was that Dilfer had the opportunity to not have to do a whole lot, but he did make plays. The Ravens were something like 3-4 (?) early in the season with maybe the worst offense I have ever seen.
When Dilfer came in he didn't exactly play exceptional QB, but in that system, they were able to limit what he needed to do, and he actually did it pretty well. He completed A LOT of long passes that season.
It was a VERY limited version of what Billick was doing in Minn with Moss (and fill in the blank at QB). They put themselves in a position to be able to be VERY aggressive a certain amount of times in a game, and throw deep. Dilfer actually did a pretty good job of it.
I'm not saying Dilfer would have won the SB if he was playing on other teams, but Baltimore would NOT have won the SB if they didn't switch to him.

 

[Ring 6]

makewayhomer,
you never responded to the playoff stats of Bradshaw, Marino, and Tarkenton.

How does the fact that in their biggest games Bradshaw was excellent (esp compared to QB stats in that era) Marino was awful, and Tarkenton was even worse?

How would you rate a QB (since stats are so important to you) who had the best stats ever in the regular season, but the worst ever in the post season?
Or, maybe a better question: Rate this QB.

1st-3rd quaters: Best stats in the league
4th quarter: Awful stats
Result: Sometimes his team wins despite his 4th quaters. They make the playoffs, in the playoffs, they enter the 4th qtr ahead, he plays horribly, they lose.

Overall his 1st-3rd quarter stats are enough that he is first in the league in most statistical categories.

I think your answer here would be very insightful.

Conversely, rate this guy:

Medicore overall numbers.
Very good 4th quarter numbers.
Gets team to the playoffs with close 4th quarter wins.

In the playoffs has medicore stats for most of the game, but puts together a 4th quarter drive each time, and they win the SB.

Who is better?

 

[Ring 6]

assuming you throw more AND you are better on a per throw basis, then yeah it does work that way.

throwing the ball in the modern NFL is more effective than running the ball, on a per play and total basis. all of the best offenses now have ridiculous passing attacks (the Pats this year, Colts for most of these years, the Vikings and Rams before them) are all historically great offenses, and they were all built on great passing attacks.

teams that don't throw the ball a lot aren't doing it b/c running is better, they are doing it b/c they aren't good enough to have a passing attack.

if every team could throw the ball 45 times a game and be effective doing it (like the Pats), every team would.

In SB XXXIX Tom Brady was 23-33 for 236
Donovan McNab was 30-51 for 357
Please, please tell me that you think Donovan McNab contributed more to his team and outplayed Tom Brady that day.

 

[Deus Irae]

Dilfer is an interesting issue.
Trent Dilfer doesnt have great QB skills. And everyone automatically throws out there that the defense was so good that you could have had Grandma Dilfer at QB and they would have won.
The reality IF YOU WATCHED THAT TEAM, was that Dilfer had the opportunity to not have to do a whole lot, but he did make plays. The Ravens were something like 3-4 (?) early in the season with maybe the worst offense I have ever seen.
When Dilfer came in he didn't exactly play exceptional QB, but in that system, they were able to limit what he needed to do, and he actually did it pretty well. He completed A LOT of long passes that season.
It was a VERY limited version of what Billick was doing in Minn with Moss (and fill in the blank at QB). They put themselves in a position to be able to be VERY aggressive a certain amount of times in a game, and throw deep. Dilfer actually did a pretty good job of it.
I'm not saying Dilfer would have won the SB if he was playing on other teams, but Baltimore would NOT have won the SB if they didn't switch to him.

Exactly. No Dilfer = No Ravens championship, before or since. There are other quarterbacks who could probably have won in that system (I.E. Manning, Brady, Favre and others), but none of those given the opportunity have been able to do so. Dilfer was an excellent quarterback for that team.

 

[Ring 6]

In SB XXXIX Tom Brady was 23-33 for 236
Donovan McNab was 30-51 for 357
Please, please tell me that you think Donovan McNab contributed more to his team and outplayed Tom Brady that day.

In SB XXXVI
Tom Brady was 16-27-145
Kurt Warner was 28-44-365
Again please explain to me that Kurt Warner's play helped his team win more than Tom Bradys helped his.

 

[Ring 6]

Exactly. No Dilfer = No Ravens championship, before or since. There are other quarterbacks who could probably have won in that system (I.E. Manning, Brady, Favre and others), but none of those given the opportunity have been able to do so. Dilfer was an excellent quarterback for that team.

It was the situation that best fit what he did well, and didnt care about what he didn't do well.

 

[Joker]

to tell you the truth,mwh has jumped game threads and attempted to co-opt them into a stats barrage on more than one occasion.Any idea what board he came here from? Maybe the ESPN board...it's 24/7 stat geeks over there

 

[makewayhomer]

Exactly. No Dilfer = No Ravens championship, before or since. There are other quarterbacks who could probably have won in that system (I.E. Manning, Brady, Favre and others), but none of those given the opportunity have been able to do so. Dilfer was an excellent quarterback for that team.

lololo dude.

the Ravens were good in spite of Dilfer, not b/c of him

you've just joined Andy on the ignore list

 

[Joker]

you have AJ on your ignore list?

you got problems...AJ is the LEAST offensive poster I know on these threads

 

[Deus Irae]

lololo dude.

the Ravens were good in spite of Dilfer, not b/c of him

you've just joined Andy on the ignore list

The Ravens haven't been able to win the Super Bowl without Dilfer. They've failed with Grbac, Boller, McNair, etc... Your opinion about everything else has been wrong, so it's not surprising that you'd miss the obvious here too. Feel free to put me on ignore. It's not as if you're adding a whole lot of accurate insight to anything. My argument was simple and never made the claim that Dilfer was any sort of fantastic quarterback (note the FOR THAT TEAM disclaimer).

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

to tell you the truth,mwh has jumped game threads and attempted to co-opt them into a stats barrage on more than one occasion.Any idea what board he came here from? Maybe the ESPN board...it's 24/7 stat geeks over there

I strongly suspected something like that.

He does have an awareness of statistics, but his grasp on the game is tenuous, I think you'll agree.

 

[Ring 6]

lololo dude.

the Ravens were good in spite of Dilfer, not b/c of him

you've just joined Andy on the ignore list

You still havent responded about the stats I posted, which you said you would if I answered your question, which I did.

 

[Ring 6]

bump so makewayhomer can respond or explain why he wont