It's already been established that your new argument is not defending your original statement, but yet you still beat on your new drum.
It's tired so I'm not going to keep this up, this'll be my last post to NEM for the time being:
After alllllll of your long silly posts defending your new point, you still have not done the two things that started all of this:
1. Stated who is the better cover DB that should be starting in place of Hobbs, since you want him gone (Scott, Poteat, Hawkins even?).
2. Admitted that your prediction of a spread pass heavy, run lite offense as the only path to victory was wrong. Which it was. All this spinning to say that the pass set up the run has nothing to do with your original prediction. You predicted a pass heavy offense was the only key to victory, and that we should absolutely not do what Pittsburgh did (run).
We passed 26 times. We ran 41 times. This is not a pass heavy ratio. This is not even a balanced ratio. This is a run heavy ratio.
Your prediction was wrong. All of this new argument has nothing, absolutely freaking nothing, to do with your original claim.
EDIT: And for all of your 'proof' of a pass-to-set-up-the-run gameplan, you fail to acknowledge that teams KNOW we are going to run this season. Look at last week. So just because we line up and pass does not mean that the pass is setting up the run that happens four plays later. The run, or threat of it, has already been established on GAME FILM.
If we come out on first or second down and pass, that does not mean we're passing to set up the run, that means we're going by the fact that the D is expecting run based on our film and also our formation (many of those passes were from our two TE or even three TE sets, run heavy sets that the D has to respect based on filmwork).
The run, as always, is keying all.
So the exact gametrack does not take into account any of those other factors. You are pulling your info out of a vaccuum. And as anyone with any degree of common sense knows: Results from a vaccuum are the ones that are not based in reality.
Also you fail to mention in your 'middle route' rantings that their LBs are young and for the most part inexperienced. It is no surprise that we would try to attack that part of the field in this game.
You take far too many of your 'proofs' from this vaccuum of 'one game = I'm right' and routinely exhibit that you have no understanding of situational football or playcalling, or how the actual process of preparation (film, tendancies) plays into the on-field performance.
For anyone to say that the run is not what defenses are keying on and expecting is to ignore not only the first three games, but the preseason games and the personnel we have to work with. Denver said it best: Shut down the run, and you shut down the Patriots offense. Obviously they were right. So obviously the passing game is not what sets up anything. If that were true then the running game would have had more success against Denver, no? The only 300+ yard passing game of the season should have opened holes for that running game, no? Reality, NEM, look at it long and hard.
Also, to your stat cherrypicking about the running game picking up after we had success in the passing game: You're ignoring that the reason why we had this success was because they were fixing on the RUNNING GAME. Then, when we actually hit on some passes (which we didn't do against Denver) the defense had to respect both the pass and the run, and hence the bigger running yardage. You notice that when the D had to worry about both phases of our game that it was the RUNNING game that exploded. Why? Because that is our true strength, and the key to our gameplans.
There are so many ways that you've been wrong in the past week that they are too many to count. Yet you still smugly sit back and pretend you have it all figured out. Jig is up, NEM.
Have fun in Lala Land!!