44 replies to this topic

[Frash Brastard]

Ravens were ranked a modest 11th while the Niners ranked 4th in the league in 2012
Last year the Giants ranked 32nd in the rushing yards
The year before the Packers ranked 24th

...keep telling me you need to dominate on the ground to win the game guys

[Frizzy350]

they also threw for more yards than the opposing team. I thought for the most part San Francisco did a great job of moving the ball and putting up points. Just because they lost doesn't mean having a dominant ground game isn't a safe and effective way to score points.

[Frash Brastard]

they also threw for more yards than the opposing team. I thought for the most part San Francisco did a great job of moving the ball and putting up points. Just because they lost doesn't mean having a dominant ground game isn't a safe and effective way to score points.

First of all the Ravens had better QB play tonight than the Niners, and secondly, I can't think of a whole lot of teams that have been as consistent as the panthers at running the ball well the last few years. And going back to 2010 the panthers have been bottom 3 in w/l record.

[Mr. Belding]

By that logic, we should've been the second best team in 2010 since we gave up the 2nd most rushing TDs

[Frash Brastard]

Hey Mr. Belding Pantherclaw is usually the guy who makes pathetic attempts at undermining my points and falling on his face

If you take this away from him that'll be like the 5th job he's lost to someone else in recent memory

[Frash Brastard]

both the Ravens and Giants ranked in the top ten in rush TDs given up in their respective SB championship years btw

[cultclassiccat]

San Frans offense looked good, minus the turnovers. If they call four running plays(qb or rb) at the end, they score. Play calling lost them the game. Im not buying into your theory.

[Frash Brastard]

San Frans offense looked good, minus the turnovers. If they call four running plays(qb or rb) at the end, they score. Play calling lost them the game. Im not buying into your theory.

"I'm not buying into your theory, which is based on stats, but if the Niners just ran the ball every time at the goal line, they definitely would've won. Trust me."

[Frash Brastard]

did john fox have a brain re-wiring factory he dropped so many of you morons into where you were convinced running the ball = winning and could not be dissuaded?

because it's literally impossible to deprogram your bugged minds, even after so much contradictory evidence against you.

[cultclassiccat]

Mister Know It All, how many of those compared teams ran some pistol formations or had a qb similar to Kaep? And how many of those teams ran that style offense all the way to the superbowl with basically a set of downs away from the trophy?

[Frash Brastard]

so seeing as how you think it would've taken only four plays for the niners to win the game (or just one running play lol), do you think the ravens would've handed it off to kill the remaining time in the fourth quarter with a 2 point deficit?

then we can definitely say play calling cost the Ravens the game in that case

[cultclassiccat]

so seeing as how you think it would've taken only four plays for the niners to win the game (or just one running play lol), do you think the ravens would've handed it off to kill the remaining time in the fourth quarter with a 2 point deficit?

then we can definitely say play calling cost the Ravens the game in that case

Mister I Know Everything, your theory doesnt apply to the new style of O thats being run with the up and coming teams in the NFL. Im sorry im not buying into your groundbreaking theory. Do we need to lead the league in rushing, no but it helps. Do we have to pass, yes and mixing it up like the 9rs, Hawks, Skins doesnt sound like a bad idea.

And yes, I think if they would have run four plays in those goaline downs, they score. So, to me, play calling certainly cost them the lead and then the focus is on the defense and this awsome thread is mute.

[megadeth078]

So if the 49ers didn't lose the game (by 3 points btw), the running game would be vital towards getting a Lombardi and this team would "be on the right page"?

Every offense has a formula. Of course it's going to look awful when a team doesn't win games with it. It's silly to think that the Super Bowl-winning formula is the only formula capable of being successful. Saying the running game doesn't matter because the Ravens won without it, would be like saying that 109-yard kickoff returns are necessary to win next year's Super Bowl. Just because the Ravens won the championship doesn't mean they did everything perfectly and our team should just copy their gameplan like sheep.

[cultclassiccat]

did john fox have a brain re-wiring factory he dropped so many of you morons into where you were convinced running the ball = winning and could not be dissuaded?

because it's literally impossible to deprogram your bugged minds, even after so much contradictory evidence against you.

oh and.....

morons huh? so sorry, but do I know you? do you think your high and mighty attitude around here goes unnoticed? same arrogant posting, sad mf ... you call us morons. where the fug is your crown?

[Frash Brastard]

cultclassiccat is getting so butthurt over this.

I have stats to backup my side of the argument, you have a poo ton of "what-if" mania going on in your posts. What's arrogant is not calling you guys morons, it's pretty much a response to your own arrogance. Why the fug should anybody agree with you for saying you think if they just ran the ball at the goal line they would've won, when I'm piling on stats that back up the fact that running the ball is not as important as people make it seem on the forum?