44 replies to this topic

[Mr. Belding]

What I'm getting from this thread is that San Fran is a known running team, and lost to a team that had 6 MORE rushing attempts; somehow this means the Panthers should run less.

Mister Love: Intelligence :: Drew Brees' mole : cute things that make you say Awww

[Frizzy350]

MisterLove, we get it, Hurney overspent like crazy on our backfield, nobody disagrees with that point. The way you are wording your post is essentially saying that having a good running is actually detrimental to a team's ability to win - this is not the case, you just need to have a balance between production and price. just because Ray Rice wasn't the key factor in winning this game doesn't mean he isn't an integral part of their offense. judging by the carries Rice and Pierce got, even while being ineffective, the Ravens must have felt that a balanced offense is a winning formula.

[X-Clown]

I like you Mister Love, but not sure I'm seeing your point. If the Ravens ran the ball better, they don't even have to worry about that tense ending.

[Frash Brastard]

mr belding is a simpering retard and didn't realize i didn't say anything about attempts

[Frash Brastard]

I like you Mister Love, but not sure I'm seeing your point. If the Ravens ran the ball better, they don't even have to worry about that tense ending.

the myth that running the ball well makes you win

[Frash Brastard]

one day you guys will get it, until then the point flies over your mental midget heads entirely

[X-Clown]

the myth that running the ball well makes you win

No you don't HAVE to do it well to win. It does help though, and just looking at each superbowl winner's statistical ranking as proof that you can't win that way (which I don't think you're implying, but could come off that way). Assuming that a few plays break either way, the headline writers would say that the ground game dominance helped the 49ers win the game. The same way they did for the Niners-Packers game two weeks ago.

[Frash Brastard]

the packers defense didn't even bother showing up to that game.

when your defense is so incompetent as to not be able to do anything against the run then run all you want. You'll meet those teams in the regular season and sometimes in the playoffs as well. But against a conference champion just producing yards on the ground isn't going to cut it.

if colin was about 50 starts into his nfl career and not like about 15, he'd have been throwing more, completing more, running less, and san fran would've done better

[Frash Brastard]

also if you're saying you don't have to run well to win, well you're not the a part of the posters i'm addressing

[Davidson Deac II]

You don't have to run to win, but it helps a lot if you can. The one and only thing you have to do to win is score more points than the other team. Fwiw though, SF's offense actually scored more points than the Baltimore offense did.

Now if the other team turns it over more than your team does, has a couple of critical penalties early in the game, and you score a td on a kick return, then you don't have to run to win the game. That is a lot of if's though.

[Frash Brastard]

SF lost this game because of bonehead mistakes and turnovers in the first half.....not because they have a good running game.

They lost despite a good running game, not because of it

Don't misquote me

[Mr. Belding]

mr belding is a simpering retard and didn't realize i didn't say anything about attempts

I don't think "simpering" is the word you were looking for

So what exactly are you saying - run a lot, but not well?
I still like my way better - run well, pass well, stop the run, put pressure on the QB, cover receivers, cover kicks well, return kicks well. Usually you will win.

But your argument is that we need to run not so well to win? Or what is it?

You're right that the modern NFL doesn't rely on a dominant run game as in years past. That's a revelation to exactly no one. If Baltimore had been able to run well, Do you think the Niners would have made such a ferocious comeback?

[Delhommey]

If you put up 29 points and lose, I don't think your offense is your problem.

[Frash Brastard]

I don't think "simpering" is the word you were looking for

So what exactly are you saying - run a lot, but not well?
I still like my way better - run well, pass well, stop the run, put pressure on the QB, cover receivers, cover kicks well, return kicks well. Usually you will win.

But your argument is that we need to run not so well to win? Or what is it?

You're right that the modern NFL doesn't rely on a dominant run game as in years past. That's a revelation to exactly no one. If Baltimore had been able to run well, Do you think the Niners would have made such a ferocious comeback?

It goes back to spending the most money out of any team and getting no success out of it, despite being promised success from the team as well as many posters on here. You must not be part of the group I am addressing if what i'm saying isn't new information for you. So the only other reason why you came in here is the same reason I get the same mediocre posters coming in to threads I create and bringing nothing but potential heart failure to the table. Because some time ago I made them look like an idiot and it got them mad. Is that why you walked into this thread? Because I made an ass out of you weeks ago?

[Mr. Belding]

When was this hypothetical ass making?

Don't feel special - if a thread is on the first page, I usually read it. I replied because I know you are more intelligent than "the ravens won because they had fewer rushing yards, therefore, we need to rush worse... I'm not talking about attempts; just rush worse"
I wanted to know what your real point was. Apparently it's just another whinefest about the overpaid backfield.