GG Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 If you look at the stats of the Steelers/Green Bay game, you may come away with the idea that Steelers had an effective rushing attack in the limited time they had the ball. What you may not see is that Deuce got 6 of his 15 carries in the last two series, as Pitt was icing the game away. What you won't see is Green Bay overloading on run defense to force Pitt to win with low-used Batch's passing. What you won't see is Whisenhunt going with a pass happy offense and crazy reverses to Randle El. What you won't see is the ineffectiveness of Pitt's offense in playing against a woeful GB defense that was stacked against the run. But, I'm guessing that many will keep saying that Pitt is the powerhouse run team, while Mularkey & Clements are gadgetry guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Point taken. Just like our ratio of running plays to passing plays earlier in the year. I was told we were running a balanced attack, based on numbers. The numbers failed to show that the run was all but abandoned after the opening drive until garbage time, except for a few big gainers on first down. But,but,but....look at the stats.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 yup, had parker on my fantasy team this week, and was shocked to see in the 3rd quarter that stillers only had about 15 carries all game...staley literally got ALL of his carries while they were running out the clock... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Yes, if you look only at stats instead of watching the games, you might think that: * Drew Bledsoe has thrown for all those yards, so he belongs in the HOF. * Bennie Anderson started at OG for the Ravens when Jamal ran for over 2000 yards, so he was a nice pick-up by TD. etc, etc, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 7, 2005 Author Share Posted November 7, 2005 Point taken. Just like our ratio of running plays to passing plays earlier in the year. I was told we were running a balanced attack, based on numbers. The numbers failed to show that the run was all but abandoned after the opening drive until garbage time, except for a few big gainers on first down. But,but,but....look at the stats.... 496410[/snapback] I believe the point was that you shouldn't look at the stats of those games in a vacuum, without recognizing the defenses that were thrown against a rookie QB, and say that "only if we ran some more, we'd win." Just look at Pittsburgh, they run first, no matter who's behind center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 I believe the point was that you shouldn't look at the stats of those games in a vacuum, without recognizing the defenses that were thrown against a rookie QB, and say that "only if we ran some more, we'd win." Just look at Pittsburgh, they run first, no matter who's behind center. 496431[/snapback] What's their record again ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 when the jests used 5 linemen against pitts in the play offs last year they nearly beat them too. sad thing is, the bills can be beaten the same way. we have superior talent at starting tail back, wr, but our qb, oline and TE are not as good at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Another example..... many people probably think that Joe Gibbs has a powerhouse rushing team behind Clinton Portis, and yet on *every* third down, even third-and-short, Washington comes out lined up in the *Shotgun.* JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krazykat Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 If you look at the stats of the Steelers/Green Bay game, you may come away with the idea that Steelers had an effective rushing attack in the limited time they had the ball. What you may not see is that Deuce got 6 of his 15 carries in the last two series, as Pitt was icing the game away. What you won't see is Green Bay overloading on run defense to force Pitt to win with low-used Batch's passing. What you won't see is Whisenhunt going with a pass happy offense and crazy reverses to Randle El. What you won't see is the ineffectiveness of Pitt's offense in playing against a woeful GB defense that was stacked against the run. But, I'm guessing that many will keep saying that Pitt is the powerhouse run team, while Mularkey & Clements are gadgetry guys. 496404[/snapback] Our NE v. Bills game is another instance, eh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet baboo Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 yup, had parker on my fantasy team this week, and was shocked to see in the 3rd quarter that stillers only had about 15 carries all game...staley literally got ALL of his carries while they were running out the clock... 496412[/snapback] so...staley would be a bad fantasy pickup? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Another example..... many people probably think that Joe Gibbs has a powerhouse rushing team behind Clinton Portis, and yet on *every* third down, even third-and-short, Washington comes out lined up in the *Shotgun.* JDG 496678[/snapback] I watched that game when portis had 9 yards... Washington didn't even try to run the ball, every play was a passing play. Of course you are going to suck when you just throw the ball all day. Everybody knew Brunell was going to throw it, especially the Giants defense. What kind of power running team doesn't run the ball? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 we have superior talent at starting tail back, wr, but our qb, oline and TE are not as good at all. 496483[/snapback] Agreed about the oline and TE. Holcomb has played beyond expectations though. His 92 QB rating is hard to achieve in general, but especially when you're playing behind that kind of line, and when your receivers drop too many passes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smuvtalker Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Agreed about the oline and TE. Holcomb has played beyond expectations though. His 92 QB rating is hard to achieve in general, but especially when you're playing behind that kind of line, and when your receivers drop too many passes. 496833[/snapback] *sigh* I should've known you'd throw something like that in wherever you could fit it in.... Give it a rest Kelly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Agreed about the oline and TE. Holcomb has played beyond expectations though. His 92 QB rating is hard to achieve in general, but especially when you're playing behind that kind of line, and when your receivers drop too many passes. 496833[/snapback] Enough with the crusade, huh? Its getting pretty old... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts