Thing is you can't even with a straight face defend your self. Which guy off SF immediately makes us a better team as we ended the year -- Kaep or Gore? Actually if you list out Kaep, Gore, Aldon Smith, or Willis rank 'me and tell me any world where Gore isn't last. You cannot plan to run and play defense and be a playoff team. You have to throw the ball effectively.
A team CAN be built to run the ball more than any other and be a top 5 defense and win super bowls. But for the reasons I have stated, most teams go with the "QB driven, it's a passing league" approach. The latter approach is why Vin's OP may turn out to be fulfilled.The "pistol" type QB style looks to be here awhile, and has it's merits, especially adding a running game dimension, but I personally wouldn't go that route due to potential injuries, ex. RGlll.The running game doesn't guarantee a team the Lombardi. I didn't say that. In Buffalo's case, if you average two rushing fumbles per game, you can't expect to win more than you lose.Of course the qB has to throw the ball effectively. Throw it twenty-five times a game or less is ideal for the type of team I've mentioned, but effective when they do.
Thing is you can't even with a straight face defend your self. Which guy off SF immediately makes us a better team as we ended the year -- Kaep or Gore? Actually if you list out Kaep, Gore, Aldon Smith, or Willis rank 'me and tell me any world where Gore isn't last. You cannot plan to run and play defense and be a playoff team. You have to throw the ball effectively.
A team CAN be built to run the ball more than any other and be a top 5 defense and win super bowls. But for the reasons I have stated, most teams go with the "QB driven, it's a passing league" approach. The latter approach is why Vin's OP may turn out to be fulfilled.The "pistol" type QB style looks to be here awhile, and has it's merits, especially adding a running game dimension, but I personally wouldn't go that route due to potential injuries, ex. RGlll.The running game doesn't guarantee a team the Lombardi. I didn't say that. In Buffalo's case, if you average two rushing fumbles per game, you can't expect to win more than you lose.Of course the qB has to throw the ball effectively. Throw it twenty-five times a game or less is ideal for the type of team I've mentioned, but effective when they do.
Billick's comments are definitely interesting. My one thought would be a very good QB is a pre-requisite for a run game against good teams. At this point in the playoffs (ie. against this level of competition) you can put up passing numbers without a running game, but I don't think you can have a running game without a passing game.So the "run the ball & play good defence" requires an above average QB. That's not a revolutionary thought, but I think it colors the discussion. It's "passing the ball to set up the run". I think a good example of that was the 49ers-Panthers game. Kaepernick only put up 196 yards with a 53.6% completion percentage. Compare that to 126 yards rushing. The difference though was the number of first downs - 11 first downs passing and 5 running. 11 of 15 of Kaepernick's completions went for first downs. To me, that sums up the difference between the NFL now and the NFL 10 years ago. Even on a run-first team you have to have a highly efficient passing game.
Billick's comments are definitely interesting. My one thought would be a very good QB is a pre-requisite for a run game against good teams. At this point in the playoffs (ie. against this level of competition) you can put up passing numbers without a running game, but I don't think you can have a running game without a passing game.So the "run the ball & play good defence" requires an above average QB. That's not a revolutionary thought, but I think it colors the discussion. It's "passing the ball to set up the run". I think a good example of that was the 49ers-Panthers game. Kaepernick only put up 196 yards with a 53.6% completion percentage. Compare that to 126 yards rushing. The difference though was the number of first downs - 11 first downs passing and 5 running. 11 of 15 of Kaepernick's completions went for first downs. To me, that sums up the difference between the NFL now and the NFL 10 years ago. Even on a run-first team you have to have a highly efficient passing game.
Billick on Fox:Observations from Divisional Round:• It may be a quarterback-driven league, but the ability to run the ball in the playoffs remains a prerequisite for winning. Every team that won this weekend ran for more than 120 yards and the four winning teams combined for an average of 166 rushing yards per game. On the flip side, three of the four losing teams failed to reach the century mark, with the four losing teams combining to average just 83.7 rushing yards.Finally, both the Seahawks and Patriots won while gaining more yards on the ground than through the air -- and neither Russell Wilson nor Tom Brady threw for a touchdown in their games.And this: http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2014-01-13/nfl-playoffs-afc-nfc-championships-patriots-broncos-49ers-seahawks-running-games-marshawn-lynch-blount-gore-Moreno Good summary here to: http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2014-01-13/nfl-playoffs-afc-nfc-championships-patriots-broncos-49ers-seahawks-running-games-marshawn-lynch-blount-gore-Moreno just food for thought
Again, go figure teams that are ahead run the ball to bleed the clock. This is the classic correlation and causation problem. Winning teams almost always run for more yards than losing teams.
Billick on Fox:Observations from Divisional Round:• It may be a quarterback-driven league, but the ability to run the ball in the playoffs remains a prerequisite for winning. Every team that won this weekend ran for more than 120 yards and the four winning teams combined for an average of 166 rushing yards per game. On the flip side, three of the four losing teams failed to reach the century mark, with the four losing teams combining to average just 83.7 rushing yards.Finally, both the Seahawks and Patriots won while gaining more yards on the ground than through the air -- and neither Russell Wilson nor Tom Brady threw for a touchdown in their games.And this: http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2014-01-13/nfl-playoffs-afc-nfc-championships-patriots-broncos-49ers-seahawks-running-games-marshawn-lynch-blount-gore-Moreno Good summary here to: http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2014-01-13/nfl-playoffs-afc-nfc-championships-patriots-broncos-49ers-seahawks-running-games-marshawn-lynch-blount-gore-Moreno just food for thought
Again, go figure teams that are ahead run the ball to bleed the clock. This is the classic correlation and causation problem. Winning teams almost always run for more yards than losing teams.
Billick on Fox:Observations from Divisional Round:• It may be a quarterback-driven league, but the ability to run the ball in the playoffs remains a prerequisite for winning. Every team that won this weekend ran for more than 120 yards and the four winning teams combined for an average of 166 rushing yards per game. On the flip side, three of the four losing teams failed to reach the century mark, with the four losing teams combining to average just 83.7 rushing yards.Finally, both the Seahawks and Patriots won while gaining more yards on the ground than through the air -- and neither Russell Wilson nor Tom Brady threw for a touchdown in their games.And this: http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2014-01-13/nfl-playoffs-afc-nfc-championships-patriots-broncos-49ers-seahawks-running-games-marshawn-lynch-blount-gore-Moreno Good summary here to: http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2014-01-13/nfl-playoffs-afc-nfc-championships-patriots-broncos-49ers-seahawks-running-games-marshawn-lynch-blount-gore-Moreno just food for thought
Again, go figure teams that are ahead run the ball to bleed the clock. This is the classic correlation and causation problem. Winning teams almost always run for more yards than losing teams.
maybe I am missing something, didn't you say there was NO correlation between running and winning?
Seriously, find any correlation between running and winning.
If a team runs the ball to kill the clock (i.e., to play keep away) that is part of winning, right? That's is a correlation between running and winning in the most basic sense, right? I think its that you slightly overstate the case, there is a correlation between running and winning and defense and winning and passing and winning. Maybe you mean to say there is not as strong causal link between running and winning as there is between passing and winning, in the current NFL?
Billick on Fox:Observations from Divisional Round:• It may be a quarterback-driven league, but the ability to run the ball in the playoffs remains a prerequisite for winning. Every team that won this weekend ran for more than 120 yards and the four winning teams combined for an average of 166 rushing yards per game. On the flip side, three of the four losing teams failed to reach the century mark, with the four losing teams combining to average just 83.7 rushing yards.Finally, both the Seahawks and Patriots won while gaining more yards on the ground than through the air -- and neither Russell Wilson nor Tom Brady threw for a touchdown in their games.And this: http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2014-01-13/nfl-playoffs-afc-nfc-championships-patriots-broncos-49ers-seahawks-running-games-marshawn-lynch-blount-gore-Moreno Good summary here to: http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2014-01-13/nfl-playoffs-afc-nfc-championships-patriots-broncos-49ers-seahawks-running-games-marshawn-lynch-blount-gore-Moreno just food for thought
Again, go figure teams that are ahead run the ball to bleed the clock. This is the classic correlation and causation problem. Winning teams almost always run for more yards than losing teams.
maybe I am missing something, didn't you say there was NO correlation between running and winning?
Seriously, find any correlation between running and winning.
If a team runs the ball to kill the clock (i.e., to play keep away) that is part of winning, right? That's is a correlation between running and winning in the most basic sense, right? I think its that you slightly overstate the case, there is a correlation between running and winning and defense and winning and passing and winning. Maybe you mean to say there is not as strong causal link between running and winning as there is between passing and winning, in the current NFL?
