Running game struggles (1 Viewer)

I don't know if anyone has noticed this yet or posted it but if you look at the quarterbacks who have had the passing statistics Brees is having...notice the correlation. Since Brees has gone on the 5 game 300-yard sprint, he is tied with

Kurt Warner 1999
Kerry Collins 2000 and 2001
Rich Gannon 2002

All of these QB's took their teams to the Super bowl during those years. I don't remember how balanced the Raiders rushing attack was but their passing attack was outstanding. Now granted the only QB to win the Super Bowl was Warner from that list, I would take that any day. If it aint broke don't fix it and right now our passing attack is definately not broke.
 
They also had some pretty solid defenses (much better than ours) to go along with Brady, and their O was still more balanced than ours.

By the way, in their first SB victory season (2001), they had a very balanced attack:

482 passing plays, and 473 running. I'd say that's balanced.

Finally, and contrary to what you wrote, in their 2001 SB season, A Smith was an 1157 yd rusher for the season, not a sub 1000 yd rusher as you indicated...

Okay. If we really want to start claiming past Super Bowl teams' pass/run differential, we can look at:

Run/Pass:
New England 2001: 49/51
St. Louis 2001: 43/57
Tampa Bay 2002: 42/58
Oakland 2002: 40/60
New England 2003: 47/53
Carolina 2003: 53/47
New England 2004: 52/48
Philadelphia 2004: 41/59
Pittsburgh 2005: 59/41
Seattle 2005: 52/48

5-year average for Super Bowl teams (total aggregate of all regular season plays for all 10 teams): 4679 rush, 5103 pass = 47.8% rush, 52.2% pass.

Yes, here is a semblance of balance, but it is also important to note that there have been teams with the following percentages of pass plays making the Super Bowl in the last 5 years: 57, 58, 60, 59.

Now there's some analysis. :ezbill:
 
Okay. If we really want to start claiming past Super Bowl teams' pass/run differential, we can look at:

Run/Pass:
New England 2001: 49/51
St. Louis 2001: 43/57
Tampa Bay 2002: 42/58
Oakland 2002: 40/60
New England 2003: 47/53
Carolina 2003: 53/47
New England 2004: 52/48
Philadelphia 2004: 41/59
Pittsburgh 2005: 59/41
Seattle 2005: 52/48

5-year average for Super Bowl teams (total aggregate of all regular season plays for all 10 teams): 4679 rush, 5103 pass = 47.8% rush, 52.2% pass.

Yes, here is a semblance of balance, but it is also important to note that there have been teams with the following percentages of pass plays making the Super Bowl in the last 5 years: 57, 58, 60, 59.

Now there's some analysis. :ezbill:

Add in their defensive ranking to go along with the O numbers, as well as their last 6 games of the regular season record, and that's when you start to get a pretty clear picture of why these teams went to the big dance...
 
Sorry, guidry, but I have to disagree with you. The reason we'd want to run the ball more, and most importantly, run it more effectively, is because you don't go very far into the post season just on the arm of your QB, not matter how good he is.

Don't get me wrong. I am thrilled with Drew's numbers, but I also know that while it's great for highlight material, we have to get a little more balanced. 42% runs vs. 58% passing is not very balanced.

.

Nothing was said about D rankings. It was stated that is a team will not go far into the playoffs if they were an unbalanced offensive team.
 
Once the whole team is back together, they will be more balanced with Deuce, Reggie, Colston, and Horn, the saints can pretty much do what they wish on offense
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom