Quote:
Originally Posted by 12thMan
Well, Schneed not to nit pick, but aren't you pointing out the obvious? Yes, we must exectute along the offensive line. That goes without saying. I don't think anyone is saying if Portis get's the ball 25-30 times, we are magically going to be successful or it's some key formula. But rather, him getting the ball that number of times "increases" the probability of Portis doing the type of damage he's capable of.
Truthfully, I don't think one is before the other. They work hand in hand. If the offensive line knows Clinton will get x amount of carries in a game, then I think they respond accordingly. If we can unconditionally commit to a philosphy, we'll probably see better results from both Portis and the offensive line. It's the interchanging of backs, in my opinion, before we get anything going which has been disconcerting, injuries notwithstanding.
|
I wholeheartedly disagree with that. I don't think it's obvious in the least - I mean ESPN's talking heads say stuff like this all the time.
Committing to the running game doesn't mean it's going to perform well. Execution and the decision to try to execute, are two entirely different things.
You can come up with all the philosophy you want, but in the end, your philosophy needs to be dictated by what your players are capable of doing.
I agree that we need to be running the ball, because it gives us our best chance to win. But I don't agree with blindly handing the ball off without any regard to the success the run game is having - that's how you turn into a predictable offense. The team needs to be capable of both running and throwing the ball. All teams need a plan B, otherwise there's not a lot of adjusting you can do come halftime when you're down by 10 and need to score points.