I prefer a balanced 50/50 attack. Why'd we bother getting 8 big boy WRs if all we are ever going to do is RTGDF. It's not 1985 anymore.
Printable View
I prefer a balanced 50/50 attack. Why'd we bother getting 8 big boy WRs if all we are ever going to do is RTGDF. It's not 1985 anymore.
Here is what I think happens these first three gamesQuote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
MSU 49 or 56 USM 7
MSU 45 UAB 7
MSU 35 USA 14
I don't care how we get there but those will be close to the scores we have on the first three games. The trickiest of the first 3 will be South Alabama but I still see us winning by 3 touchdowns.
Honestly, until I see them catch balls in games, i never bye into receivers. Antonio Hargro was good for everything except playing football. Any word on Morrow? Love to see a 6-4 210 receiver become consistently productive for us.
Didn't we have this debate already last week? Nobody who wins the SEC is balanced 50/50 run to pass. It's about being very efficient throwing the ball but you should be running the ball about 60% of the time. And someone said even Bama is balanced. What games are you watching? 2007 was the only time it was 50%.
Exactly. C34 needs to go sticky that thread showing how much the teams that won the SEC ran the ball. You wanna win in this league? RTGDF.Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Clark?
I do like to see yardage balanced. If we run 65% of the time and the yardage is about even, we'll be winning lots of games.
I agree that we need to RTGDB, but this post is full of holes.Quote:
Originally Posted by War Machine Dawg
This is
"Causation vs Coorelation" debate
Did teams who won the SEC, win it BECAUSE they ran the ball?
or
Did teams who won the SEC, win it because they COULD run the football?
In the first question, we are insinuating that regardless of the outcome, you are better off endlessly running the football.
In the 2nd question, it is understood that teams that won the SEC had good offensive lines, running backs, and a threat to pass, and thus were ABLE to run the football.
This debate drives me nuts during the NFL season when ignorant analyst say that, so-n-so team has won the last 10 games that (insert running back name) has gotten 20+ carries. Therefore, it makes sense to give (insert running back name) the ball 20+ times.
This way of thinking is incredibly flawed because it's not the number of carries that matters, it's the success of those carries.
This is a common flaw in logic that threatens to intelligence of mankind.
I agree, Shotgun. Also, in college football, a large majority of teams still run more than pass in general. And that is increased for the teams who are often ahead late in games.
I have no doubt the stats will show we end up running a good but more than passing. But that will be partly because of running clock and because Dak will pull it down and run.
We're not going to run the Relf Coast or just sit back and run, run, run, run. And I'm not sure why people would want that if we can also be successful passing. It will be a balanced spread attack.
Also, even if you are a passing team, if you have the lead- you're going to run the ball. Or at least you should. So, if you have the lead a lot in the second half, which a team like Alabama does have a lot of times, they're more likely to run the ball. And that's going to drive the run play call percentage up some.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
I don't see it as a causation vs correlation because you have to have a basic core philosophy of who you are as an offensive. You adjust it somewhat because of personnel but build off of that. I believe you find that teams who run the ball and run it well is because they are committed to running the ball. It's both the cause and the correlation. When your philosophy and schemes are predicated to being a running team then guess what you end up running it more than throwing it.
Edit: Don't overthink this stuff but look at the big picture. You made a statement about people making a flawed analysis at times because so and so runs the ball x numbers the team usually wins. Your statement is correct especially in a one game scenario but after a length of time if it holds true then the analysis is correct and is good logic.
Arkansas it committed to the run, and runs it well, but they suck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Clark?
This is basically what I mean. I like an offense that can line up and attack any part of the field by either run or pass and the defense can't tell which is coming and where it is going. It makes the run and the pass both more effective. Then speed up or slow down in addition to this and you can really start fu@king with the defense. It's a little bit like pitching in baseball. Get them thinking fastball and slip in the change/slider and vice versa. When you advertise you want to run the ball a ton and then you do run the ball a ton you take away some of the surprise element and it makes your offense less effective. It just does. Spare me the macho bullshit that you pound on the defense and wear them down response. You RTGDF boys need to rub one out about running the football.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1bigdawg
Yes. But Bama, Lsu, Auburn, Florida didn't when they ran the ball about 60% of the time or more in route to their national titles did they? That's the model you should at wouldn't you say and why so many in the league in the last decade have committed to the run.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
Arkansas is one dimensional because they can't throw effective at all and you still have to play defense. That is why they suck
The balance in yardage I believe is a totally different debate. And you see that happen more so even with run heavy teams. Hitting big pass plays because of teams trying to stop the run. Don't have a problem with that. But most of the people are talking about actually being 50/50 in run vs pass plays. Totally different debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
That's not what I am saying though. Sorry for the confusion. I did say 50/50 but I am meaning yardage not plays. If you want to put it into snaps it's more like 2 runs per every 1 pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Clark?
Nailed it. We're a running team that is damn good at running the ball. So why would we NOT want to RTGDF at least 60% of the time? It's what suits our personnel and the strength of our team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Clark?
I completely agree with having an identity. I think that one thing that Mullen has struggled to do since Relf left.
It's almost like Relf's limitations as a passer made us a better team because it forced Mullen to develop an offensive identity. I am all about identity, and hopefully we see that this season.
Exactly. Arkansas has shit for QB play. If they could hit a few passes, they'd be pretty good. I'd like to see the yardage itself closer to even, but in terms of % plays called, I want to see us at 60% or better. As The Kang always said, we can't get in a track meet with teams like FL and LSU. But we CAN beat them by making it nasty and physical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Clark?
We had an identity under TR, it just wasn't an identity Mullen was comfortable with. We were a finesse passing team with limitations running the ball. Mullen prefers a physical running team capable of hitting the HR passing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
totally agree with this ... of our RB's only J-Rob has shown consistency. Jury is still out on N Griffin and his recovery, A Shumpert has yet to show us anything against an SEC team, A Williams is a true freshman .... I have no idea what makes everyone think we are dominant in the run game yet - other than Dak our QB .... truth is that nobody KNOWS yet, it's all speculation at this point.... and aside from J Lewis - the recv corp is in the same boat ... at this point it's better to use a balanced approachQuote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61