McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Yes, you back off like a little coward once your "moral superiority" assumption against me went down the drain, now did it?

Then you seem unable to comprehend that every play's outcome can be broken down into two categories: Success or failure.

Running the ball effectively forces the opponent to call anti-pass plays with greater reservation, thus increasing the probability that when a pass play is called, the opponent will have an unsuitable defense to deal with it and a big play will occur.
Sure, you could have enough talent that you'll hit a big one, but the chance of that is still lower since the opponent can commit everything to just stopping the pass via blitz, double coverage, bracket coverage. Run the ball effectively, and the opponent has to commit their linebackers and quite possibly more just to stop the RB, which leaves means the CBs will be stuck in man or something more often, which in turn can be exploited by running a passing play out of the same formation. The opponent now has to guess, and one wrong guess can mean the difference in the game.

Okay, well stated. Do you have any actual evidence for these claims, or will a simple "I still think you're overrating the effect of a generic running game commitment on passing efficiency" suffice?

I'm well versed in game-theory, so you can save the lecture. There's obviously some effect of run-pass balance on play efficiency, but I don't think there's a major effect to be found there. Just my opinion.

Also, how many Brownie Points do I get for breaking your composure with just a little bit of logical reasoning? Some? I'll settle for some.