Where was Keiland Williams???

[30gut]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

You just put Arian Foster in the same sentence as Keiland Williams. Conversation over.

Logic like yours makes it even more clear that this was never a real conversation to begin with.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Logic like yours makes it even more clear that this was never a real conversation to begin with.

68 yards on 23 carries against the titans.
5 yards on 3 carries against the vikings.

Case closed.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

but if anyone actually thinks that Keiland Williams is a good back there is no hope for them.

Why? Because he was on the practice squad?
You know there are a bunch of backs, good backs that came off the practice squad right?
And where did i say anything about what type of back Keiland is good or bad?
The most i said was that he was the most experienced of the 2 backs we had available.

Let me remind you what i said:

Originally Posted by 30gut

You have to run the ball with the RBs more then 9 times.
We have no idea how the running game would have panned out if we actually tried to run the ball.
We're an outside zone/outside edge running team (and the Vikings run weakness is on the edge w/ their Jared Allen and a back-up! LDE) yet we ran inside w/ our least experienced RB: James Davis when Keiland Williams was perfectly healthy.
But it either way 6 carries for James Davis and 3 carries for Keiland Williams is not enough to establish a running game.

He didn't deserve more carries against the Vikings. If he had had 30 carries he wouldn't have broken 75 yards.

Your argument is all over the place and your post above clearly shows you are missing my point.
We didn't need nor did i say Keiland would have rushed for 100 yards.
No.
I'm saying something quite simple.
Regardless of the RB an offense makes thing harder on itself when they abandon the run.
That's all i've been saying.
Even if you think Keiland is the worst RB on earth, quiting on the run is always the wrong move.
The stat line from your post would have been enough of a semblance of running game to prevent the Packers defense from focusing on the passing game only.
Your post actually makes my point.

He is a practice squad runningback who couldn't even start for his college team....Nothing more, nothing less. He probably won't even make the team next year.

Again this more fluff.
And technically Foster was a part time starter himself.
Either way it has nothing to do with my point.

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

68 yards on 23 carries against the titans.
5 yards on 3 carries against the vikings.

Case closed.

And yet again you make my point.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Why? Because he was on the practice squad?
You know there are a bunch of backs, good backs that came off the practice squad right?
And where did i say anything about what type of back Keiland is good or bad?
The most i said was that he was the most experienced of the 2 backs we had available.

Let me remind you what i said:





Your argument is all over the place and your post above clearly shows you are missing my point.
We didn't need nor did i say Keiland would have rushed for 100 yards.
No.
I'm saying something quite simple.
Regardless of the RB an offense makes thing harder on itself when they abandon the run.
That's all i've been saying.
Even if you think Keiland is the worst RB on earth, quiting on the run is always the wrong move.
The stat line from your post would have been enough of a semblance of running game to prevent the Packers defense from focusing on the passing game only.
Your post actually makes my point.



Again this more fluff.
And technically Foster was a part time starter himself.
Either way it has nothing to do with my point.



And yet again you make my point.

"But with five games remaining in the season, a closer look at Shanahan's own history reveals just how woefully behind the Washington rushing game appears to be".

Heading into the Giants game, the Redskins are running the ball - and going nowhere

Does this article in the Washington Post back up your point too? lol

The more you type, the more wrong you get. THIS TEAM CANNOT RUN THE BALL, THAT IS WHY THE COACHES ARE ABANDONING IT.

Is that clear enough for you?

[30gut]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

"But with five games remaining in the season, a closer look at Shanahan's own history reveals just how woefully behind the Washington rushing game appears to be".

Heading into the Giants game, the Redskins are running the ball - and going nowhere

Does this article in the Washington Post back up your point too? lol

The more you type, the more wrong you get. THIS TEAM CANNOT RUN THE BALL, THAT IS WHY THE COACHES ARE ABANDONING IT.

Is that clear enough for you?

Is this how you carry on in every discussion when you're struggling to make or prove your point?

LoL, do you even understand my point?
And what is your point?
B/c Kyle abandons the run it makes it the right decision?
Same as playing Joey Galloway, same as not playing Fred Davis?
C'mon.
We shouldn't attempt to run the ball b/c we're not good at it?
You know how you set up play-action?
You run the ball.
You know how you keep the defense from focusing on the pass?
You run the ball.
You don't even need to run the ball well.
Heck, sometimes play-action works better when the defense is having success stopping the run.

Originally Posted by Shanahan

"It's an emphasis here. Always will be....If you take a look at my history, I think it speaks for itself."

But guess what his son has been doing?

Originally Posted by The article you mentioned, did you read it?

This year's Redskins team is averaging 22.5 carries per game. Shanahan's Denver teams averaged 30.6 carries per game.

Okay, lets forget this arguement b/c you don't understand it.
But let me ask you this:
If we stick to the run and are able to win a game would that make a difference to you?