Battle for first place Skins vs Gints pregame thread

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by 30gut

To each their own. For me you can't simply 'take away' a game. And 3 out 4 wins having a 4.0 ypc seems like a positive correlation to me...but never paid attention in stats class.

Like I said before, sub-par QB isn't excused by lack of rushing game and likewise having a rushing game doesn't insulate a game from poor QB play. If you turn the ball over...you're gonna lose that concept has been proven in football. So, I wouldn't expect having a run game to overcome turnovers.

I'm not so sure what you mean by given up on the effectiveness of the run. IF they don't have faith in the run game it doesn't make them right.

I think it shows what can happen when a pass first offense is allowed to operate unchecked. I think it shows a lack of commitment to the run. But I have no doubt the run game could be better if the staff had the inclination and skill to make it work. I don't think there run concepts are sound, it no surprise to me it doesn't work. Jay/McVay don't really care about and it shows.

I would bet dollars to doughnuts that Bobby Turner/Rick Dennison among other coaches could take this same personnel and produce a top 10 run game.

Well we can agree to disagree.

Using KC's stat's there was a 1:1 correlation qbr>70, we win. <70 we lose, regardless of what the run game did. The run game though had strong games (avg >4) and we lost, and weak games (<4) and we won. So to me no direct correlation.

You say you would not expect the run game to overcome INT's, but good passing games did overcome Fumbles
in the 4 wins, we had 0 ints, but 3 fumbles (1 each in 3 wins)
in 3 of our 6 losses we had 1+ int in each, and 1+ fumbles so those were bad on both parts
in the other 3 losses, we had 1+ int, and 0 fumbles.

So, in 3 wins, the passing game covered fumbles, but the running game covered 0 bad qb days.


This discussion began by my saying calling for the running game isn't a panacea to KC's bad days. I think all these numbers bear that statement out. If KC has a good day, a good running game is a nice add and makes the game more fun to watch, but if KC is on an off day, switching to a run centric offense has not shown to be a solution for this team. The strongest example of that is the Miami game, when Lavaou was in, and we had our 2nd best rushing output but KC was off . the Saints game was the best rushing output, but KC was on on that day too, so they served as a good compliment to each other. In the Miami game KC was bad, 2 int, 188 total yards, 67.7% completion Percent, and we lost. Compare that to the TB game, KC was good, 0int, 305 yds, 82.5% completion, but the Rush game was mostly ineffective, 1 fumble, 50 total yards, 2.1 average, and we won.

I don't believe that anything in all these numbers, or in watching the games as they've been played, should legitimately give someone the impression that a run heavy scheme, with this personnel (Oline and Oline coaching philosophy), would lead to better results than sticking with the pass oriented game and focusing on improving either KC's consistency or a qb who is not on the team yet.