09-12-2003 06:32									#331
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: ou have to be able to run to keep the defense honest, but you don't have to be great at it. And you don't have to stop the run. Teams that are good at rushing don't score many points. You just have to score more. Only one team that won the Super Bowl in the last 4 was great at the run and they had a great defense too.

Name a Superbowl winner who was bad at the run AND against the run?

Last year Tampa wasn't that great, true (27th), but were great against it (5th). Oakland likewise (18th in rushing but 3rd against the run). That was the exception!

New England in 2001 was 13th in the run (and St. Louis was 5th in the run and 3rd in run defense). In 2000, Baltimore was 5th in rushing and 1st against the run, and the Giants were 11th in rushing and 2nd against the run. In 1999, St. Louis was 5th in rushing [are you telling me that 1999 St. Louis didn't score many points?] and 1st against the run, while Tennessee was 13th in rushing and 10th against the run.

Your premise seems to be wrong. Last year was the exception when the SuperBowl teams were not good at running (but both were great at stopping the run).

All stats from:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/

	09-12-2003 07:30									#332
	Support Apolyton

you don't have to be good against the run

I suppose that is true if you face a passing team. But even they may figure out that running will win the game.

Football games are won by good running. Therefore being able to stop the run gives a team a chance to prevent from being beaten.

Unless you are one of those guys like Spurrier who think you can pass 60 or 70 times a game and win.

There's a reason why the Rams lost the superbowl a couple of years ago. Look at their play selection for a hint.

	09-12-2003 10:39									#333
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Football games are won by good running. Therefore being able to stop the run gives a team a chance to prevent from being beaten.

Right on, Diss . Give me a great offensive line and a great running back and I'll give you a nice offense .

	09-12-2003 11:16									#334
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Hey Diss, what happened that "iffy" Miami offense?

Damn, Holcomb cost me (and Cleveland) the game tonite. St L gets 2 TD's before the half because of him.

	09-12-2003 11:58									#335
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Bears Coaching Staff Pay Attention!!!

	09-12-2003 14:09									#336
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Hey Diss, what happened that "iffy" Miami offense? Damn, Holcomb cost me (and Cleveland) the game tonite. St L gets 2 TD's before the half because of him.

what do ya expect- it was a blizzard against one of the best defenses in the league.

You know just as well as I Miami ALWAYS folds in December.

My point was up until last week- they were a pretty good team with Jay Fiedlar at QB. All bets are off in December, as the past 4 years- possibly even longer than that.

	09-12-2003 14:29									#337
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: what do ya expect- it was a blizzard against one of the best defenses in the league.

I expected more than a minus 7 points

	09-12-2003 18:37									#338
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well if it wasn't for Tampa, the Dolphins would have the worst record of any team in weather below 40 degrees.

	09-12-2003 22:04									#339
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Dissident There's a reason why the Rams lost the superbowl a couple of years ago. Look at their play selection for a hint.

That's correct, but you didn't read the part where I said that teams need to be able to run the ball enough to keep the defense honest.

	09-12-2003 22:06									#340
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Football games are won by good running. Therefore being able to stop the run gives a team a chance to prevent from being beaten. Right on, Diss . Give me a great offensive line and a great running back and I'll give you a nice offense .

What is the best offensive line - running back combination that you can think of. For me it's the Rams with Eric Dickerson. We went to one championship game and got are ass kicked.

	09-12-2003 22:23									#341
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: What is the best offensive line - running back combination that you can think of.

Jim Brown with the 1960-65 Cleveland Browns (1950s if you are counting the old AAFC). And they won their share of championships .

If we are talking modern times (), then Emmitt Smith behind that '90s Cowboys O-Line.

quote: That's correct, but you didn't read the part where I said that teams need to be able to run the ball enough to keep the defense honest.

I've shown facts that a VAST majority of Superbowl participants in the last 4 years run much more than simply to keep defenses honest. If you are above 16th in rushing offense (upper half of the league), then you are running to get yards, not to keep teams honest. And besides, the Rams, when they went to the Superbowl in the last decade were in the Top 5 in rushing. That's not to keep teams 'honest'.

	10-12-2003 00:42									#342
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: What is the best offensive line - running back combination that you can think of. Jim Brown with the 1960-65 Cleveland Browns (1950s if you are counting the old AAFC). And they won their share of championships . If we are talking modern times (), then Emmitt Smith behind that '90s Cowboys O-Line. quote: That's correct, but you didn't read the part where I said that teams need to be able to run the ball enough to keep the defense honest. I've shown facts that a VAST majority of Superbowl participants in the last 4 years run much more than simply to keep defenses honest. If you are above 16th in rushing offense (upper half of the league), then you are running to get yards, not to keep teams honest. And besides, the Rams, when they went to the Superbowl in the last decade were in the Top 5 in rushing. That's not to keep teams 'honest'.

I think you are confusing teams who build there offense for the run and teams that build their offense for the pass, but run the ball. The Rams pass the ball far more than they run, even though they are OK at running the ball. Their offensive line is primarily pass blockers, with the exception of Kyle Turly (aquired only this year). The 90s Cowboys were also a very good passing team.

When teams build their team to run at the expense of the pass they don't do as well.

	10-12-2003 01:05									#343
	Remove this text

There is also one other thing. Successful teams that are dominant because of their passing usually have run up large leads by the middle of the third quarter and end up running the ball for the last quarter and a half to eat up the clock. Running against lines that already know they've lost. This can easily pad the rushing stats making the team appear to be a successful running team in comparison.

	10-12-2003 01:41									#344
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious What is the best offensive line - running back combination that you can think of. For me it's the Rams with Eric Dickerson. We went to one championship game and got are ass kicked.

OJ and the Buffalo o-line would get my vote.

Emmitt/Dallas a close 2nd.

	10-12-2003 01:44									#345
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I don't think you need to have a great running game, you just need an effective one; in that, they are enough of a threat to pull defenders off the receivers.

I think for the most part you don't need one thing to be "great" more so than for everything to be effective enough. Though, as we have seen, it doesn't hurt to have a great defense. Yet even that is not always the case; i.e. the Niners this year, and The Charges through most of the 90s.

	10-12-2003 02:50									#346
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: I think you are confusing teams who build there offense for the run and teams that build their offense for the pass, but run the ball. The Rams pass the ball far more than they run, even though they are OK at running the ball. Their offensive line is primarily pass blockers, with the exception of Kyle Turly (aquired only this year). The 90s Cowboys were also a very good passing team. When teams build their team to run at the expense of the pass they don't do as well.

I think you confusing teams that have balanced offenses for teams that build their offenses for the pass. The St. Louis Rams during their two Superbowl marches were balanced teams. For example, in their 1999 Superbowl run they were 16th in rushing attempts while 20th in passing attempts. In 2001 they were more pass oriented (Martz's influence), being 12th passing attempts and 22nd in rushing attempts. However, in 2001 they were also #1 in rushing YPA and rushing TDs. They were still a fairly balanced team if you look at the number of their attempts.

And btw, if you are looking at this years Rams, saying Orlando Pace isn't as good a run blocker as he is a pass blocker is just being blind.

'90s Cowboys being a passing team . That team was definetly BUILT for the run. The offense went through Emmitt.

Denver's two Superbowl years 1997-98, they were built through the run (look it up, in 1998 they were 2nd in rushing attempts and only 21st in passing attempts).

Baltimore has been built on the run. KC has been built through the run.

There are a LOT of successful teams that have built through the run that you wouldn't even consider so. And a running game is something that is needed in the playoffs. Not just to keep teams honest, but to use it to win games.

quote: Successful teams that are dominant because of their passing usually have run up large leads by the middle of the third quarter and end up running the ball for the last quarter and a half to eat up the clock. Running against lines that already know they've lost. This can easily pad the rushing stats making the team appear to be a successful running team in comparison.

Some yards perhaps. But you have to have a good running back and o-line in order to do this. Teams know you are going to try to run out the clock, so they'll key for the run. No team that sucked at the run is consistantly able to run out the clock .

quote: Though, as we have seen, it doesn't hurt to have a great defense. Yet even that is not always the case; i.e. the Niners this year, and The Charges through most of the 90s.

I don't think both teams are HURT by good defenses. I think without those D's they would suck even worse.

	10-12-2003 03:54									#347
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The best run/run defense team I ever saw was the Miami Dolphin team that went undefeated.

The second best was the Pittsburgh team that won four Superbowls.

The Chicago Bears were the third best.

	10-12-2003 04:13									#348
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ned, Ned, Ned. Now you know we have to jump down your throat for dissing da Bears like that...

Funny how that Miami team only won once. I saw them, too. I felt then, and still believe, that they were then (and are today) overrated. sorry, but that season was a fluke.

Those Pittsburgh teams were pretty darned good, but for one year, I'd put the '85 Bears up against any of them.

	10-12-2003 04:28									#349
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Those Pittsburgh teams were pretty darned good, but for one year, I'd put the '85 Bears up against any of them.

I dunno. If just looking at rushing/defense, I may take the '76 Steelers, who lost in the conference championship, but was a GREAT running team (two 1000 yard runners) and an amazing defense.

Though that Baltimore D in 2000 was amazing... look at the offense they had to carry.

	10-12-2003 04:41									#350
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui For example, in their 1999 Superbowl run they were 16th in rushing attempts while 20th in passing attempts. In 2001 they were more pass oriented (Martz's influence), being 12th passing attempts and 22nd in rushing attempts. However, in 2001 they were also #1 in rushing YPA and rushing TDs. They were still a fairly balanced team if you look at the number of their attempts.

I don't remember them running so often. Must be me.

	10-12-2003 04:52									#351
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Cause all the passing gets the attention! They were a very nice running team and when Martz forgets to give the ball to Faulk is when they don't do as well.

	10-12-2003 05:12									#352
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Cause all the passing gets the attention! They were a very nice running team and when Martz forgets to give the ball to Faulk is when they don't do as well.

You are so right.

	10-12-2003 05:51									#353
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The Denver Broncos with Terrell Davis and Mike Anderson were the best running team I can remember. Their O-line was small and fast and knew how to run block.

If Portis had that line, man o man, would he be setting records.

ACK!

	10-12-2003 09:29									#354
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Cause all the passing gets the attention! They were a very nice running team and when Martz forgets to give the ball to Faulk is when they don't do as well.

exactly. As in the superbowl a couple of years ago. Faulk can run the ball, we seen him do it many times. But during that game they did not utilize the run enough.

	10-12-2003 10:02									#355
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

It is also one of the reasons the Colts have lost early in the playoffs in the last few years. They seem to forget that James exists.

	10-12-2003 10:11									#356
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by -Jrabbit Funny how that Miami team only won once. I saw them, too. I felt then, and still believe, that they were then (and are today) overrated. sorry, but that season was a fluke.

* badams52 takes a look into the NFL Superbowl and season history...

Uh, they won twice and went to 3 Super Bowls in a row. Looks like you have some selective memory going on there

In 1972, they scored the most points in the league while allowing the least points in the league as well. They had 2 1000 yard rushers and another with over 500 yards.

Maybe they are overrated, but they are still the only team to go undefeated. You have to be good to go undefeated luck not withstanding.

oh, and

1970 - 10-4
1971 - 10-3-1
1972 - 14-0
1973 - 12-2
1974 - 11-3
1975 - 10-4

While their undefeated season may be a "fluke" as you put it, they still put up some nice W-L percentages the years before and after. I'm not going to say they were the greatest team of all time, but they were certainly one of the greatest.

Does anyone else remember that strange computer simulation thing ESPN had going trying to play the greatest teams of all time against each other to see who was the best? Can't remember who won, but I don't think it was the Dolphins.

	10-12-2003 10:19									#357
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Yeah they were a good team, but definetly overrated. Their schedule was very, very weak (they only played two teams over .500 during the season). Though they were definetly the best team in the league that year.... but remember in the Superbowl, Washington was favored.

Oh, and while on this, I HATE the '72 Dolphins celebrating when the last undefeated team loses . I want to see anyone go undefeated (even the hated Bucs ) just to wipe that smirk of their faces .

	10-12-2003 10:42									#358
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

not gonna happen soon. but it would be cool to see.

	10-12-2003 12:02									#359
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Washington might have been favored, but they were dominated and the score was closer than the actual game.

Yeah, their schedule was weak that year, but they were still a great team. Of course, their own division sucked (kind of like the Rams in 1999)

And I agree that I would like to see another team go undefeated.

	10-12-2003 13:02									#360
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Well, the 1984 49ers and the 1985 Bears both were great teams, no doubt at all about that. Both went 18-1. Both dominated their opponents. Most games were not even close. The differnce in the two teams was that Montana was a great quarterback, while McMahon was just good. The Bears won with defense and running. But so did the undefeated Miami team. I think the Bear defense was better than Miami's. However, the Miami running attack was perhaps the most dominate ever - better than the Chicago team with Sayers or the Cleveland team with Brown.