Now, let's see if you can do it too. Admit you're wrong that we can win games when our RBs don't run for 92 yards, without veering off topic.
"zombieslayer" wrote:
I admit that I never said "we can't win games when our RBs don't run for 92 yards".
I thought the general discussion was on whether or not we were running the ball enough, and thought one thread on the topic was enough.
So, I guess I also admit that I personally did not think the distinction between yardage and attempts was enough to justify a new thread.
And I also admit that you will see me saying consistently throughout this thread that we have been running the ball at a good ratio (including this last game)--except for a handfull of games, which almost without exception have been losses.
edit: and I also admit to not starting the flogging of this thread again that had been dormant for 10 days.
Fine, I'm convinced and buying into your obvious conclusion that run plays are a waste of time. Heck, we don't need no stinkin' running backs. If we want someone in the backfield with the QB, just put a WR/TE in to run a pass route. Otherwise, just go empty backfield all day. If running plays are a waste of time, why ever run one, right? If that's not seductive enough, think of the additional roster spots/draft picks we could save and use for WRs, etc.
Given all that, I find it funny that our own defense puts a premium on stopping the opposing teams running game and forcing them to go one-dimensional--into a pass-only attack. Wonder why that might be...
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/108328314.html
Raji said the defense would continue to focus on stopping the run.
"Our philosophy, which has been working well for us so far, we want to stop the run initially so we can get teams in a more predictable state," he said. "Then we can come with the blitzing we love to do."
"JSonline.com" wrote: