@shepwrite said:

The Jets' rushing YPC in the playoffs:

Yes, the Jets went to the run less in the AFC Championship Game, but that was at least in part due to it not being effective. Remember, the Jets had a lead going into halftime, so it's not like they were forced to throw straight out of the gates.

The reality that the NFL is increasingly becoming a passing league doesn't make it a good explanation for everything. There are other aspects of the game that deserve just as much attention.

@the-gipper said:

I know the Jets were doing okay with the run and playing it safe with the pass... until they ran into the Colts in the playoffs.

Holmgren had said you have to "pass the ball at a very high level" to win in this league now, and I think most of the forward thinking types agree. You can pass your way to the top these days doing nothing else extremely well... but you can't do everything well BUT pass and expect to win.

Sure, things could reshuffle a bit and someone, somewhere is gonna come up with the next great defense... but there's a reason they call it a passing league now.

@shepwrite said:

Uhhhhh... sure. Everybody would love to do that. As Holmgren said, it just doesn't work. Long drives allow more chances for a miscue -- missed block, fumble, slip, wrong hole, etc. -- or a great defensive play. And it only takes one loss on 3rd and 3 to end that "long drive."

Meanwhile, Manning's already up 21 to 0.

Well, I seem to recall a game in which the Colts had all of about 16 minutes of possesion time, the opponent had 44 minutes, but the Colts won the game by 14-21 points! They struck fast and scored many points while the other team went slowly up and down the field. Maybe that game was an aberration, but it can and did happen.

Concerning the Colts defense, I think that defense was built to stop the pass. If you line up with our big line and run the ball at them they will be beat up by the end of the game. Plus it makes it harder for their offense to get into any rhythm. It might be a passing league but a team that can also run the ball has a big advantage over some of these smaller defenses

Things do have a way of cycling, but my sense is that the league WANTS to see the ball in the air a lot, and that's the way it will be.

I'm getting vaguely optimistic that Delhomme could work out. He has to, or the notion that we'll be able to run the ball could be just wishful thinking. We can only glean so much so far, but he looks healthy and fit, he threw the ball with zip, and he was accurate in the camps. I like the line. I like Watson and Evan Moore. I think we could have a few good WRs step up and be at least adequate and maybe more. And if we can be at least average and efficient as a passing team, that dream of a terrific running game could come true.

No "big passing game" there.

Stout defense, running game.

@shepwrite said:

And that's true: if you look at the Colts' last 16 losses, the winning teams have run the ball 566 times (approx 35 times/game) for 2,586 yards (about 162 yards/game).

Only one team ran the ball more than 566 times last year (NYJ) and only two teams gained more than 2.586 yards (NYJ/TEN). So while it's increasingly a passing league, you're being too reductive if you assume that means you have to pass your way past the Colts.

Containing the Colts' passing attack while running through their weak Tampa 2 defense will get you the W -- it's not a coincidence that Tennessee's one of the teams that has had some success against the Colts.

I see no reason why a really sound running game coupled with a decent passing game can't win ball games.

If you are average to poor at either or both, you are going to have a tough go.....as we all know.

If you can control the clock, increased chances to fumble included, you have a chance.

I know you like passing games, and I do as well. If you remember I am the one who feels the spread is the offense in to which the NFL will eventually moprh......but I don't see running the ball becoming moot.....as long as you have the ability to pass.

I think sometimes you assume we won't be able to move the ball in the air.

I don't think we will be as inept in that area as you seem to think.

On a side note.....I think the screen will be a big play for us. Good running teams can get some big yardage out of those.

It wouldn't surprise me to see 1-2 screens a game that go for 20+ yards.

I am really excited....I think the Browns are going to be able to move the ball between the 20's, both air and ground, then have to grit up front to punch it in.

@the-gipper said:

Now let's see if you can get NFL coaches and NFL GMs and TV commentators to give up their old ways and ideas. Things like that die hard....with a vengeance

That's a good point, Gip. I've actually been watching games where an announcer would say, "The way to beat the Colts is to run, run, run the ball, sustain long drives."

Uhhhhh... sure. Everybody would love to do that. As Holmgren said, it just doesn't work. Long drives allow more chances for a miscue -- missed block, fumble, slip, wrong hole, etc. -- or a great defensive play. And it only takes one loss on 3rd and 3 to end that "long drive."

Meanwhile, Manning's already up 21 to 0.

@shepwrite said:

The truth is that now you can be really good at one thing -- passing the ball -- and only okay at everything else... and make the playoffs or even the Super Bowl. That's been true of a Super Bowl team each of the past two years and plenty of playoff teams.

But if you're really good at running and defense but not really good at passing, chances are you're somewhere between 7-9 and 9-7. Either out of the playoffs or soon to be.

The league has changed so fast most fans haven't caught up yet. You can say the teams that run the ball and stop the run will win... but if they aren't a great passing team, they won't win much.

Yea, that's why I said that the old axioms may no longer hold true.

Now let's see if you can get NFL coaches and NFL GMs and TV commentators to give up their old ways and ideas. Things like that die hard....with a vengeance.

The truth is that now you can be really good at one thing -- passing the ball -- and only okay at everything else... and make the playoffs or even the Super Bowl. That's been true of a Super Bowl team each of the past two years and plenty of playoff teams.

But if you're really good at running and defense but not really good at passing, chances are you're somewhere between 7-9 and 9-7. Either out of the playoffs or soon to be.

The league has changed so fast most fans haven't caught up yet. You can say the teams that run the ball and stop the run will win... but if they aren't a great passing team, they won't win much.

@shepwrite said:

That said, while I think running the ball has become mostly a ploy to support the passing game for most of the top teams... I would never deny that defense matters.

So? What you are saying then is: Let's fire it up?

@calfoxwc said:

I heard once, that "statistics are like a giant road map, you can use them to find all sorts of different routes

to go to all sorts of different destinations".

While that is true, this still counters the well known axiom that good running teams are winning teams.

Bottom line ultimately is that I think you still need quality balance.

That said, while I think running the ball has become mostly a ploy to support the passing game for most of the top teams... I would never deny that defense matters.

I heard once, that "statistics are like a giant road map, you can use them to find all sorts of different routes

to go to all sorts of different destinations".