We need a Qb? No, we need a Feature Back with 280 carries at least

Well, in 1996 to 1999 you had Dan Marino for most games, and even an old Marino scared teams way more than Henne does, you could not stack the line.

And say what you will about Jay Fiedler, the guy was a gamer and the team played hard for him, can we say the same about the team and Henne?

Sparano already said he likes the two-headed back approach

If you also look at say 2000 we had 1800 and change yards rushing, in our 1-15 year we had just short of 1600 yards rushing. Besides coaching, the glaring difference on offense was QB

 

This completely ignores the DRASTIC change in the NFL landscape since 2005. It's a passing league. It would be better to pay attention to the past few superbowl winners and how they got things done than to look at our "winning" records from over a decade ago.

 

It may be a passing league now, but you can't ignore teams like the Steelers, Giants and Jets that have been highly successful following the model that Ireland and Sparano are TRYING to follow. If you have the stud QB, then you load up on offense and win by passing. If you don't have that QB, then you follow the defense/running attack + efficient passing model. Last year, we had only the defensive part of the equation. With Pouncey + D Thomas, we now have two parts of the equation. Based on the first part of last season, we could have the 3rd part, but based on 2nd half (and stuck with Henning last season) we did not. million dollar question: what will Daboll + Henne + better Oline/running game look like?

 

Aaargh! Correlation does not equal causation!!!!! Padre, I expect more outta you!!! Teams that are winning games run the ball. From the Footballoutsiders:

"There is no correlation whatsoever between giving your running backs a lot of carries early in the game and winning the game. Just running the ball is not going to help a team score; it has to run successfully. In general, winning teams have a lot of carries because their running backs are running out the clock at the end of wins, not because they are running wild early in games.

A sister statement to "you have to establish the run" is "team X is 5-1 when running back John Doe runs for at least 100 yards." Unless John Doe is ripping off six-yard gains Chris Johnson-style, the team isn't winning because of his 100-yard games. He's putting up 100-yard games because his team is winning.

Link: http://footballoutsiders.com/info/FO-basics

 

I agree that the Football Outsiders aren't perfect. They're not the Football Gospel. However, I agree with their basic premise that winning teams end up running the ball to salt away victories, therefore causing their RBs to have more carries and more rushing yards.

 

Since 2005. Bettis and Parker combined for well over 300 carries and 1,800 yards. 2006, Joseph Addai and Dominic Rhodes combined for over 300 carries and 1,700 yards. 2007, Brandon Jacobs, Derrick Ward, and Ahmad Bradshaw combined for over 300 carries and 1,800 yards. 2008, Willie Parker and Mewelde Moore combined for over 300 carries and over 1,300 yards. 2009, Mike Bell, Reggie Bush, and Pierre Thomas combined for over 300 carries and 1,800 yards. 2010, John Kuhn, Brandon Jackson, and James Starks combined for just over 300 carries and just over 1,000 yards. What is with people buying the "passing league" mantra spouted by ESPN when clearly this is a Balanced league?

 

Only thing I'll add: a strong running game and defense dramatically increases your chances of making the playoffs, IMO. Padre's stats back that up. You need BOTH though. But, if you want to make it to the championship game, you need good QB play to get over that last hump. That's what has kept the JESTS out of the superbowl. Still, I'd take a couple of losses in AFC championship over what we've been wading through the past few seasons.

 

You even misunderstood my post. Winning teams have balanced teams. They can pass, run, play defence, and special teams.

 

I don't really understand your Panthers point. They went to one Superbowl in a year when Delhomme was amazing. The rest of the time they were a .500 team. I don't want to be a .500 team.

Our "home field advantage" was stolen by our idiot owner in an attempt to turn Joe Robbie Stadium into TMZ Stadium.

 

Our 1-15 year we rushed for over 1,500, but without a QB you don't win.

 

So you're not going to put that in the context of bad Defense and Special Teams? Cam Cameron could coach an offense, but that's it. At least try to use the whole picture when you frame bro. And that makes it seem as if you missed the last sentence of my post.

 

The passing league thing is something I've never understood. Just because some teams have found success throwing the ball doesn't make running the ball irrelevant. You know what happens when offenses shift to passing and are successful? You get defenses built to stop the pass. Why on earth you would want to play right into the defenses hands and shift to throwing is beyond me.

 

Exactly.

Almost everyone likes to tout the NFL as a "passing" league, but that's not entirely correct. Over the last decade (I prefer to look at a larger sample size than just the last 2-3 seasons) the teams with a good to great defense and a good to great running game have been more successful. In fact, if you look at ALL Super Bowl winning teams you would find that all but 2 or 3 had very good to great defenses and very good to great running games. On the other hand, there have been many below average to average QB's who have won ( or participated in) Super Bowls.

 

So your saying we had a QB????

Yes, the team was bad, but your making my point, running for over 300 carries and 1500 yards does not make you a winner, a good team, coaching, QB, special teams and defense makes you a winner, miss one of these and you will not win.

 

We handed the ball off to Williams and Brown 359 times last year, they rushed for 1400 yards, did we win?

I do agree we should have ran the ball more at times, but without a competent QB, you don't win.

Can Henne be that? Yes, but the door is closing fast

 

Anyone looking to give us more Wannyball should be dragged out into the street and shot, we suffered through the 'we don't need a Qb with talent to win, we can build a defense and run the ball' era, lets move on. Have we sunk so low that we are looking at 10 win seasons that go nowhere and salivating?

 

You speak as if 1000, or 1300 yards is a lot for 2 or 3 backs to combine for. If anything your posts demonstrates what a plug and play position RB has become. If you have an effective passing game, all you need is a warm body at RB. I exaggerate of course, but you get the point.

This isn't about temporary trends or blips in passing production. It's about money. Your average fan wants passing and lots of it and big name QBs in the superbowl. That's why the league will continue to create and enforce rules that favor the passing game. If anyone doesn't believe it's a passing league, take a look at passing yards since 2005. Used to be 3000 yards was a great year. Now the benchmark is 4,000.

 

Which would be valid if you completely ignore the yards that were obtained with their plug and play rb.

Like what rules?

 

And no QB, the last winning season we had Pennington.

Just handing the ball off to one back 300 times means nothing unless you have a QB that can keep the defense off the line of scrimmage, right now Henne has not shown he can do that.

And I like Henne

 

That's a fallacy. Our running game has not been effective because we have not had an effective passing game. It doesn't matter if you have 1 guy or 4 guys running the ball. If you can't move the ball through the air, they are still going to run straight into a brick wall. Predictable play calling has also crippled our running game.

 

The big one is enforcement of pass interference. It drastically changed after the 2005 playoffs when Polian cried about the Patriots. This is a known fact.

Newer rules in effect and under consideration include stricter rules about hitting the QB. Stricter enforcement regarding hits on QBs, and also the proposed rules being considered about defenseless receivers in the act of making a catch. All rules make the passing game easier, and make it much harder on defenses.

 

Let me guess...before the current coaching staff and any player currently on our roster were here?

 

How many superbowls did we win with Ricky running the ball 300+ times?

So you're saying there is something unique about our team? We're somehow different to the point where we don't need the franchise QB other teams seem to need to win the superbowl? And all this because we had some "winning" seasons a decade ago? Ok.

I'm not talking about correlation to wins and losses on individual games. I'm talking about the impact the officiating of pass interference since 2005 has had on the league overall. Passing has become easier, especially for effective QBs. Do you think it's any small wonder most of Marino's records fell after 2005? If you're unwilling to acknowledge this, then you simply aren't paying attention to what is a known fact in the NFL.