Turn on Monday night football...

[Ethnicsands]

...so you can watch what happens to a zone/edge rushing attack that cannot go downhill when necessary. Houston looks spectacular when they're creating creases, but when they face a physical front or a bigtime interior DL (as teams typically do when they play big games), they have a huge vulnerability. This was also on display yesterday with the Philly Eagles. After watching Bryce Brown tear it up, they couldn't get to the edge yesterday - even out of the spread - and got mauled.

In other words, I hope Fisch's taking notes of how teams like New England and New Orleans mix and match their run schemes, rather than stay predicated on the more "all or nothing" zone attack.

We have a chance to do some very good things on offense next year. I anticipate Fisch will evolve. Hope to see it.

Uh, what you got on Washington dominating people with it?

Uh, try to actually watch their schemes. They have a different element in there. He's one the fastest and most explosive athletes on the field, and he happens to be eligible to throw the forward pass. He averages nearly 60 yards a game running. Without that element and those stats, they'd be much more inconsistent and rank near the bottom third of the league. Even so, watch when they run the pistol. You'll see them mix in some quick-hitting runs to offset teams' defenders scraping across their zone schemes.

Next time you come with an "uh," you may want to reconsider your comment altogether.

I'm with you on mixing it up, but I just watched my Giants get crushed by that zone blocking scheme twice and the Eagles did the same to us. There were plenty of other factors going on last night that had nothing to do with their blocking scheme.

The Broncos won two super bowls with it, so I'm inclined to say that the scheme is not the issue as much as it is personnel and not having alternative threats.

The Broncos won two Superbowls with it before defenses adjusted and WITH a HOF QB. It can be done, but it's not the type of rushing scheme that gets consistent enough results in the really tough games (the ones where defenses tend to be legit and contain serious interior linemen).

And a HOF TE. And an all pro RB who was headed towards the HOF before his career got cut short. And three all pro OL in '98. Plus McCaffrey and Rod Smith at WR.

And they were tough up the middle on D with Traylor, Romanowski, Atwater, plus mobley and n. smith.

That was a **** good team.

 

[jerzeycane]

Uh, what you got on Washington dominating people with it?

Uh, try to actually watch their schemes. They have a different element in there. He's one the fastest and most explosive athletes on the field, and he happens to be eligible to throw the forward pass. He averages nearly 60 yards a game running. Without that element and those stats, they'd be much more inconsistent and rank near the bottom third of the league. Even so, watch when they run the pistol. You'll see them mix in some quick-hitting runs to offset teams' defenders scraping across their zone schemes.

Next time you come with an "uh," you may want to reconsider your comment altogether.

I'm with you on mixing it up, but I just watched my Giants get crushed by that zone blocking scheme twice and the Eagles did the same to us. There were plenty of other factors going on last night that had nothing to do with their blocking scheme.

The Broncos won two super bowls with it, so I'm inclined to say that the scheme is not the issue as much as it is personnel and not having alternative threats.

The Broncos won two Superbowls with it before defenses adjusted and WITH a HOF QB. It can be done, but it's not the type of rushing scheme that gets consistent enough results in the really tough games (the ones where defenses tend to be legit and contain serious interior linemen).

And a HOF TE. And an all pro RB who was headed towards the HOF before his career got cut short. And three all pro OL in '98. Plus McCaffrey and Rod Smith at WR.

And they were tough up the middle on D with Traylor, Romanowski, Atwater, plus mobley and n. smith.

That was a **** good team.

You're kind of making my point, that it's always more about personnel than scheme

We can talk about scheme the livelong day, but the fact is that I can only remember 2 teams who stole Super Bowls with a coaching schematic. Jets in '69 and the Giants in '90. Neither one of those teams had overwhelming personnel advantages, but on every other Super Bowl team, there's a unit on the team that is "All-Time" good. Whether it be the Giants Defensive Line, the Ravens defense as a whole, the Packers QB's, or the Rams Offense.

Jim's and Joes not x's and o's

 

[weownfsu]

We used to have this discussion on grassy a lot, but it's not really about whether this ONE team won doing this, etc. What gives UM the highest chance of success? What mitigates the chances of a QB having an off game and ups your chances of winning when it inevitably happens? What makes things easiest on our athletes? The answer to all of that is that being able to consistently run the ball and grind out yards. In the next year or two we are going to have a beastly team that will lose a game they shouldn't if we don't change our offensive style. If Henderson comes back 4/5 of our OL starters will be drafted, but we'll still be a soft offense if we don't change. Soft offenses don't win ****.

 

[TallyCane]

Brandon Harris was getting toasted out there all night. I felt bad for him

 

[jerzeycane]

We used to have this discussion on grassy a lot, but it's not really about whether this ONE team won doing this, etc. What gives UM the highest chance of success? What mitigates the chances of a QB having an off game and ups your chances of winning when it inevitably happens? What makes things easiest on our athletes? The answer to all of that is that being able to consistently run the ball and grind out yards. In the next year or two we are going to have a beastly team that will lose a game they shouldn't if we don't change our offensive style. If Henderson comes back 4/5 of our OL starters will be drafted, but we'll still be a soft offense if we don't change. Soft offenses don't win ****.

What would you classify as a "soft" offense? Do the Rams qualify? Do the Giants of last year qualify? Because I for **** sure don't remember the Giants doing ANY type of consistent running in the Super Bowl run last season. Do the Packers qualify as a "soft" offense because they ran for 50 yards in the Super Bowl?

 

[LuCane]

We used to have this discussion on grassy a lot, but it's not really about whether this ONE team won doing this, etc. What gives UM the highest chance of success? What mitigates the chances of a QB having an off game and ups your chances of winning when it inevitably happens? What makes things easiest on our athletes? The answer to all of that is that being able to consistently run the ball and grind out yards. In the next year or two we are going to have a beastly team that will lose a game they shouldn't if we don't change our offensive style. If Henderson comes back 4/5 of our OL starters will be drafted, but we'll still be a soft offense if we don't change. Soft offenses don't win ****.

Great post. Your first three sentences/questions are the crux of the argument. This is a discussion over preferences:

(1) Do we prefer to look explosive for ~9 games and then risk struggling against top tier defenses for ~2-3 games

or

(2) Do we prefer to put ourselves in the best position possible for those big, tough games.

If we intend to compete for ACC and National Championships, there is no question in my mind we have to overlook anything that doesn't apply to the games that count (the big games, against presumably tough defenses).

 

[jerzeycane]

Uh, try to actually watch their schemes. They have a different element in there. He's one the fastest and most explosive athletes on the field, and he happens to be eligible to throw the forward pass. He averages nearly 60 yards a game running. Without that element and those stats, they'd be much more inconsistent and rank near the bottom third of the league. Even so, watch when they run the pistol. You'll see them mix in some quick-hitting runs to offset teams' defenders scraping across their zone schemes.

Next time you come with an "uh," you may want to reconsider your comment altogether.

I'm with you on mixing it up, but I just watched my Giants get crushed by that zone blocking scheme twice and the Eagles did the same to us. There were plenty of other factors going on last night that had nothing to do with their blocking scheme.

The Broncos won two super bowls with it, so I'm inclined to say that the scheme is not the issue as much as it is personnel and not having alternative threats.

The Broncos won two Superbowls with it before defenses adjusted and WITH a HOF QB. It can be done, but it's not the type of rushing scheme that gets consistent enough results in the really tough games (the ones where defenses tend to be legit and contain serious interior linemen).

Lu, don't take this as me being snarky because it's a real question...you been a coach somewhere during your life?

Yes, though nothing and nowhere where you'd be impressed. And, if not for other reasons, as most people who were over on Canestime Premium know, I legitimately considered dropping out of law school and being "that" guy (the one who eats **** for approximately 8 years before getting any kind of opportunity). I sat in an office at the Hecht center and just couldn't make the decision to climb any kind of football ladder without any special "in" or playing background.

None of that gives me special insight into the game or anything. I just prefer to discuss the technical side of football and have been obsessed with it since I was a kid. There are plenty of guys on this board and others that have a fantastic understanding and can offer up better substance than I. For example, if you come across a post made by Dynasty, read it and breathe it in. Gogeta is another guy who has some exceptional insights, especially along the trenches. The list goes on.

No, no, I just feel like that's where we differ on the game because I feel like you definitely come at it from a coach's perspective. I feel you lol.

I played football for one year as a kid, so when you're on the outside looking, you're more likely to make it about the players and personnel as opposed to guys who have lived IN the game for their whole lives, who make it about coaching and scheme. There are nothing new or earth shattering about our differences lol

 

[weownfsu]

We used to have this discussion on grassy a lot, but it's not really about whether this ONE team won doing this, etc. What gives UM the highest chance of success? What mitigates the chances of a QB having an off game and ups your chances of winning when it inevitably happens? What makes things easiest on our athletes? The answer to all of that is that being able to consistently run the ball and grind out yards. In the next year or two we are going to have a beastly team that will lose a game they shouldn't if we don't change our offensive style. If Henderson comes back 4/5 of our OL starters will be drafted, but we'll still be a soft offense if we don't change. Soft offenses don't win ****.

What would you classify as a "soft" offense? Do the Rams qualify? Do the Giants of last year qualify? Because I for **** sure don't remember the Giants doing ANY type of consistent running in the Super Bowl run last season. Do the Packers qualify as a "soft" offense because they ran for 50 yards in the Super Bowl?

You're missing the point. What happens when our QB struggles? Should we need a Kurt Warner, Eli Manning, etc. to win? In the NFL, you can get a QB who goes on a roll in the playoffs. And, it's not really about how many yards you ran for, but are you capable of getting the tough yards? All those teams you listed were...but right now Miami really isn't. In college football, you can presume that if you lose more than one game, you're out. Being able to consistently run the ball, especially against the better teams, puts the rest of the team in the best position to win every game AND allows QB's who aren't quite future HOFers to do well. It makes the game easier for everybody. This isn't the NFL where you can slip up. You can't slip up in college. You've got to be able to run the ball because your QB is going to have a bad game and being able to run the ball has is the difference in the games where not everything is going your way. Your defense isn't playing well? Okay, keep them off the field. Your WR's can't get open? Okay, get them open with play action. Your QB isn't playing well? Okay, keep the ball out of his hands. Being able to consistently run the ball puts EVERYBODY in a better positon and makes things easier, and lessens the chances of disaster when things aren'tgoing well for the rest of the team. It also allows you to win more games when your QB isn't that good.

My main point is why make it harder on yourself?

 

[OMG618]

Good conversation/thread.

 

[jerzeycane]

We used to have this discussion on grassy a lot, but it's not really about whether this ONE team won doing this, etc. What gives UM the highest chance of success? What mitigates the chances of a QB having an off game and ups your chances of winning when it inevitably happens? What makes things easiest on our athletes? The answer to all of that is that being able to consistently run the ball and grind out yards. In the next year or two we are going to have a beastly team that will lose a game they shouldn't if we don't change our offensive style. If Henderson comes back 4/5 of our OL starters will be drafted, but we'll still be a soft offense if we don't change. Soft offenses don't win ****.

What would you classify as a "soft" offense? Do the Rams qualify? Do the Giants of last year qualify? Because I for **** sure don't remember the Giants doing ANY type of consistent running in the Super Bowl run last season. Do the Packers qualify as a "soft" offense because they ran for 50 yards in the Super Bowl?

You're missing the point. What happens when our QB struggles? Should we need a Kurt Warner, Eli Manning, etc. to win? In the NFL, you can get a QB who goes on a roll in the playoffs. And, it's not really about how many yards you ran for, but are you capable of getting the tough yards? All those teams you listed were...but right now Miami really isn't. In college football, you can presume that if you lose more than one game, you're out. Being able to consistently run the ball, especially against the better teams, puts the rest of the team in the best position to win every game AND allows QB's who aren't quite future HOFers to do well. It makes the game easier for everybody. This isn't the NFL where you can slip up. You can't slip up in college. You've got to be able to run the ball because your QB is going to have a bad game and being able to run the ball has is the difference in the games where not everything is going your way. Your defense isn't playing well? Okay, keep them off the field. Your WR's can't get open? Okay, get them open with play action. Your QB isn't playing well? Okay, keep the ball out of his hands. Being able to consistently run the ball puts EVERYBODY in a better positon and makes things easier, and lessens the chances of disaster when things aren'tgoing well for the rest of the team. It also allows you to win more games when your QB isn't that good.

My main point is why make it harder on yourself?

Because we are one of the few teams in College Football who can actually recruit a really good QB and then teach him how to play the QB position very well. I'm not interested in giving the QB a crutch. He has to pull his weight just as much as anyone else and the advantages to having a QB that can execute at a high level are numerous. Don't want to see us play like 'Bama and the QB is what has always separated us from most colleges. Gino, Walsh, Bernie, Kelly, Erickson, and Dorsey are as much apart of turning us into THE U as anyone else.

Yes, I'm a believer in balance, but when the QB has a bad day, it's time for the defense to step up and get stops.

 

[sebastian91]

That game last night, was more about Andre Johnson not being Andre Johnson no more and them not having anyone else who could threaten the Patriots secondary.

I didn't see it that way at all. Houston couldn't get Foster rolling early, Shaub throws a bad pick, and the Houston defense was awful for the first half. The game was over mid-way through the 2nd Q. The Pats were able to rush Shaub and take AJ out of the game because they knew Houston had to throw almost every down to try to get back in the game. 80+ catches for 1200+ yards already, but AJ isn't AJ anymore? Um, ok.

Stats can manipulated bro...Andre Johnson is not the same guy. Doesn't have the same explosion. He's either hurt or feeling the affects of age, but he's not that guy from a couple of years ago who was right with Fitzgerald as the best in the game.

It's not a precipitous decline either, just noticeable.

How do you manipulate # of catches and receiving yards??? AJ catches ball, gains yards. They get added up. Of course he's gotten older, and of course he's lost a step. Everyone does. Yet, he's having one of his best seasons and remains pretty much the classiest guy in the whole **** league.

As the poster above said, that game was about Big Vince a lot more than it was about AJ. It's hard to throw and catch when your opponent knows you're going to do it on every play.

Physically Andre Johnson is not the same. Jerry Rice was still catching tons of balls later in his career but don't tell me he was the same guy. Production and Skill Set are not "1+1=2"

Jerry Rice was not and AJ is not the same receiver they were when they entered the league. That's not even up for debate. Steve Largent wasn't either. Good receivers get better and smarter to compensate for their physical aging, and AJ has clearly done that. I have no clue how this went from the Texans losing because AJ is not AJ anymore to the BS you're tossing around, but AJ's team is 11-2, he's one of the top 5 receivers in the league in terms of productivity, and he's been a huge reason for his team's success. To try to argue that he's not a big reason for that would be foolish.

 

[jerzeycane]

I didn't see it that way at all. Houston couldn't get Foster rolling early, Shaub throws a bad pick, and the Houston defense was awful for the first half. The game was over mid-way through the 2nd Q. The Pats were able to rush Shaub and take AJ out of the game because they knew Houston had to throw almost every down to try to get back in the game. 80+ catches for 1200+ yards already, but AJ isn't AJ anymore? Um, ok.

Stats can manipulated bro...Andre Johnson is not the same guy. Doesn't have the same explosion. He's either hurt or feeling the affects of age, but he's not that guy from a couple of years ago who was right with Fitzgerald as the best in the game.

It's not a precipitous decline either, just noticeable.

How do you manipulate # of catches and receiving yards??? AJ catches ball, gains yards. They get added up. Of course he's gotten older, and of course he's lost a step. Everyone does. Yet, he's having one of his best seasons and remains pretty much the classiest guy in the whole **** league.

As the poster above said, that game was about Big Vince a lot more than it was about AJ. It's hard to throw and catch when your opponent knows you're going to do it on every play.

Physically Andre Johnson is not the same. Jerry Rice was still catching tons of balls later in his career but don't tell me he was the same guy. Production and Skill Set are not "1+1=2"

Jerry Rice was not and AJ is not the same receiver they were when they entered the league. That's not even up for debate. Steve Largent wasn't either. Good receivers get better and smarter to compensate for their physical aging, and AJ has clearly done that. I have no clue how this went from the Texans losing because AJ is not AJ anymore to the BS you're tossing around, but AJ's team is 11-2, he's one of the top 5 receivers in the league in terms of productivity, and he's been a huge reason for his team's success. To try to argue that he's not a big reason for that would be foolish.

Because those physical shortcomings tend to show up against stiffer competition. You can by on guile when you are playing against dumb guys who are average, but when you play average athletes who are smart, it gets harder, and that's not to account for very good athletes who are smart. They were singling AJ up last night and I've never seen that from any team besides the Jets.

 

[sebastian91]

Stats can manipulated bro...Andre Johnson is not the same guy. Doesn't have the same explosion. He's either hurt or feeling the affects of age, but he's not that guy from a couple of years ago who was right with Fitzgerald as the best in the game.

It's not a precipitous decline either, just noticeable.

How do you manipulate # of catches and receiving yards??? AJ catches ball, gains yards. They get added up. Of course he's gotten older, and of course he's lost a step. Everyone does. Yet, he's having one of his best seasons and remains pretty much the classiest guy in the whole **** league.

As the poster above said, that game was about Big Vince a lot more than it was about AJ. It's hard to throw and catch when your opponent knows you're going to do it on every play.

Physically Andre Johnson is not the same. Jerry Rice was still catching tons of balls later in his career but don't tell me he was the same guy. Production and Skill Set are not "1+1=2"

Jerry Rice was not and AJ is not the same receiver they were when they entered the league. That's not even up for debate. Steve Largent wasn't either. Good receivers get better and smarter to compensate for their physical aging, and AJ has clearly done that. I have no clue how this went from the Texans losing because AJ is not AJ anymore to the BS you're tossing around, but AJ's team is 11-2, he's one of the top 5 receivers in the league in terms of productivity, and he's been a huge reason for his team's success. To try to argue that he's not a big reason for that would be foolish.

Because those physical shortcomings tend to show up against stiffer competition. You can by on guile when you are playing against dumb guys who are average, but when you play average athletes who are smart, it gets harder, and that's not to account for very good athletes who are smart. They were singling AJ up last night and I've never seen that from any team besides the Jets.

8 catches for 95 yards. The Pats hardly shut him down, despite trying very hard to and knowing that the Texans had to throw on pretty much every play for 3 quarters of the game.

Your argument isn't holding up. ****, I don't even know what you're arguing anymore. You're making as much sense as DBC.

AJ is a different receiver now than he was when he got to the league --- that's indisputable, but it could be argued that he's just as good (in other ways, such that it hasn't affected his productivity).

The Texans ran for 100 yards last night, and the vast majority of that was by Tate in garbage time. That is the biggest reason why the Texans lost. Foster was ineffective, and the Texans defense sucked. It had zero to do with AJ and his physical shortcomings. ****'s making me laugh.

 

[DeadPoets]

The game last night was about VINCE WILFORK. He never gets enough love. He just Dominated and shut down any attempt at Houston running plays near him. No one could block him.

That's what our team is missing.

...along with 31 other NFL teams

 

[weownfsu]

We used to have this discussion on grassy a lot, but it's not really about whether this ONE team won doing this, etc. What gives UM the highest chance of success? What mitigates the chances of a QB having an off game and ups your chances of winning when it inevitably happens? What makes things easiest on our athletes? The answer to all of that is that being able to consistently run the ball and grind out yards. In the next year or two we are going to have a beastly team that will lose a game they shouldn't if we don't change our offensive style. If Henderson comes back 4/5 of our OL starters will be drafted, but we'll still be a soft offense if we don't change. Soft offenses don't win ****.

What would you classify as a "soft" offense? Do the Rams qualify? Do the Giants of last year qualify? Because I for **** sure don't remember the Giants doing ANY type of consistent running in the Super Bowl run last season. Do the Packers qualify as a "soft" offense because they ran for 50 yards in the Super Bowl?

You're missing the point. What happens when our QB struggles? Should we need a Kurt Warner, Eli Manning, etc. to win? In the NFL, you can get a QB who goes on a roll in the playoffs. And, it's not really about how many yards you ran for, but are you capable of getting the tough yards? All those teams you listed were...but right now Miami really isn't. In college football, you can presume that if you lose more than one game, you're out. Being able to consistently run the ball, especially against the better teams, puts the rest of the team in the best position to win every game AND allows QB's who aren't quite future HOFers to do well. It makes the game easier for everybody. This isn't the NFL where you can slip up. You can't slip up in college. You've got to be able to run the ball because your QB is going to have a bad game and being able to run the ball has is the difference in the games where not everything is going your way. Your defense isn't playing well? Okay, keep them off the field. Your WR's can't get open? Okay, get them open with play action. Your QB isn't playing well? Okay, keep the ball out of his hands. Being able to consistently run the ball puts EVERYBODY in a better positon and makes things easier, and lessens the chances of disaster when things aren'tgoing well for the rest of the team. It also allows you to win more games when your QB isn't that good.

My main point is why make it harder on yourself?

Because we are one of the few teams in College Football who can actually recruit a really good QB and then teach him how to play the QB position very well. I'm not interested in giving the QB a crutch. He has to pull his weight just as much as anyone else and the advantages to having a QB that can execute at a high level are numerous. Don't want to see us play like 'Bama and the QB is what has always separated us from most colleges. Gino, Walsh, Bernie, Kelly, Erickson, and Dorsey are as much apart of turning us into THE U as anyone else.

Yes, I'm a believer in balance, but when the QB has a bad day, it's time for the defense to step up and get stops.

We have been one of those few teams because we've always made it easy for our QB's. We've always been able to run the ball, use play action, and free our WR's and TE's up and get easy throws for our QB's. We've never asked them to throw 40-50 times a game before. We've always had good QB's because we've put them in great positions. And when our QB's inevitably have bad games, our teams have been able to bail them out because we could consistently run the ball.

 

[jerzeycane]

We used to have this discussion on grassy a lot, but it's not really about whether this ONE team won doing this, etc. What gives UM the highest chance of success? What mitigates the chances of a QB having an off game and ups your chances of winning when it inevitably happens? What makes things easiest on our athletes? The answer to all of that is that being able to consistently run the ball and grind out yards. In the next year or two we are going to have a beastly team that will lose a game they shouldn't if we don't change our offensive style. If Henderson comes back 4/5 of our OL starters will be drafted, but we'll still be a soft offense if we don't change. Soft offenses don't win ****.

What would you classify as a "soft" offense? Do the Rams qualify? Do the Giants of last year qualify? Because I for **** sure don't remember the Giants doing ANY type of consistent running in the Super Bowl run last season. Do the Packers qualify as a "soft" offense because they ran for 50 yards in the Super Bowl?

You're missing the point. What happens when our QB struggles? Should we need a Kurt Warner, Eli Manning, etc. to win? In the NFL, you can get a QB who goes on a roll in the playoffs. And, it's not really about how many yards you ran for, but are you capable of getting the tough yards? All those teams you listed were...but right now Miami really isn't. In college football, you can presume that if you lose more than one game, you're out. Being able to consistently run the ball, especially against the better teams, puts the rest of the team in the best position to win every game AND allows QB's who aren't quite future HOFers to do well. It makes the game easier for everybody. This isn't the NFL where you can slip up. You can't slip up in college. You've got to be able to run the ball because your QB is going to have a bad game and being able to run the ball has is the difference in the games where not everything is going your way. Your defense isn't playing well? Okay, keep them off the field. Your WR's can't get open? Okay, get them open with play action. Your QB isn't playing well? Okay, keep the ball out of his hands. Being able to consistently run the ball puts EVERYBODY in a better positon and makes things easier, and lessens the chances of disaster when things aren'tgoing well for the rest of the team. It also allows you to win more games when your QB isn't that good.

My main point is why make it harder on yourself?

Because we are one of the few teams in College Football who can actually recruit a really good QB and then teach him how to play the QB position very well. I'm not interested in giving the QB a crutch. He has to pull his weight just as much as anyone else and the advantages to having a QB that can execute at a high level are numerous. Don't want to see us play like 'Bama and the QB is what has always separated us from most colleges. Gino, Walsh, Bernie, Kelly, Erickson, and Dorsey are as much apart of turning us into THE U as anyone else.

Yes, I'm a believer in balance, but when the QB has a bad day, it's time for the defense to step up and get stops.

We have been one of those few teams because we've always made it easy for our QB's. We've always been able to run the ball, use play action, and free our WR's and TE's up and get easy throws for our QB's. We've never asked them to throw 40-50 times a game before. We've always had good QB's because we've put them in great positions. And when our QB's inevitably have bad games, our teams have been able to bail them out because we could consistently run the ball.

We didn't throw the ball 40-50 times as much as you may think this year.

 

[weownfsu]

What would you classify as a "soft" offense? Do the Rams qualify? Do the Giants of last year qualify? Because I for **** sure don't remember the Giants doing ANY type of consistent running in the Super Bowl run last season. Do the Packers qualify as a "soft" offense because they ran for 50 yards in the Super Bowl?

You're missing the point. What happens when our QB struggles? Should we need a Kurt Warner, Eli Manning, etc. to win? In the NFL, you can get a QB who goes on a roll in the playoffs. And, it's not really about how many yards you ran for, but are you capable of getting the tough yards? All those teams you listed were...but right now Miami really isn't. In college football, you can presume that if you lose more than one game, you're out. Being able to consistently run the ball, especially against the better teams, puts the rest of the team in the best position to win every game AND allows QB's who aren't quite future HOFers to do well. It makes the game easier for everybody. This isn't the NFL where you can slip up. You can't slip up in college. You've got to be able to run the ball because your QB is going to have a bad game and being able to run the ball has is the difference in the games where not everything is going your way. Your defense isn't playing well? Okay, keep them off the field. Your WR's can't get open? Okay, get them open with play action. Your QB isn't playing well? Okay, keep the ball out of his hands. Being able to consistently run the ball puts EVERYBODY in a better positon and makes things easier, and lessens the chances of disaster when things aren'tgoing well for the rest of the team. It also allows you to win more games when your QB isn't that good.

My main point is why make it harder on yourself?

Because we are one of the few teams in College Football who can actually recruit a really good QB and then teach him how to play the QB position very well. I'm not interested in giving the QB a crutch. He has to pull his weight just as much as anyone else and the advantages to having a QB that can execute at a high level are numerous. Don't want to see us play like 'Bama and the QB is what has always separated us from most colleges. Gino, Walsh, Bernie, Kelly, Erickson, and Dorsey are as much apart of turning us into THE U as anyone else.

Yes, I'm a believer in balance, but when the QB has a bad day, it's time for the defense to step up and get stops.

We have been one of those few teams because we've always made it easy for our QB's. We've always been able to run the ball, use play action, and free our WR's and TE's up and get easy throws for our QB's. We've never asked them to throw 40-50 times a game before. We've always had good QB's because we've put them in great positions. And when our QB's inevitably have bad games, our teams have been able to bail them out because we could consistently run the ball.

We didn't throw the ball 40-50 times as much as you may think this year.

Uh, okay.