Top 3 you would keep...

Talking about commitment to the running game is the same as mentioning his name. It's bringing up the subject.

mschmidt64 said:

Talking about commitment to the running game is the same as mentioning his name. It's bringing up the subject.

Click to expand...

We were comparing years. Not coaches. You just immediately get defensive at the slightest sign of your BF getting insulted.

Ok. Well then please accept my apology for bringing up his name.

So your position is just that Murray would have run for 2000 yards with more carries behind Costa, Holland, Kosier and a rookie Tyron Smith?

There is nothing to suggest he wouldn't have carried his 5.5 YPC into more rushes, so who knows how many yards he would have ended up with. It would have been a helluva lot more than what he did.

mschmidt64 said:

Why don't you account for it? Emmitt Smith and the 90s OL was clearly a superior combination yet never duplicated this feat... why not?

It's a perfect storm of circumstance, that's why. There are a million factors that go into it.

In the ranking of those circumstances, OL improvement ranks ahead of Murrays play, however.

Click to expand...

I don't have to explain it. It's a historical recorded fact and it is accomplished by specific individuals. I don't know who is primarily responsible. You are the one who has determined it is a certain segment and I am asking how you have made that determination.

L.T. Fan said:

I don't have to explain it. It's a historical recorded fact and it is accomplished by specific individuals. I don't know who is primarily responsible.

Click to expand...

So you're not taking any position then. Good to know.

Good day sir.

mschmidt64 said:

So you're not taking any position then. Good to know.

Good day sir.

Click to expand...

But you are with no basis or reason why. Just wondering if it was an arbitrary determination and now I suppose it is.

Iamtdg said:

There is nothing to suggest he wouldn't have carried his 5.5 YPC into more rushes, so who knows how many yards he would have ended up with. It would have been a helluva lot more than what he did.

Click to expand...

There's plenty to suggest it. By featuring the run more in 2011, teams would have geared up to stop it within a matter of weeks, like they are doing this season. Only this season, our edge in OL talent is allowing us to continue to defeat teams committing to stopping the run. We are imposing our will.

There is zero percent chance we could have imposed our will on teams determined to stop the run back in 2011 like we do now. Costa Holland and Kosier would not have been capable of doing what Leary Frederick and Martin are now doing. We are beating teams who are committing to stopping the run as opposed to teams who are trying to stop the pass like in 2011.

L.T. Fan said:

But you are with no basis or reason why. Just wondering if it was an arbitrary determination and now I suppose it is.

Click to expand...

I have explained why. We've seen Murray play at a high level before without these results. We've not seen the OL play at this level, and now we get results.

Of course the playcalling has had an effect on reaching the sheer numbers, but the OL is the unit winning matchupa decisively every single week.

mschmidt64 said:

I have explained why. We've seen Murray play at a high level before without these results. We've not seen the OL play at this level, and now we get results.

Of course the playcalling has had an effect on reaching the sheer numbers, but the OL is the unit winning matchupa decisively every single week.

Click to expand...

That would be a good explanation if it were simply a matter of significant improvement but what is happening is unprecedented. If it continues it will have to be viewed differently.

mschmidt64 said:

So he'd have been able to keep up this pace running behind Kosier, Costa and Holland?

Hilarious.

Click to expand...

He'd be able to keep up this pace running with a chicken shit pass happy play caller with trust issues?

Hilarious.

Fact of the matter is, it was simply commitment.

Outside of Unger and oft-injured Okung, who have been the top shelf OL playing on Seattle's lines been over the last two-three years?

They simply decided this is what we will do. It was part of their philosophy. They trusted it and didn't have to spend a mint to break through and start doing that.

After reading this, I'm convinced. With one of the greatest OL in history, Emmitt Smith sucked.

If Murray had that line, he'd have 200 yards/game and 7.0 yards per carry

mschmidt64 said:

Who has ever tried to justify ignoring the run against the Packers or Lions?

Click to expand...

in your opinion, was the run/pass balance correct in the other games? or only in these two games?

it'd be odd to claim that we ran the right amount, but just went haywire wrong in a 2-game anomaly

boozeman said:

Outside of Unger and oft-injured Okung, who have been the top shelf OL playing on Seattle's lines been over the last two-three years?

They simply decided this is what we will do. It was part of their philosophy. They trusted it and didn't have to spend a mint to break through and start doing that.

Click to expand...

Yep. Lynch was a castoff from Buffalo. Running the ball is part of Seattle's identity.

Iamtdg said:

I thought this would make for some interesting discussion.

I keep R.McClain, Romo and Murray and not in that order.

Click to expand...

Romo, Bryant, Carr

There is enough credit to go around for the OL and Murray. If one is propped it does not minimize the other. Murray has shown to be productive, when healthy and given the chance, but he is definitely benefiting from a philosophy change and an outstanding OL. The best part of this is that some parts look interchangeable. Parnell came in and did a good job filling in for Free...still would rather have Free out there, but injuries are part of the game. Murray has not gotten hurt, but Randle has done well when given carries. I don't want to heap too much praise on either Murray or the OL...to me it is the scheme and philosophy that are winning out, the players are just executing it.

boozeman said:

He'd be able to keep up this pace running with a chicken shit pass happy play caller with trust issues?

Hilarious.

Fact of the matter is, it was simply commitment.

Outside of Unger and oft-injured Okung, who have been the top shelf OL playing on Seattle's lines been over the last two-three years?

They simply decided this is what we will do. It was part of their philosophy. They trusted it and didn't have to spend a mint to break through and start doing that.

Click to expand...

Also Garrett was 32nd in rushing attempts. That's inexcusable regardless of who your OL is.

boozeman said:

He'd be able to keep up this pace running with a chicken shit pass happy play caller with trust issues?

Click to expand...

You mean if we were only running 15 times a game? Of course not.

But that doesn't change the fact that you can't successfully run it 30 times a game behind Costa, Kosier and Holland. Not consistently.

Fact of the matter is, it was simply commitment.

Outside of Unger and oft-injured Okung, who have been the top shelf OL playing on Seattle's lines been over the last two-three years?

They simply decided this is what we will do. It was part of their philosophy. They trusted it and didn't have to spend a mint to break through and start doing that.

Click to expand...

No, it's not that simple. They "simply decided" this is what they'd start doing... once we had the personnel to simply actually do it.

The question to ask regarding Seattle isn't "who are their pro bowlers" but instead "who are their OLs who are better than Costa, Kosier and Holland" and the answer is "all of them." Seattle does not have the talent on OL we CURRENTLY have but they were never as devoid of talent as we were in 2011.

Not sure why we are hung up on Costa, Kosier, and Holland...none of them were on the roster last year and we did a terrible job sticking with the run. The OL was good enough to run behind last year...Martin makes it better, but it was still good. So yeah, they simply decided to run.

Carp said:

Not sure why we are hung up on Costa, Kosier, and Holland...none of them were on the roster last year and we did a terrible job sticking with the run. The OL was good enough to run behind last year...Martin makes it better, but it was still good. So yeah, they simply decided to run.

Click to expand...

Can't be much simpler than that. The fact that they kept Klutts and hired Linehan is essentially Prima Faca evidence of the decision.