We were comparing years. Not coaches. You just immediately get defensive at the slightest sign of your BF getting insulted.Talking about commitment to the running game is the same as mentioning his name. It's bringing up the subject.
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.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.
So you're not taking any position then. Good to know.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.
But you are with no basis or reason why. Just wondering if it was an arbitrary determination and now I suppose it is.So you're not taking any position then. Good to know.
Good day sir.
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 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.
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.But you are with no basis or reason why. Just wondering if it was an arbitrary determination and now I suppose it is.
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.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.
He'd be able to keep up this pace running with a chicken shit pass happy play caller with trust issues?So he'd have been able to keep up this pace running behind Kosier, Costa and Holland?
Hilarious.
in your opinion, was the run/pass balance correct in the other games? or only in these two games?Who has ever tried to justify ignoring the run against the Packers or Lions?
Yep. Lynch was a castoff from Buffalo. Running the ball is part of Seattle's identity.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.
Romo, Bryant, CarrI thought this would make for some interesting discussion.
I keep R.McClain, Romo and Murray and not in that order.
Also Garrett was 32nd in rushing attempts. That's inexcusable regardless of who your OL is.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.
You mean if we were only running 15 times a game? Of course not.He'd be able to keep up this pace running with a chicken shit pass happy play caller with trust issues?
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.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.
Can't be much simpler than that. The fact that they kept Klutts and hired Linehan is essentially Prima Faca evidence of the decision.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.