Anybody hear Ron Mexico on SportsCenter?

Hey, I ain't sparring with anyone. He knows how to PM me if he has any beef with me. He also knows where Rant n Rave is.

 

Last half of 2004: 26.0 Carries Per Game
2005-------------25.0 Carries Per Game


Much more?

 

Strike that, you're correct. We didn't run it much more last season. In fact, we've run quite a lot in most games this year.

 

Perhaps I could use a little clarification myself.

Were you saying that we were running the ball more in relation to the first half of 2004, or more in relation to this season.

If your argument was that we were running the ball much more in the last half of 2004 that we are in 2005, it is flawed. However, if you meant to say that we were running the ball more in the second half of 2004 than in the first half of 2004, then yes, obviously. But I still don't understand what point that would prove. We ran the ball more effectively down the stretch in 2004 than we did in the first half of 2004, or the entire 2005 season (minus the New Orleans game.)

The reason we ran more in the last half of 2004 is that we were running more effectively. We were not even scratching the surface of 3.0 early in the year. I recall us running the ball well against San Diego and Philly, but not effectively enough late in the game.

 

No, because we weren't running it effectively at all. Goings' ypc average was pathetic, contrary to what you initially claimed, but it was better than what Stephen Davis has managed so far (although not better than Foster's 2005 ypc). The point was that we don't necessarily have to get the 4, 5, or 6 yards consistently, although we all would obviously love it if we could. What we have to do is to keep possession and get first downs, which is something we clearly didn't do against Chicago.

 

My whole point to begin with is that, however you want to slice it, this team was having much more success gaining 4, 5, or even 6 yards on a running play than they have been this season.

It isn't happening, and like you said, it matters none who we play. Reasonably, running well against Buffalo should be expected. But hell, we could not run against the Jets, or the Vikes, so why will it change now.

 

Except that we didn't get 4, 5, or 6 yards on that many carries with Goings either. That was my point in correcting you. Our running game last year was awful, but this year it has been so bad as to be ridiculous.

 

I am not saying that it was like Goings was ripping off 6 YPC on every touch. But it was happening more back then, in contrast to right now.

He did average 5.3 a pop against SFO, although he only had 8 carries. In terms of his longest runs, in the last half of 2004, his "longs" per game were as follows:

11
57
28
19
16
8
18
11

I am assuming that is on par with where we are this year with 48/26. Still, IMO, we should be eclipsing production from 2004, given health of our backs and the upgrade at LG.

 

Well there's no question that we should be better, but I also think that we overestimated the impact of Wahle. He is the only guy we changed, right? Reyes is still a weak link, Wharton is more exposed at LT than he was at LG, Gross has never been a bull, and Mitchell has obviously lost a lot by getting off the juice. Throw in the fact that Davis looks like a shell of his former self and it's really not much of a surprise that we're still bad (although it's surprising that we're even worse).

 

Personally, I think Henning/Fox are over-employing Davis. People can say what they will, but he has been a touchdown machine inside the 5. That's where he is of greatest value to this team.

I am not saying that Foster is on par with the best backs in the NFL. But I willl say that it has been disappointing to me that Foster is not getting 20 carries a game right now. I mean, at what point to do you finally give a second-round back a chance to show what he can do.