Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:You're the one who was confused, so I should re-read the exchange?
Originally posted by 8to80:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:LOL. I said "I really believe we would have won if we stuck to a 50/50 run/pass offense". I'm sorry, but if you need "complementary elaboration" on that statement, then perhaps you need to read what NFL football is. I honesty don't think anyone misunderstood me except you. No offense, I'm just telling it how I see it.
Originally posted by 8to80:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:I didn't think I had to make it any clearer. I mean, it's pretty much football 101.
Originally posted by 8to80:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by 8to80:
To be honest, I really believe we would have won if we stuck to a 50/50 run/pass offense. Jim and Greg somehow decided that our O-line was like the Colts's, and that Alex was like Rodgers or Brady.
I disagree. Frank Gore was doing nothing and this is the Ravens run defense we're talking about here. We just got outplayed. I don't think it matters what they could have done.
You missed my point. 50/50 not because Gore/Hunter would break long runs for TDs. 50/50 for balanced attack so their defense couldn't play purely vs pass. We beat the Bengals who have a better run-defense, and in that game we were much closer to 50/50. BTW, in that game, we only rushed for 50 yards.
Then you should have made your original point clearer with the views that you just mentioned.
Yes, your one sentence point with no complementary elaboration is football 101.
You should re-read the entire exchange.
Offtopic, but are you the only person in Australia who watches NFL? I didn't even know they broadcasted it there.