January 9, 201016 yr I heard Bama and the Gators are co-favs to win the 2011 Superbowl. Of course the SEC is petitioning the NFL to make sure the game is being played in an SEC city.
January 9, 201016 yr Heaven forbid a conference trying to be efficient in running the ball and playing defense. Do you like the NFL? Not the same amount of talent but it's a similar style of game IMO. The NFL is not that type of league anymore. With the defensive rule changes its a pass first league now. 8 out of the top 10 passing teams are in the playoffs, only 5 out of the top 10 rushing teams are in. Also, only 6 of the top 10 (by yardage) defensive teams are in the playoffs. Its been that way for a few seasons now.
January 9, 201016 yr The NFL is not that type of league anymore. With the defensive rule changes its a pass first league now. 8 out of the top 10 passing teams are in the playoffs, only 5 out of the top 10 rushing teams are in. Also, only 6 of the top 10 (by yardage) defensive teams are in the playoffs. Its been that way for a few seasons now. True, but what team has won the Super Bowl and not had at least an adequate run game? You have to have it in the playoffs IMO. Arizona got there last year without it, but just about everyone else has been able to move the ball on the ground when need be. Even the "Greatest Show on Turf" had a good running game IMO.
January 9, 201016 yr I don't know if the Big 10 ever left. They were always good well coached football teams. I always thought the big diffrence in the Big 10 and some of the other confrences was speed. The Big 10 seemed to lack it across the board. That does not seem to be the case anymore. I think the Big 10 has started to get more speed and it showed in this years bowl games. Future looks good for the Big 10 imo.
January 9, 201016 yr True, but what team has won the Super Bowl and not had at least an adequate run game? You have to have it in the playoffs IMO. Arizona got there last year without it, but just about everyone else has been able to move the ball on the ground when need be. Even the "Greatest Show on Turf" had a good running game IMO. Again, simply not true. Last year's Steelers were 23rd in rushing (17th in passing), the 2007 Giants were 4th (21st in passing), the 2006 Colts were 18th (2nd in passing), the 2005 Steelers were 5th (24th in passing), the 2004 Patriots were 7th (11th in passing), the 2003 Patriots were 27th (9th in passing).
January 9, 201016 yr Again, simply not true. Last year's Steelers were 23rd in rushing (17th in passing), the 2007 Giants were 4th (21st in passing), the 2006 Colts were 18th (2nd in passing), the 2005 Steelers were 5th (24th in passing), the 2004 Patriots were 7th (11th in passing), the 2003 Patriots were 27th (9th in passing). Stats don't show the ability to be able to run the ball. I'm sorry but NFL playoff football is won with the ability to run the ball and defense. I don't care where the teams rank, all champions the last few years have been able to run when needed. You need to be able to do those things when needed. Almost 100% necessary to be able to do it IMO. Teams can win in the regular season doing just about anything if the talent is there.
January 9, 201016 yr Also the teams not mentioned by you with great running games had dynamite defenses, except for maybe the Colts. AND the Steelers, Colts, and Pats were able to stop the run. It's not rocket science. Stats are stats, who cares? The Patriots team that sets all kinds of records really worked out well didn't it?
January 9, 201016 yr Also the teams not mentioned by you with great running games had dynamite defenses, except for maybe the Colts. AND the Steelers, Colts, and Pats were able to stop the run. It's not rocket science. Stats are stats, who cares? The Patriots team that sets all kinds of records really worked out well didn't it? I've not said anything about defenses being important. They're very important. However, asked when a team had last won the Super Bowl with a subpar running game. It happened just last year when Pittsburgh won the Super Bowl with a very poor running game. Believe what you want but with the rules in place to protect receivers and quarterbacks the majority of playoff teams are among the better passing teams in the league. Sure, in a Super Bowl either team can win in a one game scenario--this is the NFL after all. The 16 game grind of the regular season shows how good a team is. Maybe the best regular season team doesn't always win in the playoffs but its very rare that a bad team gets into the playoffs. The numbers bear it out that you have a better chance of getting into the playoffs if you have a potent passing attack.
January 9, 201016 yr I've not said anything about defenses being important. They're very important. However, asked when a team had last won the Super Bowl with a subpar running game. It happened just last year when Pittsburgh won the Super Bowl with a very poor running game. Believe what you want but with the rules in place to protect receivers and quarterbacks the majority of playoff teams are among the better passing teams in the league. Sure, in a Super Bowl either team can win in a one game scenario--this is the NFL after all. The 16 game grind of the regular season shows how good a team is. Maybe the best regular season team doesn't always win in the playoffs but its very rare that a bad team gets into the playoffs. The numbers bear it out that you have a better chance of getting into the playoffs if you have a potent passing attack. I don't buy that. Sure a potent passing attack helps, but to get into the playoffs you have to have more. You don't have to have a great running game, only adequate to make a run. But you have to be able to do it some. Stats are stats like I said, they don't tell the whole story. Running the ball and stopping the run are the easiest ways to have a good team IMO. I think it's like that at every level. Just because teams pass more doesn't mean they don't care about running the ball at all. I see your point but IMO it's off base. A team that can run the ball always has a chance. Teams that rely on the pass get shut down a little easier. I think the formula for success is being able to be balanced, at least to the point to where you can pass, can run, and can defend both. Need to be pretty good at at least 3 of those 4 things to make a run in most years IMO. The Pats team that lost the Super Bowl was the exception to that IMO, and not the rule.
January 9, 201016 yr I don't buy that. Sure a potent passing attack helps, but to get into the playoffs you have to have more. You don't have to have a great running game, only adequate to make a run. But you have to be able to do it some. Stats are stats like I said, they don't tell the whole story. Running the ball and stopping the run are the easiest ways to have a good team IMO. I think it's like that at every level. Just because teams pass more doesn't mean they don't care about running the ball at all. I see your point but IMO it's off base. A team that can run the ball always has a chance. Teams that rely on the pass get shut down a little easier. I think the formula for success is being able to be balanced, at least to the point to where you can pass, can run, and can defend both. Need to be pretty good at at least 3 of those 4 things to make a run in most years IMO. The Pats team that lost the Super Bowl was the exception to that IMO, and not the rule. With the size and speed of the guys up front you simply can't run the ball anymore unless you can pass. The rules have changed to favor passing . You're much more likely to be successful if you can pass and not run instead of vice versa. One dimensional passing teams are much more succesful than one diminsional running teams. The being able to run and stop the run thing may still be true elsewhere but it simply isn't that way in the NFL anymore. Being good on defense is one thing that hasn't changed--only the Colts were bad on defense and even they got hot in the playoffs.
January 9, 201016 yr With the size and speed of the guys up front you simply can't run the ball anymore unless you can pass. The rules have changed to favor passing . You're much more likely to be successful if you can pass and not run instead of vice versa. One dimensional passing teams are much more succesful than one diminsional running teams. Being good on defense is one thing that hasn't changed--only the Colts were bad on defense and even they got hot in the playoffs. I can agree with the bolded. But it's just what I said, you have to be balanced. NFL teams pass more than ever now, and it's because of alot of factors. Rule changes, more WRs and QBs coming into the league that have played in offense that have developed them, owners go after guys who pass more often because it's exciting. But if you think running the ball effectively isn't important in the NFL I'm just going to stop having this converstation. I never said it had to be potent, but you have to be able to do it when needed IMO. I'm done with this though.
January 9, 201016 yr Also you're acting like NFL teams pass as much as Texas Tech or SMU, which is ridiculous and false. All NFL teams have some form of balance offensively if they are any good at all.
January 9, 201016 yr If Bama wins the Superbowl maybe we can play Denison. lets hope Ohio State makes to a BCS against us, we have a pretty good record against those guys.
January 9, 201016 yr With the way Bama schedules non league games I could see them scheduling a Dension type team and of course it would have to be played at Bama.
January 10, 201016 yr With the way Bama schedules non league games I could see them scheduling a Dension type team and of course it would have to be played at Bama. Seriously... Bama has opened up with top 10 teams that last 2 seasons... 2008 with Clemson 2009 with Virginia Tech Next year we play Penn State.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.