laudablepuss wrote:

jeep wrote:

Bill Dungsroman wrote:

No, they weren't. They had a good line, Marshall Faulk and Marvin Harrison. Their defense was creaky, but not much more so than a Strahan-less New York unit.

Was that the Jim Harbaugh Era? He wasn't bad, but Peyton saves them serious bank at the offensive coordinator position. Eli may not have that in him, though he's a little more mobile than his brother, can take a hit, and improvise a bit, so there's potential there.

I seem to recall the Colts going 3-13 the year before Peyton came to town, which is how they got him in the first place. So all that talent wasn't accomplishing much, for whatever reason.

The Giants are going nowhere without running and defense. The running is there, good but not great, the defense is not. They have a few good guys and the others are subpar. The New York way is to pay for stars, but what the Giants need is a few guys to go out and hit people.

I saw an article about the correlation between running plays and winning, it said the number of running plays you run has more to do with winning than the number of yards you actually gain doing so. Can speculate all day on the whys, but that's just fucked up. Might've been footballoutsiders (I'm a big SABR fan so this is my kind of football site) but I'm not sure.

Parcells has known it for years, he used to do it here in new England, too.

/jeep/

The big question is: do winning teams run more or do teams that run more win? In other words, what's the causal relationship here? I think TMQ questioned the need for a running game . . . or maybe it was The Sporting News? I can't recall. Basically they were saying that the "establish the run" cliche was false. I wish I could remember who wrote the article, much less where it is.