Sarlacc83
Active member
Sgt. Largent":1vh6favs said:Tical21":1vh6favs said:Huh? You mean the play-action deep pass to DK, the play-action TD to Lockett and the deep pass that Lockett dropped, all on first down, were all a part of my imagination?Sgt. Largent":1vh6favs said:McGruff":1vh6favs said:To my knowledge there is no correlation between either passing or running and winning.
If someone can demonstrate that teams that pass more win more, I'm game for those argument.
But I dont beleive anyone will find that to be true.
Pete has his philosophy of run the ball, physicality, and that leads to wearing down the defense at which times play action and explosive plays open up.
And that's a great theory, but as we saw Sunday (and we see on many Sundays and in the playoffs last year) we don't ever get to the play action/explosive play part because the other team knows exactly what we were trying to do the first three quarters, and stuffs it.
Stubbornness. Predictability. Those are the two things I wish Pete's style and philosophy would be more open and pliable to adapting towards.
233 total yards, if that's an successful offensive showing by your standards, you need to raise your expectations. This is a game we should have won 35-20, not 21-20. Too conservative, too predictable.
I'm talking about realizing the full potential of Russell and our offense. A wins a win, that's great........but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.
The O-line was practically falling over themselves in the run game Sunday -- missing blocks, bad angles, losing ground if not getting trucked entirely. There is room for improvement and it starts in Solari's office.