Pocket$ $traight
12-01-2010, 10:20 PM
Why? Because he was on the practice squad?
You know there are a bunch of backs, good backs that came off the practice squad right?
And where did i say anything about what type of back Keiland is good or bad?
The most i said was that he was the most experienced of the 2 backs we had available.
Let me remind you what i said:
Your argument is all over the place and your post above clearly shows you are missing my point.
We didn't need nor did i say Keiland would have rushed for 100 yards.
No.
I'm saying something quite simple.
Regardless of the RB an offense makes thing harder on itself when they abandon the run.
That's all i've been saying.
Even if you think Keiland is the worst RB on earth, quiting on the run is always the wrong move.
The stat line from your post would have been enough of a semblance of running game to prevent the Packers defense from focusing on the passing game only.
Your post actually makes my point.
Again this more fluff.
And technically Foster was a part time starter himself.
Either way it has nothing to do with my point.
And yet again you make my point.
"But with five games remaining in the season (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/redskins/longterm/sectionfront/schedule.html), a closer look at Shanahan's own history reveals just how woefully behind the Washington rushing game appears to be".
Heading into the Giants game, the Redskins are running the ball - and going nowhere (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120106308.html)
Does this article in the Washington Post back up your point too? lol
The more you type, the more wrong you get. THIS TEAM CANNOT RUN THE BALL, THAT IS WHY THE COACHES ARE ABANDONING IT.
Is that clear enough for you?
You know there are a bunch of backs, good backs that came off the practice squad right?
And where did i say anything about what type of back Keiland is good or bad?
The most i said was that he was the most experienced of the 2 backs we had available.
Let me remind you what i said:
Your argument is all over the place and your post above clearly shows you are missing my point.
We didn't need nor did i say Keiland would have rushed for 100 yards.
No.
I'm saying something quite simple.
Regardless of the RB an offense makes thing harder on itself when they abandon the run.
That's all i've been saying.
Even if you think Keiland is the worst RB on earth, quiting on the run is always the wrong move.
The stat line from your post would have been enough of a semblance of running game to prevent the Packers defense from focusing on the passing game only.
Your post actually makes my point.
Again this more fluff.
And technically Foster was a part time starter himself.
Either way it has nothing to do with my point.
And yet again you make my point.
"But with five games remaining in the season (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/redskins/longterm/sectionfront/schedule.html), a closer look at Shanahan's own history reveals just how woefully behind the Washington rushing game appears to be".
Heading into the Giants game, the Redskins are running the ball - and going nowhere (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120106308.html)
Does this article in the Washington Post back up your point too? lol
The more you type, the more wrong you get. THIS TEAM CANNOT RUN THE BALL, THAT IS WHY THE COACHES ARE ABANDONING IT.
Is that clear enough for you?