[30gut]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

You say you would not expect the run game to overcome INT's, but good passing games did overcome Fumbles
in the 4 wins, we had 0 ints, but 3 fumbles (1 each in 3 wins)
in 3 of our 6 losses we had 1+ int in each, and 1+ fumbles so those were bad on both parts
in the other 3 losses, we had 1+ int, and 0 fumbles.

So, in 3 wins, the passing game covered fumbles, but the running game covered 0 bad qb days.

You are comparing 2 different things here in fumbles and interceptions. And on the whole aren't you're playing kinda fast and loose with your observations, generalizations and assumptions.

In those game when the 'passing game covered the fumbles' what was the role of the running game?

Couldn't you say that in the games when the running game "didn't cover for bad QB day" that the passing game had already failed itself?

This discussion began by my saying calling for the running game isn't a panacea to KC's bad days.

Like I said before, sub-par QB isn't excused by lack of rushing game and likewise having a rushing game doesn't insulate a game from poor QB play.

I think all these numbers bear that statement out. If KC has a good day, a good running game is a nice add and makes the game more fun to watch, but if KC is on an off day, switching to a run centric offense has not shown to be a solution for this team.

Wasn't it 3 out of 4 "good run games" by your parameters were wins?

Also, by the same token sticking to pass centric offense hasn't been the solution either.

The strongest example of that is the Miami game, when Lavaou was in, and we had our 2nd best rushing output but KC was off ...

The INTs. The interceptions lose game regardless of whatever else happens. I already said that a good running game isn't insulation against bad QB play.

the Saints game was the best rushing output, but KC was on on that day too, so they served as a good compliment to each other. In the Miami game KC was bad, 2 int, 188 total yards, 67.7% completion Percent, and we lost. Compare that to the TB game, KC was good, 0int, 305 yds, 82.5% completion, but the Rush game was mostly ineffective, 1 fumble, 50 total yards, 2.1 average, and we won.

Ah, and their you have your outlier to my view so go ahead and throw that Tampa game out like.

I don't believe that anything in all these numbers, or in watching the games as they've been played, should legitimately give someone the impression that a run heavy scheme, with this personnel (Oline and Oline coaching philosophy), would lead to better results than sticking with the pass oriented game and focusing on improving either KC's consistency or a qb who is not on the team yet.

You have too many undefined terms here. Run heavy scheme and oline coaching philosophy don't ensure a better run game. Our coaching prevents us from having a effective run game and therefore it doesn't work in our benefit the way it should. But, IF we could run the ball effectively surely it would help us win more games.