How is trying to force dumb throws to your best players when a win is mathematically impossible asinine? What does that achieve other than injury or loosing the respect of your team mates? Even if they score the clock runs out.
There is a difference between competitiveness and ego. Payton and Brees showed the latter.

Brady says he can play till 46+. I'm not going to give up Drew.

Most of you have probably noticed how often I mention NFL Radio on XM and especially the program Moving the Chains. MtC is hosted by Pat Kirwan, former GM and longtime coach, and Jim Miller, longtime QB and coach. Their radio show is their full-time time job. Unlike almost every other talking head, they spend all of their time watching video and taking copious notes for their daily show. They don't have main gigs such as TV analysts or journalists. This is what they do and love. They interview head coaches regularly and accept a great deal of calls from average fans like us. I have learned more about the NFL over the past ten or more years that I have listened to these guys than from every other source combined over my entire 62 years. They commonly debunk so many misconceptions brought up by the average caller.

One of the most common misconceptions that they address is the supposed statistical correlation of number (or percentage of carries) to the winning of games. They repeatedly point out that the casual fan sees this correlation as the frequency of the running play begets the percentage of wins, yet it is actually quite the opposite. Success in the other facets of the game allows a team to run the ball more often. Blindly running the ball repeatedly into a defense that has the personnel, and scheme, to shut down the run will not lead to success. What it will lead to are repeated three and outs. They explain that this is why teams "abandon the run" at times.

If running the ball 35 times a game or 50% of the plays truly led to winning games then every team would do this every game. But the fact is that this will not and does not work. If the run simply isn't there continuing to attempt to run will not lead to success. Quite the opposite, it will ensure failure.

Honestly, if you have never listened to this show it is well worth the cost of an XM/Sirius subscription. If you like your X's and O's, your one gaps and two gaps, 4-3's and man overs, your 12, 22, and 11 personnel groupings, then you would love it!

Also, check out Pat Kirwan's book, Take Your Eye Off the Ball: How to Watch Football by Knowing Where to Look.

the ol "you know nothing about football". very alpha. anyway, my point still stands that if you see your o-line getting whooped consistently in pass pro then adjusting to get the ball out quicker makes sense, as well as running the ball to maybe give the line a chance to move forward instead of backwards. peeling out of the pocket to extend plays is also effective (see almost every passing play from teams like seattle, green bay).

as far the saints "getting down big" when they ran the ball, this isn't true. they abandoned the run pretty much at the top of the 2nd quarter. being down 3 then 7 points is not "getting down big". that's the normal ebbs and flows of a close game, which divisional games always are. there are so many stats pointing to how successful this team is when they commit to the run. it's pretty much what got them through the teddy games. hell, we were coming up with nicknames for the RB combo for 2 years. to even think that it would be prudent to stop running the ball at any point before the 4th quarter of that game is, as you so eloquently put it, asinine.

and look, i know it touches a nerve for saints fans who don't want to hear that drew and sean might be a little over confident about the passing game. if you really don't think there's an element of that, then please explain to me what the hell they were doing on the final drive? hell the last 2 drives. absolutely no urgency to get to the line and snap the ball. they basically ran the clock out down 3 scores and set up a red zone scenario where they risked injury just to try to force a TD to michael thomas, who almost got concussed for garbage points. you seem pretty arrogant about your opinions so i'm not gonna waste my time getting in a back and forth. yeah the o-line stunk, but the option to run and risk less sacks was there pretty much the entire game, as well as other options that you see teams resort to all the time when they're trying to get their offense going.

"very alpha"..? Where does that factor in to the Atlanta game or a Drew Brees discussion? Is ad hominem now part of a new snap location between shotgun and under center?

You may understand the sport but you do not know the game and your elaborate rationalizations speak to that fact.

- They didnt abandon the run, they couldn't run. no blocking = no run.

- "you could just run the ball and give your o-line a break", what..?? This statement tells me you know nothing about the line because pass blocking is much more difficult than run blocking for reasons you are unable to comprehend.

I'm going to jump in the middle of your discussion, for a moment.

They "couldn't" run? Bull. They had 11 carries for 52 yards. They DIDN'T run. I made a comment somewhere earlier in this thread that they abandoned the run before the game started.

Just because a team is getting pressure on the quarterback does not mean you can't run. It's all about figuring out where the pressure is coming from and designing runs that take advantage of the gaps that are created by an over aggressive defense. But the Saints, despite having some good runs in the VERY few attempts they had, never gave the ground game a chance to get going, to take the pressure off of Drew. That is basic football. When you are struggling to pass block, you do something, or at least TRY to do something to back the defense off.

And then, suddenly, after snoozing through the first half, the Saints found themselves in a big hole, and the run game was, of course, abandoned entirely with no hope of returning.

You attacked this poster for saying they should have run the ball to give the line a break, and your basis for this is that it is harder to pass block than to run block, and presumed that this was something he could not comprehend. Aside from the fact that you come off as an enormous jerk for making that assumption, you just made his point for him. Because OF COURSE it is harder to pass block than to run block. That's why you run to try to take the pressure of your line and your QB, and see if you can get the defense back off a little.

Did you even think about that? Did you try to put two and two together on that point he was making before you put your foot in your mouth? Good grief, man.

Good point. The poster also seems kind of new. And probably doesn't know that you can't argue with Guido. Its impossible. He'll never see anyones side of things if he doesn't originally agree with the point. Lol. I don't even try anymore.

But I sure do enjoy watching everyone else try.

And I do know that you were talking about Oak here. But he's usually more open minded.

Yay!!! Forum fights!!!!