B&G ...

The 0-42 stat ^^^^ in your signature quote ... one word WOW.

What is so wow about that? They have also lost 394 games when they rushed the ball 15 or more times in a game. It makes perfect sense. That fact that they rushed the ball fewer than 15 times was not the reason they lost those games. The fact that they were losing the games forced them to go to the pass early, thus leading to fewer rushing attempts.

This has been pointed out and has even been discussed on NFL Radio. Correlation does not equal causation.

A similar stat could be shown for every football team ever.

What is so wow about that? They have also lost 394 games when they rushed the ball 15 or more times in a game. It makes perfect sense. That fact that they rushed the ball fewer than 15 times was not the reason they lost those games. The fact that they were losing the games forced them to go to the pass early, thus leading to fewer rushing attempts.

This has been pointed out and has even been discussed on NFL Radio. Correlation does not equal causation.

A similar stat could be shown for every football team ever.

AG -

Circle back to the Vikings. D Cooks ran 28 times.
Andy Reid doesn't even have a RB "threat", yet their RB + Pat Mahommes ran 25 times last night. Credit AR for not abandoning the run even when they got behind.

The Saints RB (AK/LM) two main threats ran 12 times + Take some Taysom 3 run plays = 16. Running the ball is how you advance in the playoffs.

Then factor in that our defense isn't clutch when it needs to be late in games.

Maybe coach will change his strategy on commitment to run "early" so he won't have to pass late. It sure as hell worked when 2 Glove Teddy was running the offense.

Take what defenses are giving you. Have we stayed committed to the run with TH, LM, AK, we are more likely still playing in January ... maybe even the Super Bowl.

Even if you are getting mauled in the trenches, stick with it.

But here we are ....

AG -

Andy Reid doesn't even have a RB "threat", yet their RB + Pat Mahommes ran 25 times last night. Credit AR for not abandoning the run even when they got behind.

I have to call you out on this one, K. In fact, it completely supports my take. In the Chiefs first four possessions they had six running plays and 23 passing plays and one of those six running plays was Mahomes' 27 yard scramble for the TD and their first lead at 21-17. It wasn't until they had gained the lead that they were able to commit to the run. Nineteen of their 27 total running plays came in the final three possessions with the lead.

They got behind early and their running game was not working so they went strictly to the pass until they were able to regain the lead. What would have happened had they NOT regained the lead? Chances are they would have continued to try to catch up via the pass and if that was not successful they would have lost with less than ten rushing attempts. Was their potential loss because they ran the ball fewer than ten times? Or was the fact that they were not able to regain the lead that led to their potentially running the ball fewer than ten times?

But they were able to pass and do so effectively because tennessee was only sending three and they were average to below average pass rushers. Minnesota was a different story, they have a really good four man rush. Idk what Pees was thinking but any good qb will torch you doing that. So mahomes didn't have to worry about tennessee pinning their ears back cause basically they were playing prevent damn near and we all know what prevent does.

I wasn't referring as much to the Vikings game as I was to the 42 lost games in Saints history with fewer than 15 rushing attempts as brought up by K_Major. Sometimes the flow of the game dictates what you can try. Total rushing attempts is game situation produced, not the other way around. Abandoning a running game does not create a loss. Being unable to maintain drives via the run and getting behind can force the need to pass and can still result in a loss.