You are twisting my words. That isn't the only reason we lost. We have a bunch of little issues that throw us off. We could use another WR threat for example. There is a strong statistical basis for saying that we don't run the ball enough. We run the ball much less in the games that we lose in comparison to the games that we win. You could argue that we have to throw the ball more to catch up, though I think this is a poor argument. In the game against the Vikings, we ran the ball 17 times versus 34 passes. 4 of those runs were by Taysom Hill, 1 was by Drew Brees, That is 12 rushing attempts from the RBs. Both RBs(Kamara/Murray) were averaging over 3 yards per carry, with Murray averaging over 4 yards per carry. We made absolutely no attempt to get the running game going. So yes, a simple solution may be to run the ball more.

Then why are football coaches so stupid that they cannot understand that concept? One reason is that defenses make adjustments as the game goes on. Early success running can be addressed by the defense which forces the audible to a pass plays, instead. Running less is usually the result of game flow which is why there are commonly fewer runs in losing efforts. It is also a fact that when a team is behind and needs to maximize the time remaining that fewer rushing attempts are made. Lower run counts are usually a result, not a cause.

This is why I'm pounding the table for a LG to replace Peat. Warford doesn't pass the eye test either and I think he could be replaced. We have to be able to open holes for the backs or give Drew some time in the pocket.

I'm pretty certain Andrus is gone. Someone else will over pay for his services.