Originally Posted by eriadoc
What's your definition of a run-first team? Is there one in the NFL?
As I have said elsewhere, Kubiak would like to be able to put up a lead int he first half and grind it out in the second. That doesn't always go his way.
A run-first team is one that works to establish the run or trust that the running game can give them a litlle better chance to win more than the passing game.
Let's say the Ravens, do they count on Flacco more than Ray Rice?
Can the Jets count on Sanchez more than the combo of Greene and LT?
Did the Dolphins count on their combo of QBS more than their combos at RBs?
Were the Browns more comfortable with their Qb situation than their RB situation?
Were the Jags more happy with old-man MJD or Gabbert?
Did the Raiders count on their QBs as much as they did their RBs the last few years?
The Redskins had Grosman as their starting QB.
The list goes on as I look at last year standings in order:
Schaub has been in the conversation.
Even Yates earned some positives.
Obviously, both Foster and Tate also earned their due.
What I don't agree is that we were a RUN-FIRST team.
Hell, we did pretty well last year even with Schaub getting hurt and AJ out.
Including the second half of the season and the two play-off games, we passed more than we ran the ball in the first half of the games.
To be that consistent through the course of an 18-game season (especially considering the better pass defenses we faced later on), there's no ground for anybody to say that we were a RUN-FIRST offense.