(Another look at why this is the clear way to go for the Giants.)
Small sample size, I suppose, but across this past weekend's four games, two things emerged as keys to victory: (1) the running game (or RB + O-line), and (2) the ability to stop the run (D-line + LB).
Combining the passing yardage total of the 4 wining teams over the weekend, they "out-passed" the losers' total 1,065-951, or an average edge per game of 266 yards to 238 yards. Nothing to write home about, and not that radical of an average difference.
Rushing yardage totals, on the others hand, looked like this: 745-205, or an average edge per game on the ground for the winners of 186 yards to just 51 yards. That's dominant going both ways for the winners.
We've got the running back for years to come, and a few pieces up front on offense, and we have a few pieces on D. After the 2018 apparent draft success, I'm looking forward to see what Gettleman comes up with this year.
The Colts/Chiefs game featured arguably the best rushing team left in the playoffs vs a defense that was awful for 16 games.
The Colts couldn't do anything on the ground.
The Cowboys/Rams game featured a two-headed ground game by the Rams against a top 5 defense in the Cowboys.
The Cowboys got torched for almost 200 rushing yards.
Which was fun to watch.
Which was fun to watch.
That was just amazing to watch. The Rams made it look easy.
Peat isn't a world beater but he's able to play multiple positions on the line and is a solid, albeit unspectacular player.
Which was fun to watch.
I heard this morning that the Rams knew what the Dallas D line was up to based upon which hand was on the ground and subtle shifts they made in alignment. Great scouting played a huge part in this game
So at the outset of the game, or while the game is still close, teams are more willing to throw the ball. Also a team that falls behind usually throws the ball more to catch up.
A team that gain a 2+ score advantage is likely to run the ball more to run out the clock.
These tendencies skew these statistics so that you can make the statement that in general leading causes more running, not that more running causes leading.
Peat isn't a world beater but he's able to play multiple positions on the line and is a solid, albeit unspectacular player.
Peat isn't a world beater but he's able to play multiple positions on the line and is a solid, albeit unspectacular player.
For where he was drafted, it wasn't a great pick for them either. The only reason it hasn't set them back is how they hit a home run with Terron Armstead.
People complain about Pugh being a "reach" at 19. Peat at 13 is bad, and your post also doesn't contain some critical context. Namely how poorly in shape he was at the combine.
Quote:
.
After the first few picks.
No.