Anthony!":3qw7nqfi said:
Ad Hawk":3qw7nqfi said:
Anthony!":3qw7nqfi said:
That great but that is us, we do not have the weapons to have a heavy passing attack, if we did we would. Also in our offense if we are passing more it is because we are down not by design. Also those rushing numbers are skewed by Wilson himself. The point was, that someone said a team that passes more than they run does not win the SB often and there for you do not need a great Qb, that is incorrect as I have shown.
Incorrect, and laughably ignorant post about the Hawks' offensive philosophy.
We would have a "heavy" (I assume you mean more passing than running) pass offense if we had a different coach and maybe if our RB situation wasn't strong.
PC runs the ball, and seeks for balance. He's said it many times. He will NEVER have a "heavy" passing attack, no matter which QB he has.
Dude whats laughable is you, you really think if we had Calvin Johnson, and Graham we would not throw more? Of course we would. What we would not probably have is Lynch as they would not have given him the extra money eh wanted because we would not have needed to as we would have had the weapons to pass more. PC has said what he wants but he also plays the hand he has and he is not stupid enough unlike some people to not take advantage of having superior passing weapons. Thanks for the laugh though
Attack the post, not the poster. Whether I am a laughable person or not, isn't relevant to this discussion. (I don't really care, you can't offend me; just play by the rules. Others here may care.)
I can see how the idea may be funny to you, since you think Pete would change his overall philosophy based on his weapons. While every coach would love to have the top receivers (or any position) in the league, even if he did, it wouldn't change his fundamental approach. Because he has
created his team based on a philosophy of establishing the run, then attempting a few, longer, explosive passes. He hasn't gone after top receivers because he doesn't need them, though I'm sure he'd take them if they were cheap and available. You're right, we probably wouldn't be able to afford Lynch if he had Johnson and Graham both. But he wouldn't give up his RBs in the first place. We aren't in that situation now, and he won't create such a situation.Your argument is an easily revealed red herring; changing the subject to some hypothetical situation doesn't change current reality, nor what Pete has done with play-calling, drafting, contract-awarding, etc., that have all made your premise baseless.
As a last resort for one game, might he may pass more if he has no running backs left? Sure, but he won't put himself in that position in the first place. This would be the exception, and it sounds like you're thinking it would be a general rule.
The speculation in your post concerning what Pete would actually do is actually less reliable than speculation; it's assumptions are faulty. Since neither of us will get a chance to ask him directly, press conferences and interviews he's shared, post-game analysis, drafting, etc., will have to suffice to provide the evidence. All of these things show his philosophy. You can ignore all that data, but that doesn't make your
speculation right, just more ignorant.