badgers 380 Posted November 17, 2011 You have stats for that? I'm interested. A better run game means we run more, that's especially true for running the clock down. Grant has seen significantly fewer touches this year, so more passing. We give Starks the ball, he runs for much more yardage, so we run more. Again, interested in stats. Your logic would only make sense if we didn't have another back to run the ball. The bold is true. He is our #1 running back. When he is in, we run the ball more often because we have terrible run blocking. Also, have you ever seen Ryan Grant pass block? He's terrible. We don't put him in on passing plays because of that - only a designed screen he will go in. And have you seen the blocking that we get? It's horrendous! Grant isn't a power back which is why he doesn't do well. Starks is just more powerful which is why he can plow through defenders with ease. Grant is more of a speed/cutback runner, and the blocking we have for that isn't very good. I don't need stats watch the fucking game and you can see it, lmao. Starks mainly gets the ball at the end of the game when the defenses are worn out, he pounds it the ball down their throat and winds down the clock. We're not a primary running team, which is why you don't see us run the ball early on, even with Starks in. I don't need stats just watch the game it happens right in front of your face. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DelTrigger 1 Posted November 17, 2011 "Lmao, having Ryan Grant in the game has nothing to do with whether or not Aaron Rodgers reaches the record" This is false no matter what way you cut it. Not to mention whatever else you say is merely invalid. Back up what you say. Boring. Onto the next. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
badgers 380 Posted November 17, 2011 "Lmao, having Ryan Grant in the game has nothing to do with whether or not Aaron Rodgers reaches the record" This is false no matter what way you cut it. Not to mention whatever else you say is merely invalid. Back up what you say. Boring. Onto the next. No you dumbfuck this all started cuz you said: "Especially if we ever wise up and take Grant out of the game." Putting Starks in the game doesn't change our playcalls at all. He's on the field more yeah but we don't run the ball much at all. So putting him in the game even 100% in place of all of Grant's snaps will not affect how much we run the ball/how much Aaron passes is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BLUE 1,026 Posted November 17, 2011 Let's try to chill with the personal insults, please. If it's joking around with another poster IE busting balls with someone you know here, then that is one thing. But that doesn't seem to be the case here, and I'd rather put an end to it now before it begins to spiral out of control in what has otherwise become an interesting topic. By the way, as most of you know, we have a section (you must be pre-approved for access to it) where you are literally allowed to call someone whatever you want, with the exception of physical threats (one poster who ignored a warning and who shall go nameless had to learn that the hard way). So, wise man once say 2 things: "Attack the post, not the poster" or, if you can't handle that, then "Take it to NHB", please. Thanks, peeps.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
badgers 380 Posted November 17, 2011 He can't get into NHB blue the only place we can argue is here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BLUE 1,026 Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) Debating is fine, just cool it with the name calling IE calling someone a "dumbfuck". Edited November 17, 2011 by BLUE Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KiLaSix9+ 398 Posted November 17, 2011 Can't you guys have a civil discussion like gentleman like me and JD were having Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
