Originally Posted by Warfish
Imagine the Jets with 10 less turnovers each year, and a RB who can actually break one long once in a while (and maybe one more WR worth discussing). Thats what we could/should be, if the QB play (i.e. turnovers, complettion percentage, third down conversion and long sustained drives) can be improved substantially from the past 4 regular seasons.
That's just it - if we had a RB who could break one, one more WR worth discussing and a QB who wouldn't turn the ball over, we'd have a much higher scoring offense - we wouldn't need to be "Ground and Pound".
The problem with "Ground and Pound" is that you need to go on 10+ scoring play drives every time you hope to score. Too much **** can go wrong. You need to have guys who can break off a big play from time to time.
Its more and more evident that Ground and Pound, in today's game, simply means "We don't have a very good QB so we're going to do as good a job as possible to not **** up the game." Its a strategy born out of necessity, not by choice.
If you are up against Tom Brady and the highest scoring offense in the history of the game, sure - go to a ground and pound gameplan. In a sense, Ground and Pound makes sense as a tactic, not a strategy.