How do you know 10-15 more carries in those games for Howard, eating up precious clock and possibly breaking one for a TD wouldn't have changed the outcome of those 6 close losses?
You don't.
Controlling the clock more, with another 10-15 runs instead of passes could have put us on the winning end of those games as much as airing it out could have. Only thing we KNOW is airing it out with our crappy QBs and WRs ultimately failed. We don't know what more runs could have done.
So I think my speculations are just as fair as yours. Neither of us know.............but something tells me that we'll find out if i'm right in 2017. Loggains WILL be calling more run plays if he cares about his job security. If Fox and Pace haven't already had that conversation with him, I'm sure they will soon. Balance is necessary...but the emphasis will be running instead of passing in 2017.
As it should have been this year. As it should be moving forward until we get a good QB and good WRs who can catch.
And alas, Roman was just brilliantly hired today by a very good coach who prefers to run more than pass - especially after his self inflicted Trestman experience.
You previously said we would have won more games (look back in the thread, you said a 9 win season was in play had we only run more).
Now you are saying that 10-15 more carries (which is a significant leap in touches) could have given us a couple more wins. 10-15 more runs with Howard puts him at 120-180 more runs totaling up to 330 carries this season which is a LOT for 12 games as a rookie. That doesnt just put him at significant risk for injury, RBs that get ridden into the dirt one year tend to not be worth shit the next year, and that is especially true for power backs like Howard. We know that our other RBs were ineffective all year, so I know you couldnt have meant that those touches would go to them, as handing it off more to Carey and Langford wouldnt have been worth crap.
Hell, let's look at those games where we lost by less than a TD:
(1) Against Indy, we didnt have a lead until there were fewer than 5 minutes to go. We were losing until then, so grinding out the clock isnt this apparent solution that would have won us the game. Our next possession was a 2-play turnover drive (fumble by Meredith) so no opportunity to grind out the clock there, and then we had 2:30 to score a TD, which is a passing-dominated situation.
(2) Against Jax, Howard was getting 2 yards a carry. So you want to feed a guy who had been ineffective all game? That sounds like you want to risk injury for no real benefit.
(3) Against NYG, we had a lead going into halftime. After that, we were constantly in second- and third-and-long situations because of penalties (lots of holding) and ineffective running, which resulted in several three-and-outs. For Howard's running opportunities in the second half, he only had one carry for more than 2 yards (it went for three yards). If you were watching that game, you will remember that the Giants loaded up to stop Howard after halftime and force Cutler to pass, feeding Howard would have had a similar end-result.
(4) Tennessee, where we were down by two touchdowns late. Running the ball to keep the clock moving isnt a good strategy to win if you are playing from behind all game (which, surprise, we were). We only looked like we were in the game late because Barkley passed us into contention with less than a quarter to play. Only once were we in third and short and didnt feed it to Howard, and it was a short pass that went incomplete. Each other time, there was an unfortunate turnover, or Howard didnt run well enough to put us in a short-yardage situation where a run would have been the smart playcall.
(5) Against Detroit, we looked like we were in it late because LeBlanc got an INT for a TD. Sure it didnt look like we fed Howard enough, but we werent in the lead after our first score, and Howard had already exited the game once with an apparent injury. After that, we were rotating RBs more to keep Howard from sustaining a worse injury, which is (in case you werent aware) a smart thing to do. And since our other RBs couldnt do jack, we were playing from behind all game and were forced into passing situations.
(6) The last one is the GB game, and you might remember this one best. We were tied at halftime but down by three scores going into the fourth quarter. Howard had the ball 40% of the plays in the third, and Barkley threw interceptions on downs where we were in clear passing situations. And what do you do when you are down three scores in the fourth quarter? You pass the ball if you are trying to win, which we were. And we would have won that game if the FS had played the situation correctly and stayed over the top of jordy nelson.
So no, feeding Howard would have been good for stats, but it is more likely that Howard would have been injured than it is that we win any of those games. This is because you cant grind out a win when you dont have the lead to defend. So speculating that we were going to win any of these games if we fed Howard the rock means that you only looked at the final score and then stopped.