Sometime you're stuck going against the flow....

I'm not part of the 'stick with the ground game' revolution that dominates the board.

I don't like the idea of running for the sake of running any more than passing for the sake of passing, believing that one or the other is the sole answer to success. Not that anyone here does... but needing the run more isn't solved by the mere # of runs it's having a running game as sophisticated as the passing game... well, unless you have a brute force team which I do not think the Rams have.

I think the Ram's are built for passing, predominately... which requires, absolutely requires, a smart running game. Not an 'on paper % of runs' but a smart running game. No doubt, more than obvious, that a running game that's working is going to help the passing game and getting W's.... but it has to be 'working'... and that requires as much cleverness, scheming, preparation, as one gives to the passing game. Liked what I saw in the Jag's game but not at all convinced that's going to happen against all the other teams.

None of this is me denying that McVay gives up on the running game too soon... at times. I think he does. But the answer isn't just 'run more'... it's run 'smart' in coordination with the passing game. Runs should be used in conjunction with the passing game, and vice versa... not as somewhat of a gimmick merely to show you might run at times. D's can and will pick up on that type of running game almost immediately.

I don't think McVay and company put as much effort into the running game as they do the passing game. What I'm getting is: I don't think the Ram's running game 'as is' will be much better adding more runs into the mix.... I think more prep and scheming is required of the running game before that happens. And if that does happen? Then I'm with ya. - JamesJM