Your argument carries no water right now. Bama proved they could strike quick but they won national championships by slow pace of play.
If you can control the ball and play defense, you're going to win a lot of games. There is no magic bullet with football, but the foundations of winning football remains the same regardless of the style of play.
How is it that their legs appear fresh? After those quick possessions? This just doesn't make any sense.
What argument? In the game of football, if you have to choose between (a) scoring, and (b) retaining leg freshness, you always always go with the fresh legs. This is canon. There can be no argument to the contrary.
I dont recall that being the basis of the argument. Another basic of winning football games is stopping the other team from scoring in order to, you know, score more points than them. If you can play slow and still score, all the while giving your defense rest to increase their chances of stopping the other offense...well, that just seems to be the best of both worlds. Look how that quick scoring ability is working out for WVU as opposed to Bama and their style of play.
I talked to Chip Kelly yesterday. I convinced him to slow down that offense. He apparently had forgotten that the ULTIMATE aim in football was fresh legs. It had strangely slipped his mind that points were quite useless if acquired at the expense of fresh, bouncy legs. He thanked me profusely. I'll be receiving a christmas card this year from the Kelly family.
If you extend that theory to it's max, you should keep your stars on the bench so they have really fresh legs in the 4th qtr. Might be a bit behind though if the opponent decides to score points and use up the legs. I just can't help but think points win the game, but then I'm old school. I sometimes am contrary, sorry.
