I said "typically". I agree that the Oilers were talented. But your argument that the Lions and Falcons achieved success (along with Hawaii, SMU, UH etc.) supports exactly what you are refuting: that the Run & Shoot, for the most part, is a gimmick offense used by teams with talent deficiencies to try and compete with more talented teams. And I'm not saying that I fully support that argument. I'm just saying that parts of what you say support it.

Also, if Moon was 36-50, that means he was 17-28 in the second half. Throwing 28 times with that kind of lead is insane. That is extending the game and asking for trouble. Regardless of the 3 and outs, which wasn't the gist of my point, their unwillingness to run more in the second half is what gave Buffalo a chance to have such a comeback.

How many teams won a championship with the Run & Shoot?

Oilers - 0
Lions - 0
Falcons - 0
U of H - 0
Hawaii - 0
SMU - 0
Gamblers - 0
etc. - 0

If it was the great offense that is purported, everyone would try it. Hell, Kevin Gilbride (who just won a Super Bowl) gave it up after Pardee wasn't looking over his shoulder.

While I know it has had it's moderate successes, and is fun to watch, I can't buy that it is the best thing since sliced bread.

I also write off the "elements of it are in so-and-so's offense" arguments too. That same argument can be made for virtually any system. (not that you made that argument, but I've heard it before).

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you and I think. I will continue to believe that it is marginal, and you will idolize it. No big deal.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2