Benny Watch cancelled.

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CablesWyndBairn's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There is an unhealthy obsession in this place to a) track former Patriots players who left here through trades or as FAs (BJGE, Samuel, Ty Law, others) and slam their contributions since they aren't here anymore (good riddance eh?) or b) track other Patriots players who were jettisoned and who aren't producing to say "...see, he was finished and BB is a genius for letting him go".  BJGE got a good contract to be a slightly above average running back in Cinci.  He wasn't getting that money here. Even though he gave the team some good years they went in another direction.  

    What is it with some of you that you just can't let it be?  I know what your reasons are, but just know that it gets really old.    

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly. I hate that about some of our fans. And, the thing is, other fanbases notice it and it makes us come off as bitter and angry, which I can see.  It's really pathetic, especially going after someone as hardworking and as classy as BJGE.

    If we could just eliminate this part of our sports teams' fanbases, it would be great.  

    [/QUOTE]


    So, who started this thread, rusty?  Guess you must hate yourself too, Right?  Exposed Fraud!

    Benny Watch

    posted at 12/13/2012 08:36:11 EST

    • RockScully
    • Posts: 1081
    • First: 12/04/2012
    • Last: 12/27/2012

    Congrats to BJGE for going over 1000 yards on a 40 yard burst, setting up your team for 1st and goal and finishing that opening drive with a TD. 

    All that with 3 starting OL down for the year.  Very impressive.  I wish we used him in the SB.

    Babe has just been moved to the watch ward on the east wing.

    [/QUOTE]

    What?

    I was responding to the idea that people BASH former players who are no longer here.  So, you think me congratulating a former player is somehow the same?  Are you Forrest Gump?

    Do you have any idea how dumb you look showcasing what is arguably the WORST reading comprehension anyone has ever seen?lol

    Instead of following me around pretending I am contradicting myself, try slowing down and actually reading to understand concepts within a discussion.

    My god. You seem to think it's a good thing to promote stupidity.

    Matt05 just slapped you yesterday for your embarrassing education level and that wasn't enough?  

    [/QUOTE]


    Matt was slapped back and should have stuck to his not defending you.  How many times does Brady throw a game?  According to you it's 20   (10 for welk and 10 for Hern)  plus a few scraps for the back-ups. Exposed Fraud.

    Posting a retort to the Benny watch thread is keeping it going,  DUH.  Didn't you just agree to how ridiculous it was? 

    Every one else is wrong right, Queenie?

    [/QUOTE]

    Hopefully, Brady has never "thrown" a game like you just said, Jizzdispenser, er, I mean Pezzdispenser.

    Yes, Hernandez was targeted 9 times in the JAx game, with Welker over 10.  Yes. 20 targets.

    That's a lot just to two people. I prefer Brady spreading it around more because he won't throw 2 INTs in a game, almost losing games for us, if he does.

    Only you would think Matt didn't just slap you, too.  He mocked your horrendous understanding of the English language, so as you can see, it's not just me who sees your low IQ. lol

    [/QUOTE]


    Ummmm Hern was 1 for 5 in the jax game.  Wrong again Fraud.   Brady throws more than 40 times a game.  So that means the other 20+ attempts are scraps for the bench?

    Get real!  We all know you meant Welk and Hern get 20 each and the remaining few are scaps for the bench.  Exposed liar and fraud!

    You lied and got caught AGAIN.  Try being a man or woman and admitting it for once in your pitiful existence..

    [/QUOTE]

    I never said "each" ever.  You're a liar and MAtt05 called you on it, too. LOL!

    Yeah, I literally think Brady targeted only Welker and Hernadez 20 times each.  Everyone can see your bad reading comprehension now has you embarrassed, but keep digging yourself a deeper hole!

    LOL!

    Someone needs to call child services for Pezzy because I think he does have kids. This is scary, folks!

    Phat Rex scary.

    [/QUOTE]


    Dumbazz.  You never said each or a piece but you did say the remaining attempts were a few scraps for the other recievers.  Since everyone knows TB throws more than 40 times a game (Not 20 + a few scraps), it is logical to see that you meant 20 a piece which totals 40 and a few scraps for the remaining recievers.

    20 + 20 = 40 + a few scraps.  10 + 10 and a few scraps does not = 40.  Any way you look at it you are wrong and a liar and a backpeddeling fool.  How many attemps did Hern have again in the Jax game??????  LMAO@U.  How many picks did Dalton throw again?  WOW!

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Only you would think that Brady using 80% of his targets to two options as receivers is a good thing,

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah. Much better that he ignore Gronk and Welker and look for washed up guys like Ocho or Branch. LMAO@U

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    FACTS:

    It's easier to play offense today than it was in 2001.

    It's harded to play defense today than it was in 2001.

    CASE CLOSED

    [/QUOTE]

    Not if you're the 2011 Pats' defense it isn't.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Speaking of Benny and the Super Bowl, what do folks think of Benny's two-yard run on first down (start of a drive) with 6:37 left in the third?  Was it a smart decision to cut back inside there or should Benny have continued to the outside with his blockers even though there were defenders on the outside?

    This is a serious question, by the way.  But if we're going to really ever end this debate, we need to look at actual plays . . . 

    This is a good one to start with, I think. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Was he subbed in for that play?  Answer that one first. Actually, before you do...Pull the data. I want a percentage of how many runs he had for this team when he wasn't subbed in v.s. subbed in for an obligatory run.

    If memory serves he only had like 2 more carries total than Woodhead, which is the problem.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As I said, it was the start of a drive.  Go back and watch the first half.  Benny was in for the vast majority of plays in that half.  I'd have to go back and count to give you the number you're asking for, but if anyone was "subbed in" during the first half it was Woody, not Benny.  Benny was in on the vast majority of run and pass plays in the first half. 

    Still, you don't need all these facts and figures to watch the play . . . it was a simple question.  One doesn't need a stat manual to answer it. 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Right, but was Woodhead being used in succession prior to that? In other words, if Woodhead was, did it appear obvious that BJGE was on the field for an obligatory run play there, with that occurring earlier as well, as we tip off what we're doing?

    Please post the drives pre and post the play you're talking about so we can see the flow of the playcalls, please.

    Anyone who sneaks around leaving out imporant factors to analyze, likely has an agenda.  And we know you do.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Here's how the backs were used up to that play (based on my review of the film--could be minor errors because it's sometimes hard to see numbers):

    First drive: One play, was a play action pass, with Benny as the back.  Resulted in safety as we all know. 

    Second drive.  Nine plays ending in FG. Benny was the back on seven.  Woodhead in for one play, empty backfield, one play. 

    Third drive.  Three plays.  Hernandez as back on first play, Woody on next two. 

    Fourth drive.  Fourteen plays ending in TD.  Woodhead in on all but two plays. Benny in for one, emptay backfield one play. 

    Fifth drive.  Eight plays ending in TD.  Benny in on all but two (when Woodhead was in).  

    Sixth drive . . . this is the one I was referring to, where Benny starts the drive with a two-yard run. 

    Benny was in on the majority of plays except for the fourth drive, which was the hurry-up drive to end the half with a TD.  Your whole theory that BJGE was subbed in for just a few running plays is totally wrong.  BJGE was the primary back except on the hurry up drive and he was in on both passing and running plays, both in shotgun and under center, and in play action as well.  There were even a few I formation plays with Benny.  The guy was in the game a lot.  He just didn't make a big impact. 

     

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    You guys are going to make beautiful babies.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You guys are going to make beautiful babies.

    [/QUOTE]


    Stow it dill dough.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Only you would think that Brady using 80% of his targets to two options as receivers is a good thing, esecially when Brady was helping win SBs he always said his favorite WR was "the open one". Where has that Brady gone?  Hmm?  What's comical is, that's really why we lost SB 46.

    Too much passing and too much targeting of the same two options. Yep. But, you enjoy that deluded little video game world you live in, Jizzdispenser.

    Exposed again, Pezzy. And I never said "Dalton didn't throw an INT" either. I said he played well after they continued to show run, which opened up throwing lanes for him to convert MANY 3rd downs which killed Pitt.

    Meanwhile, our QB throws INTs in SBs on 1st downs. lol

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes you did.  That's exactly what you said. 

    Do I have to retrieve that post and expose you as a liar AGAIN!

    The facts are, TB doesn't throw 80%, to just 2 recievers.  That is what you said, not me

    ps Hern is not the 2nd receiver, Lloyd is.  Actually according to attempts (yes I know he's missed games)  Hern is the 4th, behind Welker, Lloyd and Gronk (who has also been out hurt).  Woody is not far behind with Branch/Edelman to bring up the rear.  That appears to be more than 2 recievers, to me.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Thanks for doing the legwork, but I am not "totally wrong" at all.  Go back to the second drive.  Benny was used on a drive that produced a FG.  Correct?

    What did we do on the next one? We use Hernandez as an RB?  This is what I mean.  It's over-management. As if the FG drive was somehow BJGE's fault we didn;t get a TD, so we pretend by putting in Hernandez with a hobbled Gronk at TE is somehow a good move?

    This is silly.  No coach does the same thing over and over because it gets a FG.  The fact is, they were trying to vary what they did, to not be one dimensional.  They came right back on the fourth drive with Woodhead and scored a TD.  Should they not have done that?

    All it does is show us that the real desire here is to use the RB in such a way that it's really a gimmick position so Brady can run more shotgun spread kind of plays, which is my argument.I don't want that!

    Well, they ran a lot of shotgun spread on the fourth drive and scored a TD.  They ran more under-center style plays with Benny on the fifth drive and also got a TD.  They were being multi-dimensional and scoring both ways.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with this.  They tried to come back to Benny again on the sixth drive, but that stalled with a two-yard run on first down followed by incomplete passes. 

    Once you veer away from the lead RB idea, you've lost, because it then shows what your play is by who you use.

    This again is absurd.  Just about every team in the league subs in different backs. The Giants used two all game.  

    So, the 3rd drive is a 3 and out, correct? Case closed. You just proved my point. I am of the belief you run your plays with 1 lead back until the defense proves they can stop it. If we're driving down the field with BJGE as a lead back, the fact we only got a FG, shouldn't just change that approach.

    So was the sixth drive with Benny.  

    This is exactly what I keep saying. It almost appears that they're practicing things at random vs having an ideal plan of attack.

    You just asked us what we think of ONE Benny run and you ignore the root cause of the crix of the problem? Are you seriously this arrogant on this?

    The hurry up drive with Woodhead is also an outlier example, so he gets credit for being there, but as you mention that was a hurry up situation, which happened to work.  Maybe if Brady's Safety didn't occur, we have another drive to look in the first half and it's 17-7 NE at the half, v.s. 10-9.

    Their best drive by far, was the one out of halftime with Benny. This is YET AGAIN where O'Brien and Brady could have changed history and learned.  They should have continued to lean on BJGE and hammer it with a 17-9 lead.

    Again, they apparently were trying to do that on the sixth drive.  It's just that two yard run put them in a hole. 

    So, again, my statements aren't a "theory" it's what happened. You're problem is, you don't think BJGE is good enough to warrant lead back status. Mine is that it doesn't matter how great or bad he is, it's that he is OUR lead back in 2011, so it doesn't matter. As we saw, Brady wasn't helped much by our obsessive subbing approach based on skill set and this "matchup
     obsession we have.

    Also, the carries for BJGE and Woodhead are too close. A true lead back has MORE than that and the secondary back doesn't have so many like thay.

    Do you realize that when BJGE was used a clear cut lead back in gameplans, this team never lost?

    Do you realize that? I defy you to show us a game where we  lost and was the definitive lead back.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    Keep trying Rusty.  In the meantime, what do you think of that run to start the sixth drive? I asked a simple question.  You still haven't answered. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Speaking of Benny and the Super Bowl, what do folks think of Benny's two-yard run on first down (start of a drive) with 6:37 left in the third?  Was it a smart decision to cut back inside there or should Benny have continued to the outside with his blockers even though there were defenders on the outside?

    This is a serious question, by the way.  But if we're going to really ever end this debate, we need to look at actual plays . . . 

    This is a good one to start with, I think. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Was he subbed in for that play?  Answer that one first. Actually, before you do...Pull the data. I want a percentage of how many runs he had for this team when he wasn't subbed in v.s. subbed in for an obligatory run.

    If memory serves he only had like 2 more carries total than Woodhead, which is the problem.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As I said, it was the start of a drive.  Go back and watch the first half.  Benny was in for the vast majority of plays in that half.  I'd have to go back and count to give you the number you're asking for, but if anyone was "subbed in" during the first half it was Woody, not Benny.  Benny was in on the vast majority of run and pass plays in the first half. 

    Still, you don't need all these facts and figures to watch the play . . . it was a simple question.  One doesn't need a stat manual to answer it. 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Right, but was Woodhead being used in succession prior to that? In other words, if Woodhead was, did it appear obvious that BJGE was on the field for an obligatory run play there, with that occurring earlier as well, as we tip off what we're doing?

    Please post the drives pre and post the play you're talking about so we can see the flow of the playcalls, please.

    Anyone who sneaks around leaving out imporant factors to analyze, likely has an agenda.  And we know you do.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Here's how the backs were used up to that play (based on my review of the film--could be minor errors because it's sometimes hard to see numbers):

    First drive: One play, was a play action pass, with Benny as the back.  Resulted in safety as we all know. 

    Second drive.  Nine plays ending in FG. Benny was the back on seven.  Woodhead in for one play, empty backfield, one play. 

    Third drive.  Three plays.  Hernandez as back on first play, Woody on next two. 

    Fourth drive.  Fourteen plays ending in TD.  Woodhead in on all but two plays. Benny in for one, emptay backfield one play. 

    Fifth drive.  Eight plays ending in TD.  Benny in on all but two (when Woodhead was in).  

    Sixth drive . . . this is the one I was referring to, where Benny starts the drive with a two-yard run. 

    Benny was in on the majority of plays except for the fourth drive, which was the hurry-up drive to end the half with a TD.  Your whole theory that BJGE was subbed in for just a few running plays is totally wrong.  BJGE was the primary back except on the hurry up drive and he was in on both passing and running plays, both in shotgun and under center, and in play action as well.  There were even a few I formation plays with Benny.  The guy was in the game a lot.  He just didn't make a big impact. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    This is the problem with Benny's running in that game......

     

    Now, his fans don't want to hear this, but this is what BB and OB see.

    Benny's runs were... -1, 4, 4, 17, 4, 2, 7, 5, 3, -1.

    Now BB isn't stupid. He knows Benny was only getting 3 ypc other than his 17 yard run which alone was around 40% of his yards for the game. They really don't care about the one 17 yard run. What they care about is what they expect he will do on a typical run. When they see a 40% chance of getting anywhere from 3 yards to -1 yards they just aren't going to choose that a lot. The odds just stink. They are much more interested in a consistent 5-6 ypc than a 17 yarder and then a couple of less than 3 yarders. They want the run to set up the series of downs and give them more options. 3 yards or less doesn't change their options, it just wastes a down.

    And that's why they didn't use Benny more. I can't argue with that because my view of a good running game has to do with consistency and there was none of that from Benny or anybody else in that game. I would much rather have 3 rushes for 6 yards each than 3 rushes for 14, 2 and 2 yards each. But I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears, because some here apparently know the game better than BB.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Only you would think that Brady using 80% of his targets to two options as receivers is a good thing, esecially when Brady was helping win SBs he always said his favorite WR was "the open one". Where has that Brady gone?  Hmm?  What's comical is, that's really why we lost SB 46.

    Too much passing and too much targeting of the same two options. Yep. But, you enjoy that deluded little video game world you live in, Jizzdispenser.

    Exposed again, Pezzy. And I never said "Dalton didn't throw an INT" either. I said he played well after they continued to show run, which opened up throwing lanes for him to convert MANY 3rd downs which killed Pitt.

    Meanwhile, our QB throws INTs in SBs on 1st downs. lol

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes you did.  That's exactly what you said. 

    Do I have to retrieve that post and expose you as a liar AGAIN!

    The facts are, TB doesn't throw 80%, to just 2 recievers.  That is what you said, not me

    ps Hern is not the 2nd receiver, Lloyd is.  Actually according to attempts (yes I know he's missed games)  Hern is the 4th, behind Welker, Lloyd and Gronk (who has also been out hurt).  Woody is not far behind with Branch/Edelman to bring up the rear.  That appears to be more than 2 recievers, to me.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not in the Jax game.  How many targets did Lloyd and Hern have each in the Jax game?  I was talking about the Jax game, which is what you're lying about and what Matt05 slapped you on as a sneak.

    You cut and pasted season totals, which was NOT what I was talking about. I was ticked Brady was staring down Hernandez and Welker all game, on the heels of Sheldong's thread about Brady playing poorly.

    You then swooped in to deflect to defend the honor of your virutal lover, Tom Brady. Are you seriously Giselle?

    Please just tell us you are because it make a lot of sense at this point. lol

    [/QUOTE]


    No,

    you were not referring to just the Jax game.  In the same breath as your other BS, you listed Stallworth as one getting scraps.  He did not play in the Jax game.  Neither did OCHO.

    You just said you were pizzed about Welker and Hern being stared down the entire game?

    I just told you Hern was 1/5 and not the second option.  Welker and Lloyd had 12 each. DOH!

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Keep trying Rusty.  In the meantime, what do you think of that run to start the sixth drive? I asked a simple question.  You still haven't answered. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Keep trying? Why won't you take my simple bet? I'll even let you choose the parameters (within reason).

    Answer WHY you won't take my bet, please. Your arrogance is so amazing.

    I have no problems with a run to start the 6th drive. As explained and proven, using Woodhead too much, then seeinng BJGE back out there, tells the D it's a run play which gives them an advantage against our O Line.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Why won't you answer my question? 

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I warned of what would happen BEFORE the SB was played last year, dude. I warned. It happened again and you still don't want to see it.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As I warned you that a D collapse at the endgame would be fatal to our Lombardi dreams.

    I even replied to someone in the game thread who said the D was doing well, "just give me good D at the end".

    Because what you don't understand about this game junior is, that if the D messes up early in say the 4th quarter the O can maybe do something about that. If they mess up with 57 seconds left the O can't do much about that.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Answer WHY you won't take my bet, please. Your arrogance is so amazing.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Junior, I've told you why nobody takes your bet. Because it's stupid.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share