Benny Watch cancelled.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    I never made that bet!

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG'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]

    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.  

    Benny was in on the majority of plays except for the fourth drive, which was the hurry-up drive to end the half.  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]

    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?

    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!

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

    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.

    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.

    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. Personally, I don't think Woodhead's skill set warrants that many touches. Note how we lose games when he's used too much.  He had to be used in the hurry up drive, so that was fine. No problems there. It's what they did before and after that drive.  

    Dude, the proof is in the pudding. It's not a coincidence that when Woodhead is used to much, we lose or barely win against bad defenses or when BJGE was used too little and subbed in and out, we lose games we should win.

    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 that. Go look around the league and you will not see any offense do what this one does in terms of subbing RBs in and out. It's our main flaw and if we do it again in January or February, we'll lose again.  The beauty of what BB has right now is, he can use Ridley and Bolden as the same guy.  He has TWO BJGE type lead guys he can use who can catch, block and run inside and out if need be without subbing the skill set.  

    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]


     

    Does anyone actually read all this crap?? Do you just copy and paste from thread to thread saying the same long winded irrelevant crap. Jeeez! Make ur point and move on. Noone has time to read your novels at work

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

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    More spinning.  Rusty says above (and I quote):

    "I'll wager with you RIGHT NOW on this premise.  Right now. Take the bet. We will lose if we don't turn to a lead back, limit the subbing of that back and don't establish some version of a run game by the 2nd qtr."

    Then he says:

     

    "That's not the bet. The bet has been stated here very clearly for anyone to take for like 2-3 months.

    "Here is the wager which can be applied from here on out including Sunday, since Miami's D is a quality D enough to be considered "good".

    "My premise is this:  We lose if Brady throws 40+ times v.s. good or great Ds.

    "This means if he throws more than 40, and we win, you win the bet.  If we lose, with him over 40, I win."

    [/QUOTE]

    So, the bet has changed.  But let's analyze Rusty's second wager, since he does repeat that one over and over.  There's a reason why anyone who really understands football won't take this bet. Those of us who know football know that, unless you're the Lions, you generally don't go into a game planning to throw 40 or more times.  Generally, you end up throwing this much for one of three reasons:  (1) your running game is not working well so you have to try something else to get first downs, (2) you end up in a lot of second and long or third and long situations and are therefore forced into throwing by down and distance, or (3) you are behind in the second half and need to pass in order to score fast. All of these are bad things that mean your chance of losing the game is higher.  But the important thing to note is that the 40+ throws are generally not something you game plan for.  Going into the game, you generally aren't planning to throw that much (there are rare exceptions, of course, such as when the other team has a terrible pass defense and a strong run defense, for instance). Generally, the 40+ throws are a reaction to things not going well during the game, to situations that develop that force you into throwing a lot.  Simply put: the 40+ throws are usually a consequence of bad situations developing. They aren't something you game plan to do--they are something you are forced to do by the situations you find yourself in.    Generally, they are symptoms of the team struggling. So of course, the chance that a game will be a loss when 40+ passes are thrown is higher than when fewer than 40 passes are thrown.  The reason, though, has nothing to do with planning to throw that many times or Brady being a spoiled brat who wants to throw all game from the shotgun.  It is simply a symptom of the Pats being in bad situations that require them to pass a lot. It proves nothing about the game plan or the play calling.    It's a non sequitur.  An oversimplification.  A distraction.  Which is why no one takes Rusty up on his bet.  

     

     

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

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    More spinning.  Rusty says above (and I quote):

    "I'll wager with you RIGHT NOW on this premise.  Right now. Take the bet. We will lose if we don't turn to a lead back, limit the subbing of that back and don't establish some version of a run game by the 2nd qtr."

    Then he says:

     

    "That's not the bet. The bet has been stated here very clearly for anyone to take for like 2-3 months.

    "Here is the wager which can be applied from here on out including Sunday, since Miami's D is a quality D enough to be considered "good".

    "My premise is this:  We lose if Brady throws 40+ times v.s. good or great Ds.

    "This means if he throws more than 40, and we win, you win the bet.  If we lose, with him over 40, I win."

    [/QUOTE]

    So, the bet has changed.  But let's analyze Rusty's second wager, since he does repeat that one over and over.  There's a reason why anyone who really understands football won't take this bet. Those of us who know football know that, unless you're the Lions, you generally don't go into a game planning to throw 40 or more times.  Generally, you end up throwing this much for one of three reasons:  (1) your running game is not working well so you have to try something else to get first downs, (2) you end up in a lot of second and long or third and long situations and are therefore forced into throwing by down and distance, or (3) you are behind in the second half and need to pass in order to score fast. All of these are bad things that mean your chance of losing the game is higher.  But the important thing to note is that the 40+ throws are generally not something you game plan for.  Going into the game, you generally aren't planning to throw that much (there are rare exceptions, of course, such as when the other team has a terrible pass defense and a strong run defense, for instance). Generally, the 40+ throws are a reaction to things not going well during the game, to situations that develop that force you into throwing a lot.  Simply put: the 40+ throws are usually a consequence of bad situations developing. They aren't something you game plan to do--they are something you are forced to do by the situations you find yourself in.    Generally, they are symptoms of the team struggling. So of course, the chance that a game will be a loss when 40+ passes are thrown is higher than when fewer than 40 passes are thrown.  The reason, though, has nothing to do with planning to throw that many times or Brady being a spoiled brat who wants to throw all game from the shotgun.  It is simply a symptom of the Pats being in bad situations that require them to pass a lot. It proves nothing about the game plan or the play calling.    It's a non sequitur.  An oversimplification.  A distraction.  Which is why no one takes Rusty up on his bet.  

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Oh you mean like vs the 9ers when Brady threw up 28 straight points to get the game tied with the shotgun spread being the weapon of choice after the defense let us fall behind early and while Tommy struggled with the # 1 defense and the best pass rusher since L.T. because Solder could not block him in the 1st quarter. Those Situations??  Yea Rusty doesnt acknowledge those...

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

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    You're a phony. I've had my bet on the table for 2-3 months. It's been very clear and everyone knows what it is.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    My bet goes back to last season junior. I challenged PatsEng on it.

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't really care. You are the one who has challenged my premise, ignoring the facts and data for so long, as you quickly rush to blame the D for our own BAD offense.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Me ignoring facts? You have the gall to say this? Facts are my friend. Like I say, facts to you are like the afternoon sun to a vampire.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The reason why you and the other blowhards aren't taking the bet is because you know I am right and you will lose the bet this Sunday, because you TOO, don't trust Tom Brady with how he runs the offense.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No junior. I told you why nobody wants your bet. Because it's stupid. We all know there is a distinct possibility the team will lose when Brady throws 40+ times because that means the running game is probably in the crapper, or the O-line is.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    Like I told you junior, find a game where Brady threw 40+ times that we lost and the run game was being effective; let's say 4.5 ypc or better from the backs. You can't because they don't exist. Amaze us and find one game out of say the last 80!

    There's your bet bucko. Take it or be forever branded a kookoo for cocoa puffs buffoon.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The reason why you and the other blowhards aren't taking the bet is because you know I am right and you will lose the bet this Sunday, because you TOO, don't trust Tom Brady with how he runs the offense.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No junior. I told you why nobody wants your bet. Because it's stupid. We all know there is a distinct possibility the team will lose when Brady throws 40+ times because that means the running game is probably in the crapper, or the O-line is.

    [/QUOTE]


    How is it stupid if we know that 90% of the time when he passes over 40 times, he usually throws at least 1 INT and we lose against good or great Ds?

    If it's so stupid, take the bet and prove me wrong.

    I am giving you a chance to rid the board of me for 1 week.   You toads are all a bunch of little girls, it's so pathetic.

    Why do you think no one is defending you?   Shizzles just swooped in because Hector just took his lunch break at 7-11 so he gets access to the computer for a few minutes.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yoo hoo, junior. We AGREE with you that if Brady throws 40+ times they might lose. That's why nobody wants your stupid bet. But unlike you, we're not saying it's his throwing 40 times that is what loses the game.


    C'mon junior. You won't really leave. You'll just use your fake accounts to nurse your way through a week.

     
  13. 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 prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    More spinning.  Rusty says above (and I quote):

    "I'll wager with you RIGHT NOW on this premise.  Right now. Take the bet. We will lose if we don't turn to a lead back, limit the subbing of that back and don't establish some version of a run game by the 2nd qtr."

    Then he says:

     

    "That's not the bet. The bet has been stated here very clearly for anyone to take for like 2-3 months.

    "Here is the wager which can be applied from here on out including Sunday, since Miami's D is a quality D enough to be considered "good".

    "My premise is this:  We lose if Brady throws 40+ times v.s. good or great Ds.

    "This means if he throws more than 40, and we win, you win the bet.  If we lose, with him over 40, I win."

    [/QUOTE]

    So, the bet has changed.  But let's analyze Rusty's second wager, since he does repeat that one over and over.  There's a reason why anyone who really understands football won't take this bet. Those of us who know football know that, unless you're the Lions, you generally don't go into a game planning to throw 40 or more times.  Generally, you end up throwing this much for one of three reasons:  (1) your running game is not working well so you have to try something else to get first downs, (2) you end up in a lot of second and long or third and long situations and are therefore forced into throwing by down and distance, or (3) you are behind in the second half and need to pass in order to score fast. All of these are bad things that mean your chance of losing the game is higher.  But the important thing to note is that the 40+ throws are generally not something you game plan for.  Going into the game, you generally aren't planning to throw that much (there are rare exceptions, of course, such as when the other team has a terrible pass defense and a strong run defense, for instance). Generally, the 40+ throws are a reaction to things not going well during the game, to situations that develop that force you into throwing a lot.  Simply put: the 40+ throws are usually a consequence of bad situations developing. They aren't something you game plan to do--they are something you are forced to do by the situations you find yourself in.    Generally, they are symptoms of the team struggling. So of course, the chance that a game will be a loss when 40+ passes are thrown is higher than when fewer than 40 passes are thrown.  The reason, though, has nothing to do with planning to throw that many times or Brady being a spoiled brat who wants to throw all game from the shotgun.  It is simply a symptom of the Pats being in bad situations that require them to pass a lot. It proves nothing about the game plan or the play calling.    It's a non sequitur.  An oversimplification.  A distraction.  Which is why no one takes Rusty up on his bet.  

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    How has my bet changed? It's the same bet!  Your backpedaling is pathetic, dude.

    What's even more pathetic is that these 40 passes USUALLY come when we have a lead in the game.

    Do not force me to post the games that show this since 2005. The reason why you and the other blowhards aren't taking the bet is because you know I am right and you will lose the bet this Sunday, because you TOO, don't trust Tom Brady with how he runs the offense.

    You have no balls and no spine and this proves that. You can fly in to every home game you want, Prolate, but your Brady homerism has blinded you from the truth.  Did you ever tell us when you started with your season tickets? lol

    It's utter and complete CRAP that he gets to 40 throws when things aren't going well. A 21-3 lead in Buffalo up to 21-3 in a pass happy, 4 INT game for him, is WHY I realized what this main problem was with this offense and why I am still destroying you in this debate 18 months later!

    It doesn't matter what game we lost or barely won since 2005 where he threw 40 times, because almost all of them occurred when we had leads. LEADS.

    His INTs and other 3 and out disasters with obsessive passing BY CHOICE, BY CHOICE of Brady, in his preffered shotgun spread base, is not because he was "forced" at all.

    That's a flat out lie.

    Take the bet or forever be known as a coward and disingenuous fan here.

    [/QUOTE]


    Please post those stats.  I'd love to see them.  Go ahead, coward and liar,  Do it!

    Also post all the losses where they were ahead in the 4th and the D blew it. 

    Here, I'll make it easier for you.  Just list all the losses where the Pats weret ahead in the 4th and the D didn't blow it.  Thanks

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

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Like I told you junior, find a game where Brady threw 40+ times that we lost and the run game was being effective; let's say 4.5 ypc or better from the backs. You can't because they don't exist. Amaze us and find one game out of say the last 80!

    There's your bet bucko. Take it or be forever branded a kookoo for cocoa puffs buffoon.

    [/QUOTE]

    With all due respect to Russ (that's hard), using 4.5 yards per carry as the measuring stick for an effective run game is a pretty high standard.  Currently, only 9 teams in the NFL have that kind of a stat.  I wouldn't equate all others as ineffective.  In 2011, there were only 8 (25% of the league).  In 2010 and 2009, only 7. 

    Not to call you out, but its one of your more common tactics which is to set challenges that can't be met then claim victory. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    More spinning.  Rusty says above (and I quote):

    "I'll wager with you RIGHT NOW on this premise.  Right now. Take the bet. We will lose if we don't turn to a lead back, limit the subbing of that back and don't establish some version of a run game by the 2nd qtr."

    Then he says:

     

    "That's not the bet. The bet has been stated here very clearly for anyone to take for like 2-3 months.

    "Here is the wager which can be applied from here on out including Sunday, since Miami's D is a quality D enough to be considered "good".

    "My premise is this:  We lose if Brady throws 40+ times v.s. good or great Ds.

    "This means if he throws more than 40, and we win, you win the bet.  If we lose, with him over 40, I win."

    [/QUOTE]

    So, the bet has changed.  But let's analyze Rusty's second wager, since he does repeat that one over and over.  There's a reason why anyone who really understands football won't take this bet. Those of us who know football know that, unless you're the Lions, you generally don't go into a game planning to throw 40 or more times.  Generally, you end up throwing this much for one of three reasons:  (1) your running game is not working well so you have to try something else to get first downs, (2) you end up in a lot of second and long or third and long situations and are therefore forced into throwing by down and distance, or (3) you are behind in the second half and need to pass in order to score fast. All of these are bad things that mean your chance of losing the game is higher.  But the important thing to note is that the 40+ throws are generally not something you game plan for.  Going into the game, you generally aren't planning to throw that much (there are rare exceptions, of course, such as when the other team has a terrible pass defense and a strong run defense, for instance). Generally, the 40+ throws are a reaction to things not going well during the game, to situations that develop that force you into throwing a lot.  Simply put: the 40+ throws are usually a consequence of bad situations developing. They aren't something you game plan to do--they are something you are forced to do by the situations you find yourself in.    Generally, they are symptoms of the team struggling. So of course, the chance that a game will be a loss when 40+ passes are thrown is higher than when fewer than 40 passes are thrown.  The reason, though, has nothing to do with planning to throw that many times or Brady being a spoiled brat who wants to throw all game from the shotgun.  It is simply a symptom of the Pats being in bad situations that require them to pass a lot. It proves nothing about the game plan or the play calling.    It's a non sequitur.  An oversimplification.  A distraction.  Which is why no one takes Rusty up on his bet.  

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Oh you mean like vs the 9ers when Brady threw up 28 straight points to get the game tied with the shotgun spread being the weapon of choice after the defense let us fall behind early and while Tommy struggled with the # 1 defense and the best pass rusher since L.T. because Solder could not block him in the 1st quarter. Those Situations??  Yea Rusty doesnt acknowledge those...

    [/QUOTE]

    That's an outlier example.   The two fumbles were a bad thing, but Brady's 2 INTs on top of that certainly didn't help.

    Nice try deflecting, though. Why don't one of you pansies take my simple bet?

    You won't even take it against Miami at HOME in Week 17 in the snow after back to back poor offensive showings? Why is that, Shizzles? You don't trust your virtual lover Brady either?

    Hmm?

    [/QUOTE]

     Dont include me in your online betting scandal. I have never once told you i would take the bet I dont know about and dont care too. Go tell the warden to take your bet, IDK but please leave me out of your silly bets. Im looking forward to a win and getting out healthy  and anything else is irrelevant to me

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The reason why you and the other blowhards aren't taking the bet is because you know I am right and you will lose the bet this Sunday, because you TOO, don't trust Tom Brady with how he runs the offense.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No junior. I told you why nobody wants your bet. Because it's stupid. We all know there is a distinct possibility the team will lose when Brady throws 40+ times because that means the running game is probably in the crapper, or the O-line is.

    [/QUOTE]


    How is it stupid if we know that 90% of the time when he passes over 40 times, he usually throws at least 1 INT and we lose against good or great Ds?

    If it's so stupid, take the bet and prove me wrong.

    I am giving you a chance to rid the board of me for 1 week.   You toads are all a bunch of little girls, it's so pathetic.

    Why do you think no one is defending you?   Shizzles just swooped in because Hector just took his lunch break at 7-11 so he gets access to the computer for a few minutes.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    U finally said something atleast remotely funny but alas, you still have the wrong guy. Im more of a store 24 kind of guy.

     
  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 UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Like I told you junior, find a game where Brady threw 40+ times that we lost and the run game was being effective; let's say 4.5 ypc or better from the backs. You can't because they don't exist. Amaze us and find one game out of say the last 80!

    There's your bet bucko. Take it or be forever branded a kookoo for cocoa puffs buffoon.

    [/QUOTE]

    With all due respect to Russ (that's hard), using 4.5 yards per carry as the measuring stick for an effective run game is a pretty high standard.  Currently, only 9 teams in the NFL have that kind of a stat.  I wouldn't equate all others as ineffective.  In 2011, there were only 8 (25% of the league).  In 2010 and 2009, only 7. 

    Not to call you out, but its one of your more common tactics which is to set challenges that can't be met then claim victory. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Thank you. A 4.5 YPC average is for RBs like Adrian Peterson.   Or, when we blow out a BAD defense, which doesn't reflect my premise (I've said for 18 months "good or great Ds").

    Thanks for helping me expose why they are total pansies on this topic.

    My bet is more than fair and reflects my premise and theirs.  They have sat here over a year and said 40+ passing in a game is irrelevant.

    Now, they are claiming it's where the games called for more passing neeed due to NE trailing.

    Maybe we're trailing because Tommy Boy  has thrown mutliple picks and we go 3 and out constantly!

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Ummm, no.  The Pats get more first downs and have the least 3 & outs of any team.  We are behind because the D gives up multiple TD passes over 20 yards every single game.

    Now go get those stats for us.  We're waiting. 

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

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    How has my bet changed? It's the same bet!  Your backpedaling is pathetic, dude.

    Well, I did quote the text.  Two different things. You can try to say the sun rises in the west, but everyone can see the truth for themselves.   

    What's even more pathetic is that these 40 passes USUALLY come when we have a lead in the game.

    Do not force me to post the games that show this since 2005.

    No please do.  Look at every game where Brady threw 40 or more times.  Compare the passing statistics from the first half with those for the whole game.  That will be instructive. Also look at what we were getting in the run game when we did run and a the situations in which Brady threw.  I think you'll see that when we threw that much at least one of three things were true: (1) we were behind; (2) the running game wasn't productive; or (3) we were in a lot of passing situations because of down and distance.  Brady and the coaches know what they're doing, really. 

    The reason why you and the other blowhards aren't taking the bet is because you know I am right and you will lose the bet this Sunday, because you TOO, don't trust Tom Brady with how he runs the offense.

    You have no balls and no spine and this proves that. You can fly in to every home game you want, Prolate, but your Brady homerism has blinded you from the truth.  Did you ever tell us when you started with your season tickets? lol

    No, we're not taking your bet because it's rigged in your favor because we all acknowledge that throwing 40+ times a game is generally a symptom of a game not going well.  It has nothing to do with Brady getting away with something or not being "reined in."  Generally, we throw that much because Brady is trying to salvage a win in a bad situation.  

    It's utter and complete CRAP that he gets to 40 throws when things aren't going well. A 21-3 lead in Buffalo up to 21-3 in a pass happy, 4 INT game for him, is WHY I realized what this main problem was with this offense and why I am still destroying you in this debate 18 months later!

    You still think the problem in the Arizona game was Brady throwing too much.  Despite the fact that they ran only 15 passing plays the whole first half (against 16 running plays).  

    It doesn't matter what game we lost or barely won since 2005 where he threw 40 times, because almost all of them occurred when we had leads. LEADS.

    We may have had leads at times in some or all of those games . . . but you have to look at more than that.  

    His INTs and other 3 and out disasters with obsessive passing BY CHOICE, BY CHOICE of Brady, in his preffered shotgun spread base, is not because he was "forced" at all.

    This is just your fantasy. Brady isn't the spoiled brat you imagine and the coaches not the spineless wimps your theory requires them to be.  

    That's a flat out lie.

    Take the bet or forever be known as a coward and disingenuous fan here.

    By whom, you? 

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Like I told you junior, find a game where Brady threw 40+ times that we lost and the run game was being effective; let's say 4.5 ypc or better from the backs. You can't because they don't exist. Amaze us and find one game out of say the last 80!

    There's your bet bucko. Take it or be forever branded a kookoo for cocoa puffs buffoon.

    [/QUOTE]

    With all due respect to Russ (that's hard), using 4.5 yards per carry as the measuring stick for an effective run game is a pretty high standard.  Currently, only 9 teams in the NFL have that kind of a stat.  I wouldn't equate all others as ineffective.  In 2011, there were only 8 (25% of the league).  In 2010 and 2009, only 7. 

    Not to call you out, but its one of your more common tactics which is to set challenges that can't be met then claim victory. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Thank you. A 4.5 YPC average is for RBs like Adrian Peterson.   Or, when we blow out a BAD defense, which doesn't reflect my premise (I've said for 18 months "good or great Ds").

    Thanks for helping me expose why they are total pansies on this topic.

    My bet is more than fair and reflects my premise and theirs.  They have sat here over a year and said 40+ passing in a game is irrelevant.

    Now, they are claiming it's where the games called for more passing neeed due to NE trailing.

    Maybe we're trailing because Tommy Boy  has thrown mutliple picks and we go 3 and out constantly!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Don't know what your challenge is, but wouldn't be surprised if it isn't nearly as obtuse, but I've seen babe pull such a stunt a number of times before, and just happened to read his post. 

    What I believe is that there likely isn't a statistical certainty regarding either one of your perspectives whatever they are.  Well, I take that back.  As I noted, Babe seems to always phrase his so that there is a statistical certainty, but in doing so likely doesn't support his larger point.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Benny Watch cancelled.

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Like I told you junior, find a game where Brady threw 40+ times that we lost and the run game was being effective; let's say 4.5 ypc or better from the backs. You can't because they don't exist. Amaze us and find one game out of say the last 80!

    There's your bet bucko. Take it or be forever branded a kookoo for cocoa puffs buffoon.

    [/QUOTE]

    With all due respect to Russ (that's hard), using 4.5 yards per carry as the measuring stick for an effective run game is a pretty high standard.  Currently, only 9 teams in the NFL have that kind of a stat.  I wouldn't equate all others as ineffective.  In 2011, there were only 8 (25% of the league).  In 2010 and 2009, only 7. 

    Not to call you out, but its one of your more common tactics which is to set challenges that can't be met then claim victory. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Thank you. A 4.5 YPC average is for RBs like Adrian Peterson.   Or, when we blow out a BAD defense, which doesn't reflect my premise (I've said for 18 months "good or great Ds").

    Thanks for helping me expose why they are total pansies on this topic.

    My bet is more than fair and reflects my premise and theirs.  They have sat here over a year and said 40+ passing in a game is irrelevant.

    Now, they are claiming it's where the games called for more passing neeed due to NE trailing.

    Maybe we're trailing because Tommy Boy  has thrown mutliple picks and we go 3 and out constantly!

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Ummm, no.  The Pats get more first downs and have the least 3 & outs of any team.  We are behind because the D gives up multiple TD passes over 20 yards every single game.

    Now go get those stats for us.  We're waiting. 

    [/QUOTE]
    Don't really want to jump into this but here goes. 

    I am going to grant Pezz's stats about 1st downs and 3 and outs without looking them up.  But I do think I just looked up his stat about the defense giving up multiple TD passes over 20 yds every single game. 

    If I have this correct, the pats d has given up only 5 tds (only Pitt is better at 4) of over 20 yds, and their longest TD given up (31 yds) is second best to only Houston. 

    So Pezz may be right on one hand, but he trying feed a line of doo doo on the other.

     

Share