Interesting stat.

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

    Re: Interesting stat.

    In Response to Re: Interesting stat. : Spin away Truechump. Let's try the Niners D. Vs the Saints they faced 15 drives, vs the Giants the same. The Pats' D faced 8 in the SB. The Niners averaged giving up 1.73 points a drive. We averaged 2.37 a drive in the SB. Care to look at any more, phoney?
    Posted by BabeParilli



    Come on now, this is a little oversimplified. Two of the 'drives' the Saints had were possessions when they got the ball back with 12 seconds left in the first half, and 3 seconds left in the game. If you count the 13 real drives the Saints had, they averaged 2.46 points per drive vs. the Niners. And the game against the Giants was in a driving rain and wind storm which featured 22 punts (thats an average of more than one every three minutes). There was very little the offenses could do in that storm. 
                        
    I usually don't bother responding to baby, but can somebody explain to me how listing the actual ppg allowed for post season defense's is "spin"??? i offered no opinion, I just added my own "interesting stat". 

    If I wanted to spin I would say if the Gints hadn't of played the offensively inept Falcons we probably would have been #1 in ppg allowed on defense in the entire damn post season, yet we would still have a few fans here try to explain how our severely short handed defense was the reason why our 33 ppg offense only scored 17 points....again

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

    Re: Interesting stat.

    Every stat is interesting except the score.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Interesting stat.

    In Response to Re: Interesting stat.:
    In Response to Re: Interesting stat. : Spin away Truechump. Let's try the Niners D. Vs the Saints they faced 15 drives, vs the Giants the same. The Pats' D faced 8 in the SB. The Niners averaged giving up 1.73 points a drive. We averaged 2.37 a drive in the SB. Care to look at any more, phoney? Posted by BabeParilli Come on now, this is a little oversimplified. Two of the 'drives' the Saints had were possessions when they got the ball back with 12 seconds left in the first half, and 3 seconds left in the game. If you count the 13 real drives the Saints had, they averaged 2.46 points per drive vs. the Niners. And the game against the Giants was in a driving rain and wind storm which featured 22 punts (thats an average of more than one every three minutes). There was very little the offenses could do in that storm.                       I usually don't bother responding to baby, but can somebody explain to me how listing the actual ppg allowed for post season defense's is "spin"??? i offered no opinion, I just added my own "interesting stat".  If I wanted to spin I would say if the Gints hadn't of played the offensively inept Falcons we probably would have been #1 in ppg allowed on defense in the entire damn post season, yet we would still have a few fans here try to explain how our severely short handed defense was the reason why our 33 ppg offense only scored 17 points....again
    Posted by TrueChamp



    Fair enough Truechump. The day you admit the D not being able to get off the field limited the overall scoring thus skewing the ppg picture is the day you will be taken seriously on this matter. Cherry picking stats is unacceptable.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: Interesting stat.

    Another thread on the same topic between the same 5 people. Yippee.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Interesting stat.

    In Response to Re: Interesting stat.:
    Another thread on the same topic between the same 5 people. Yippee.
    Posted by CaptainZdeno33


    Babe is just trolling at this point when he starts threads like these.  It was obvious from the first post that this was going to happen.

    That being said I can't believe people are actually talking about NE's D and SF's D as if they were anywhere in the same universe.
     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: Interesting stat.

    In Response to Re: Interesting stat.:
    Love how certain people are only fans of one half of the team - didn't BB bring the offense and defense out as a single unit in the Super Bowl?  It's win as a team, lose as a team.
    Posted by Mighty2013

    Yeah really. It's all or nothing, offense and defense, you're either a fan of the team or your not. If you don't like the TEAM then go watch the Jets. 

    Patriots are going all the way this year.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

    Re: Interesting stat.

    There is a definate middle ground in this constant argument. If the d stays healthy, the o is more diverse, and execution is better in all phases this arguement ends.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: Interesting stat.

    In the end. All that counts are wins, who cares if some are ugly.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Interesting stat.

    If, on the other hand, you've got a pretty potent offense and the other team is playing catch-up then, as has been stated, you'll be playing a lot bend-don't-break. 


    And the other team is "chucking it" , their bound to complete a few, or many if all you want to do is keep them in front of you. The yardage given up between the 20's you sacrifice field position if you don't score. The "don't score" is the whole point isn't it?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Interesting stat.

    In Response to Re: Interesting stat.:
    In Response to Re: Interesting stat. : Babe is just trolling at this point when he starts threads like these.  It was obvious from the first post that this was going to happen. That being said I can't believe people are actually talking about NE's D and SF's D as if they were anywhere in the same universe.
    Posted by pcmIV



    Rather than trolling I consider it to be issuing a challenge for those unable to break out of their self imposed blindness to shatter those shackles with truth. I could just go along me merry way being right, but I instead tary for the sake of my fellow man to help dispel his delusions.
     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Interesting stat.

    In Response to Re: Interesting stat.:
    He doesn't even know what  context is.
    Posted by CliffordWasHere



    I do well know what context is.

    For instance.

    We all know you are a wack job. But realizing you were abandoned at infancy and raised by a surfeit of skunks, it is more understandable why you have dementia. See. I know context.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Interesting stat.

    In Response to Re: Interesting stat.:
    How many more times are you going to start these threads here, selfishly, ruining this board,
    Posted by CliffordWasHere



    Hold that forked tongue in your mouth!

    Rather than being selfish, I selflessly endure your dullard ways with an alacrity and bow my back yet again to the task of correcting your abject stupidity.

    And then..... persons who don't like the topic can always simply ignore the thread. You never see me complain about what people choose to post about.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Interesting stat.

    In Response to Re: Interesting stat.:
    You're so dumb and enamored with Tom Brady, you have no idea the crux of this thread actually supports my argument vs yours. LMAO
    Posted by CliffordWasHere



    Oh pray tell junior. I can't wait to swat this idiocy out of the park.

    Sounds like some of your famous "context" coming up. That's always a sure-fire long ball pitch.
     
  17. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Interesting stat.

    In Response to Re: Interesting stat.:
    Lol!  Classic. As suggested, it's over your head.  bawahahaha
    Posted by CliffordWasHere



    No, I'm sure it's just stupid like everything else you offer. I just don't think stupidly like you do so I can't guess what your spin might be. (Maybe I could, but it's too stupid to try.)
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Interesting stat.

    I really shouldn't complain so much about the Four Imbeciles. Pinning their ears back with the facts is the most entertaining thing that happens here in the offseason.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Interesting stat.

    In Response to Re: Interesting stat.:
    No, trust us. You're too dumb. It's sort of like when Mangionemoron, your ally, says too much and then doesn't realize he walks into the wall. lol
    Posted by CliffordWasHere



    Well I'm sure one of your other brilliant cohorts will stumble in and point out the obvious since you are all hush hush about it. LMAO@U

    Again.... who us the "us"? You and the other 3 of the Four Imbeciles?
     
  21. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Interesting stat.

    In Response to Re: Interesting stat.:
    Pretty much 90% of the board who thinks you're a lunatic.
    Posted by CliffordWasHere



    You are a deeply disturbed and confused individual. It's your constant attacks on Brady's play and BB's coaching that have most folks thinking you're the lunatic.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from pats_fan_2012. Show pats_fan_2012's posts

    Re: Interesting stat.

    Babe, just for grins.....BB used 12 of 16 picks on defense over the last 5 years (in rd 1 & rd 2).
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Interesting stat.

    In Response to Re: Interesting stat.:
    Babe, just for grins.....BB used 12 of 16 picks on defense over the last 5 years (in rd 1 & rd 2).
    Posted by pats_fan_2012


    You're right. Fixed it. Still makes the point though. Thanks. Being accurate is essential.

    I guess we could say 13 out of 17 over the last 7 as well.
     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share