It's about "Balance"

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

    Re: It's about

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Saying something is a straw man argument is a great way of saying "I can't argue with logic, so I'll refer to it as a straw man."  The pass happy contingent, whoever they may be, have argued that a finesse offense can win with the same regularity as a smashmouth offense, which is preposterous.

    You can say what you want about 2007 but the Pat's were ranked 9th out of 32 teams in rushing attempts, I know revisionists and fantasy freaks alike love to recall Brady to Moss, but the reality was Maroney (4.5 YPC) and Sammy Morris with a helping hand by Faulk (who was also the 3rd leading receiver) was a big part of that.

    Controlling the clock and time of possession is easier with a run game because it's more reliable than passing, trying to convert 3rd and short is easier than converting a 3rd and long.  A running game requires less variables and moving pieces than a pass game, but most importantly there are three options on offense; a run, a pass or a punt.  To dismiss one as unnecessary and say you're better off, that you can create the same parity and confusion to an opposing defense is downright dumb.

    Not that I'm insulting you, because you're obviously overly sensitive since nowhere have I personally insulted as you've ascribed.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    This is at least my 3rd time trying to respomd to your post (god only knows where the previous attempts went). Talking about a "don't need to run it's a passing league" committee while referencing my comments is an example of a straw man argument. When have I or anyone ever stated that the Pats should not run the ball. I would be extremely happy if the Pats were a good running team as long as they have a good defense as well as a good passing attack. If they do not have a good defense it is easier (in fact a lot easier) to win with a top flight QB and a strong passing attack. Teams that can only pass good win at much higher percentages than teams that run well assuming the defenses are only average. The Pats, Colts, Packers, Saints and Giants have shown recently that you can win a lot by being a passing team with a below average defense (some of these teams have had horrible defenses). Give the 49ers or Ravens last years Packers defense and do they even get close to the playoffs let alone the AFC or NFC championship games. Anyone who claims that the 2007 Pats offensive explosion was a direct result of the Pats running game (Maroney) and not because of the passing attack clearly was not watching a lot of Patriot games very closely that year.

    [/QUOTE]

    You think the 49ers or Ravens defense is good in spite of their offense, I contend they are that good because of their offense, special teams as well.  The year before Harbaugh took over basically the same 49er team, they were the 16th ranked defense in PPG allowed and 25th in offensive rushing attempts.  

    Harbaugh enters and they jump to 3rd in the NFL in rushing attempts and become the best defense in the NFL.

    The QB who was considered a universal "bust," leads them to the NFC championship game and if not for two muffed kicks by a rookie they would have played in the Super Bowl.  A running game is a QB's best friend.

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

    Re: It's about

    In response to sporter81's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It's all about balance . Without it there are no championships.

    [/QUOTE]


    I see you did not admonish this thread's creation about balance. I thought it was a divisive isuue?

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: It's about

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Saying something is a straw man argument is a great way of saying "I can't argue with logic, so I'll refer to it as a straw man."  The pass happy contingent, whoever they may be, have argued that a finesse offense can win with the same regularity as a smashmouth offense, which is preposterous.

    You can say what you want about 2007 but the Pat's were ranked 9th out of 32 teams in rushing attempts, I know revisionists and fantasy freaks alike love to recall Brady to Moss, but the reality was Maroney (4.5 YPC) and Sammy Morris with a helping hand by Faulk (who was also the 3rd leading receiver) was a big part of that.

    Controlling the clock and time of possession is easier with a run game because it's more reliable than passing, trying to convert 3rd and short is easier than converting a 3rd and long.  A running game requires less variables and moving pieces than a pass game, but most importantly there are three options on offense; a run, a pass or a punt.  To dismiss one as unnecessary and say you're better off, that you can create the same parity and confusion to an opposing defense is downright dumb.

    Not that I'm insulting you, because you're obviously overly sensitive since nowhere have I personally insulted as you've ascribed.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    This is at least my 3rd time trying to respomd to your post (god only knows where the previous attempts went). Talking about a "don't need to run it's a passing league" committee while referencing my comments is an example of a straw man argument. When have I or anyone ever stated that the Pats should not run the ball. I would be extremely happy if the Pats were a good running team as long as they have a good defense as well as a good passing attack. If they do not have a good defense it is easier (in fact a lot easier) to win with a top flight QB and a strong passing attack. Teams that can only pass good win at much higher percentages than teams that run well assuming the defenses are only average. The Pats, Colts, Packers, Saints and Giants have shown recently that you can win a lot by being a passing team with a below average defense (some of these teams have had horrible defenses). Give the 49ers or Ravens last years Packers defense and do they even get close to the playoffs let alone the AFC or NFC championship games. Anyone who claims that the 2007 Pats offensive explosion was a direct result of the Pats running game (Maroney) and not because of the passing attack clearly was not watching a lot of Patriot games very closely that year.

    [/QUOTE]

    You think the 49ers or Ravens defense is good in spite of their offense, I contend they are that good because of their offense, special teams as well.  The year before Harbaugh took over basically the same 49er team, they were the 16th ranked defense in PPG allowed and 25th in offensive rushing attempts.  

    Harbaugh enters and they jump to 3rd in the NFL in rushing attempts and become the best defense in the NFL.

    The QB who was considered a universal "bust," leads them to the NFC championship game and if not for two muffed kicks by a rookie they would have played in the Super Bowl.  A running game is a QB's best friend.

    [/QUOTE]


    Harbaugh correctly figured out taking the ball out of that QBs hands was a good thing.

     

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: It's about

    In response to DelGriffith's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I wish we had done that in the 4th with Brady in the SB. Ouch.

    Babe, you're the only football fan, who doesn't ride the shortbus, who thinks Woodhead is a more effective RB than Woodhead.

    LMAO

    [/QUOTE]


    Wrong again Rusty. I actually think Woodhead is better than Woodhead.

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

    Re: It's about

    In response to DelGriffith's comment:


    What is "divicive"?

    [/QUOTE]

    Probably the same thing as isuue.

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

    Re: It's about



    You think the 49ers or Ravens defense is good in spite of their offense, I contend they are that good because of their offense, special teams as well.  The year before Harbaugh took over basically the same 49er team, they were the 16th ranked defense in PPG allowed and 25th in offensive rushing attempts.  

    Harbaugh enters and they jump to 3rd in the NFL in rushing attempts and become the best defense in the NFL.

    The QB who was considered a universal "bust," leads them to the NFC championship game and if not for two muffed kicks by a rookie they would have played in the Super Bowl.  A running game is a QB's best friend.

    [/QUOTE]


    I do not think the 49ers and Ravens were good in spite of their offence. I think their offences were fine (especially the Ravens which I think is very underrated). You are right in that I do not think the 49ers defense is good because of Frank Gore. I think it's good because it has very good players and a great head coach. The previous head coach was a disaster. The 49ers had talent they could not put it together. Smith was good last year but their "balanced" attack failed against the Giants just like the Ravens balanced attack failed against the Patriots. Why? The Ravens were more balanced, a much better defense with a great running back yet lost too a mediocre Pats defensive squad whose offense is unbalanced and, according to everyone here, who's qb was awful (I of course dispute this but that's in diferrent threads). Good defense is a product of good talent and execution, just like good offense is. Good QB's are very expensive though and sometimes lead to teams having to save money elsewhere like on defense for example (or in the case of the Pats; safeties and kick returners).

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from GO47. Show GO47's posts

    Re: It's about

    More evidence that Patriots want to be more balanced by their coach and players.

    Taken from today's Hearld:

    Pats get boost from run game

    By Jeff Howe
    Saturday, October 6, 2012 -
    Updated 7 hours ago

     

     

    FOXBORO - After faking a handoff to Brandon Bolden, quarterback Tom Brady [stats] turned around and realized the Patriots [team stats] offense hit the jackpot on the first play of the fourth quarter during Sunday's victory against the Bills.

    Brady saw his record-setting tight end, Rob Gronkowski, streaking wide open over the middle of the field before hitting him for a 28-yard touchdown pass that gave the Patriots the lead and started a 52-28 pummeling of their division foes.

    How did the Bills lose Gronkowski, whose stats are as noticeable as his hulking stature? It's because they were fooled by the Patriots' attempts to balance out the offense, which called 12 running plays and 12 passing plays in the previous quarter. Brady's play fake tempted two linebackers to sell out against the run and allowed Gronkowski free reign down the middle.

    The art of play-action isn't always about the acting job of the quarterback, running back and offensive line. Plenty of times, the illusion is created beforehand when the offense tricks the defense into thinking they'll run whenever they please.

    That's the advantage of a balanced offense.

    "Any great football team has got to be balanced, and that's what we're working toward," said Stevan Ridley, the Patriots' leading rusher with 339 yards. "We;ve got to go in there, play our game and do what we have to do. When we have the defense on their heels and they don't know what to expect, it makes it a lot easier on everybody."

    The Pats have been well-balanced this season, but haven’t reinvented their playbook. For the most part, they’re above average by their own standards.

    Through four games, the Pats have run the ball on 137 of 299 plays (45.8 percent). That serves as their third-most runs through four games in Bill Belichick;s 13-year tenure, and the run-to-pass ratio is the fifth highest since 2000. They actually ran the ball 47.1 percent of the time through four games in 2010 when Randy Moss was still on the roster.

    The Patriots' 576 rushing yards through four games is also their third most under Belichick, but that only amounts to 32.9 percent of their total yardage, which is the ninth-highest clip.

    More than anything, the Patriots might be doing a better job mixing it up by the goal line. Seven of their 14 offensive touchdowns are on the ground. The seven scores are their most through four games under Belichick, and it's the fourth time they've scored at least half of their offensive touchdowns on the ground.

    Again, the Patriots have done a good job on the ground, and Ridley has given them a more exciting dynamic of power and explosion than they've had in quite some time. But offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels hasn't exactly put Bill O'Brien's playbook in the shredder.

    This could be a matter of better execution because the numbers dictate the philosophy hasn't changed. The Patriots have certainly capitalized off Brady's right arm, but they have tried to establish the run in the first month of previous seasons.

    It just happens to be working better during this go-round.

    "It's a great way to play because it just forces the defense to have to react and cover everything," Belichick said. "The more balanced that you can be, then the less they can say, 'Well, we're just going to concentrate on this one thing,' because you've shown them too many other things that they have to defend."

     

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

    Re: It's about

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Saying something is a straw man argument is a great way of saying "I can't argue with logic, so I'll refer to it as a straw man."  The pass happy contingent, whoever they may be, have argued that a finesse offense can win with the same regularity as a smashmouth offense, which is preposterous.

    You can say what you want about 2007 but the Pat's were ranked 9th out of 32 teams in rushing attempts, I know revisionists and fantasy freaks alike love to recall Brady to Moss, but the reality was Maroney (4.5 YPC) and Sammy Morris with a helping hand by Faulk (who was also the 3rd leading receiver) was a big part of that.

    Controlling the clock and time of possession is easier with a run game because it's more reliable than passing, trying to convert 3rd and short is easier than converting a 3rd and long.  A running game requires less variables and moving pieces than a pass game, but most importantly there are three options on offense; a run, a pass or a punt.  To dismiss one as unnecessary and say you're better off, that you can create the same parity and confusion to an opposing defense is downright dumb.

    Not that I'm insulting you, because you're obviously overly sensitive since nowhere have I personally insulted as you've ascribed.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    This is at least my 3rd time trying to respomd to your post (god only knows where the previous attempts went). Talking about a "don't need to run it's a passing league" committee while referencing my comments is an example of a straw man argument. When have I or anyone ever stated that the Pats should not run the ball. I would be extremely happy if the Pats were a good running team as long as they have a good defense as well as a good passing attack. If they do not have a good defense it is easier (in fact a lot easier) to win with a top flight QB and a strong passing attack. Teams that can only pass good win at much higher percentages than teams that run well assuming the defenses are only average. The Pats, Colts, Packers, Saints and Giants have shown recently that you can win a lot by being a passing team with a below average defense (some of these teams have had horrible defenses). Give the 49ers or Ravens last years Packers defense and do they even get close to the playoffs let alone the AFC or NFC championship games. Anyone who claims that the 2007 Pats offensive explosion was a direct result of the Pats running game (Maroney) and not because of the passing attack clearly was not watching a lot of Patriot games very closely that year.

    [/QUOTE]

    You think the 49ers or Ravens defense is good in spite of their offense, I contend they are that good because of their offense, special teams as well.  The year before Harbaugh took over basically the same 49er team, they were the 16th ranked defense in PPG allowed and 25th in offensive rushing attempts.  

    Harbaugh enters and they jump to 3rd in the NFL in rushing attempts and become the best defense in the NFL.

    The QB who was considered a universal "bust," leads them to the NFC championship game and if not for two muffed kicks by a rookie they would have played in the Super Bowl.  A running game is a QB's best friend.

    [/QUOTE]


    Harbaugh correctly figured out taking the ball out of that QBs hands was a good thing.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Same QB, different philosophy, different results.

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

    Re: It's about

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    Same QB, different philosophy, different results.

    [/QUOTE]


    Philosophy was crafted to compensate for the QB's abilities. If he had a Rogers or Brady he would do differently.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: It's about

    Its all about Balance...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfqygporjR0&feature=rellist&playnext=1&list=PL08A3095BFA9803C6

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsPoBXemFmg

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from GO47. Show GO47's posts

    Re: It's about

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Its all about Balance...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfqygporjR0&feature=rellist&playnext=1&list=PL08A3095BFA9803C6

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsPoBXemFmg

    [/QUOTE]

    LOL

    Wax on, wax off!

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

    Re: It's about

    "How did the Bills lose Gronkowski, whose stats are as noticeable as his hulking stature? It's because they were fooled by the Patriots' attempts to balance out the offense, which called 12 running plays and 12 passing plays in the previous quarter. Brady's play fake tempted two linebackers to sell out against the run and allowed Gronkowski free reign down the middle."

     

    Strange theory? The run opens up the pass??

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

    Re: It's about

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    Same QB, different philosophy, different results.

    [/QUOTE]


    Philosophy was crafted to compensate for the QB's abilities. If he had a Rogers or Brady he would do differently.

    [/QUOTE]


    That's conjecture on your part.

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

    Re: It's about

     

    Well, Champ, Chan Gailey said he left his nickel in to cover Gronk and Welker.  I heard the interview.  They were afraid of the pass, and that opened the run for the Pats.  The difference between this year and last is the Patriots have a better running attack--in large part because they've got runners who can get extra yards on their own and in large part because they've got good blocking TEs (especially with Gronk and Fells in).  The Fells reception early (I think it was the first play) was very important and was almost certainly designed to force the Bills to respect Fells as a receiver.  The Welker and Gronk receptions (along with the attempts to Lloyd) forced the Bills to respect the pass.  This opened up great opportunities in the running game because Fells and Gronk are excellent blockers, and seven big blockers against all those DBs is a huge mismatch.  It's the reason we saw big, gaping holes on the running plays. No doubt the pass set up the run in that game.  The reason we know this is true (and not the other way around) is because the Bills' defense was completely pass focused.  When the run is setting up the pass, the defense leans toward the run.  This was the opposite situation.

    Of course, good for the Pats for having the personnel this year to take advantage of a defense when it gives you the run.  And good for Josh for calling those plays.

    Of course, Bill O'Brien did much the same against the Raiders last year . . .

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

    Re: It's about

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Well, Champ, Chan Gailey said he left his nickel in to cover Gronk and Welker.  I heard the interview.  They were afraid of the pass, and that opened the run for the Pats.  The difference between this year and last is the Patriots have a better running attack--in large part because they've got runners who can get extra yards on their own and in large part because they've got good blocking TEs (especially with Gronk and Fells in).  The Fells reception early (I think it was the first play) was very important and was almost certainly designed to force the Bills to respect Fells as a receiver.  The Welker and Gronk receptions (along with the attempts to Lloyd) forced the Bills to respect the pass.  This opened up great opportunities in the running game because Fells and Gronk are excellent blockers, and seven big blockers against all those DBs is a huge mismatch.  It's the reason we saw big, gaping holes on the running plays. No doubt the pass set up the run in that game.  The reason we know this is true (and not the other way around) is because the Bills' defense was completely pass focused.  When the run is setting up the pass, the defense leans toward the run.  This was the opposite situation.

    Of course, good for the Pats for having the personnel this year to take advantage of a defense when it gives you the run.  And good for Josh for calling those plays.

    Of course, Bill O'Brien did much the same against the Raiders last year . . .

    [/QUOTE]

    Baloney, the very first play of the game was I Formation, Fells at fullback, PLAY ACTION.  In fact most of the long gainers in this game were from play action.  Play action happens when they respect the run, not the pass.  

    But you're right O'Brien DID do it last year against the Raider's, with the runningback that you say wasn't talented enough and Ridely, then he went back to being his predictable pass happy bubble-boy self whenever running became challenging... that's why he was mediocre.  He had no resolve or patience, it was visible in his "in your face" management style... he was a clown.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rajon-Hondo. Show Rajon-Hondo's posts

    Re: It's about

    Keep going to the 1-5 hole and then drawing them in and gashing them and gashing them until they commit and kill them with seams and and forks. We showed we could make teams play the run and have to look for it every play. Last week we forced Denver to chose every play in the second half inside or out no playing the outside for pass or run. We got Gronk open and Loyd deep running pass sets out of running formations. That should be our formula going forward,being able to get 2&4s and3rd and1-2s by hitting it inside and breaking out. No lateral riunnings plays use screens for that.We are #1 in plus minus our D is fine. we are 2 snaps from being 4-0 so we are going to pound down the Broncos Sunday night. NE 38 - den 17

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

    Re: It's about

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    But you're right O'Brien DID do it last year against the Raider's, with the runningback that you say wasn't talented enough and Ridely, then he went back to being his predictable pass happy bubble-boy self whenever running became challenging... that's why he was mediocre.  He had no resolve or patience, it was visible in his "in your face" management style... he was a clown.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    You are aware the Raiders had one of the worst run defenses in the NFL last season, right?

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

    Re: It's about

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Well, Champ, Chan Gailey said he left his nickel in to cover Gronk and Welker.  I heard the interview.  They were afraid of the pass, and that opened the run for the Pats.  The difference between this year and last is the Patriots have a better running attack--in large part because they've got runners who can get extra yards on their own and in large part because they've got good blocking TEs (especially with Gronk and Fells in).  The Fells reception early (I think it was the first play) was very important and was almost certainly designed to force the Bills to respect Fells as a receiver.  The Welker and Gronk receptions (along with the attempts to Lloyd) forced the Bills to respect the pass.  This opened up great opportunities in the running game because Fells and Gronk are excellent blockers, and seven big blockers against all those DBs is a huge mismatch.  It's the reason we saw big, gaping holes on the running plays. No doubt the pass set up the run in that game.  The reason we know this is true (and not the other way around) is because the Bills' defense was completely pass focused.  When the run is setting up the pass, the defense leans toward the run.  This was the opposite situation.

    Of course, good for the Pats for having the personnel this year to take advantage of a defense when it gives you the run.  And good for Josh for calling those plays.

    Of course, Bill O'Brien did much the same against the Raiders last year . . .

    [/QUOTE]

    Baloney, the very first play of the game was I Formation, Fells at fullback, PLAY ACTION.  In fact most of the long gainers in this game were from play action.  Play action happens when they respect the run, not the pass.  

    But you're right O'Brien DID do it last year against the Raider's, with the runningback that you say wasn't talented enough and Ridely, then he went back to being his predictable pass happy bubble-boy self whenever running became challenging... that's why he was mediocre.  He had no resolve or patience, it was visible in his "in your face" management style... he was a clown.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Fried double baloney with a runny egg sandwich!

    Seriously!  Just make up whatever.  Do you attend the crusty school of logic?

     

    After re-watching the second half of the Patriots’ Week 4 win over the Bills, passing along some notes and observations.

    1. Pivotal second-half play: The Patriots got it rolling offensively in the second half, scoring touchdowns on six straight possessions, starting with their second drive. The play of the drive, at least in this estimation, was its final play, in which Tom Brady hooked up with Danny Woodhead on a third & 9, and the running back scampered to the end zone. Brady, although not fleet of foot, swiftly alluded pressure in the pocket, as he does so precisely, and bought himself an extra second, which allowed Woodhead to disengage from his coverage and find open space. That drive, and that play, really seemed to set the wheels in motion.

    2. Perfect setup: In our first-half observations, we made note of the Patriots using the pass to set up the run. They did more of that in the second half, as the Patriots started five of their six touchdown drives with a pass, with the lone exception being a short drive that began from the Bills’ 12-yard line after Devin McCourty’s second interception of the game. With Brady locked in and the Bills struggling to adjust to the Patriots’ personnel, it was an impressive display of offensive efficiency, and strong starts to almost every drive played a pivotal role in the massive output.

     

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

    Re: It's about

    C'mon Wozzy, don't be a butthead.  They left the nickel and dime personnel in the game precisely because they were most worried about defending the pass.  Sure, they were worried about the run too, which is why play action worked in the passing game.  DBs who aren't the stoutest run defenders are prone to overreact when they read (or misread) run.  But the reason the Pats were gashing the defense with the run was because the whole Bills defense (personnel and formations) were designed primarily to defend passes.  Chan Gailey said so himself.

     

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

    Re: It's about

    I think that we would all agree that a team that runs and passes well is going to be better than a team that only can do one of those. Defenses have an advantage against one dimensional teams . This is what's great about this years team, defenses have to account for both, it's going to open up the passing game even more. IMO balance Doesn't have to be 50-50 , teams are going to throw more than they pass but they have to make the defense think that they can and will run the ball. This years team does that, the offense hasn't even really started, they will keep getting better unlike 2007 when they peaked early.

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

    Re: It's about

    Oh, and Wozzy, that "clown" Bill O'Brien is having a great season so far against terrible odds at Penn State.  His team upset No. 24 Northwestern today, after a good win against Illinois last week.  In fact, talk is already beginning about how he's in the early lead for college coach of the year.

    Nice to see an ex-Pats guy doing well.  Funny how some fans think O'Brien was an idiot and Weis a genius, yet the early indications are that of the two ex-Pats offensive coordinators O'Brien may very well turn out to be the better college coach.  Weis had a good first season at Notre Dame, of course, but went downhill from there.  We'll see what happens with O'Brien, but you've got to be impressed with what he's done with a team so decimated by the events of the past offseason.

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

    Re: It's about

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Oh, and Wozzy, that "clown" Bill O'Brien is having a great season so far against terrible odds at Penn State.  His team upset No. 24 Northwestern today, after a good win against Illinois last week. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah that was good to see. He's doing a great job at Penn State ,

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

    Re: It's about

    Poor Weis, by the way.  His Kansas team was blown out 56-16 today by Kansas State.


     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share