State of balance.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from NY-PATS-FAN4. Show NY-PATS-FAN4's posts

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    Nobody here will address why a 21 year old signal caller got the job first in 07' before many much older, more tenured coaches ahead of him...  could it be natural talent and attention to detail?  

     



    I've explained that a number of times. BB likes to promote inexperienced yes men instead of hiring the best in the game because they would rightly demand their share of power. BB is a bit paranoid from all indications.

    It's not like McD in general or BB as a HC have been other than a failure without Brady in the picture.

     



    More BB hatred from Babe, I could set my watch to it....

    Newsflash buddy, Michigan didn't win a national championship under Brady, in fact he was a part time starter... so hows he doing without Belichick?

     




    Wozzy,

    You seem like a pretty good guy and I've always enjoyed your posts, but I fear you have a pretty thick skull.

    In this thread, you talk a lot about changing sets; patterns of play calling; play action passing; proper personnel groupings; in short, a boatload of deceptive techniques aimed to disguise whether the offense intends to run or pass. The problem is that deceptive arguments tend to be subtle, and yours require the experience of having played football, particularly defensive football, to understand.

    Take play action passing for example. It is not for everyone. To do it effectively requires A) a smart QB (see the end of this paragraph) with excellent hands and a quick release; B) an offensive line that is good enough to give the QB an extra split-second of protection time (since the QB's vision is initially turned from the line); C) strong, athletic tight ends that are equally effective in both the run and the pass; and D) receivers that can run quick, precise routes. For a team armed with such weapons, play action puts enormous pressure on the opposing safeties, because if they cheat forward on the run, they are liable to get burned deep, whereas if they cheat backward on the pass, they expose holes in the seams and flats. A smart QB, in play action, must scan the defensive personnel grouping as it relates to size, speed, formation and intent, and decide from amongst the called play, and a couple of audible options, which play the offense should run. Of course, if, when the offense takes the line of scrimmage, it is unaware of which play will be run, it follows that the D must also be unaware. An excellent play action offense is one that can either run or pass successfully with the exact same personnel grouping on the field.

    However, if an offense does not have the prerequisite skills (A-D) for play action, then it is more likely that out of the shotgun or spread, it will pass more often than not...whereas with its QB under center, it will run more times than not. In such cases, the defense can take a few more chances/risks, and while the offense may still be talented enough to succeed (even when the D guesses correctly), those successful plays will not be as successful as they would have been had they fooled the defense.

    With these things in mind, the question becomes whether a team like the Patriots possesses the necessary arsenal (A-D) to run play action, and in so doing, deny the defense the ability to cheat on a play. If the offensive coordiator is certain that he does, it would seem that healthy doses of play action would be the smart thing to do.

    But "smart" is sort of a relative term. See, Wozz, I used to have a cat; a black tabby named Athena . She was sleek and muscular, sorta like a baby panther, but had the sweetest disposition in the world. Above all, she was loyal; if I were a serial killer who shot fifteen strangers on the subway home, she would still hop in my lap and nuzzle my chest and purr like I was the greatest dude ever. So one night, I hear some talking head from PETA spouting off about how incredibly smart animals are. At first I rolled my eyes at his pandering to pet owners, but after giving it careful thought, I figured a cat as awesome as mine has to be smart! And since I have always harbored a love for mathematics, I thought to myself, "Hmm...I think I'll teach Athena some calculus."

    Well, anyone who has ever trained animals knows that aversion therapy and reward systems offer the best results. But since there was no way I would ever give Athena an electric shock, I decided the better method would be to withhold dinner and treats until she picked up some elemantary theory. To my surprise, it didn't go well. I tried to explain to her that differential calculus was simply the math of motion and change, but all she would ever do is yawn and scratch around her bowl. So I tried a different tack; scrap the nebulous theory and, instead, focus on set formulae she could master. I started off with the most simple of simple: the derivative of e to the x, which--as everyone knows--is e to the x, dx. But the darn cat just gave me this vacant look!

    It was thus that I realized PETA wasn't worth its weight in shiyit--and that my adorable cat was dumb as a log. Pizzed off, I took the thing to the shelter to have it euthanized, but when I arrived at the counter, she nuzzled her little nose against my cheek and...well...tearfully, I just couldn't push myself to get some training vet to give her the needle. Back home, I apologized to her profusely. I realized that the problem was with me--and I promised her I would never again subject her to the curse of high expectation.

    Which brings me back to Wozzy and football. See, Wozz, when you explain how and why the subtle intricacies of play action lead to a more productive offense, and Babe responds with, I don't see how running the ball 1-2 times more prevents interceptions, well...I'm kind of taken back to the image of Athena scratching at her bowl. And I find myself thinking, "When will it dawn on this thick-headed Wozzy that trying to explain football to Babe is like trying to explain calculus to a cat?" Better to simply sit back and enjoy the lovable Internet bundle of fur, who, while not understanding a thing you say, is unrepentant in his Patriot loyalty.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: State of balance.

    LMAO

    So now we're reduced to saying "balance" isn't actually balance but rather "unpredictability".

    That's one big reason I enjoy this place. The level of ridiculous that is practiced to at all costs refrain from admitting being wrong is extremely entertaining.

    Then Rusty chimes in to tell us how passer rating is a worthless measure of performance and we should just go by his opinion instead. LMAO@him

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to Neal Page's comment:

    In response to CaptainZdeno33's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     You just don't want to admit you were wrong about balance and are now trying to spin it to make it seem like you were right all along



    Look in the mirror. You're talking about yourself.

    A 1 play in 20 change to the running game is not a major adjustment.

    A nearly 25% improvement in the production of the lead back is substantial though.



    I think that goes without saying. 

    Who would seriously argue that if Ridley were creeping along with a 3.7 YPC that BB would be giving him extra carries?

    The fact that he earns carries makes that happen. I mean, really, there is actually a QUOTE from Bill HIMSELF discussing this. He says point blank .... we would have given more carries last season if the RBs were more productive with their carries.

    How is this even a debate?!??!?!?!




    It is a debate because people have notions chiseled in stone that 1000 tons of dynamite called facts and common sense cannot budge.



    It's not even about facts or common sense. 

    Bill Belichik ANSWERED the QUESTION. To the MEDIA. It's out there. I'm not even going to look for it. 

    He literally was like "I haven't seen Corey Dillon out there."




    This is what I don't get about these posters....They put all the blame on O'Brien for not running the ball more. Ultimately its BB's call! Why continue to ignore this?




    BB is no the OC, so you're wrong.  He can stop what he doesn't like or interject, sure. But, he doesn't call the plays. The OC does.

    Now, BB as a defensive coach, is more heavily involved with the D, yes. We see it plenty on the sidelines every game.

     



    Thats the point I was trying to make. If it was such a problem and indeed cost them a Super Bowl as many here claim then why didn't he step in? I don't want to hear the he doesn't micro manage argument, it was the SB.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:

     trying to explain football to Babe is like trying to explain calculus to a cat?"

     

     

    Are you one of the crybabies that complained about personal attacks?

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:

     

    Which brings me back to Wozzy and football. See, Wozz, when you explain how and why the subtle intricacies of play action lead to a more productive offense, and Babe responds with, I don't see how running the ball 1-2 times more prevents interceptions, well...I'm kind of taken back to the image of Athena scratching at her bowl. And I find myself thinking, "When will it dawn on this thick-headed Wozzy that trying to explain football to Babe is like trying to explain calculus to a cat?" Better to simply sit back and enjoy the lovable Internet bundle of fur, who, while not understanding a thing you say, is unrepentant in his Patriot loyalty.

     




    Got it. It's those "subtle intricacies" that freeze a LB by running once more every 20 plays that us football neophytes just can't grasp.

    And it's definitely not the greater threat of a lead back that is nearly 25% more productive that makes LBs freeze for a second on the play action. Got that too.

    It's a good thing we have savvy football guys like you to explain the game so clearly and convincingly for us.

    Maybe you could elaborate on those "subtle intricacies" some more. I would love to learn about those.

     

    (Like I said, you've GOT to love this place. Where else can people pull rabbits out of their azz and offer it up as profound  football knowledge?)

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

    Re: State of balance.

    The offense is better this year in every facet.  The running game will help a lot come  playoff time. The defense is better too. 

     
  7. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    Not sure why this is an argument at this point. Belichick already explained if he had Corey Dillon around he would have run the ball more. You can disagree with Bill if you want but he's very clear that he will not run as much when he doesn't have the talent to force defenses to game plan against it. That's why he spent draft picks to get the talent. Now that he has the talent, Pats are running more and more effectively. 

    You can make the argument he should have run the ball more even if he didn't have the talent. He would disagree and so would I, but it seems a silly argument since it can never be proven things would have worked out differently. You can argue BJGE did have that kind of talent, but aside from getting into the end zone I sure didn't see it and BB clearly didn't see it either. So, it's kind of a futile argument. 

    You can also argue, if you like, that McDaniels has something to do with the increased running emphasis. That's tough to do as well, because you can't eliminate the variable that we also drafted fresh running talent. You can argue we left a Super Bowl on the table because of a lack of ground game, and you could be right, but it can never be proven. 

    It remains to be seen if BB will stick with the running game, one would think he will given how many talented and effective options we have now. The one thing we can agree on is the current offense is more dangerous because we have an effective running game and are forcing teams to account for it. 

    "Are you one of the crybabies that complained about personal attacks?"

    Personal attacks have hurt this board and have destroyed other boards. Especially in a board as loosely moderated as this one a bit of civility is in order. Since you have cut way down on your belittling comments the caliber of the board and your own posts has gone up. It hasn't solved all those problems as others still indulge in this kind of name calling frequently but it's silly that a football discussion cannot be done in a civil manner. It's ludicrous that those that disagree are either ridiculed or accused of group think. Smart people can disagree, life goes on. No need to drag them through the mud.

     

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:

     

    "Are you one of the crybabies that complained about personal attacks?"

    Personal attacks have hurt this board and have destroyed other boards. Especially in a board as loosely moderated as this one a bit of civility is in order. Since you have cut way down on your belittling comments the caliber of the board and your own posts has gone up. It hasn't solved all those problems as others still indulge in this kind of name calling frequently but it's silly that a football discussion cannot be done in a civil manner. It's ludicrous that those that disagree are either ridiculed or accused of group think. Smart people can disagree, life goes on. No need to drag them through the mud.

     



    When somebody claims telling you about football is like explaining calculus to a cat... showing restraint at that is about as noble as restraint gets.

    Especially when the supposed knowledge bestowed is the epitome of football tripe that can only be spewed by a certifiable moron whose only acumen about the game is a cornucopia of tired and mindless cliches.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to Neal Page's comment:

     I think it's great that Brady gets the leash he needs, but BB should rein in quicker. It appears BB sees that now.  After SB 46, it's pretty obvious.

    He dealt Moss in 2010 as much to rid Brady of the problem he saw, like you or I saw,it wasn't  more so because Moss wanted a new deal. That was really the secondary problem.

     



    Take a break from your wild ramblings for a second junior and give us an iota of evidence that your insane spin here has any basis in fact.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to Neal Page's comment:

     People do not like this latter opinion of mine because they think I am trying to blame Brady. I am not.



    I must admit you have become rather tepid in your Brady bashing lately junior. Good idea. You were becoming universally hated around these parts for that mindless and seemingly never ending endeavor. Even the few who agreed with your rants about running were laying into you for such a misbegotten brain glitch as constantly slamming the one guy who has been carrying the team on his back for years while BB gropes to find something he can put on the field and call it an NFL defense. Not that I believe for a second that you really think otherwise regarding our Hall of Famer, but I guess even a strange bird like you has a sense of self preservation.

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

    Re: State of balance.occasionally

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    Nobody here will address why a 21 year old signal caller got the job first in 07' before many much older, more tenured coaches ahead of him...  could it be natural talent and attention to detail?  

     



    I've explained that a number of times. BB likes to promote inexperienced yes men instead of hiring the best in the game because they would rightly demand their share of power. BB is a bit paranoid from all indications.

    It's not like McD in general or BB as a HC have been other than a failure without Brady in the picture.

     



    More BB hatred from Babe, I could set my watch to it....

    Newsflash buddy, Michigan didn't win a national championship under Brady, in fact he was a part time starter... so hows he doing without Belichick?

     




    Wozzy,

    You seem like a pretty good guy and I've always enjoyed your posts, but I fear you have a pretty thick skull.

    In this thread, you talk a lot about changing sets; patterns of play calling; play action passing; proper personnel groupings; in short, a boatload of deceptive techniques aimed to disguise whether the offense intends to run or pass. The problem is that deceptive arguments tend to be subtle, and yours require the experience of having played football, particularly defensive football, to understand.

    Take play action passing for example. It is not for everyone. To do it effectively requires A) a smart QB (see the end of this paragraph) with excellent hands and a quick release; B) an offensive line that is good enough to give the QB an extra split-second of protection time (since the QB's vision is initially turned from the line); C) strong, athletic tight ends that are equally effective in both the run and the pass; and D) receivers that can run quick, precise routes. For a team armed with such weapons, play action puts enormous pressure on the opposing safeties, because if they cheat forward on the run, they are liable to get burned deep, whereas if they cheat backward on the pass, they expose holes in the seams and flats. A smart QB, in play action, must scan the defensive personnel grouping as it relates to size, speed, formation and intent, and decide from amongst the called play, and a couple of audible options, which play the offense should run. Of course, if, when the offense takes the line of scrimmage, it is unaware of which play will be run, it follows that the D must also be unaware. An excellent play action offense is one that can either run or pass successfully with the exact same personnel grouping on the field.

    However, if an offense does not have the prerequisite skills (A-D) for play action, then it is more likely that out of the shotgun or spread, it will pass more often than not...whereas with its QB under center, it will run more times than not. In such cases, the defense can take a few more chances/risks, and while the offense may still be talented enough to succeed (even when the D guesses correctly), those successful plays will not be as successful as they would have been had they fooled the defense.

    With these things in mind, the question becomes whether a team like the Patriots possesses the necessary arsenal (A-D) to run play action, and in so doing, deny the defense the ability to cheat on a play. If the offensive coordiator is certain that he does, it would seem that healthy doses of play action would be the smart thing to do.

    But "smart" is sort of a relative term. See, Wozz, I used to have a cat; a black tabby named Athena . She was sleek and muscular, sorta like a baby panther, but had the sweetest disposition in the world. Above all, she was loyal; if I were a serial killer who shot fifteen strangers on the subway home, she would still hop in my lap and nuzzle my chest and purr like I was the greatest dude ever. So one night, I hear some talking head from PETA spouting off about how incredibly smart animals are. At first I rolled my eyes at his pandering to pet owners, but after giving it careful thought, I figured a cat as awesome as mine has to be smart! And since I have always harbored a love for mathematics, I thought to myself, "Hmm...I think I'll teach Athena some calculus."

    Well, anyone who has ever trained animals knows that aversion therapy and reward systems offer the best results. But since there was no way I would ever give Athena an electric shock, I decided the better method would be to withhold dinner and treats until she picked up some elemantary theory. To my surprise, it didn't go well. I tried to explain to her that differential calculus was simply the math of motion and change, but all she would ever do is yawn and scratch around her bowl. So I tried a different tack; scrap the nebulous theory and, instead, focus on set formulae she could master. I started off with the most simple of simple: the derivative of e to the x, which--as everyone knows--is e to the x, dx. But the darn cat just gave me this vacant look!

    It was thus that I realized PETA wasn't worth its weight in shiyit--and that my adorable cat was dumb as a log. Pizzed off, I took the thing to the shelter to have it euthanized, but when I arrived at the counter, she nuzzled her little nose against my cheek and...well...tearfully, I just couldn't push myself to get some training vet to give her the needle. Back home, I apologized to her profusely. I realized that the problem was with me--and I promised her I would never again subject her to the curse of high expectation.

    Which brings me back to Wozzy and football. See, Wozz, when you explain how and why the subtle intricacies of play action lead to a more productive offense, and Babe responds with, I don't see how running the ball 1-2 times more prevents interceptions, well...I'm kind of taken back to the image of Athena scratching at her bowl. And I find myself thinking, "When will it dawn on this thick-headed Wozzy that trying to explain football to Babe is like trying to explain calculus to a cat?" Better to simply sit back and enjoy the lovable Internet bundle of fur, who, while not understanding a thing you say, is unrepentant in his Patriot loyalty.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     




    They used to have this thing called the "ignore" button and it made things much more enjoyable here for many.  But due to changes in the matrix, it no longer exists.  It made filtering through the noise so much easier and I could ignore obvious baiting tactics like this thread. 

    I understand the whole "who's the bigger idiot, the fool or the fool who argues with him" but occasionally I still like to kill them with logic and move on. 

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    Nobody here will address why a 21 year old signal caller got the job first in 07' before many much older, more tenured coaches ahead of him...  could it be natural talent and attention to detail?  

     



    I've explained that a number of times. BB likes to promote inexperienced yes men instead of hiring the best in the game because they would rightly demand their share of power. BB is a bit paranoid from all indications.

    It's not like McD in general or BB as a HC have been other than a failure without Brady in the picture.

     



    More BB hatred from Babe, I could set my watch to it....

    Newsflash buddy, Michigan didn't win a national championship under Brady, in fact he was a part time starter... so hows he doing without Belichick?

     




    Wozzy,

    You seem like a pretty good guy and I've always enjoyed your posts, but I fear you have a pretty thick skull.

    In this thread, you talk a lot about changing sets; patterns of play calling; play action passing; proper personnel groupings; in short, a boatload of deceptive techniques aimed to disguise whether the offense intends to run or pass. The problem is that deceptive arguments tend to be subtle, and yours require the experience of having played football, particularly defensive football, to understand.

    Take play action passing for example. It is not for everyone. To do it effectively requires A) a smart QB (see the end of this paragraph) with excellent hands and a quick release; B) an offensive line that is good enough to give the QB an extra split-second of protection time (since the QB's vision is initially turned from the line); C) strong, athletic tight ends that are equally effective in both the run and the pass; and D) receivers that can run quick, precise routes. For a team armed with such weapons, play action puts enormous pressure on the opposing safeties, because if they cheat forward on the run, they are liable to get burned deep, whereas if they cheat backward on the pass, they expose holes in the seams and flats. A smart QB, in play action, must scan the defensive personnel grouping as it relates to size, speed, formation and intent, and decide from amongst the called play, and a couple of audible options, which play the offense should run. Of course, if, when the offense takes the line of scrimmage, it is unaware of which play will be run, it follows that the D must also be unaware. An excellent play action offense is one that can either run or pass successfully with the exact same personnel grouping on the field.

    However, if an offense does not have the prerequisite skills (A-D) for play action, then it is more likely that out of the shotgun or spread, it will pass more often than not...whereas with its QB under center, it will run more times than not. In such cases, the defense can take a few more chances/risks, and while the offense may still be talented enough to succeed (even when the D guesses correctly), those successful plays will not be as successful as they would have been had they fooled the defense.

    With these things in mind, the question becomes whether a team like the Patriots possesses the necessary arsenal (A-D) to run play action, and in so doing, deny the defense the ability to cheat on a play. If the offensive coordiator is certain that he does, it would seem that healthy doses of play action would be the smart thing to do.

    But "smart" is sort of a relative term. See, Wozz, I used to have a cat; a black tabby named Athena . She was sleek and muscular, sorta like a baby panther, but had the sweetest disposition in the world. Above all, she was loyal; if I were a serial killer who shot fifteen strangers on the subway home, she would still hop in my lap and nuzzle my chest and purr like I was the greatest dude ever. So one night, I hear some talking head from PETA spouting off about how incredibly smart animals are. At first I rolled my eyes at his pandering to pet owners, but after giving it careful thought, I figured a cat as awesome as mine has to be smart! And since I have always harbored a love for mathematics, I thought to myself, "Hmm...I think I'll teach Athena some calculus."

    Well, anyone who has ever trained animals knows that aversion therapy and reward systems offer the best results. But since there was no way I would ever give Athena an electric shock, I decided the better method would be to withhold dinner and treats until she picked up some elemantary theory. To my surprise, it didn't go well. I tried to explain to her that differential calculus was simply the math of motion and change, but all she would ever do is yawn and scratch around her bowl. So I tried a different tack; scrap the nebulous theory and, instead, focus on set formulae she could master. I started off with the most simple of simple: the derivative of e to the x, which--as everyone knows--is e to the x, dx. But the darn cat just gave me this vacant look!

    It was thus that I realized PETA wasn't worth its weight in shiyit--and that my adorable cat was dumb as a log. Pizzed off, I took the thing to the shelter to have it euthanized, but when I arrived at the counter, she nuzzled her little nose against my cheek and...well...tearfully, I just couldn't push myself to get some training vet to give her the needle. Back home, I apologized to her profusely. I realized that the problem was with me--and I promised her I would never again subject her to the curse of high expectation.

    Which brings me back to Wozzy and football. See, Wozz, when you explain how and why the subtle intricacies of play action lead to a more productive offense, and Babe responds with, I don't see how running the ball 1-2 times more prevents interceptions, well...I'm kind of taken back to the image of Athena scratching at her bowl. And I find myself thinking, "When will it dawn on this thick-headed Wozzy that trying to explain football to Babe is like trying to explain calculus to a cat?" Better to simply sit back and enjoy the lovable Internet bundle of fur, who, while not understanding a thing you say, is unrepentant in his Patriot loyalty.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Great post. I, like Wozzy, have found myself caught up with Babe's baiting way to often. It's beyond me that a person who is so detailed oriented who alludes to so many things but has never directly makes definitive statements just so they can twist their statement as they see fit can miss the big picture and concentrate on the minute details can't understand basic concepts of intergrated interactions instead chosing to concentrate on individual acheivement in a team game. I guess it is like trying to teach a cat why the importance of a balance meal is important to them when all the cat cares about is whether it's fish or chicken.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    I understand the whole "who's the bigger idiot, the fool or the fool who argues with him" but occasionally I still like to kill them with logic and move on. 

     




     

    Not seeing that here wozzy. Not even a little.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    Nobody here will address why a 21 year old signal caller got the job first in 07' before many much older, more tenured coaches ahead of him...  could it be natural talent and attention to detail?  

     



    I've explained that a number of times. BB likes to promote inexperienced yes men instead of hiring the best in the game because they would rightly demand their share of power. BB is a bit paranoid from all indications.

    It's not like McD in general or BB as a HC have been other than a failure without Brady in the picture.

     



    More BB hatred from Babe, I could set my watch to it....

    Newsflash buddy, Michigan didn't win a national championship under Brady, in fact he was a part time starter... so hows he doing without Belichick?

     




    Wozzy,

    You seem like a pretty good guy and I've always enjoyed your posts, but I fear you have a pretty thick skull.

    In this thread, you talk a lot about changing sets; patterns of play calling; play action passing; proper personnel groupings; in short, a boatload of deceptive techniques aimed to disguise whether the offense intends to run or pass. The problem is that deceptive arguments tend to be subtle, and yours require the experience of having played football, particularly defensive football, to understand.

    Take play action passing for example. It is not for everyone. To do it effectively requires A) a smart QB (see the end of this paragraph) with excellent hands and a quick release; B) an offensive line that is good enough to give the QB an extra split-second of protection time (since the QB's vision is initially turned from the line); C) strong, athletic tight ends that are equally effective in both the run and the pass; and D) receivers that can run quick, precise routes. For a team armed with such weapons, play action puts enormous pressure on the opposing safeties, because if they cheat forward on the run, they are liable to get burned deep, whereas if they cheat backward on the pass, they expose holes in the seams and flats. A smart QB, in play action, must scan the defensive personnel grouping as it relates to size, speed, formation and intent, and decide from amongst the called play, and a couple of audible options, which play the offense should run. Of course, if, when the offense takes the line of scrimmage, it is unaware of which play will be run, it follows that the D must also be unaware. An excellent play action offense is one that can either run or pass successfully with the exact same personnel grouping on the field.

    However, if an offense does not have the prerequisite skills (A-D) for play action, then it is more likely that out of the shotgun or spread, it will pass more often than not...whereas with its QB under center, it will run more times than not. In such cases, the defense can take a few more chances/risks, and while the offense may still be talented enough to succeed (even when the D guesses correctly), those successful plays will not be as successful as they would have been had they fooled the defense.

    With these things in mind, the question becomes whether a team like the Patriots possesses the necessary arsenal (A-D) to run play action, and in so doing, deny the defense the ability to cheat on a play. If the offensive coordiator is certain that he does, it would seem that healthy doses of play action would be the smart thing to do.

    But "smart" is sort of a relative term. See, Wozz, I used to have a cat; a black tabby named Athena . She was sleek and muscular, sorta like a baby panther, but had the sweetest disposition in the world. Above all, she was loyal; if I were a serial killer who shot fifteen strangers on the subway home, she would still hop in my lap and nuzzle my chest and purr like I was the greatest dude ever. So one night, I hear some talking head from PETA spouting off about how incredibly smart animals are. At first I rolled my eyes at his pandering to pet owners, but after giving it careful thought, I figured a cat as awesome as mine has to be smart! And since I have always harbored a love for mathematics, I thought to myself, "Hmm...I think I'll teach Athena some calculus."

    Well, anyone who has ever trained animals knows that aversion therapy and reward systems offer the best results. But since there was no way I would ever give Athena an electric shock, I decided the better method would be to withhold dinner and treats until she picked up some elemantary theory. To my surprise, it didn't go well. I tried to explain to her that differential calculus was simply the math of motion and change, but all she would ever do is yawn and scratch around her bowl. So I tried a different tack; scrap the nebulous theory and, instead, focus on set formulae she could master. I started off with the most simple of simple: the derivative of e to the x, which--as everyone knows--is e to the x, dx. But the darn cat just gave me this vacant look!

    It was thus that I realized PETA wasn't worth its weight in shiyit--and that my adorable cat was dumb as a log. Pizzed off, I took the thing to the shelter to have it euthanized, but when I arrived at the counter, she nuzzled her little nose against my cheek and...well...tearfully, I just couldn't push myself to get some training vet to give her the needle. Back home, I apologized to her profusely. I realized that the problem was with me--and I promised her I would never again subject her to the curse of high expectation.

    Which brings me back to Wozzy and football. See, Wozz, when you explain how and why the subtle intricacies of play action lead to a more productive offense, and Babe responds with, I don't see how running the ball 1-2 times more prevents interceptions, well...I'm kind of taken back to the image of Athena scratching at her bowl. And I find myself thinking, "When will it dawn on this thick-headed Wozzy that trying to explain football to Babe is like trying to explain calculus to a cat?" Better to simply sit back and enjoy the lovable Internet bundle of fur, who, while not understanding a thing you say, is unrepentant in his Patriot loyalty.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Great post. I, like Wozzy, have found myself caught up with Babe's baiting way to often. It's beyond me that a person who is so detailed oriented who alludes to so many things but has never directly makes definitive statements just so they can twist their statement as they see fit can miss the big picture and concentrate on the minute details can't understand basic concepts of intergrated interactions instead chosing to concentrate on individual acheivement in a team game. I guess it is like trying to teach a cat why the importance of a balance meal is important to them when all the cat cares about is whether it's fish or chicken.



    Great post? LMAO Do you always consider long diatribes that say absolutely nothing of substance great?

    That was a very laz like epic. That alone gets it the reject buzzer.

    Look, I understand when your silly little spin gets exposed by facts that there is a tendency in those of low moral character to try to simply deny and offer only weak platitudes in defense.

    No surprise that not a single member of the little club manned up and admitted anything at all.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to bobbysu's comment:

    Calculus to a Cat, sorry just struck me funny. hahahahahahahahahaahaqhaha




    That is a good one. But since I'm trying to refrain from personal attacks, except for Rusty, I must refrain from returning in kind.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to wozzy's comment:

      It made filtering through the noise so much easier and I could ignore obvious baiting tactics like this thread. 

     




    It's not a baiting tactic to simply show flat out with facts that people are wrong.

     

    I understand people like to live unmolested by truth in their delusions.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

      It made filtering through the noise so much easier and I could ignore obvious baiting tactics like this thread. 

     




    It's not a baiting tactic to simply show flat out with facts that people are wrong.

     

    I understand people like to live unmolested by truth in their delusions.



    You like to play this game so how about we do. What facts have you presented to prove people wrong? You have yet to prove a single fact stating that the change in offesive philosphy hasn't positively affected the performance of the players on the field. What you have shown is stats saying this years version of the O is better then last years but you have yet to post a single fact stating that it's solely because of personal and has nothing to do with a shift in offensive philosphy. So go ahead and present these facts you claim, please. I'd like to see a single fact that shows Ridley vs BJGE is the sole reason why things have improved

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

      It made filtering through the noise so much easier and I could ignore obvious baiting tactics like this thread. 

     




    It's not a baiting tactic to simply show flat out with facts that people are wrong.

     

    I understand people like to live unmolested by truth in their delusions.



    You like to play this game so how about we do. What facts have you presented to prove people wrong? You have yet to prove a single fact stating that the change in offesive philosphy hasn't positively affected the performance of the players on the field. What you have shown is stats saying this years version of the O is better then last years but you have yet to post a single fact stating that it's solely because of personal and has nothing to do with a shift in offensive philosphy. So go ahead and present these facts you claim, please. I'd like to see a single fact that shows Ridley vs BJGE is the sole reason why things have improved




    Fact one.

    We are running once in every 20 plays more than we did last season. If you want to consider that a wholesale change to balance, feel free.

     

    Fact two.

    Ridley is a career 4.70 ypc rusher. Benny is a career 3.98 ypc rusher.

     

    Fact three.

    BB has said when asked about the number of carries backs got last season he stated he would give the ball 300 times to a back that was performing at a Cory Dillon like high level. Ridley is on pace for 299.6 carries.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     I'd like to see a single fact that shows Ridley vs BJGE is the sole reason why things have improved



    Are you of the mind that Benny is as good a runner as Ridley?

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

    Re: State of balance.

    The two keys on offense for me are: 1) Scarnechia is doing a typical great job coaching up the O Line (as always) and thusly 2) The Pats are running the ball very effectively for first time in years (since Dillion). The keys on D are putting teams in predictable passing downs (eg: 3rd and long) and creating turnovers. IMO the Pats don't have a lights out defense like the 2000 Ravens or the Seymour era Pats, but they create turnovers at a rapid rate; if this continues it will spell trouble for the opposition. Brady continues to minimize his mistakes and looks like he's headed for a year similar to the 38TDs - 5INTs year. I honestly believe this team has not reached its peak, yet, but when it does they will be very difficult to beat. Especially with healthy Gronk and a healthy Jones.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     I'd like to see a single fact that shows Ridley vs BJGE is the sole reason why things have improved



    Are you of the mind that Benny is as good a runner as Ridley?



    Nope but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking for a fact that the change in philosphy to a more balanced system hasn't added benefit to the running game. You have stated that the additional 1-2 carries don't matter:

    "You're trying to sell us that 1 play in 20 of more run has made all the difference?

    Your contention Seems rather flimsy."

    and that when you run doesn't make a difference:

    "I can believe when you run has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with overall balance"

    so then the only difference is the RB's. I'm asking for you to so one piece of evidence that swithcing the backs is the sole reason why the running game is more effective

     

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to JohnHannahrulz's comment:

    The two keys on offense for me are: 1) Scarnechia is doing a typical great job coaching up the O Line (as always) and thusly 2) The Pats are running the ball very effectively for first time in years (since Dillion). The keys on D are putting teams in predictable passing downs (eg: 3rd and long) and creating turnovers. IMO the Pats don't have a lights out defense like the 2000 Ravens or the Seymour era Pats, but they create turnovers at a rapid rate; if this continues it will spell trouble for the opposition. Brady continues to minimize his mistakes and looks like he's headed for a year similar to the 38TDs - 5INTs year. I honestly believe this team has not reached its peak, yet, but when it does they will be very difficult to beat. Especially with healthy Gronk and a healthy Jones.




    Good points. I'm hoping Talib can stabilize the secondary and make that especially weak spot on the D more viable.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     I'd like to see a single fact that shows Ridley vs BJGE is the sole reason why things have improved



    Are you of the mind that Benny is as good a runner as Ridley?



    Nope but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking for a fact that the change in philosphy to a more balanced system hasn't added benefit to the running game. You have stated that the additional 1-2 carries don't matter:

    "You're trying to sell us that 1 play in 20 of more run has made all the difference?

    Your contention Seems rather flimsy."

    and that when you run doesn't make a difference:

    "I can believe when you run has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with overall balance"

    so then the only difference is the RB's. I'm asking for you to so one piece of evidence that swithcing the backs is the sole reason why the running game is more effective

     




    I just provided you facts that show Ridley is a better runner than Benny.

    Can you provide a fact that shows running one more time in 20 has nade the run game more effective?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share