This is Rusty

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: This is Rusty

    In response to Bunker Spreckels' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Here is what I wrote, Babe, 3 posts up: "10 obligatory runs out of 16 rushes for Ridley is not "establishing a run" in the first half." Ridley had 16 carries. Yes, I want a lead back, not splitting carries or using Woodhead too much to run shotguns past 40 times.

    [/QUOTE]


    Sorry junior. Be real. This is the NFL. Ridley's 16 carries translate to 256 for a seasonal rate. That is top 11 attempts for a season (2011 as example). That isn't "establishing a run" enough for you?

    If he can't get it up for more than 2.1 yac in that many attempts BB isn't going to ask for more of that garbage. LMAO You get whooped yet again junior. It is always my pleasure. Learn the game.

     

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: This is Rusty

    In response to Bunker Spreckels' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So, you're against establishing a run in first halves against good Ds, then? That's what you want to see, what we saw last week? You're a troll posing as a Brady lover extremist to find ways to troll here.  There is no other explanation for it.  Are you are in fact a mod, unbannable for trollish behavior to come into threads and keep them going with irrational commentary.

    There is no way on earth an educated Pats fan would not want how they approached things in the second half of Buffalo, all of Denver, then be happy resorting back to a shotgun spread base, only to lose (predictably) due the inability to find any balance, simply because you NEVER TRIED TO achieve a balance in the first place.

    You're telling me or anyone to learn the game as you try to tell us Brady was "the only one" who had a "good game" vs Seattle? You're crazy AND senile all at once, Gramps.

    [/QUOTE]

    What you don't "get". What cannot possibly penetrate that granite skull of yours is that in the Bills and Broncos games the running was effective so they stuck with it. Try to let that sink in.


    Get with the program junior. We all like to see effective running. But the rest of us aren't so brain-dead that we want to keep running and running when our guy is getting 2 yards a carry like our lead back was getting in Seattle. If we do that you wouldn't have to worry about who wins the endgame of a close one because we will get beat easily and it won't be all that close. This is just another reason why you don't understand the simplest things about the game.

    It's elementary. In losses where Brady throws 40+ times the run game hasn't been effective (around 4.3 yac is the NFL average for RBs.). You would be hoping for at least a little better than average if you're going to rely on the run much. Prove that wrong. You can't.

     

    Like some others, you think that even if the run game isn't working BB should just stick with it and see if it gets going. BB doesn't have that luxury. Maybe if he had a better D he could roll the dice on that more often. He sticks with whatever is working best because at the least he wants to have a shot at the win by the end of the game. Throwing the dice on a run game that has been ineffective is a foolish bet. When the chips are down he will bet on Brady every time. And anybody but a fool wouldn't blame him for that. And if we had a decent defense that bet would pay off every time.

     

    Learn the game.

     

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share