A Troubling Statistical Trend

[Radical]

(01-24-2011 05:59 AM)Beef Wrote:  Again you can't comprehend context for squat. I CLEARLY said "6+" could be cover-2 OR cover-3 OR prevent. Somehow, you don't realize that a "6" with a "+" incorporates "8" and that somehow all you saw was "prevent". Absolutely amazing.

And it's overwhelmingly apparent that you don't know what "the box" is & that you think "rushing" is the same thing as "blitzing. I bet you think that 3-4 DL's on the LOS are always "blitzing" just because they're trying to get to the QB, don't you. LOL

A blitz is when you attempt to rush 1 more defender than the offense has blocking. You can say you're rushing 8, which is typically seen as an extremely aggressive play and usually a "blitz." If however, the offensive line leaves in 8 or 9 to block, then it isn't an "official" blitz. In our case, if we have 5 OL and a TE pass blocking, they can send in 6 and it wouldn't be a blitz. Throw in a RB and they rush 7, it isn't a blitz.

Our line's inability to win the one on one match-ups they are given is one of the biggest problems with this offense. This applies to both pass blocking and run blocking.

[Beef]

(01-25-2011 12:19 AM)Radical Wrote:  This line here shows me you haven't changed a bit. I suggest reading what I said back then again and again because you obviously never got what I was saying.

All three of us argue like ass holes, some more so or others. What you will not see me do is go out of my way to say that people who disagree with me in multiple threads are stalking me, being mean, lying about stuff just for the sake of it, and just completely spiral off into just insulting the person arguing, etc. when all they are doing is arguing their point as hard as I am.

There was a reason you were banned and I wasn't. I assure you it wasn't because I am buddy buddy with the mods here or anything like that.

Me getting banned had nothing to do with you & my argument, just so you know. I didn't get banned because you or I were right or wrong & arguing too much. There's a mod here who hates my guts, it's that simple. Anyways, that's old news & done. Not an issue anymore.

That said, I don't know what the problem is with that line of mine you quoted. You were making opinionated but very specific statements & arguing they were absolute facts. Cooper's been doing the same things. "Jenkins sucks & is not a #2, we would be better without him..." and "Our O-line sucks & is to blame for everything wrong with the offense...". And then droves of persistent insistance to those claims followed over & over while I made valid arguments why Jenkins wasn't as horrible as you said & our O-line wasn't as horrible as cooper said, neither of which are attempts at being statements of fact as I was backing every point up with evidence & logic, which neither of you were doing on the flip-side.

Not that I want to get into that whole discussion again, so please don't. I'm simply justifying my statement that you & cooper tend to approach your debates the same way.

[Beef]

(01-25-2011 12:27 AM)Radical Wrote:  A blitz is when you attempt to rush 1 more defender than the offense has blocking. You can say you're rushing 8, which is typically seen as an extremely aggressive play and usually a "blitz." If however, the offensive line leaves in 8 or 9 to block, then it isn't an "official" blitz. In our case, if we have 5 OL and a TE pass blocking, they can send in 6 and it wouldn't be a blitz. Throw in a RB and they rush 7, it isn't a blitz.

Our line's inability to win the one on one match-ups they are given is one of the biggest problems with this offense. This applies to both pass blocking and run blocking.

I was saying that to cooper, just to be clear.

But I appreciate your helping him out with a decent explaination because it's clear he didn't know this, as evidenced by the fact he wasted what was likely a couple hours collecting 23 links to video of each of our allowed sacks while obviously watching each one to count the number of rushers. While at the same time, pointing out the fact that our O-line apparently didn't give up a single sack to a blitz, which, as we should all be aware of, is an incredible feat & statistic. It actually lends more credibility to the argument that the O-line not only messed up the 3rd fewest times in the league allowing a sack, but they can clearly block extremely well against the blitz to not have given up a single sack when there's even more people to block. And it's impossible to ignore how impressive that is & call them "horrible" at the same time.

[Penumbra]

Like sand through the hourglass,...so are the days of our lives,...

[cooperbh]

(01-25-2011 12:51 AM)Beef Wrote:  I was saying that to cooper, just to be clear.

But I appreciate your helping him out with a decent explaination because it's clear he didn't know this, as evidenced by the fact he wasted what was likely a couple hours collecting 23 links to video of each of our allowed sacks while obviously watching each one to count the number of rushers. While at the same time, pointing out the fact that our O-line apparently didn't give up a single sack to a blitz, which, as we should all be aware of, is an incredible feat & statistic. It actually lends more credibility to the argument that the O-line not only messed up the 3rd fewest times in the league allowing a sack, but they can clearly block extremely well against the blitz to not have given up a single sack when there's even more people to block. And it's impossible to ignore how impressive that is & call them "horrible" at the same time.

I never said that our O-line never gave up a sack on a blitz. I only said that our O-line never gave up a sack when teams rushed 6-8 defenders. It is possible to blitz a LB or DB and still have less than six total pass rushers, you know.