Atlanta Falcons Talk
›
Falcons Fans Message Boards
›
Talk About The Falcons & So Much More 
Reality Check
Reality Check
|
Reality Check
|
|
01-18-2011, 03:57 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2011 03:58 PM by Radical.)
 Post: #51 |
|||
|
|||
RE: Reality Check
(01-18-2011 01:48 PM)cooperbh Wrote: Let's end this nonsense right now. Below is every single sack the Falcons' line surrendered in 2010. Note the number of times opposing defenses rushed more than five defenders. ![[Image: orson-welles-clapping.gif]](http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq253/rigmutton/orson-welles-clapping.gif)
|
|||
|
|
01-18-2011, 07:30 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2011 07:32 PM by Beef.)
Post: #52 |
|||
|
|||
RE: Reality Check
(01-18-2011 01:48 PM)cooperbh Wrote: Let's end this nonsense right now. Below is every single sack the Falcons' line surrendered in 2010. Note the number of times opposing defenses rushed more than five defenders. Ok, so for an O-line that gave up the 3rd fewest sacks in the league, your evidence is to show "THE SACKS"??? Please think really hard about this one more time & tell me you realize this does NOTHING to prove your point & you feel even more foolish. Please tell me you're smart enough to do the math & that you realize 23/1130 is barely "2%" of our total offensive plays. All those sacks show is that on those particular plays, they botched the blocking & someone got to Ryan. Which again, by the way, happened less than 29 other teams! The amount of rushers on those sacks does nothing for your argument either because it doesn't prove at all what happened on the other 1100 plays that involved blocking & NO SACKS. So they didn't blitz 6+ guys on each successful sack, SO WHAT!? If anything, you helped MY argument. That tells me that when opposing teams did blitz, our O-line obviously blocked BETTER, because they didn't allow any sacks to blitzes, which is freaking outstanding. That's awesome, an O-line that gave up no sacks to blitzes. LOLOL, thanks dude for showing that. Wow. You put all that effort into proving nothing. That's just sad. ![[Image: sexy-hot-girl-dancing-3-o.gif]](http://www.gifsoup.com/view/1054567/sexy-hot-girl-dancing-3-o.gif) |
|||
|
|
|
01-18-2011, 09:09 PM
Post: #53 |
|||
|
|||
RE: Reality Check
(01-18-2011 07:30 PM)Beef Wrote: Ok, so for an O-line that gave up the 3rd fewest sacks in the league, your evidence is to show "THE SACKS"??? Not nearly as sad as your assertion that opposing defenses sent six or more pass rushers against five blockers 404 times (70% of Atlanta's 577 pass attempts) and yet miraculously never got to the QB even one time. Not once. Of course, on the remaining 173 pass attempts where five or less pass rushers were sent, opposing defenses somehow managed to notch a sack 1 out of every 8 times. 0 for 404 when rushing 6+. 23 for 173 when rushing 5 or less. You would think that opposing DCs would have figured out at some point during season that the best way to get to Ryan is to rush five or less defenders. Yet, according to you, they kept sending the house 7 out of every 10 times Ryan dropped back. Talk about needing a reality check. |
|||
|
|
|
01-18-2011, 10:34 PM
Post: #54 |
|||
|
|||
RE: Reality Check
(01-18-2011 09:09 PM)cooperbh Wrote: Not nearly as sad as your assertion that opposing defenses sent six or more pass rushers against five blockers 404 times (70% of Atlanta's 577 pass attempts) and yet miraculously never got to the QB even one time. Not once. Look at you spin misinformation. Why are you so desperate? First of all, I never said defenses only blitzed and/or rushed 6+ & stacked the box on "passing downs ONLY". I hope you realize that defenses lined up in blitz packages & stacked the box against us on rushing downs too. It's not like they were psychic & knew if we were passing or running every down. So your attempt to exclude them looks like desperate spin. Now using the correct numbers, if you seriously still think that teams played cover-2 or 3 with only 5 in the box rushing & 6 dropping back into pass coverage more than 350 times against us, then you're an imbicile. Second, we ran more than 577 passing plays. Clearly you foolishly think the "targets" column on the ESPN Falcon stat page includes every passing down, which if you were smart you'd realize is incorrect. That 577 does not include the 46 rushes Matty had, of which the majority where him scrambling out of pass plays, nor does it include the 23 sacks you wasted so much time linking (and helping my argument more than yours), nor does it include all his throw-aways into the sidelines where there wasn't actually a "target", nor does it include any intentional grounding or pass plays called back due to penalties. But again, poor attempt at spin. Or maybe it really was just stupidity. I can't tell. |
|||
|
|
|
01-18-2011, 11:50 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-19-2011 12:53 AM by cooperbh.)
Post: #55 |
|||
|
|||
RE: Reality Check
(01-18-2011 10:34 PM)Beef Wrote: Look at you spin misinformation. Why are you so desperate? 1) I didn't use targets, I used attempts. That includes throwaways, spikes and any other form of incompletion. 2) I intentionally excluded plays that resulted in a sack because we already determined that 6-8 man blitzes weren't at all a factor in such plays. 3) You stated - and I quote: "Stacking 7-8 in the box & rushing 6-7 was easily 70% of the play calls against us. And yet, our O-line only allowed 23 sacks the entire regular season, which again is 3rd fewest in the league." Forgive me if I assumed that you were talking strictly about passing plays, seeing as you cited only the low sack totals as an example of how our line handled the supposed 70% of the plays called against us. Or were you saying that our line is good because they also didn't allow Turner to get sacked in 2010? 4) Yes, I forgot about rushing attempts. Adding those in, that brings the total number of plays in which a Falcons QB dropped back to pass from 577 to 623. Which brings the total number of times that opposing defenses rushed six or more from 404 to 436, according to your 70% blitz rate figure. So, instead of being 0 for 404, we now learn that opposing defenses were supposedly 0 for 436 when they blitzed six-plus. 5) "Stupidity"... "foolishly"... "imbicile"... Just as I called it. Let me know when you want to have an adult conversation. Or wish to learn the correct spelling of words like "imbecile." |
|||
|
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|