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?
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.