I love someone who takes jock speak seriously.
As much as I love a non-jock sitting behind a math book unwilling to admit he's wrong. Michael Jordan and Gerald McCoy know more than you, as much as that seems to hurt you.
Former jock thank you very much. Seriously, jock platitudes are really just that.
which explains why teams run play action . . . . when the running game has no impact on the passing game . . . . stupid jock platitudes!!
If you paid attention you'd know that successfully running doesn't have anything to do with play action. Play action works because the defense expects you to run...not that they expect you to run well. Darn stats proving things again and not just going off things people say to try and sound smart.
LMAO. The parts in bold are funny . . so a team that runs well is expected by the defense to run as often as a team that doesn't run well? Got it! Now, if someone could just explain this to all the teams running the ball, running the pistol and running the read option . . . and all those teams that think 3 and 3 is easier than 3 and 12. . . .Dal, the problem is not the stats, the problem is the human interpreting them.
I love someone who takes jock speak seriously.
As much as I love a non-jock sitting behind a math book unwilling to admit he's wrong. Michael Jordan and Gerald McCoy know more than you, as much as that seems to hurt you.
Former jock thank you very much. Seriously, jock platitudes are really just that.
which explains why teams run play action . . . . when the running game has no impact on the passing game . . . . stupid jock platitudes!!
If you paid attention you'd know that successfully running doesn't have anything to do with play action. Play action works because the defense expects you to run...not that they expect you to run well. Darn stats proving things again and not just going off things people say to try and sound smart.
LMAO. The parts in bold are funny . . so a team that runs well is expected by the defense to run as often as a team that doesn't run well? Got it! Now, if someone could just explain this to all the teams running the ball, running the pistol and running the read option . . . and all those teams that think 3 and 3 is easier than 3 and 12. . . .Dal, the problem is not the stats, the problem is the human interpreting them.
play action doesn't work because you run a lot or run well. GB last year was the top play action team and they had a bottom 5 run team in yards and attempts. NO is always good at PA no matter how good their run game is. The reason is because play action is a product of good self scouting. In other words, when the defense expects you to run you show them run action and throw then you can fool them. If your tendency is that 80% of the time you run on 2nd and 4 from a 2TE set then play action will fool them, it doesn't matter if you average 3.0 YPC on those carries. t doesn't matter if you have the best run game in the world if you NEVEr run on 2nd and 7 and run play action you won't be fooling anyone. Defenses attack tendencies not outcomes so no frequency and success don't correlate to play action passing success.You really buy all of these silly things don't you.
I love someone who takes jock speak seriously.
As much as I love a non-jock sitting behind a math book unwilling to admit he's wrong. Michael Jordan and Gerald McCoy know more than you, as much as that seems to hurt you.
Former jock thank you very much. Seriously, jock platitudes are really just that.
which explains why teams run play action . . . . when the running game has no impact on the passing game . . . . stupid jock platitudes!!
If you paid attention you'd know that successfully running doesn't have anything to do with play action. Play action works because the defense expects you to run...not that they expect you to run well. Darn stats proving things again and not just going off things people say to try and sound smart.
LMAO. The parts in bold are funny . . so a team that runs well is expected by the defense to run as often as a team that doesn't run well? Got it! Now, if someone could just explain this to all the teams running the ball, running the pistol and running the read option . . . and all those teams that think 3 and 3 is easier than 3 and 12. . . .Dal, the problem is not the stats, the problem is the human interpreting them.
play action doesn't work because you run a lot or run well. GB last year was the top play action team and they had a bottom 5 run team in yards and attempts. NO is always good at PA no matter how good their run game is. The reason is because play action is a product of good self scouting. In other words, when the defense expects you to run you show them run action and throw then you can fool them. If your tendency is that 80% of the time you run on 2nd and 4 from a 2TE set then play action will fool them, it doesn't matter if you average 3.0 YPC on those carries. t doesn't matter if you have the best run game in the world if you NEVEr run on 2nd and 7 and run play action you won't be fooling anyone. Defenses attack tendencies not outcomes so no frequency and success don't correlate to play action passing success.You really buy all of these silly things don't you.
Lol. This was your comment:"successfully running doesn't have anything to do with play action"its so funny that you can't see the disconnect . . . well, maybe you can . . lol . . . all while putting others down . . . man . . . the freaking irony
Lol. This was your comment:"successfully running doesn't have anything to do with play action"its so funny that you can't see the disconnect . . . well, maybe you can . . lol . . . all while putting others down . . . man . . . the freaking irony
Dal is right.Just FYI.
Clearly, the team's problem is that they aren't praying hard enough. I mean, look at all the quotes out there where athletes thank Jesus for their success.
lol
Lol. This was your comment:"successfully running doesn't have anything to do with play action"its so funny that you can't see the disconnect . . . well, maybe you can . . lol . . . all while putting others down . . . man . . . the freaking irony
Dal is right.Just FYI.
""successfully running doesn't have anything to do with play action"
Yea, I read that the 1st time. Hes still right.Gameplans are made based on tendencies, not production. Granted, tendencies are often derived from production, but they arent mutually inclusive.
Yea, I read that the 1st time. Hes still right.Gameplans are made based on tendencies, not production. Granted, tendencies are often derived from production, but they arent mutually inclusive.
hmmm . . . what was Dal's comment again? ;)
if you step back and think about it, the 9-4 49er's were coming in against the 4-9 Bucs, the 49er's were the "relatively in vegas terms" heavy favorite even on the road. i would think getting the game into the 4th quarter down by less then one score would qualify as having them where they want them. I mean they could have been all "we are going to blow them out, be up by 3 TDs entering the 4th quarter ..." but i have a feeling they are a little more realistic then most people on this board. If you told me before the game that the Bucs would be down just 6 with about 10 minutes left in the game i would take it. unfortunately that is when the wheels fell off.
if you step back and think about it, the 9-4 49er's were coming in against the 4-9 Bucs, the 49er's were the "relatively in vegas terms" heavy favorite even on the road. i would think getting the game into the 4th quarter down by less then one score would qualify as having them where they want them. I mean they could have been all "we are going to blow them out, be up by 3 TDs entering the 4th quarter ..." but i have a feeling they are a little more realistic then most people on this board. If you told me before the game that the Bucs would be down just 6 with about 10 minutes left in the game i would take it. unfortunately that is when the wheels fell off.
I'm sorry but I never felt that we were in "it". When they had to, the 49ers, imposed their will on us. They could have blown us out by 35 if they needed to.
Yea, I read that the 1st time. Hes still right.Gameplans are made based on tendencies, not production. Granted, tendencies are often derived from production, but they arent mutually inclusive.
Yeah he's just not getting the concept here at all.
Yea, I read that the 1st time. Hes still right.Gameplans are made based on tendencies, not production. Granted, tendencies are often derived from production, but they arent mutually inclusive.
Yeah he's just not getting the concept here at all.
Like I said, it is ironic that you default to put downs. lol"successfully running doesn't have anything to do with play action"
Yea, I read that the 1st time. Hes still right.Gameplans are made based on tendencies, not production. Granted, tendencies are often derived from production, but they arent mutually inclusive.
Yeah he's just not getting the concept here at all.
Like I said, it is ironic that you default to put downs. lol"successfully running doesn't have anything to do with play action"
What part of this don't you get? If you run 100% of the time on 3rd and 2 from a 3 TE set and average 1.5 ypr when you do finally run play action it will be effective. The running game has not been successful at all but the defense will buy the playfake because it plays to a massive tendency. Again, see GB last year who was pathetic at running but ran great play action.
Yea, I read that the 1st time. Hes still right.Gameplans are made based on tendencies, not production. Granted, tendencies are often derived from production, but they arent mutually inclusive.
Yeah he's just not getting the concept here at all.
Like I said, it is ironic that you default to put downs. lol"successfully running doesn't have anything to do with play action"
What part of this don't you get?
Lol, maybe you should ask yourself that question Dal. Re-read this:"successfully running doesn't have anything to do with play action"
if you step back and think about it, the 9-4 49er's were coming in against the 4-9 Bucs, the 49er's were the "relatively in vegas terms" heavy favorite even on the road. i would think getting the game into the 4th quarter down by less then one score would qualify as having them where they want them. I mean they could have been all "we are going to blow them out, be up by 3 TDs entering the 4th quarter ..." but i have a feeling they are a little more realistic then most people on this board. If you told me before the game that the Bucs would be down just 6 with about 10 minutes left in the game i would take it. unfortunately that is when the wheels fell off.
I'm sorry but I never felt that we were in "it". When they had to, the 49ers, imposed their will on us. They could have blown us out by 35 if they needed to.
which makes it even more of "right where we want them" i would say. (i didn't see the game, in PA here) if the Bucs were being dominant and they were still only down 6 with about 10 left it gives them a punchers chance. maybe they 3 and out instead of fumbling, punt it away and the 49er's make a mistake, Bucs D scores and steals the game. dominated or not, with about 10 left in the 4th they still had a shot at winning.
