Jump to content
  • GUESTS

    If You  want access  to member only forums on FM, You will need to Sign-in or  Sign-Up now .

    This box will disappear once you are signed in as a member.

Manziel Debate


DrJuice1980

Recommended Posts

You claim how you watch all this football and break down film and you honestly think coverage gets better and better the longer a play goes?

It has NEVER been that way from the playground to the pros. Even less these days with all the rules favoring the offense.

Oh wait, nevermind, there are sometimes coverage sacks. That obviously means coverage gets better and better as a play breaks down. LMMFAO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Big Dave2

    181

  • DrJuice1980

    176

  • CaptainMusky

    173

  • LMITOUT

    135

Being that there are no "designed" routes when the play drags on and the underneath coverage and one on ones merge together. I would say its harder to complete a pass, wouldn't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty simple to understand, wasn't it?

I guess I'll have to dumb down my comments even more for Stuart Smalley to understand.

How weak are you? You can't come up with any quality takes on topics, you give one-liners as comebacks then make fun and name call.

I see your true colors LMIT.

BTW, we were discussing the fact that defense wins championships, not regular season or playoffs. The key there is championships. And I'm the one that needs it dumbed down?

Put something together for once that involves insight.

Rinse.

Repeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, we were discussing the fact that defense wins championships, not regular season or playoffs.

That's the dumbest excuse I've heard all day, and I've been up since 5:30am.

What you have here, folks, is a person who has dug themselves a hole so deep that they cannot even see daylight anymore.

I'll take that as a surrender on your part. That's OK. The rest of us knew you had lost after your first few posts in this thread. giveup.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rinse.

Repeat.

As you put it. No insight whatso ever.

Folks be careful when engaging LMIT. He will stalk you on this site, make remarks about you in the middle of other topics (called me a puke stain and left the forum), give no reason to his opinions and try to bring you down. Then make threats, when you call him out, about admin having a watchful eye out for you. I don't need to call him any names, be the judge yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For someone who believes they know everything, you're sure out of touch with reality.

LOL. This, coming from the Omniscient One. Can't make this stuff up. smile

I'd make a comment about irony, but I suspect it's unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument whether offense or defense wins championships is like arguing whether a boxers left hand or right hand wins fights. We have had right handed and left handed champions, but I've never seen a one armed boxer make it very far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like know what I'm surrendering to you for. What was it that I haven't buried you in facts over? What has been this "great" take you've had? Haha! Was it the Stalin-esque scare tactics you tried to impose? Haha! Where's the meme that you're famous for, did I miss it or something? I haven't backed down from your banter have I? Do you really think I'm intimidated by you? Internet bully's make me laugh. Haha!

No white flag as there was nothing to surrender too. Another dip and twirl by LMIT. You're material is getting old and lame. Time to find something new.

Rinse.

Repeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You claim how you watch all this football and break down film and you honestly think coverage gets better and better the longer a play goes?

It has NEVER been that way from the playground to the pros. Even less these days with all the rules favoring the offense.

Interesting issue...Has anyone seen any data on either yards per play, interceptions, completion %, fumbles, sacks, first downs, etc. on plays that "break down" vs. those that don't. Maybe by comparing the outcomes of plays where the QB leaves the pocket (without the play being designed for him to do so, of course) vs. those where he doesn't?

I've never actually seen any data on this, and it probably varies by QB, of course, but with the insane amount of data that's collected concerning professional sports, it's odd to think that no one has ever looked at this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty simple to understand, wasn't it?

I guess I'll have to dumb down my comments even more for Stuart Smalley to understand.

I believe "remedial" is the word you are looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument whether offense or defense wins championships is like arguing whether a boxers left hand or right hand wins fights. We have had right handed and left handed champions, but I've never seen a one armed boxer make it very far.

Certainly true...they're both important. But the argument is really about which one is *relatively* more important. Does the average ranking of winners' defenses rank about their offenses? I wonder if you looked at it in terms of relative percentage of total spending...do teams that win spend more--on a relative basis--on their defenses or offenses? I've no idea what the answers are, but this sounds like perfect work for an ESPN intern. smile

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Defense wins championships."

Yeah, twenty years ago.

For someone who believes they know everything, you're sure out of touch with reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like know what I'm surrendering to you for. What was it that I haven't buried you in facts over? What has been this "great" take you've had? Haha! Was it the Stalin-esque scare tactics you tried to impose? Haha! Where's the meme that you're famous for, did I miss it or something? I haven't backed down from your banter have I? Do you really think I'm intimidated by you? Internet bully's make me laugh. Haha!

No white flag as there was nothing to surrender too. Another dip and twirl by LMIT. You're material is getting old and lame. Time to find something new.

Rinse.

Repeat.

So......your take seems to be that the Vikings need to draft a MLB with their first round draft pick, LMIT's take seems to be that the Vikes need to draft a QB with their first round pick.

How about a poll?

How many members think the vikes need a MLB more and how many think it is QB they need?

I'll go first and vote QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your question is wrong, I've never said need. I don't like any of these QBs coming out as a 1st overall pick as high as we're picking. So to be fair please rephrase the question, Mini-me LMIT.

I would also like to take bake my Fraud, Phony, and Fool statement. What I should have said was Boil, Cyst, Wart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only does Dr. Juice believe in a mythical QB that the Vikings will acquire in, oh, never, he also believes in mythical football seasons where everyone just jumps right to the Super Bowl. After all, "defense wins championships". Forget the rest of the season, I guess.

LOL.

Keep digging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Internet bully's make me laugh. Haha!

You should probably look in one of the numerous mirrors that plaster the walls of your house. Well, except there is that one open spot for the FatHead of yourself...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're 9-7 in the regular and win the Super Bowl your Champions. If you're 16-0 and you lose in the Super Bowl, you're not a Champ. I can't believe I needed to explain that to you. What does the regular or post season matter if you don't win it all? You win it all with a team, not a QB. How many rings does Peyton have? How about Marino?

Keep trying Mr Skin Tag

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/articl...l_head_12795760

Last years super bowl teams both spent more money on defensive players than offensive players. Half of the playoff teams spent more on defense than offense, but most teams balance the spending pretty well between the two, with 17 teams spending more money on defense than offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, Jeff. Assuming that the data is accurate, then looking at spending wouldn't give us much of an idea if it's actually true that "defense wins championships," if it's true that looking at spending is an accurate measure of relative importance. The article uses only one year to form its conclusion, which obviously isn't a big enough sample size. I wonder what the ratio has been the past 40 years or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Pack have a -61:00 in time of possession since the injury. Before the injury it was +28:00. In 7 games that Rodgers was QB they only held the ball for 28 more mins than the opponent. The QB/Offense does help the Time of Possession stat but not as much as the Defense when it comes to getting the O back on.

Pretty big swing.

If my post that you replied to did not answer your question then maybe this does.

When's the last time you heard "We need to get the Defense back on the field"

Never.

This is priceless. It just goes to show your ignorance in the football world. If you can't grasp the concept of Rogers carrying the Pack and everything they do, then you have no hope...none.

Juice...I admire your passion but your grasp on reality is laughable.

Carry on....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like any of these QBs coming out as a 1st overall pick as high as we're picking.

So what are your credentials? You obviously must have a pretty spectacular resume when it comes to scouting and grading football talent based on your many posts trying to downgrade every QB in this draft, completely ignoring any statistics available.

Maybe you don't think any QB is worth a first round pick this year, but you are the only one. No one, with actual credentials that makes their opinion valid, agrees with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're 9-7 in the regular and win the Super Bowl your Champions. If you're 16-0 and you lose in the Super Bowl, you're not a Champ.

And what does going 3-13 year after year make you?

Keep supporting the Vikings failed mantra of "Defense wins championships". It seems to working out well for them in a league of 4000yd+ QBs. LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Because we've been 3-13 for multiple years here right. I wonder how many 3-13 teams have top 5 defenses. Got a dumb comeback for that one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is priceless. It just goes to show your ignorance in the football world. If you can't grasp the concept of Rogers carrying the Pack and everything they do, then you have no hope...none.

Juice...I admire your passion but your grasp on reality is laughable.

Carry on....

No what's priceless is your idiocy with not being able to analyze numbers. If it was single handedly Rodgers than why isn't the TOP remotely close to being the exact opposite? The more I look at it the more I see that the Pack had no chance even with Rodgers. That D was too bad. +4mins a game with him? You're crazy if you look at those numbers and come away with that take. It's either you're crazy or LMIT has his hand up you know what controlling you like the little puppet that you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys remind me of two kids fighting over who owns the sandbox when the only prize to be found is cat t*rds. Can't wait to see who's going to be the first to call the other a "p**pyhead"? On second tought, I can wait...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Top 5 QB with a terrible team because of a terrible D:

Matt Ryan, Atlanta Falcons

Reply???

I hope he doesn't call you p**pyhead, cause that might break the internet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Your Responses - Share & Have Fun :)

    • LakeofthewoodsMN
      On the South Shore...  The focus for many this week is the ongoing deer hunting season which is a big tradition in these parts, even for avid walleye anglers.  There were some that either already harvested their deer or are more into catching fall walleyes than hunting.     Those that are fishing are taking advantage of the unseasonably warm weather and excellent walleye and sauger bite that is happening across the lake.  Cold weather is in the forecast in the upcoming days and weeks so that is also getting many excited. The best depths on the south end of LOW are 22-28 feet of water.     Vertical jigging with frozen emerald shiners is catching most of the walleyes, saugers and jumbo perch.  Depending upon where on the lake you are fishing, some slots and big trophies are in the mix as well, but most reports are talking about good numbers of eaters.    Jumbo perch are coming in good numbers this fall which will serve ice anglers well.  Watch out for an occasional pike or even lake sturgeon mixed in with the walleyes.      There are good numbers of walleyes and saugers across the south shore which is setting up nicely for early ice.   On the Rainy River...  There continues to be good numbers of shiners in the river, and consequently, there are good walleyes in the river as well.     Walleyes along with saugers, pike and some sturgeon are coming in up and down the river.  Most walleyes are being caught in 10-25 feet of water in various stretches of the river.   Jigging with live or frozen emerald shiners is the key. Some anglers are also still slow trolling crankbaits upstream to cover more ground and find fish. Both methods are producing solid results. Sturgeon fishing remains strong.  The catch-and-release sturgeon fishing is open into the spring when it changes to the "keep season" on April 24th. Up at the NW Angle...  As temps are getting colder, most are in the woods hunting and not fall fishing, however, for those who bundle up, fishing continues to be excellent.     A nice mixed bag with walleyes, saugers, perch, pike and crappies being caught. Very good muskie fishing with the colder water temps and shorter days.  Some big fish and some good numbers are being caught amongst the islands.  Both casting and trolling is getting it done.  
    • gimruis
      I hunt in the rifle zone so I don't have a need to use a shotgun to hunt deer, but I would be looking at this if there was ever a need to.   There could be state legislation introduced next summer that eliminates the shotgun zone completely.  It has bipartisan support.  Wisconsin removed theirs years ago and MN is usually later to follow.  They've tried to pass it more than once and it came up just short both times.  Probably just a matter of time.
    • Wanderer
      Oh, h e l l no! 
    • leech~~
      Screw that, here's whatch need!  😆   Power-Shok Rifled Slug 10 Gauge 766 Grain Grain Weight: 766 Shotshell Length: 3-1/2in / 89mm Muzzle Velocity: 1280
    • Wanderer
      20 ga has become a real popular deer round in the last 5 or so years.  The rifled barrels are zinging those sabot slugs with rifle like accuracy out to 100 yards easily.  Some go so far as dialing in for a 200 yard shot but really, by 150 they’re falling off pretty low.   I have a single shot Ultraslug in 20 ga that shoots really well at 100 yards.  Most everyone I know that has bought a slug gun lately has gotten the Savage 220 in 20ga.  Problem can be finding the shells you want.
    • leech~~
      My son always bugs me about getting a nice light over-under 20ga for grouse hunting.  I say Heck no, I'm getting a 3 1/2" 10ga so I can put as much lead in the air that I can!!     So, I'm keeping my 12ga.  
    • 11-87
      That’s almost exactly what I was thinking.  Have slug barrels for both   One for turkey and one for deer.      I have a 20ga mosseberg as well. (Combo came with the scope but never used.   I always liked the 12 better
    • leech~~
      Wanderer is right on the money and covered it well.  I was wondering too if you had a slug barrel for one of your guns?  If so you could make that your slug gun with a scope, and the other your turkey gun with the Red dot.  As you can afford it. 
    • Wanderer
      Kinda depends on if you want magnification or quick target acquisition.   More magnification options and better accuracy with a scope.  You get what you pay for too so get comfortable with a budget for one.  Tasco and Bushnell work but I find they lose their zero easier, have low contrast and don’t gather light well in low light conditions.  That said, I’m still using one I haven’t replaced yet.  Vortex has been the hot brand for the past several years for bang for the buck.  Good products.  Nothing beats Swarovski though.  Huge dough for those.  Burris is another decent option.   There are some specific models for shotgun/slug hunting in the economy brands and bullet drop compensation (BDC) reticles.  Based on experience I’d recommend not falling for that marketing ploy.   Red dots are usually lower magnification and easier to get on target.  Reasonably accurate but don’t do well with definition, like searching the brush for your target.  I put a HAWKE red dot on a .22 for squirrels and it’s been good.  For turkey, that’s probably the route I’d go.     If your slug shots are normally not too far and too brushy, I’d think a red dot could work there too if you’re only buying 1 scope.  You’ll be better off dimming the reticle to the lowest setting you can easily use to not over shine the target and get a finer aim point.   If you don’t have a slug barrel, you might appreciate one of those.  I had a browning with a smoothbore slug barrel that shot Brenneke 2-3/4 inch well.  The 11-87 would well fitted with a cantelever rifled barrel. 
    • 11-87
      Looking for recommendations on scope or red dot    I basically hunt turkey and whitetail, live in southern MN. So it’s all deer/ shotgun    looking to add a scope/ red dot as my eyes don’t work like they used to to with the open sights.    my gun options are 11/87 12. Browning BPS 12    not looking for the most expensive or the cheapest    pros and cons of one over the other
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.