| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Keyzer Soze
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 295
Location: Chicago, IL
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:58 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
I don't think any ONE is arguing with Spush. It's my theory that BobBrown is actually a conglomerate of about 25 people. There's no way one person can put this much time into a message board. 
_________________
Speed Blue Sig and GangGreen64 Avatar.
".............and like that.............he's gone." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ironman2008
Joined: 08 Jan 2008
Posts: 5430
Location: PatsDynasty 21 on avatar/Sig! I run WWA Wrestling Sim Forum/GM League
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Keyzer Soze wrote: | | I don't think any ONE is arguing with Spush. It's my theory that BobBrown is actually a conglomerate of about 25 people. There's no way one person can put this much time into a message board. |
Yes you can-He probably falls asleep on FF because he has nothing els to do.
_________________
| Quote: | | Chuck Norris wears Steve Smith pajamas to bed. |
| Quote: | | Four Three Mafia on Smoot270-Which brings me to my next point... DONT SMOKE CRACK. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ghengis Graz
Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 1889
Location: Gettysburg
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ironman2008 wrote: | | Why is anyone arguing stats with spush?Thats like arguing the theory of relativity with Einstein. |
Because Bob argues just to argue. He does not believe 20% of what he says and knows another 30% is a stretch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
InTressleWeTrst
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 15409
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ironman2008 wrote: | | Keyzer Soze wrote: | | I don't think any ONE is arguing with Spush. It's my theory that BobBrown is actually a conglomerate of about 25 people. There's no way one person can put this much time into a message board. |
Yes you can-He probably falls asleep on FF because he has nothing els to do.
|
....Says the kid with 26 posts per day
_________________
| mistakebytehlak wrote: |
no one will break the bonds of ITWT and I's e-love.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bbelan2343
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 9172
Location: Steeler's Nation - On the Stairway to Seven
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| InTressleWeTrst wrote: | | ironman2008 wrote: | | Keyzer Soze wrote: | | I don't think any ONE is arguing with Spush. It's my theory that BobBrown is actually a conglomerate of about 25 people. There's no way one person can put this much time into a message board. |
Yes you can-He probably falls asleep on FF because he has nothing els to do.
|
....Says the kid with 26 posts per day |
LOL
_________________
| Irish 11 wrote: | | If the Ravens were playing Al Qaida, I'd be all "Go Osama!" |
| flyers0909 wrote: | | Morons at the dollar store are selling dinosaurs for a buck |
Let's go Pirates!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BobBrown
Joined: 19 Mar 2008
Posts: 5189
Location: P-Cola, FL
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| spush wrote: | I showed you several examples of what I believe to playing extended time with a limited playbook. You like to spin everything into a statistics class, so I hope that sample size is adequate as it covers roughly 1/3 of the season.
You continue to dwell on this end around play. I know you know this, but for the onlookers, thats 1/19th of the plays in question for this game. That particular play call is normally reserved to be run against a team that is stacking the box for the run. Whats the reason to stack the box in this scenario your ask? Because of a big lead and the main priority was no longer scoring pts but clock mgmt and 1st downs.
| BobBrown wrote: | | When you say that "the playbook was drowned" you are insinuating that the offense was no longer trying to score, or even convert 1st downs. You say it like the Steelers were just running a FB dive over and over to run the clock out. Also, you are trying to insinuate that this was some sort of hurdle that the Steelers overcame, as if being conservative with even an 11 or more point lead by ANY team should make offensive stats count for more than they actually do |
1. Yes, you are correct, they were not putting forth a concerted effort to put more pts or yardage on the board
2. If you consider a dive play to be one within the tackles, then yes, 18/19 times.. Probability was pretty high huh?
3. Not claiming it to be a hurdle. Just showing you how the statitistics of the Steelers offense are skewed by circumstance in a debate where you claim your teams offense is superior. I dont believe that to be true. Can you find me a Browns game that ended in 19 straight runs.  OOPS, this is one. I meant one where you come out on the other end. I doubt you can, even the buffalo game where weather conditions made if nearly impossible to throw. Even that situation is different b/c it was only an 8 pt deficit and your still trying to score at every turn. |
Ok Mr. Spush…you asked for it…
You have clearly said that the Steeler's playbook was "drowned" for the 19 consecutive plays that ended the first game of last season. You have also clearly stated that this means that the Steelers were basically running a FB dive over and over. You are on record for saying this and there is no disputing it.
Now I will concede, as should you, that once Ben came out of the game, the playbook was limited. That, BTW, was for the last 7 of the 19 plays. So what we are clearly arguing about is whether or not the Steelers were executing the equivalent of a FB dive for the other 12 plays.
First, let's look at the formations (the typical formation for a FB dive is not "shotgun", right?)
Of the 12 plays, 3 were out of "shotgun" formation, 8 were handoffs to FWP (is he your FB?), 3 were handoff to Davenport, and one was an end around to Wilson (that you just dismiss completely since it ruins your opinion that the Steelers were not using a playbook for the last 19 plays)….oh, let me gues…"Oh sure Bob, bring up the one play that destroys my whole argument…" did I get that right?...cuz there is more.
Let's look at those plays to FWP: 3 plays to either the R (2) or the LG(1), those can easily be called "inside the tackles". The other 4 runs were either to RT(2) or LT(2)…those can not be easily argued as designed inside plays, and they are certainly not "dives".
Let's look at Davenport's 3 runs: One to LG, One to RT, and one to RE?...right end, huh?...that is a funny was to run a FB dive, aint it?
Back to those shotgun formations: the 3 formations came on 3rd down each time. The results of those plays were 13 yards by Davenport, 7 yards by Davenport, and 37 yards by Wilson on the end around. Funny that you remember the Browns stacking the box with 30 players against 3 and 4 WR sets, but whatever.
Now say your "smart alec" response that is an attempt to discredit me without using any actual proof, as usual.
_________________
Pre-SB Championships vs SB Championships thread
Last edited by BobBrown on Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:31 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BobBrown
Joined: 19 Mar 2008
Posts: 5189
Location: P-Cola, FL
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ironman2008 wrote: | | Why is anyone arguing stats with spush?Thats like arguing the theory of relativity with Einstein. |
You're talking my language now, ironman.
The Theory of Relativity asserts that two things are relative, what are the two things?
...spush?
_________________
Pre-SB Championships vs SB Championships thread |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spush
Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 13981
Location: On top of the world
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| BobBrown wrote: | | ironman2008 wrote: | | Why is anyone arguing stats with spush?Thats like arguing the theory of relativity with Einstein. |
You're talking my language now, ironman.
The Theory of Relativity asserts that two things are relative, what are the two things?
...spush? |
Here are 2 things that arent relative. Formation and play call in the stituation we're discussing. Your putting words in my mouth with "FB Dive" when I clearly said if you consider a dive play as one between the OT's then yes, 18/19, but you chose the word FB, not me.. Your outside run plays could've bounced due to a stacked box. Formation is irrelevant and wasnt part of my original assertion. Formation is merely attempt to help dictate box count, which was stacked with 8-9 people while still employing a successful rush attack.
And when I say the playbook was drowned, the implied argument is the full arsenal of attack is no longer being utilized b/c the game is well in hand and the purpose has changed. The new function of the offense is to drain the clock, not work on YPP stats that you imply your team is so superior at. You didnt see the Steelers continually air it out for 60 minutes in attempts to blow the Browns out further similar to the way NE Pats did to several teams. How can you tell me the Steelers didnt sit on the ball for the most part.
In my eyes, I set out to prove what I intended to prove. That your offense isnt and wasnt as efficient as the Steeler offense even though your unit had to fire on all cylinders for nearly 60 minutes almost every game just to stay in the game.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RavensFan
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 1356
Location: Orlando, FL
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| BobBrown wrote: | | spush wrote: | I showed you several examples of what I believe to playing extended time with a limited playbook. You like to spin everything into a statistics class, so I hope that sample size is adequate as it covers roughly 1/3 of the season.
You continue to dwell on this end around play. I know you know this, but for the onlookers, thats 1/19th of the plays in question for this game. That particular play call is normally reserved to be run against a team that is stacking the box for the run. Whats the reason to stack the box in this scenario your ask? Because of a big lead and the main priority was no longer scoring pts but clock mgmt and 1st downs.
| BobBrown wrote: | | When you say that "the playbook was drowned" you are insinuating that the offense was no longer trying to score, or even convert 1st downs. You say it like the Steelers were just running a FB dive over and over to run the clock out. Also, you are trying to insinuate that this was some sort of hurdle that the Steelers overcame, as if being conservative with even an 11 or more point lead by ANY team should make offensive stats count for more than they actually do |
1. Yes, you are correct, they were not putting forth a concerted effort to put more pts or yardage on the board
2. If you consider a dive play to be one within the tackles, then yes, 18/19 times.. Probability was pretty high huh?
3. Not claiming it to be a hurdle. Just showing you how the statitistics of the Steelers offense are skewed by circumstance in a debate where you claim your teams offense is superior. I dont believe that to be true. Can you find me a Browns game that ended in 19 straight runs. OOPS, this is one. I meant one where you come out on the other end. I doubt you can, even the buffalo game where weather conditions made if nearly impossible to throw. Even that situation is different b/c it was only an 8 pt deficit and your still trying to score at every turn. |
Ok Mr. Spush…you asked for it…
You have clearly said that the Steeler's playbook was "drowned" for the 19 consecutive plays that ended the first game of last season. You have also clearly stated that this means that the Steelers were basically running a FB dive over and over. You are on record for saying this and there is no disputing it.
Now I will concede, as should you, that once Ben came out of the game, the playbook was limited. That, BTW, was for the last 7 of the 19 plays. So what we are clearly arguing about is whether or not the Steelers were executing the equivalent of a FB dive for the other 12 plays.
First, let's look at the formations (the typical formation for a FB dive is not "shotgun", right?)
Of the 12 plays, 3 were out of "shotgun" formation, 8 were handoffs to FWP (is he your FB?), 3 were handoff to Davenport, and one was an end around to Wilson (that you just dismiss completely since it ruins your opinion that the Steelers were not using a playbook for the last 19 plays)….oh, let me gues…"Oh sure Bob, bring up the one play that destroys my whole argument…" did I get that right?...cuz there is more.
Let's look at those plays to FWP: 3 plays to either the R (2) or the LG(1), those can easily be called "inside the tackles". The other 4 runs were either to RT(2) or LT(2)…those can not be easily argued as designed inside plays, and they are certainly not "dives".
Let's look at Davenport's 3 runs: One to LG, One to RT, and one to RE?...right end, huh?...that is a funny was to run a FB dive, aint it?
Back to those shotgun formations: the 3 formations came on 3rd down each time. The results of those plays were 13 yards by Davenport, 7 yards by Davenport, and 37 yards by Wilson on the end around. Funny that you remember the Browns stacking the box with 30 players against 3 and 4 WR sets, but whatever.
Now say your "smart alec" response that is an attempt to discredit me without using any actual proof, as usual. |
He never said that. You said... | Quote: | | You say it like the Steelers were just running a FB dive over and over to run the clock out |
And spush responded...
| Quote: | | 2. If you consider a dive play to be one within the tackles, then yes, 18/19 times.. Probability was pretty high huh? |
MEANING... that if your (BobBrown) definition of a FB dive is ANY run between the tackles, then YES, that is what they did, because 18/19 of those runs were between the tackles. And if that truly IS your definition of a FB dive, then you are a lost cause.
So before you get on your high horse, make sure you read spush's post and comprehend it.
_________________
^Thanks Dawg24!
The Ravens will finish with a better record than the Browns in the upcoming season. Mark it down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FourThreeMafia
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 40594
Location: East of Sixburgh
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| spush wrote: | | BobBrown wrote: | | ironman2008 wrote: | | Why is anyone arguing stats with spush?Thats like arguing the theory of relativity with Einstein. |
You're talking my language now, ironman.
The Theory of Relativity asserts that two things are relative, what are the two things?
...spush? |
Here are 2 things that arent relative. Formation and play call in the stituation we're discussing. Your putting words in my mouth with "FB Dive" when I clearly said if you consider a dive play as one between the OT's then yes, 18/19, but you chose the word FB, not me.. Your outside run plays could've bounced due to a stacked box. Formation is irrelevant and wasnt part of my original assertion. Formation is merely attempt to help dictate box count, which was stacked with 8-9 people while still employing a successful rush attack.
And when I say the playbook was drowned, the implied argument is the full arsenal of attack is no longer being utilized b/c the game is well in hand and the purpose has changed. The new function of the offense is to drain the clock, not work on YPP stats that you imply your team is so superior at. You didnt see the Steelers continually air it out for 60 minutes in attempts to blow the Browns out further similar to the way NE Pats did to several teams. How can you tell me the Steelers didnt sit on the ball for the most part.
In my eyes, I set out to prove what I intended to prove. That your offense isnt and wasnt as efficient as the Steeler offense even though your unit had to fire on all cylinders for nearly 60 minutes almost every game just to stay in the game. |
Get used to that. Bob likes to make things up and put words in peoples mouths. Thats why I stopped talking to him.
Im sure he will claim that it was his "vast and superior knowledge of the game" that made me concede, but at this point, he can THINK whatever he wants. No point in arguing with someone that THINKS they are always right.
_________________
| cluelessororke wrote: | | I am going to laugh in your face when they don't even sniff WR until day three of the draft |
Still waiting for your laugh.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
obby
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 895
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
why are you arguing at all lets just wait until week 2.
_________________
props to dawg24 on the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KSizzl3
Joined: 16 Jun 2007
Posts: 2417
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Iron sharpens Iron? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neumatic
Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 7978
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| obby wrote: | | why are you arguing at all lets just wait until week 2. |
Because there isa lot of time to burn from now to week 2 
_________________
Jamison. on the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BobBrown
Joined: 19 Mar 2008
Posts: 5189
Location: P-Cola, FL
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| spush wrote: | | BobBrown wrote: | | ironman2008 wrote: | | Why is anyone arguing stats with spush?Thats like arguing the theory of relativity with Einstein. |
You're talking my language now, ironman.
The Theory of Relativity asserts that two things are relative, what are the two things?
...spush? |
Here are 2 things that arent relative. Formation and play call in the stituation we're discussing. Your putting words in my mouth with "FB Dive" when I clearly said if you consider a dive play as one between the OT's then yes, 18/19, but you chose the word FB, not me.. Your outside run plays could've bounced due to a stacked box. Formation is irrelevant and wasnt part of my original assertion. Formation is merely attempt to help dictate box count, which was stacked with 8-9 people while still employing a successful rush attack.
And when I say the playbook was drowned, the implied argument is the full arsenal of attack is no longer being utilized b/c the game is well in hand and the purpose has changed. The new function of the offense is to drain the clock, not work on YPP stats that you imply your team is so superior at. You didnt see the Steelers continually air it out for 60 minutes in attempts to blow the Browns out further similar to the way NE Pats did to several teams. How can you tell me the Steelers didnt sit on the ball for the most part.
In my eyes, I set out to prove what I intended to prove. That your offense isnt and wasnt as efficient as the Steeler offense even though your unit had to fire on all cylinders for nearly 60 minutes almost every game just to stay in the game. |
Here a question for ya (or 43, bbelan, ironman, RavensFan...whoever)
Why does a team usually come out in a shotgun formation on 3rd and long?
To run the clock?
To defeat the 8-9 man box that most defenses throw out there to defend 3 or 4 WRs?
Because the playbook was "drowned"?
To get a first down?
The answer is pretty simple spush. If I still had my DVR'd game I would show you that there were NOT 8-9 men in the box, but a nickel defense.
I remeber specifically on the Wilson run that we were caught in a cover 2, expecting a pass on 3rd down.
Just admit that every team plays consevatively with the lead, even the Browns, and that you don't get "extra" or "imaginary" stats for beating an opponent with 20 points in the fourth quater.
_________________
Pre-SB Championships vs SB Championships thread |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spush
Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 13981
Location: On top of the world
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Bob, again your confusing formation with playcall. I dont care if they came out in punt formation or the wing T.
Only one conclusion can be drawn. They ripped out 3 pages of a playbook and stuck with those for 19 consecutive plays
And I'd love to see some footage of the Browns in nickel during the 4th QTR of that game. Make sure to show proof of of the timeclock and QTR with shots of 5 DB's. I bet it didnt happen often, bet they stayed in base sets
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
