PDA

View Full Version : Someone hates running the football more than McDaniels and Reid


Kaylore
02-06-2011, 08:13 PM
Congrats to Mike McCarthy on detesting a running game that was averaging five yards per carry and almost blowing the game! :approve:

spdirty
02-06-2011, 08:15 PM
Hey. They won. Who cares how.

SoCalBronco
02-06-2011, 08:17 PM
Jimmer Fredette disagrees with this. The passing game is fun and exciting and propelled them to victory.

OBF1
02-06-2011, 08:18 PM
Jimmer Fredette disagrees with this. The passing game is fun and exciting and propelled them to victory.

LOLLOLLOL

ro_50
02-06-2011, 08:21 PM
They won, all that matters.

listopencil
02-06-2011, 08:23 PM
Meh, they only won because of that 10th run of what's his name...

SoDak Bronco
02-06-2011, 08:23 PM
Why run when the strength of your team is passing and the weakness of the other team is stopping the pass? Seems like smart game planning to me.

go_broncos
02-06-2011, 08:23 PM
Difference is we have Orton as our QB..

Kaylore
02-06-2011, 08:24 PM
Because by running like they were you can make them even more vulnerable to the pass and avoid getting your QB concussed for the fourth time in the season?

I know:

C-RAAAAZYYY Talk!

scttgrd
02-06-2011, 08:24 PM
Difference is we have Orton as our QB..

And Tebow, but Qft.

listopencil
02-06-2011, 08:31 PM
In all seriousness, though-lack of a running game did bite Green Bay in the ass. They came very close to historically blowing a Super Bowl lead.

Kaylore
02-06-2011, 08:35 PM
In all seriousness, though-lack of a running game did bite Green Bay in the ass. They came very close to historically blowing a Super Bowl lead.

Thank you! They run even once at the goal line in that last drive and they may get the two minute warning before they kick off! I'm glad they won but their borderline compulsive refusal to run the football, especially when they were getting yards and needed to milk the freaking clock, was the most aggravating thing of the evening for me.

SoCalBronco
02-06-2011, 08:40 PM
Thank you! They run even once at the goal line in that last drive and they may get the two minute warning before they kick off! I'm glad they won but their borderline compulsive refusal to run the football, especially when they were getting yards and needed to milk the freaking clock, was the most aggravating thing of the evening for me.

I was more aggravated by the fact that Waffle wasn't here. I was hoping he would show up so we could rag on him, make references to Big Ben's beef jerky, and ask him whether he was jealous of Ben's victims.

Green Bay almost losing the game after being ahead by 18 points was also problematic, though, I'll give you that.

http://www.sportressofblogitude.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/big-ben-beef-jerky.jpg

listopencil
02-06-2011, 08:41 PM
Thank you! They run even once at the goal line in that last drive and they may get the two minute warning before they kick off! I'm glad they won but their borderline compulsive refusal to run the football, especially when they were getting yards and needed to milk the freaking clock, was the most aggravating thing of the evening for me.

Yeah. It was driving me nuts.

bronco0608
02-06-2011, 08:42 PM
Yea, because there are tons of teams in the NFL that can pound away the Steelers. Happens all the time. And it is even more probable to happen with an undrafted running back.

I'm going to side with McCarthy on this one. Whatcha think.

Kaylore
02-06-2011, 08:45 PM
Yea, because there are tons of teams in the NFL that can pound away the Steelers. Happens all the time. And it is even more probable to happen with an undrafted running back.

I'm going to side with McCarthy on this one. Whatcha think.

I'm going to point to the fact they were running on them and quite successfully when they bothered to try. I'm going use the actual game evidence of 4.7 yards per carry to incontrovertibly prove both you and Mike are wrong.

Boom.

Outta here.

SoCalBronco
02-06-2011, 08:47 PM
Boom.

Outta here.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7eiTc9O9Ii8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

RhymesayersDU
02-06-2011, 08:48 PM
Boom.

Outta here.

LOL

Fantastic reference, Kaylore.

bronco0608
02-06-2011, 08:48 PM
I'm going to point to the fact they were running on them and quite successfully when they bothered to try. I'm going use the actual game evidence of 4.7 yards per carry to incontrovertibly prove both you and Mike are wrong.

Boom.

Outta here.

Darn it, if they had only run the ball more, you know. To make it more asthetically pleasing for the average football fan.

I wonder if McCarthy is going to toss and turn in his bed over this tonight?

Somewhere, James Starks is crying. McCarthy took away his MVP trophy.

theAPAOps5
02-06-2011, 08:50 PM
I'm going to point to the fact they were running on them and quite successfully when they bothered to try. I'm going use the actual game evidence of 4.7 yards per carry to incontrovertibly prove both you and Mike are wrong.

Boom.

Outta here.

Boom goes the dynamite. In your face Broncos0608 :strong::clown:

theAPAOps5
02-06-2011, 08:51 PM
Darn it, if they had only run the ball more, you know. To make it more asthetically pleasing for the average football fan.

I wonder if McCarthy is going to toss and turn in his bed over this tonight?

Somewhere, James Starks is crying. McCarthy took away his MVP trophy.

Ah humor is always first lost on the retarded.

listopencil
02-06-2011, 08:54 PM
Yea, because there are tons of teams in the NFL that can pound away the Steelers. Happens all the time. And it is even more probable to happen with an undrafted running back.

I'm going to side with McCarthy on this one. Whatcha think.

You mean Starks? He got 11 carries for 52 yards, that's 4.7 YPC. Not bad at all. I would have liked to see more of him.

bronco0608
02-06-2011, 08:54 PM
Boom goes the dynamite. In your face Broncos0608 :strong::clown:

Ha, what are you high fiving about? Outside two long runs, they weren't doing jack.

They had 52 yards. A non-running team like Green Bay is suppose to pound away the Steelers with James Starks? Really?

And when were they suppose to start pounding away at the Steelers? In the 2nd quarter?

It was a two possession game in the second half. Buffoonery.

bronco0608
02-06-2011, 08:55 PM
Ah humor is always first lost on the retarded.

Nice. Thanks for your contribution to this thread.

theAPAOps5
02-06-2011, 08:56 PM
Ha, what are you high fiving about? Outside two long runs, they weren't doing jack.

They had 52 yards. A non-running team like Green Bay is suppose to pound away the Steelers with James Starks? Really?

And when were they suppose to start pounding away at the Steelers? In the 2nd quarter?

It was a two possession game in the second half. Buffoonery.

Dumb ass google boom outta here. Then you will see why I used retard. Angry little guy.

Cmac821
02-06-2011, 08:56 PM
You play to win the game

Kaylore
02-06-2011, 08:57 PM
Boom goes the dynamite. In your face Broncos0608 :strong::clown:

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/1293/sixa.jpg

bronco0608
02-06-2011, 08:58 PM
Dumb ass google boom outta here. Then you will see why I used retard. Angry little guy.

Ah, being hip on the internet. I sure am missing out.

Epic? :spit:

Kaylore
02-06-2011, 09:00 PM
I love how angry Bronco0608 is getting at the idea that the Packers might have been able to do better. Did it matter? Absolutely not. They won. Does that also mean there is nothing they couldn't have done better? Like run the ball more? Absolutely not. Are you getting overly defensive about nothing? Yes.

Bang-a-rang.

I'm killing tonight, boys.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/X7dFMbubxr4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

theAPAOps5
02-06-2011, 09:01 PM
Actually it's not an internet thing. It is a classic interview. Man are you this dumb in reality or just on forums. Honest question as I don't like picking on the weak.

bronco0608
02-06-2011, 09:02 PM
I love how angry Bronco0608 is getting at the idea that the Packers might have been able to do better. Did it matter? Absolutely not. They won. Does that also mean there is nothing they couldn't have done better? Like run the ball more? Absolutely not. Are you getting overly defensive about nothing? Yes.

Ha!

It's a message board. Replying to posts is defensive? Sure, why not.

I agree with you. Feel better? And take your lap dog Apa with you.

bronco0608
02-06-2011, 09:04 PM
Actually it's not an internet thing. It is a classic interview. Man are you this dumb in reality or just on forums. Honest question as I don't like picking on the weak.

Not really.

theAPAOps5
02-06-2011, 09:05 PM
Not really.

Ok so you are a slow, I apologize. Sorry mongoloid.

bronco0608
02-06-2011, 09:11 PM
Ok so you are a slow, I apologize. Sorry mongoloid.

I'm a slow? Are you a fast?
LOL

scttgrd
02-06-2011, 09:19 PM
As always, the usual suspects come around to play. No matter how wrong, or how often, they still manage to take themselves seriously.

HEAV
02-06-2011, 09:21 PM
Congrats to Mike McCarthy on detesting a running game that was averaging five yards per carry and almost blowing the game! :approve:

I also felt that they should have run more near the goal-line. The pass calling was aggressive and worked (at times) but they had a shot to knockout the Steelers with A TD on thier last drive. A simple draw play could have got them in the endzone and the game would have been over. But they ran that playaction pass (the steelers didn't bite) and Rogers took a sack.

Kaylore
02-06-2011, 09:23 PM
I also felt that they should have run more near the goal-line. The pass calling was aggressive and worked (at times) but they had a shot to knockout the Steelers with A TD on thier last drive. A simple draw play could have got them in the endzone and the game would have been over. But they ran that playaction pass (the steelers didn't bite) and Rogers took a sack.

For me it was more about just burning clock. Three incomplete passes later they're on the wrong side of the two minute warning. But, yes. I think they had a decent shot to score a TD if they ran even once. The Steelers were teeing off.

DarkHorse30
02-06-2011, 09:30 PM
For me it was more about just burning clock. Three incomplete passes later they're on the wrong side of the two minute warning. But, yes. I think they had a decent shot to score a TD if they ran even once. The Steelers were teeing off.

I think McCarthy was using the pass to set up the run. You could see it on that last drive, where starks had a 14 yard run to put them in FG range. Plus, Rogers is an all-pro QB. IMO he deserved the league MVP more than Tom Biteme did. Rogers is really good at hitting his guys in stride and refusing to panic. Also, how many drops?

I'm still amazed that the great big ben (intentional small b) was going against 2 backup corners and failed. Wow.

listopencil
02-06-2011, 09:32 PM
Rogers>Big Ben.

Kaylore
02-06-2011, 09:34 PM
Rogers>Big Ben.

All day.

HEAV
02-06-2011, 09:38 PM
If only they had Tebow!:wiggle:

scttgrd
02-06-2011, 09:53 PM
If only they had Tebow!:wiggle:

Then there would have been a lot of out pattern to the stands.

Xenos
02-06-2011, 10:12 PM
For me it was more about just burning clock. Three incomplete passes later they're on the wrong side of the two minute warning. But, yes. I think they had a decent shot to score a TD if they ran even once. The Steelers were teeing off.
Though I do think a run there could have led to a TD, I don't think it would have burned up the clock nearly as much if it had not been successful. It's because both passes near the end were caught as well. I think they would have ended up on the wrong side of two minutes regardless.

But yeah, they should have tried to run it more. If only to help out the passing game.

HAT
02-07-2011, 03:10 AM
Thank you! They run even once at the goal line in that last drive and they may get the two minute warning before they kick off! I'm glad they won but their borderline compulsive refusal to run the football, especially when they were getting yards and needed to milk the freaking clock, was the most aggravating thing of the evening for me.

Welcome to 2011.

HAT
02-07-2011, 03:15 AM
I was more aggravated by the fact that Waffle wasn't here.

Don't kid yourself SoCal...waffle IS here.

cutthemdown
02-07-2011, 03:15 AM
Meh best way to attack Steelers is by spreading them out and throwing it down field. Another crappy take.

Kaylore
02-07-2011, 05:17 AM
Meh best way to attack Steelers is by spreading them out and throwing it down field. Another crappy take.

I knew you'd be here to say really nothing and completely miss the point of the thread. Most things are way over your head. Half the time you don't even remember things correctly.

txtebow
02-07-2011, 06:00 AM
I knew you'd be here to say really nothing and completely miss the point of the thread. Most things are way over your head. Half the time you don't even remember things correctly.

He is merely pointing out the fact that multiple posts by a poster does not make one a logical or well thought out poster. If not for multiple dropped passes by Jones and Nelson for GB, despite PITT attempting to play the pass, GB scores 38-41 points yesterday. They ran the ball 'well' b/c they rarely ran it at all. Those carries were equivalent to the blind squirrel finding the proverbial acorn. PIT had a record setting run-D this yr. You don't box boxers and you don't wrestle wrestlers.

meangene
02-07-2011, 06:08 AM
Best way to beat the Steelers is spread them out and throw the ball - the Pats formula. I don't think ypc is a good indication of the effectiveness of running the ball at Pitt because, typically, that only happens when you set up the run with the pass and catch them off guard. If GB tried to pound the ball at the Steelers they would have lost the game. At the end, two of the three passes were caught and the receiver stayed inbounds so, in terms of clock, it was a wash. They were thinking TD, as they should have been. A six point lead with two minutes to go against Pitt is not a comfortable lead.

WolfpackGuy
02-07-2011, 06:27 AM
I'm surprised they didn't run it more just to keep the defense honest, but the game was only as close as it was due to the drops by GB.

PIT never really stopped their passing game.

I agree with the sentiment you have to attack the Steelers nickel and dime CB's if you have the matchups.

Rascal
02-07-2011, 06:50 AM
What's scary is that they had significant injuries throughout the year and are a young team.

Kaylore
02-07-2011, 07:11 AM
What's scary is that they had significant injuries throughout the year and are a young team.

Yeah they are probably going to be favorites to win the whole thing.

BroncosMT
02-07-2011, 07:37 AM
I was surpirsed about how horribly organized the Steelers 2 min drill was....they burned a lot of clock not knowing what they were doing.....it looked like a cluster out there....

Kaylore
02-07-2011, 07:52 AM
I was surpirsed about how horribly organized the Steelers 2 min drill was....they burned a lot of clock not knowing what they were doing.....it looked like a cluster out there....

Apparently their young receivers were having a hard time with it.

oubronco
02-07-2011, 08:04 AM
The way the steelers were having success running it i thought they should've ran it more and the packers don't really run the ball that much anyway do they

Dedhed
02-07-2011, 08:16 AM
Any time you have a 3 possession lead you should probably have more than 11 rushing attempts.

But sticking with the pass let the Steelers back into the game and made it more interesting in the end. So that was a plus.

BroncoInferno
02-07-2011, 08:25 AM
For me it was more about just burning clock. Three incomplete passes later they're on the wrong side of the two minute warning. But, yes. I think they had a decent shot to score a TD if they ran even once. The Steelers were teeing off.

The first two passes were complete and the receiver tackled in bounds, so they were still able to milk the clock. It's hard to blame them for going for the TD, which makes it a two possession game and basically ends the game. There was pretty much zero chance of them running the ball in for a TD in that situation against the Steelers.

Also, the reason the Packers had a nice YPC average was because they ran it so seldom that a running play would take the Steelers by surprise and they had them spread out. Green Bay had the right gameplan. If the had tried to run 25 or 30 times, their offense probably would have stalled more frequently and they wouldn't have scored as much.

TonyR
02-07-2011, 09:06 AM
But sticking with the pass let the Steelers back into the game...

How so? You really can't make this statement. You're making huge assumptions here. You don't know how their possessions would have worked out had they run the ball more.

Dedhed
02-07-2011, 10:01 AM
How so? You really can't make this statement. You're making huge assumptions here. You don't know how their possessions would have worked out had they run the ball more.
There's no assumption at all in saying that if you substitute a run for an incomplete pass, there's more time taken off the clock.

bronclvr
02-07-2011, 10:22 AM
Jimmer Fredette disagrees with this. The passing game is fun and exciting and propelled them to victory.

<p style="margin: 0; padding: 0; border: 0; outline: 0;" id="kslvid14277962"></p><script type="text/javascript" src="http://pandora.bonnint.net/video/embed-p.php?id=14277962"></script><p style="margin: 0; padding: 0; border: 0; outline: 0; vertical-align: baseline; font-size: .75em; text-align: center; width: 424px;">Video Courtesy of <a href="http://www.ksl.com">KSL.com</a></p>

TonyR
02-07-2011, 10:33 AM
There's no assumption at all in saying that if you substitute a run for an incomplete pass, there's more time taken off the clock.

True in theory, yes. But it's also true that if Green Bay ran more and failed to move the ball that the field would have been shortened for the Steelers. Do we know what the results would have been with less time but better field position for the Steelers? No, we don't.

I'm not arguing against the point that running the football is good/important, or that perhaps Green Bay could have/should have run more either in general or in specific situations. What I am arguing against is any notion that Green Bay would have had a better result from running the ball more. We just don't know whether or not that's the case here.

Dedhed
02-07-2011, 10:52 AM
True in theory, yes. But it's also true that if Green Bay ran more and failed to move the ball that the field would have been shortened for the Steelers. Do we know what the results would have been with less time but better field position for the Steelers? No, we don't.


They failed to move the ball through the air and had three 3 and outs in the 3rd quarter with 4 incomplete passes. They had another drive of 4 plays where they didn't pick up a 1st down.

Make those unproductive plays rushes, and you take at least 2 extra minutes off the clock.

I don't need any extra production out of those running plays to make my point.

listopencil
02-07-2011, 04:32 PM
They failed to move the ball through the air and had three 3 and outs in the 3rd quarter with 4 incomplete passes. They had another drive of 4 plays where they didn't pick up a 1st down.

Make those unproductive plays rushes, and you take at least 2 extra minutes off the clock.

I don't need any extra production out of those running plays to make my point.

Point made.

TonyR
02-07-2011, 07:39 PM
They failed to move the ball through the air and had three 3 and outs in the 3rd quarter with 4 incomplete passes. They had another drive of 4 plays where they didn't pick up a 1st down.


Third quarter:

First possession, GB ahead 21-10, they rushed on 1st down and gained 2 yards but because of a hold ended up in a 1st and 20 situation. Then they passed for 10 yards. Then they had a false start and passed on 2nd and 15 for 10 yards. On 3rd and five they passed incomplete but if Jones catches the perfectly thrown ball it's a TD. I suppose you could argue they should have rushed on 3rd and 5 here but do you really think that's a rushing down against Pittsburgh?

Second possession, GB ahead 21-17. Rushed for 3 yards on 1st down. Passed incomplete on 2nd, sacked on 3rd. I guess you could make an argument they could have rushed more on this possession but they were only up 4 points so it's not like they're sitting on a big lead.

Next possession, still up 21-17, passed for 17 yards on 1st down. Then rushed for a 3 yard loss on 1st. Passed for 5 on 2nd and 13. Passed incomplete on 3rd and 8. Where should they have rushed on this possession?

Next possession, still up 21-17. Passed incomplete on all 3 downs. I guess you could argue here they should have mixed in a run. But again, only up 4 points and trying to move the ball and score to win the game as opposed to sitting on a lead.

In summary, you really need to consider the situations. They only had a 4 point lead for 3 of the 4 possessions and had a lot of long yardage situations. They were not sitting on a big lead in the 3rd quarter, they were trying to win the Super Bowl by doing what got them there: putting the game in the hands of their best player, Aaron Rodgers. They did this and won the game.

broncosteven
02-07-2011, 08:06 PM
I also thought it would have been prudent to run the ball on GB's last drive to kill clock but the 3 turnovers are why the steelers lost and yet with 2 minutes left in the game Pitt had a shot to win it.

Anyone else think Ward plumped up? He looked like a TE/Tackle out there.

Pitt is going to have to reload, they have an aging base of players. It was fun to see them lose a SB. Proves that everyone loses a SB if you play long enough.

cutthemdown
02-07-2011, 08:09 PM
He is merely pointing out the fact that multiple posts by a poster does not make one a logical or well thought out poster. If not for multiple dropped passes by Jones and Nelson for GB, despite PITT attempting to play the pass, GB scores 38-41 points yesterday. They ran the ball 'well' b/c they rarely ran it at all. Those carries were equivalent to the blind squirrel finding the proverbial acorn. PIT had a record setting run-D this yr. You don't box boxers and you don't wrestle wrestlers.

thank you. If you try to run vs the best run defense in the history of the NFL you won't win. Sure they had some nice runs. But trying to say well those 5 runs did well, so 15 more would be even better just shows the finer points of football gameplans even hide themselves from long time fans like Kaylore.

GB gameplan was spot on and the deserve credit for it.

cutthemdown
02-07-2011, 08:10 PM
But hey if he was being sarcastic and I just missed it fine. Maybe he was trying to say Mcdaniels is smart I don't know. Or maybe Mcdaniels not so dumb for throwing it alot because that is what won superbowl. If so then my bad.

cutthemdown
02-07-2011, 08:11 PM
I think GB can repeat. They get Finley back, either get grant back or maybe go for some FA runner like Micheal Bush etc etc, man they could be even better next yr.

cutthemdown
02-07-2011, 08:15 PM
Third quarter 11:

First possession, GB ahead 21-10, they rushed on 1st down and gained 2 yards but because of a hold ended up in a 1st and 20 situation. Then they passed for 10 yards. Then they had a false start and passed on 2nd and 15 for 10 yards. On 3rd and five they passed incomplete but if Jones catches the perfectly thrown ball it's a TD. I suppose you could argue they should have rushed on 3rd and 5 here but do you really think that's a rushing down against Pittsburgh?

Second possession, GB ahead 21-17. Rushed for 3 yards on 1st down. Passed incomplete on 2nd, sacked on 3rd. I guess you could make an argument they could have rushed more on this possession but they were only up 4 points so it's not like they're sitting on a big lead.

Next possession, still up 21-17, passed for 17 yards on 1st down. Then rushed for a 3 yard loss on 1st. Passed for 5 on 2nd and 13. Passed incomplete on 3rd and 8. Where should they have rushed on this possession?

Next possession, still up 21-17. Passed incomplete on all 3 downs. I guess you could argue here they should have mixed in a run. But again, only up 4 points and trying to move the ball and score to win the game as opposed to sitting on a lead.

In summary, you really need to consider the situations. They only had a 4 point lead for 3 of the 4 possessions and had a lot of long yardage situations. They were not sitting on a big lead in the 3rd quarter, they were trying to win the Super Bowl by doing what got them there: putting the game in the hands of their best player, Aaron Rodgers. They did this and won the game.

Great post. I'm really enjoying reading a lot of your posts lately on the football side of things. When you re read those sequences the play calling seems pretty good. Seems like bad execution with some drops, penalties and so forth.

It's a great example of how it comes down to players executing and not making mistakes. Pitt lost for the same reason teams always lose. They turned the ball over.

cutthemdown
02-07-2011, 08:17 PM
I knew you'd be here to say really nothing and completely miss the point of the thread. Most things are way over your head. Half the time you don't even remember things correctly.

The one thing I remember most was me telling you what a horrid yr Broncos would have and you saying, no we are better then the yr before so we will win more games. You always use stupid logic like that but it's understandable. The other one was me saying Jammal Charles was special, and KC would be wise to stop giving ball to Jones. You argued nope Charles is a 3rd down back lol. We will see how that one plays out soon.

Can't wait for your camp reports that say a ton with really saying nothing. Keep up the good work.

broncosteven
02-07-2011, 08:18 PM
But hey if he was being sarcastic and I just missed it fine. Maybe he was trying to say Mcdaniels is smart I don't know. Or maybe Mcdaniels not so dumb for throwing it alot because that is what won superbowl. If so then my bad.

Only Difference was when Rodgers chucked it deep his WR's dropped it. Had Lloyd dropped as many passes as the Packers did mCd would have been fired in week 5

cutthemdown
02-07-2011, 08:23 PM
Only Difference was when Rodgers chucked it deep his WR's dropped it. Had Lloyd dropped as many passes as the Packers did mCd would have been fired in week 5

I was reading that in another post, remembering game, and thinking same thing. Then I thought man had GB had the TE Jermicheal Finley what would that have meant to the offense?

They could be something next yr. They could tweak roster just a bit here and there, get a couple injured guys back, and repeat.

Broncos_OTM
02-07-2011, 11:57 PM
Actually it's not an internet thing. It is a classic interview. Man are you this dumb in reality or just on forums. Honest question as I don't like picking on the weak.
Ive never heard of it either. Guess youre just gonna have to show us un cool guys the ropes

theAPAOps5
02-08-2011, 07:43 AM
Ive never heard of it either. Guess youre just gonna have to show us un cool guys the ropes

It is on the Jim Rome show a lot. A reporter is asking a baseball player some questions and the player just goes ape ****. He calls the reporter a retard and in one of the most classic comeback lines of interview history the reporter professionally asks him to spell retard.

It is awesome. It has been around a long time so I just assumed people knew about it!

Kaylore
02-08-2011, 08:02 AM
The one thing I remember most was me telling you what a horrid yr Broncos would have and you saying, no we are better then the yr before so we will win more games. You always use stupid logic like that but it's understandable. The other one was me saying Jammal Charles was special, and KC would be wise to stop giving ball to Jones. You argued nope Charles is a 3rd down back lol. We will see how that one plays out soon.

Can't wait for your camp reports that say a ton with really saying nothing. Keep up the good work.
LOL Half the time you can never remember anything correctly. The other half you're an idiot dick who wishes injury on players. A great example is when you "remembered" I "loved Boss Bailey" and then I proceeded to completely destroy you in front of God and everyone with post after post pointing to the complete opposite. Shall we do this again?

Look here I start a thread suggesting the Packers could have run the ball more than 11 times, and idiot that you are, you completely misunderstand my post into "they should have changed their entire game plan." Where did you get that? Again, more than half the posters here got where I was saying and agreed, but it took obtuse you to read it wrong and make more crap up. Running it 15 more times? Where did you even get that?

And I should destroy with the search function again for this crap about Charles as a third down back and whatever else you continue to just invent. In fact I'm going to because It seems like every six months you completely re-imagine what I said into the opposite of the truth and pretend you won some imaginary argument or that I was proven wrong on some position I never took. At least you had the decency to admit you're not even sure of my post, which really exposes you for the completely dense idiot that you are, but I suppose better to know about then have no clue.

Dedhed
02-08-2011, 09:07 AM
I suppose you could argue they should have rushed on 3rd and 5 here but do you really think that's a rushing down against Pittsburgh?With a two possession lead in the 2nd half, Yes.

I guess you could make an argument they could have rushed more on this possession but they were only up 4 points so it's not like they're sitting on a big lead.I did make that argument. You ignored it.

Next possession, still up 21-17, passed for 17 yards on 1st down. Then rushed for a 3 yard loss on 1st. Passed for 5 on 2nd and 13. Passed incomplete on 3rd and 8. Where should they have rushed on this possession?On first down.

Next possession, still up 21-17. Passed incomplete on all 3 downs. I guess you could argue here they should have mixed in a run. But again, only up 4 points and trying to move the ball and score to win the game as opposed to sitting on a lead.They should have run the ball on every first down in the 2nd half. The effectiveness of Rodgers makes that even more true. Run the ball to at least get the clock moving, and if the run proves ineffective give Rodgers 2 chances to pick up a first down.

In summary, you really need to consider the situations. They only had a 4 point lead for 3 of the 4 possessions and had a lot of long yardage situations. They were not sitting on a big lead in the 3rd quarter, they were trying to win the Super Bowl by doing what got them there: putting the game in the hands of their best player, Aaron Rodgers. They did this and won the game.
In summary I really am considering the situation. 3 more runs and they don't give the Steelers a chance for a game winning drive.

True, it worked out for them, but that doesn't prove the point.

TonyR
02-08-2011, 09:58 AM
With a two possession lead in the 2nd half, Yes..

So with an 11 point lead you're suggesting they basically punt the ball on 3rd down? Because that's what running against the Steelers on 3rd and 5 is doing.


I did make that argument. You ignored it...

I didn't ignore it, I just don't necessarily agree.


On first down.

Read what I wrote again. On 1st down they gained 17 yards on a pass play. On the resulting 1st down play they rushed for a loss of 3 yards.


They should have run the ball on every first down in the 2nd half. The effectiveness of Rodgers makes that even more true. Run the ball to at least get the clock moving, and if the run proves ineffective give Rodgers 2 chances to pick up a first down.

They ran the ball 3 times on 1st down in the 3rd quarter. The results were a 2 yard gain, a 3 yard gain, and a 3 yard loss. So they averaged 0.67 ypc on those 3 plays.


In summary I really am considering the situation. 3 more runs and they don't give the Steelers a chance for a game winning drive.

Maybe, but at the same time everything may have played out differently had they done this. You should also consider that we don't know what the call was on the play where they had a false start, could have been a run. And we also don't know if perhaps Rodgers checked out of some runs because of the reads he had.

Again, I don't disagree with the philosophy you are espousing. But given the circumstances I'm not sure the way they played it was "wrong".

broncocalijohn
02-08-2011, 10:35 AM
<p style="margin: 0; padding: 0; border: 0; outline: 0;" id="kslvid14277962"></p><script type="text/javascript" src="http://pandora.bonnint.net/video/embed-p.php?id=14277962"></script><p style="margin: 0; padding: 0; border: 0; outline: 0; vertical-align: baseline; font-size: .75em; text-align: center; width: 424px;">Video Courtesy of <a href="http://www.ksl.com">KSL.com</a></p>

I could be mistaken but isnt that Bronco Warrior on lead guitar?

theAPAOps5
02-08-2011, 11:26 AM
I could be mistaken but isnt that Bronco Warrior on lead guitar?

Oh how I miss him and his grandiose imagination.

cutthemdown
02-08-2011, 02:08 PM
Green Bay didn't do anything wrong. game plan was spot on perfect its just the WR dropped some balls preventing some big plays. Anyone who thinks GB would have won easier by running more is a damn fool.

bronco0608
02-08-2011, 03:04 PM
LOL Half the time you can never remember anything correctly. The other half you're an idiot dick who wishes injury on players. A great example is when you "remembered" I "loved Boss Bailey" and then I proceeded to completely destroy you in front of God and everyone with post after post pointing to the complete opposite. Shall we do this again?

Look here I start a thread suggesting the Packers could have run the ball more than 11 times, and idiot that you are, you completely misunderstand my post into "they should have changed their entire game plan." Where did you get that? Again, more than half the posters here got where I was saying and agreed, but it took obtuse you to read it wrong and make more crap up. Running it 15 more times? Where did you even get that?

And I should destroy with the search function again for this crap about Charles as a third down back and whatever else you continue to just invent. In fact I'm going to because It seems like every six months you completely re-imagine what I said into the opposite of the truth and pretend you won some imaginary argument or that I was proven wrong on some position I never took. At least you had the decency to admit you're not even sure of my post, which really exposes you for the completely dense idiot that you are, but I suppose better to know about then have no clue.

Good lawd, somebody is getting a tad bit defensive here. Highlights of the post: Destroy, kill, God, dense, idiot, destroy again, idiot dick...


Are you getting overly defensive about nothing? Yes.

Yes, Kaylore, you are. BREATH.

Hi. larry. is us! Hilarious!

Relax son, its going to be okay.

bronco0608
02-08-2011, 03:06 PM
With a two possession lead in the 2nd half, Yes.

I did make that argument. You ignored it.

On first down.

They should have run the ball on every first down in the 2nd half. The effectiveness of Rodgers makes that even more true. Run the ball to at least get the clock moving, and if the run proves ineffective give Rodgers 2 chances to pick up a first down.


In summary I really am considering the situation. 3 more runs and they don't give the Steelers a chance for a game winning drive.

True, it worked out for them, but that doesn't prove the point.

Hey, explain man to man defense to everyone again. You know, the one that the Jets used to stop Brady in the Playoffs this year.

cutthemdown
02-08-2011, 03:08 PM
Hey, explain man to man defense to everyone again. You know, the one that the Jets used to stop Brady in the Playoffs this year.

lol

bronco0608
02-08-2011, 03:11 PM
This thread needs some Jesus in it. Lots of hate and anger in it. What would Jesus say to all this? If Jesus was in this thread, would he call someone an idiot dick? Tis, tis, tis

Here you go Jesus, work your magic:

http://www.clc4me.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/JesusHug.png

Let's hug it out brothers. Hug it out. That's what Jesus would do. If you want to spread his word, live his life! His life I say!

Kaylore
02-08-2011, 04:43 PM
This thread needs some Jesus in it. Lots of hate and anger in it. What would Jesus say to all this? If Jesus was in this thread, would he call someone an idiot dick? Tis, tis, tis

Here you go Jesus, work your magic:

http://www.clc4me.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/JesusHug.png

Let's hug it out brothers. Hug it out. That's what Jesus would do. If you want to spread his word, live his life! His life I say!

Good call.

My bad guys.

I <3 alls yall

theAPAOps5
02-08-2011, 06:20 PM
Wait this thread was serious?

Dedhed
02-08-2011, 06:29 PM
Hey, explain man to man defense to everyone again.
It's where one defender is responsible for one player on offense no matter where he goes on the field.

Given your regurgitation of Kiper's takes I would think you'd be privy to what that means.

Dedhed
02-08-2011, 06:31 PM
Wait this thread was serious?

Right? I'm also pretty sure bronco608 was serious when he said we would give the Bills #2 for a 6th or 7th rounder. Which makes this thread look close to Einstein's thoughts on relativity.

listopencil
02-09-2011, 08:19 AM
Something else popped into my head as I was watching the game and I just now thought of it again: I got the impression that GB was rotating their DL in and out of the game a lot. I know that DL rotates, but I noticed it quite a bit more from GB in the Superbowl than I normally would. I was watching the GB D-Line a lot so maybe I just noticed it more, I don't know. Anybody feel that, or was I just paying more attention to them in this particular game?

listopencil
02-09-2011, 08:22 AM
By the way, #95 Howard Green? He was claimed off of waivers? Holy ****.

TheReverend
02-09-2011, 08:35 AM
Something else popped into my head as I was watching the game and I just now thought of it again: I got the impression that GB was rotating their DL in and out of the game a lot. I know that DL rotates, but I noticed it quite a bit more from GB in the Superbowl than I normally would. I was watching the GB D-Line a lot so maybe I just noticed it more, I don't know. Anybody feel that, or was I just paying more attention to them in this particular game?

^

bronco0608
02-09-2011, 09:03 AM
Right? I'm also pretty sure bronco608 was serious when he said we would give the Bills #2 for a 6th or 7th rounder. Which makes this thread look close to Einstein's thoughts on relativity.

You try so hard, don't you.