Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

stoopid CHEF RUN crap , part 2

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Click image for larger version

Name:	4edd0a280cc27f57add87ba3d6adca6e_w200.gif
Views:	58
Size:	1.96 MB
ID:	2551194

    Comment


    • Originally posted by CHEF LUIGI View Post
      when a QB takes a knee, that is considered a carry (rush attempt) and those negative yards go against his rush yards.
      I don't make the rules, I just understand them.
      You don’t understand anything because you are a blithering idiot. The Seahawks won today because of a superior passing attack. Their running backs couldn’t even manage 2 yards per carry, and their leading rusher was Wilson from scrambles (most if not all of which came on called pass plays). In no way did the Seahawks grind things out with their running game, and only a monumental moron would suggest otherwise.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DENVERDUI55 View Post
        Missed FG or it's a tie game. Nevertheless Chef will be claiming Vikings lead because of rushing attempts.
        vikings controlled the game be dominating with 40 rush attempts !
        all the games were great games, we were blessed to watch them all.
        and no-one who watched the games with any knowledge can dispute that the RUN GAME for every team was an integral part of every offense, not some afterthought or late game convenience.
        The teams that ran the BEST, ran the MOST,
        and by sheer COINCIDENCE every single one of them ran as much or more than their counterpart.
        coincidentally, that was true 11 times out of 11 last year !

        Comment


        • Originally posted by CHEF LUIGI View Post

          official total is 26 rush attempts each.
          Maybe you did not count the wilson rush attempts ?
          You're right, I looked at the stat count before the Seahawks took 3 kneel downs. Are you suggesting that those "runs" were the difference in winning and losing?

          Originally posted by CHEF LUIGI View Post
          and no-one who watched the games with any knowledge can dispute that the RUN GAME for every team was an integral part of every offense, not some afterthought or late game convenience.
          Jesus Christ...No one is disputing whether the RUN GAME is an integral part of the offense. We're trying to tell you that rushing attempts aren't the cause of the win, they are the symptom of a better running game. You keep saying that all teams have to do to win is have more rushing attempts, and it just isn't true.

          It's like saying that fast cars have good tires, so all you have to do to drive fast is put good tires on your 1979 held-together-with-duct-tape Ford Pinto. You're observing something that is often true and misattributing that as the cause and not just a corollary.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by broncosjf View Post
            You're right, I looked at the stat count before the Seahawks took 3 kneel downs. Are you suggesting that those "runs" were the difference in winning and losing?

            That is exactly what he is saying.

            Jesus Christ...No one is disputing whether the RUN GAME is an integral part of the offense. We're trying to tell you that rushing attempts aren't the cause of the win, they are the symptom of a better running game. You keep saying that all teams have to do to win is have more rushing attempts, and it just isn't true.

            It's like saying that fast cars have good tires, so all you have to do to drive fast is put good tires on your 1979 held-together-with-duct-tape Ford Pinto. You're observing something that is often true and misattributing that as the cause and not just a corollary.

            Everybody else gets this. Chef is just looking for attention, and he's getting it.

            Bold.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by broncosjf View Post
              You're right, I looked at the stat count before the Seahawks took 3 kneel downs. Are you suggesting that those "runs" were the difference in winning and losing?
              Leads lead to more rushing. Look at any team from any season and I GUARANTEE they run more with the lead than when they’re behind. The winning team ends up with more rushing attempts 88% of the time, not 99.9% like the chef says. Sometimes the trailing team comes back by passing. Every Elway fan should know this.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by CHEF LUIGI View Post


                The teams that ran the BEST, ran the MOST,
                Um, that's a big negative.

                Comment


                • Dunning Kruger

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Arkie View Post

                    Leads lead to more rushing. Look at any team from any season and I GUARANTEE they run more with the lead than when they’re behind. The winning team ends up with more rushing attempts 88% of the time, not 99.9% like the chef says. Sometimes the trailing team comes back by passing. Every Elway fan should know this.
                    arkie, the TEXANS were behind 0-13 at the half.
                    ' they only ran the ball 8 times in the first half, while the BILLS ran the ball 16 times in the first half.
                    The TEXANS disregarded the popular narrative and ran the ball 25 times in the second half and won the game !

                    the bills went to the pass and lost the game because of it !

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Agamemnon View Post

                      You don’t understand anything because you are a blithering idiot. The Seahawks won today because of a superior passing attack. Their running backs couldn’t even manage 2 yards per carry, and their leading rusher was Wilson from scrambles (most if not all of which came on called pass plays). In no way did the Seahawks grind things out with their running game, and only a monumental moron would suggest otherwise.
                      if only I cared about an angry hostile a hole your words might have value.
                      but My insanity is now 15 for 15 !
                      and the reality is vomiting on all your scenarios and explanations as to WHY and HOW to justify the end results in your minds!
                      ' NONE of these run to win victories played out as all of you suggested, NONE of them !

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by CHEF LUIGI View Post

                        but My insanity is now 15 for 15 !
                        14 of 15.

                        The Seahawks didn't run more than the Eagles. Even if you count the 3 kneel downs they ran an equal number of times, but they ran much less effectively. The team that RAN MOST didn't win.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by broncosjf View Post
                          14 of 15.

                          The Seahawks didn't run more than the Eagles. Even if you count the 3 kneel downs they ran an equal number of times, but they ran much less effectively. The team that RAN MOST didn't win.
                          No winning team rushed LESS than their opponent.
                          how's that work for ya ?


                          My objective is to change the narratives;
                          points only come from the passing game.
                          its a passing league,
                          teams only run in the fourth quarter to beat the clock
                          (somehow that discounts the use and ability to run ? )
                          Everybody has a "reason" or an "explanation" as to why this oddity is coincidentally true, 100% of the time when the best teams play the biggest games,
                          under those conditions 100% coincidentally true.
                          But the one explanation they all seem to RESENT and REJECT, is that the RUN GAME plays a VITAL, critical, essential and amazingly defining difference in these premier games !

                          CHEF sucks, running is durp de durp old shyte its all about the PASS... thats why the QB gets billions of $
                          I dont give a shyte if the chef predicted BEFORE the games that the TITANS and VIKES would try to run the ball 40 times, he is stil a crack-head !

                          Even a blind squirrel with a broken watch can find an acorn at the exact time 15 times out of 15 !
                          ' stoopid coincidence !

                          Comment


                          • Um.. the Eagles had twice the rushing yards as Seattle and lost. By your logic, all any NFL team has to do is rush every down, and even if it's only for 1 yard a carry, since they will have the most # of runs, they will win the game - right?

                            Here is reality for you: the one game where rushing -actually- won the team the game was the Titans against the Patriots. The wore out their defense, they kept Brady off the field, and it was the one game where the rushing attack was actually the difference between winning and losing. 1 out of 4 games.

                            The Bills rushed far more effectively - and they lost. The Eagles also rushed far more effectively and they also lost. For anyone not trying to make some weird tinfoil hat correlation between rushing attempts (which means diddly) and winning, they would have seen that one game was decided by the rushing attack this weekend, and that's it. Teams that pull ahead early often end up with the most rushing attempts. But that doesn't mean rushing is what won the game for them. It may close out the game, but that's different. You also need to take into account that a team can take away your strength. If you are an excellent passing team, but awful at rushing, they will drop most into coverage, giving you no choice but to rush. And if you can't get success, you will probably lose. Your "study" into rushing is kind of funny, but flawed in lots of way.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by BroncoFox View Post
                              By your logic, all any NFL team has to do is rush every down, and even if it's only for 1 yard a carry, since they will have the most # of runs, they will win the game - right?
                              Even worse than that, by his logic, it would be advantageous for a defense to simply allow their opponent to score a TD each time they hand the ball off. It's hard to accumulate carries if every drive only has one rush. Then you can get a lot more carries than your opponent and go on to win the game...

                              If he just wanted to stress that running the ball is important it would be fine, but he keeps doubling and tripling down on the "MOST CARRIES WINS GAME" nonsense.

                              Comment


                              • Minnesota had negative rushing yards in the 2nd half and won. That may be the key.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X