Seahawks and Steelers

[Lyion]

I never said Engram had bad hands, I said Seattle WRs the previous year were known for their many drops. Are you arguing that point?

So, umm, which Seattle wide receivers would you have been referring to, then?

You completely missed my point about big plays, still.

You completely missed my point about big plays, still (sic).

Ah, yes <wrong> grammar nazi-age. The last refuge of someone completely owned four different ways in this thread.

Num proved you wrong. Tikker has pointed out your cluelessness. Keep quoting and tangenting, but every post you make indicates you really don't know football. You really don't even know stats as your assumptions have been proven wrong, even if you are too mule headed to admit it.

I'll simplify for you, since you obviously are a kid who hasn't watched much football. The NFL has parity and games are usually decided by big plays, be they on O or D. Games are quite often decided by one or two plays, and they are what separate the winners from the mediocre teams.
It is what separates the NFL from other sports, and which people like you who aren't real fans and have probably never played football do not get.

Got it? Doubtful, since you'll most likely quote and completely miss this paragraph, but after so much displayed ignorance here's hoping that you'll understand stats are not what wins games, big plays are.

What won the Super Bowl? Repeat after me: Big plays.

In regards to Seattles drops and your continuing ignorance, I suggest you actually follow football for more than one season before declaring yourself adept:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/locke/251944_locke14.html

This season, the Seahawks' receivers have been the target on 244 passes and have dropped only eight. In contrast, Darrell Jackson and Koren Robinson each dropped at least 10 balls last season.

Robinson dropped 15 percent (10 of 67) of the balls thrown to him last season. He has been replaced by Joe Jurevicius, who has dropped just two of 70.

I await your bizarre otherworldly post with anticipation, though as you continue to be the laughingstock of us older people who actually know football, I hope you get a clue and admit you aren't really that knowledgeable about football, chief, and call it a day.

[Tikker]

the best part of this thread was where Xao said Darrell Jackson was better than Marvin Harrison, or Reggie Wayne

[xaoshaen]

the best part of this thread was where Xao said Darrell Jackson was better than Marvin Harrison, or Reggie Wayne

The best part of this thread is where Tikker imagines I said something and then composes stingingly witty remarks to refute it.

The second-best part of this thread is where an mod, presumably Lyion, gets so thoroughly owned that they resort to editting or deleting posts.

[xaoshaen]

Ah, yes <wrong> grammar nazi-age. The last refuge of someone completely owned four different ways in this thread.

Num proved you wrong. Tikker has pointed out your cluelessness. Keep quoting and tangenting, but every post you make indicates you really don't know football. You really don't even know stats as your assumptions have been proven wrong, even if you are too mule headed to admit it.

Except that you can't, you know, actually point out such a case. Once you're relying on Tikker, who can't even recall his own predictions (see the 100% debacle), you might as well surrender. Despite Numatu and I going at it, we don't actually disagree that much.

I'll simplify for you, since you obviously are a kid who hasn't watched much football. The NFL has parity and games are usually decided by big plays, be they on O or D. Games are quite often decided by one or two plays, and they are what separate the winners from the mediocre teams.
It is what separates the NFL from other sports, and which people like you who aren't real fans and have probably never played football do not get.

Really? So, what's the correlation between big plays and winning? Surely you have, some, you know, evidence to support that, right? Right? Otherwise you're just another talking head spouting platitudes. You forgot the "defense wins championships", and "you have to run the ball to win" routines though.

Got it? Doubtful, since you'll most likely quote and completely miss this paragraph, but after so much displayed ignorance here's hoping that you'll understand stats are not what wins games, big plays are.

What won the Super Bowl? Repeat after me: Big plays.

Stats don't win games, which is an interesting statement for you to attribute to me via implication as I never once asserted that. I find it amusing that you hold up the Super Bowl as evidence that big plays determine wins. Ignoring for the moment the futility of proof by example, the Steelers didn't exactly ride big plays to the Super Bowl. They were all about consistent execution instead. If anything, over the course of Pittsburgh's season, the Super Bowl game was the anamoly in terms of winning via big plays. You, of course, are happy to ignore the larger picture in favor of a single instance that favors your bias. In order to avoid confusion, I'll spare you the math, but relying on big plays to win games is a bad gamble for a good team. They're less replicatable and less predictable than consistent execution. If you're a bad team, than yeah, you should consider the chuck-and-duck approach.

In regards to Seattles drops and your continuing ignorance, I suggest you actually follow football for more than one season before declaring yourself adept:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/locke/251944_locke14.html

This season, the Seahawks' receivers have been the target on 244 passes and have dropped only eight. In contrast, Darrell Jackson and Koren Robinson each dropped at least 10 balls last season.

Robinson dropped 15 percent (10 of 67) of the balls thrown to him last season. He has been replaced by Joe Jurevicius, who has dropped just two of 70.

And yet, you referred to multiple Seattle receivers in the present tense. You do realize that Koren Robinson didn't play for the Seahawks this year, right? The only receiver on the team who's had issues with drops was Jackson, and that hasn't been a chronic problem for him (unlike Robinson).

I await your bizarre otherworldly post with anticipation, though as you continue to be the laughingstock of us older people who actually know football, I hope you get a clue and admit you aren't really that knowledgeable about football, chief, and call it a day.

I understand that actual analysis is 'bizarre' and 'otherwordly' to the bastions of conventional wisdom, but that doesn't invalidate it.

[Lyion]

Replaying the best of Xao for comic relief. Pure clueless comic gold.

people just have no idea how badly Seattle was hammered by injuries

You two do realize that Jackson was one of the best receivers in the league on a per-play basis, right?

people love to point out one of the games where both starting receivers were absent as evidence of Seattle's struggles against a 3-4

they gave up three plays in sixty minutes of football? That was the entirety of the offense Pittsburgh managed to muster, even against a depleted Seattle defense. Because they got incredibly jobbed by the refs?

two of the three Pittsburgh plays came down to dumb luck

The Steelers held the Seahawks to ten points with quite a bit of help from the zebras.

Football isn't about big plays, in the long run it's about consistent execution

I find it amusing that you hold up the Super Bowl as evidence that big plays determine wins. Ignoring for the moment the futility of proof by example, the Steelers didn't exactly ride big plays to the Super Bowl.

[xaoshaen]

Replaying the best of Xao for comic relief. Pure clueless comic gold.

The fact that you don't understand some of these is hilarious.

people just have no idea how badly Seattle was hammered by injuries

See above. You've been unable to refute the accuracy of this. So, how did teams missing both starting wide receivers do this year, Lyion?

You two do realize that Jackson was one of the best receivers in the league on a per-play basis, right?

Still true, and you've not even attempted to refute this. How did he stack up against the NFL this year?

people love to point out one of the games where both starting receivers were absent as evidence of Seattle's struggles against a 3-4

Heh, this thread is perfect evidence of this. See the very first page for someone claiming Seattle couldn't deal with a 3-4 defense while ignoring the fact that both starting receivers were out.

they gave up three plays in sixty minutes of football? That was the entirety of the offense Pittsburgh managed to muster, even against a depleted Seattle defense. Because they got incredibly jobbed by the refs?

So, Lyion, how many starters does a team have to lose in a game before it can be described as "depleted"?

two of the three Pittsburgh plays came down to dumb luck

Two of them did come down to luck. Ben's scramble to find Ward for a big gain on third and long was a busted play. Parker's 75 yard run came on a standard off-tackle run, that was badly misplayed by Boulware. Neither play was designed to achieve the results it brought, and running them multiple times is unlikely to result in similar outcomes. This is what is known as "getting lucky".

The Steelers held the Seahawks to ten points with quite a bit of help from the zebras.

Undeniable, if you actually know a bit about NFL rules. How about that pylon rule, Lyion?

Football isn't about big plays, in the long run it's about consistent execution

I find it amusing that you hold up the Super Bowl as evidence that big plays determine wins. Ignoring for the moment the futility of proof by example, the Steelers didn't exactly ride big plays to the Super Bowl.

Heh, are you seriously trying to claim that the Steelers were a big play offense this year?

[Lyion]

Why are you replying to your own words? /boggle.

There's only one person in this thread who doesn't know the NFL, and it's pretty universally acknowledged who that dude is by everyone but that person.

Hey, don't let me prevent you from trying to reaffirm your silliness and rationalize your own quotes.

Obviously Seattle plays the 3-4 fine, Jackson is a top WR in the NFL, and big plays don't decide games...

[xaoshaen]

Why are you replying to your own words? /boggle.

Technically, I'm responding to your objections to my words.

There's only one person in this thread who doesn't know the NFL, and it's pretty universally acknowledged who that dude is by everyone but that person.

Or, you know, by yourself and Tikker. As far as not understanding the NFL, how about dipping into your bottomless well of expertise and actually answering the questions posed?

Hey, don't let me prevent you from trying to reaffirm your silliness and rationalize your own quotes.

Obviously Seattle plays the 3-4 fine, Jackson is a top WR in the NFL, and big plays don't decide games...

Hey, feel free to answer the questions I posed. Oh, wait, actually expecting you to engage in discourse or defend your position logically is far too much to ask of you. I'll be waiting for you to offer some shred, some pittance of evidence beyond blindly reciting conventional wisdom, regardless of the utter absence of support for it. Hey, if it's good enough for Paul Maguire, it's good enough for Lyion!

[Lyion]

Obviously Seattle plays the 3-4 fine, Jackson is a top WR in the NFL, and big plays don't decide games...

[xaoshaen]

Obviously Seattle plays the 3-4 fine, Jackson is a top WR in the NFL, and big plays don't decide games...

I'm still waiting for those answers, Lyion. Surely you have more than ancient bromides to parrot and emoticons to flaunt, right? Right?

How about that pylon rule?
How did other teams fair with their top two wide receivers out?
Are you really claiming that Pittsburgh ran a big play offense?
How many players does a defense have to lose over the course of a game before it can be considered depleted?
Who was the other Seattle receiver you were referring to in regards to dropped passes?
What's the correlation between big plays and winning?

[xaoshaen]

The Steelers and Patriots do not share "offensive philosphy" or "system." Their offensive philosophies and systems are so far off only a complete novice would think they were in any way synonymous. It doesn't matter what you were trying to say: it was wrong.

I still never said the Patriot or Steeler systems were in any way analagous, let alone synonymous. I merely pointed out that both Brady and Roethlisberger were capable of putting up much better fantasy numbers, save that their systems weren't oriented towards gaudy passing stats. Two systems can both limit a quarterback's fantasy value without being, in any way, similar on the field.

Ignore all the other team's I brought up before the Patriots. Also, you didn't say "suffer from injuries", you said "hammered." I pointed out, by comparison, your statement was false, again.

Wrong. I actually addressed other teams' injury situations. "Hammered" doesn't mean they were the most injured team in the league. It requires quite a bit more than naming three teams who suffered more from injuries to make the term incorrect.

Welcome to the discussion, I've been making this point from post number one.

And yet you discounted it when making your argument. Active hypocrisy or just inconsistency?

I love the way people are willing to discount the Tommy Maddox games from the Steelers' record, but ignore the personnel disasters that befell the Seahawks.

Well, I guess that explains the phenomonon: people just have no idea how badly Seattle was hammered by injuries as this list demonstrates.

I don't recall arguing that Seattle needed either Jackson or Sharper was needed during the regular season.

You said the above two before the Dallas discussion. They were not hammered. They had some injuries that were nullified by the quality of competition faced.[/quote]

Wrong again. All of the above are in direct reference or stemming from the ridiculous claim that the 3-4 defense was too much for Seattle to handle, which took what, less than a page to appear on this thread?

Yes, because only the players selected to the All-Pro team are deserving, or are the only players that had "All-Pro" caliber seasons?

He did not, in fact, have an All-Pro season as he wasn't an All-Pro. It's entirely possible Tatupu had a significantly better season than some of the selectees, as name recognition frequently trumps actual performance for Pro-Bowl or All-Pro recognition. Perhaps you meant to say "a season worthy of an All-Pro selection" or "an All-Pro calibre season", either of which would have been difficult to argue with. Sadly, I can't read what you intended to write, only what you actually managed to post.

Contradiction after contradiction. Pro Bowl selections aren't a measure of merit, but All-Pro selections are? Please think thoroughly before replying.

And here we find you lyionizing again. I never claimed an All-Pro selection correlated with ability in any way, shape or form. Please try to respond to what I wrote, not what you imagine I may have written.

[Lyion]

I'm still waiting for those answers, Lyion. Surely you have more than ancient bromides to parrot and emoticons to flaunt, right? Right?

I'll try to educate you.

How about that pylon rule?

How about it? Jackson was still out of bounds as has been shown over and over. I suggest learning the actual rules and not getting on the anti ref media bandwagon, especially when they made the right call. Check it out on nfl.com

How did other teams fair with their top two wide receivers out?

It depends on the calibre of WR. In a west coast system, it is less of a detriment then, say Indy. Obviously Seattle wasn't impacted heavily by losing two mediocre WRs, as they were busy winning 11 in a row. Now, which would effect Seattle more, losing their two starting WRs, or losing Walter Jones?

Are you really claiming that Pittsburgh ran a big play offense?

Did you watch the Denver, Indy, and Cinci games?

Pitt got to tbe Super Bowl via big plays, versus their conventional grind and fight the field position war and relying on strong D. They came out throwing and making downfield big plays against both Indy and Denver. Are you arguning Pitt DIDN'T have a big play offense in the postseason?

How many players does a defense have to lose over the course of a game before it can be considered depleted?

Injuries are a fact of life in the NFL. Losing a superstar has an impact, but some teams are more system, and the dropoff in talent is not that large.

There are certain positions that are much more critical. I've stated those such as QB and Left Tackle that are very difficult to overcome. Seattle is a system team and has good depth, as it evidenced all year. Once you start signing guys off the street to start in your secondary or backfield, then I feel you are devastated, personally. That was not the case with Seattle.

Who was the other Seattle receiver you were referring to in regards to dropped passes?

I stated Seattle had dropitis the previous year since they had the highest % of drops in the NFL. This is the arguement that really makes me wonder, since this is pretty much common fact. Although since dropped passes aren't factored into DVOA, it doesn't surprise me you don't comprehend how bad the hags were in '04.

Then again, you put Jackson in the elite WR category, when the guy had double digit drops in 03 and 04 which really makes me chuckle.

What's the correlation between big plays and winning?

Good teams are disciplined and play good schemes which limit what their opponent can do offensively and defensively.

In a game where teams are evenly matched, and players and coaches prepare hard, the difference often comes down to who make the big plays. That juke move that turns an out into a touchdown, or that quick read that intercepts the Tom Brady throw in the endzone and returns it back to New Englands one is that type of play.

Although this superbowl isn't the best example, the Parker Run and Randle El big plays are really all that separates Seattle from a win and a loss.

You can often look at a few plays as a difference in a game. Those big plays are the difference in a game of good teams that could go either way.

ok, now let's get back to the underlying theme

Obviously Seattle plays the 3-4 fine, Jackson is a top WR in the NFL, and big plays don't decide games...

[Phlegm]

Xaoshaen, what pylon rule are you talking about?

[Lyion]

Per Rule 3, section 20, article 1(b): "A player or an official is out of bounds when he touches anything other than a player, an official, or a pylon on or outside a boundary line."

Touching a pylon does not make a player out of bounds. The only problem is people like Xao who do not understand the rules do not get that it doesn't make him IN bounds, either. Not that Xao will admit he made a mistake.

Per the NFL

"We've looked at it carefully and it's the right call," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told us Wednesday morning. "The key is that he had to get his second foot down in bounds. . . . He did not get his second foot down in bounds and therefore it is not a completion."

[Phlegm]

I think that rule applies only when the ball carrier has possession of the ball. Since his second foot landed out of bound, he never established possession.

[Spliffs]

This is a funny thread.

Football is almost entirely about big plays sir. All the small plays are just a set up for the big ones. That's why running the ball is so important, and defense does win championships.

Those two things facilitate, and eliminate big plays.

You are right about consistant execution being vital to a good team. However, your arguement is fundamentally flawed, because you seem to believe execution and big plays are mutually exclusive. When in fact, they go hand in hand like Mike Holmgren and bacon.

Every snap in football is a prelude to another one. Just remember that.

[Phlegm]

This is a funny thread.

Football is almost entirely about big plays sir. All the small plays are just a set up for the big ones. That's why running the ball is so important, and defense does win championships.

Those two things facilitate, and eliminate big plays.

You are right about consistant execution being vital to a good team. However, your arguement is fundamentally flawed, because you seem to believe execution and big plays are mutually exclusive. When in fact, they go hand in hand like Mike Holmgren and bacon.

Every snap in football is a prelude to another one. Just remember that.