I've seen enough

It's not Saddam's fault, really. It's just that most people in the world weren't as corrupt and evil as him, and that reflects poorly. He executed (omglolz) well and didn't make many mistakes.

 

He executed about as well offensively as Carr does.

 

Poor playcalling killed Saddam.

 

Good Grief is right.

 

That shit made me laugh.

 

At least he had good hangtime.

 

David Carr masturbates to old Jeff Lewis tapes



I must admit, this made me fall out of my chair.

 

LOL.

 

It was largely the same, yes. Remember when you embarrassed yourself by claiming that we only ran a handful of sweeps during the season and then spent five pages trying to avoid answering what you meant by a "handful" instead of admitting that you were wrong because I listed the number of sweeps we ran? Or how I went through the trouble of comparing our 3rd down distances in 2006 with previous seasons? I proved all that.

I don't think Jake wanted Henning fired. I think Richardson was again motivated by fan unrest and asked Fox to do so. I also think that Henning's contentious relationships with certain players made it easier for Fox to go along with it.

I did all that work last year, magnus, and you never admitted that you were wrong. Have you honestly never noticed that you are completely lazy and never fulfill anyone else's request for proof? Or that you ask for proof from others and then choose to ignore it even after it's provided?

Again, it's a fact that Jake was the worst QB in the entire NFL on third downs last year. It's also a fact that it hadn't historically been a problem for him, and that our other production remained largely the same. Even though you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your dissension, you continue to ignore those facts.

I applaud the hypocrisy of criticizing me for talking about you and your motives, then immediately talking about me and my motives. Awesome. And you're the one who doggedly avoids answering the issues. You spend months pretending that you were misunderstood when you said Shawne Merriman was only a DE prospect, or five pages refusing to answer what you meant by a handful because you don't want to admit that you were wrong. It's just plain silly. If you had even the slightest bit of intellectual integrity, you could be a really useful source of information. Instead your insecurity about who you are and the ability to admit that you make mistakes turns you into a parody.

I like how you pretend that you're too stupid to know that coordinators and even head coaches get fired over public dissatisfaction all the time. Henning did not get fired based on performance, as his performance was the same as previous seasons.

We ran the ball 487 times in 2005, compared with 423 in 2006. No, a drop of 64 carries is not significant, especially when you consider that we were behind more often in '06 than '05.

That is, sure, but being 8th in '05 was a total fluke thanks to Stephen Davis getting a lot of 1 yard touchdowns following penalties in the endzone. The team had never had more than 12 rushing touchdowns in any previous season, and usually had 7-10. 2006's rushing touchdowns total was not unusual for us, but 2005's was.

The play-calling didn't change, the down and distance situations we were in on 3rd downs didn't change, and our running game didn't change. Those things remained the same, so how you can pin anything on Henning is beyond me. I proved you wrong about all of that because I actually went through the trouble of looking up that data and posting it here, while you rarely do anything to support your opinions. You run your mouth, but don't back it up.

 

And yet I stand behind what I said regarding inside running. There was an obvious change mid-year and instead of worrying about what the change was, or that it worked, or that it took half a year to change to something that immediately and consistently started to work, you worried about whether my standard of "a handful" met yours. If the idea was "truth", and not "winning", I imagine we'd have actually talked about the running game that had been failing and that started to work better from then on.


As for distance on 3rd down, great. I remember 2005's. You didn't detail 2004, nor do I remember whether average distance was realistically makeable either. Along with all the other variables you magically decided didn't matter, you distilled something specifically down to your given conclusion and never touched on the others. After that point, you can just try to make things personal and claim victory, right?

No. You wanted to pin Henning's firing on him, not that Jake wanted him fired. Difference.
Plus, while JR has the right to make changes to his football team, and I've made mention of meddling for over a decade with this team, there's more than plenty of evidence that Fox was unhappy with things, even going back to cutting the staff off from press at the start of 06 and rumors from then on.

I'm not ignoring the facts. I don't believe the 'facts' are finite and the case is closed just because you say so. I specifically said it wasn't something that would magically become 100% his fault in this specific case. You've still yet to actually deal with the differences between the 2005 and 2006 teams or the tons of variables. You made it a linear relationship and then say it's my job to figure out all the variables you dismissed? I get that you want me to disprove it, but it's not my theory, and it's not unreasonable to be able to question it.

I don't think that someone who tries to make others angry because of his own shortcomings, and to try to get the upper hand in an argument (and who carries around years of resentment over semantics) should be talking about integrity, but that might just be me.

No, it really wasn't. Specifically, dropoffs like redzone efficiency were a problem, and if they were an abberation in 2005, but that masked other problems like a crappy running game, then those things needed to stay, or other things needed to come to play to take it away. We scored a significant number of points less than 2005, and was the first time since 2002 that we finished outside the top 15 - finishing 27th. Is that the same? You could argue that a coach shouldn't be fired for just one bad year, and that's moderately reasonable, but we both stated that we felt Henning had essentially lost his players at the end already.

That's a big drop, from a 15th/13th/. Maybe a lot of it was rushing TD in 2005, but we scored points in 03-05 for various reasons. We were 8-8 with Super Bowl aspirations, and lost 5 games by 4 points or less. We only lost one game where we scored more than 20 points, Philadelphia. We only won two games that we scored under 20 - one the Rams shutout, the other a game where we held Atlanta to 3 points, and both of them games where we ran the ball expertly, and we didn't do that very often in 2006, another problem on this team.

The team essentially upgraded the positions on O it felt were weak, and besides injury, put out the product it expected would do the job. That failed, and they put Henning to blame for it and made a change. That's all there is to it. If the current staff doesn't improve, I expect it will inevitably happen again, at two years if not one. Specifically to the point expectation, we haven't improved there, and that's been troubling.

link? You really don't have any idea one way or the other what we were doing specifically on third down. It's not especially fair to expect you to know that, and I don't. The decisions made during the game, at best, reflect habit and personnel only about as much as the opponent, game situation, and pace of the game. It's a big variable, just as where the first read on the QB v/s the eventual target is a variable you really can't quantify. That doesn't mean it doesn't matter, or doesn't exist, though.

Same as the blitz situation. I've stated that Jake specifically struggled in 2006 with the blitz, and that we were blitzed a lot. I don't have 3rd down breakdowns, but regardless of this ongoing retarded conversation, the various reasons for a 3rd down failure stayed in my mind, and the blitz was one. Lessened RAC was another that came to mind, and I still don't buy that QB pressure wasn't a factor since the only thing you put it against was our defensive pressure, which just isn't a good relative measure. Against 2005 might have some bearing.

How about field position? I'd be interested to see where that lies on us. We had a very good defense in 2006, but there was a big dropoff in field position, and we both would likely agree that what Fox or Henning specify we do would be heavily biased toward field position in various situations, just as it would be on score, point in the game, and so on.

At the very least, I have a hard time believing that the guy who gameplans, coordinates, and calls plays can see a problem and do nothing about it for a significant length of time, and has overall control over that unit, has no amount of responsibility to fix an issue? Henning had a long-standing problem in Buffalo, NY, and here where we got into a funk of problems for games at a time, a change is made, and then suddenly we're playing solid offense with a few adjustments.

You certainly hold Davidson to blame for some of Carr's problems, when you suggest he has them at all, which is why I brought all of this into question in the first place. It's fine to have problems with the playcalling, I have had some too, but there's a consistency there that's missing. Just as with "don't say bad things about our QB, support him and make the best of it" isn't really consistent either.

How a team of 11 guys, with a coordinator being responsible for them and a head coach being responsible for the product overall ends up being 100% just one thing, and individually that philosophy for that 100% blame coincidentally changes based on who the blame is being placed on.