Dan Henning

I don't know that Henning could do any better under the circumstances. I don't know that anyone could.

 

I wouldn't expect so. I'm not expecting a whole lot out of what we have, and Davidson didn't have much new personnel to work with. That doesn't excuse the lack of execution, which was there last year too. These are Henning's guys, so he bears some of that blame from development standpoints; we had the guys in 2006 we were expected to go to a Super Bowl with and the offense failed. He lost them. I don't think Davidson has them, but whether they're going to believe in something that doesn't have much chance is hard to say.

QB stability would be really nice. Someone who actually takes the heat off Smith on 3rd down would be nice too - Key didn't, but I'd still take him 100% over what we have.

 

I doubt Henning could have scored anything without Smith

 

What about 2004 when Smitty missed the year?

 

Had Moose and that time Colbert exceeded expectations instead of disappointing.

One of his better coaching jobs, FWIW, even though I had philosophical issues with a lot of it then, too.

 

It's always funny when you lie. You suggested that the running game was a difference, but I showed that the changes in the running game were negligible. You also floated pass protection as a potential excuse, but I actually did the leg work and found out that sacks and pressures were largely unchanged between '06 and '05. I also obviously calculated our third down distances to see if Jake had been put in worse situations than previous years, but that was not the case. I did all the leg work and I did all the research, both for my theories and for yours. You did none because you never do any research anymore. You just sit on your ass and say whatever pops into your head because you stopped caring about finding out anything that actually happened, and your only purpose for even posting anymore is to be a foil against me.

I don't think we'd be humming as an offense, but we never really were under Henning. He's just not that type of OC. But we wouldn't be running so many sweeps on third and short, we wouldn't be making bizarre pass calls on third and short, and we would have something resembling a plan on offense even if it's something everyone bitched and complained about because it was so boring and predictable. Obviously this offense has a lot of problems, but it's also obvious that Davidson's play-calling has been atrocious. He'd only had that role for 8 games with the Browns, so maybe he just wasn't ready for this job.

 

again, I only saw pressures versus our own defense's pressures, and didn't find that relevant. As well, you can't possibly expect that a tackle off the street is the same as having both our starters, and that Geoff Hangartner is the same player that Hartwig was supposed to be. I don't buy that whatsoever. I don't buy that we'd be using the same protections, that the playcalling stays constant in that situation (and shouldn't), any of it. I don't buy we'd run the same things to Key on 3rd down from the Z that they were running to Proehl in the U, and whatever it was, it wasn't working.

Sure, the initial issues. You didn't prove the direct link with Jake, you didn't state why. Was it the blitz? Was it change in personnel or scheme? Less RAC? I know of two areas that Jake and this offense specifically struggled with in 2006, but they don't point directly at scheme or play.

I don't pretend to know, and I don't hang it on the one guy. You put out a couple interesting stats, then drew an arrow and made a conclusion.

funny, but no.

That makes no sense, though. A conservative team, that goes between exaggerated chance, and no chance? We needed, and need, a team that does hold the ball by getting first downs and running the ball effectively. We weren't doing that.

 

You wouldn't think so, but the stats don't lie. The pass protection in '06 was solid, and on pretty much exactly the same level as '05 and '04. As for Hartwig, I don't recall him being around in '05 or '04. Hangartner wasn't really a step down from an incredibly ineffective 'roidsless Mitchell.

Every excuse you raised, I did the research and showed that it wasn't true. You can keep saying you don't buy this or you don't buy that, but until you get off your ass and produce some evidence for anything, what you do or don't buy is pretty damn irrelevant. Again, every single excuse you've raised, you have challenged me to do the legwork and find out if it held water. To my credit, I did the work and found out that they weren't valid. Meanwhile you continue to do nothing while running your mouth as much as ever.

Could have fooled me. Like I said, there used to be a time when you showed an interest in football and actually studied it. You'd look into stats or other issues and post whatever evidence you found. Now you don't do any of that, you just bitch at me.

 

Got you. Losing a left tackle and downgrading at center is meaningless to playcalling or pressure. The 2005 and 2006 teams were completely the same, somehow. 5 of the 11 players likely to play on 3rd down were different from year to year, but that doesn't actually matter. Playcalling too, but not to the detriment of predictability. The only difference is that somehow Jake Delhomme became less accurate on 3rd down.

Was it even accuracy? Or just % converted?

OK. So it's allright if you draw an extrapolated conclusion from a stat and definitively state something that you can't prove, just not when I do it.

As for the "well, you're not looking this or that up", I don't spend tons of money on stat books, and you grumble about the fucking things anyway. I have the major network sites, nfl.com, iwon.com has a few interesting searchable breakdowns, and stats, inc. That's it. All I ever had, and other than NFL.com, I don't have extensive resources and most of them don't have more than basic stats dating to last year.

Plus, instead of this being my primary concern for half my day, I'm working and living with a grown person that takes precedence. Don't have a working day's worth of time to spend looking up two statistics and then making a mildly related conclusion on them.

It's the other way around. You follow me around coming up with petty excuses to argue in literally a thread every other day while you're here.

 

We didn't downgrade at center. You apparently forget how shitty Mitchell was after he went off the 'roids. Do a god damn search and see how much we both bitched about him. And as for losing Wharton, I would have thought that it would be worse too, but the stats don't lie. Jake was not sacked or pressured more per pass attempt in '06 than in '05. In fact, he was very slightly less sacked and pressured per pass attempt in '06. I know that because I looked up the numbers and did the legwork while you just ran your mouth.

We have always been predictable under Henning. Like I said, if you've always hated his play-calling, I can understand that, but it's ludicrous to pretend that it was somehow different or worse in '06 than it had been in previous seasons. He was the same OC.

I produced numerous stats that actually took quite a bit of research on my part to prove my points. You've done exactly nothing. As I keep saying, even with your "theories" you didn't produce any evidence whatsoever that they had any validity. Instead you'd challenge me to prove them wrong, and dummy that I am, I did. So I did all my work and yours too, while you've done exactly none.

That excuse would be a lot more convincing if you weren't posting as much as ever. If you have time to bitch at me for fifteen pages about what you mean by a handful or whether or not you said that the Browns intentionally forfeited their first game to get a sixth round pick from Seattle, you damn sure have the time to look up some stats. The difference between then and now is that at some point you stopped caring about the actual issue. Now it's just about your image on the boards and how you can work against me.

I treat you just like I do anyone else. If you say something retarded, we have a problem. If you don't, we don't.