Author Topic: Go Falcons! (Read 534 times)

culero · « **Reply #15 on:** January 23, 2005, 07:11:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bodhi
falcons offense gave them the damn game.

does not matter, as the Pats are going to rip the poo out of em in two weeks.

Yeah, its what's comforting me now

culero

Hawklore · « **Reply #16 on:** January 23, 2005, 07:32:32 PM »

I actually posted on another board that Philly and NE would go to the Super Bowl and Philly wins... Prolly not by much though.

This prediction of course was made a few days ago...

Mini D · « **Reply #17 on:** January 23, 2005, 07:59:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Man did the Eagles defence stink the place up or what
LOL

LOL! Next thing you know... you'll be insisting that you'd rather have a quarterback that can scramble.

Atlanta has been shutdown by the likes of Arizona, Kansas City, Detroit and Tampa Bay this year. Yeppers... some real defensive jugernauts there.

Once Vick learns how to read a defense he might become a decent quarterback. Hell... McNabb only recently figured it out hismelf. Vick is even worse than Culpepper.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #18 on:** January 24, 2005, 01:22:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
LOL! Next thing you know... you'll be insisting that you'd rather have a quarterback that can scramble.

Atlanta has been shutdown by the likes of Arizona, Kansas City, Detroit and Tampa Bay this year. Yeppers... some real defensive jugernauts there.

Once Vick learns how to read a defense he might become a decent quarterback. Hell... McNabb only recently figured it out hismelf. Vick is even worse than Culpepper.

You are truely unbelievable.

Man your easier to hook then a bluegill in a pond full of bluegills:rofl

Eagler · « **Reply #19 on:** January 24, 2005, 05:27:46 AM »

Go Pats!!

Mini D · « **Reply #20 on:** January 24, 2005, 07:45:59 AM »

Easier to "hook"? Yah... right. Why don't you try explaining how the screenplay can be a second, third or fourth option again coach.

rpm · « **Reply #21 on:** January 24, 2005, 08:21:57 AM »

I loved the bumper on Adult Swim last night. "We are either celebrating the Falcons going to the Superbowl or crying in or beer and cursing Michael Vick."

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #22 on:** January 24, 2005, 09:50:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Easier to "hook"? Yah... right. Why don't you try explaining how the screenplay can be a second, third or fourth option again coach.

Ya, easy to hook.

I knew if I posted that you would rear your head.
QB rolls out ,1st receiver covered, second receiver covered.
RB (previously in pass protection) fades to the side, QB dumps the ball to RB on a screen pass.

The first option is there to go to the primary, if he is covered the RB chip blocks or as part of a double team pass block releases and goes to the side. If the primary is covered the screen is available

Now. You may go back to playing Madden 2550 or whatever version is out now

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #23 on:** January 24, 2005, 09:57:51 AM »

And yes I would rather have a QB that can scramble over a pure pocket passer.
Scramblers add another dimension for the defence to worry about and waste players to defend against

Mini D · « **Reply #24 on:** January 24, 2005, 10:17:46 AM »

Ah.. gotcha. You're translating a dump off in the flat to equate to a screen pass. Of course, you're also translating "fishing" to equate to saying "I'm right and you're wrong, but if you respond I'll call you hooked." Or, in otherwords, exactly what you were when you responded to the obvious "bait" I threw out there.

A screen play is a play. It is not an option. A set of blockers act as a screen for the runningback receiving the pass. That's 2-3 less blockers to protect the QB. A pass to the flat is not a screen pass, it is a dump off or a pass to the flat. Come on coach... you should know this.

Of course, dumping off to a running back behind the line is not really that much of an option... it means you couldn't get the ball down field. That's something culpepper has chronic problems with. All brought on by the FACT that he can't hit a second RECEIVER to save his life.

Of course, Vick has similar problems... except he even has problems looking at his primary receiver. Happy feet is his biggest crutch.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #25 on:** January 24, 2005, 10:42:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Ah.. gotcha. You're translating a dump off in the flat to equate to a screen pass. Of course, you're also translating "fishing" to equate to saying "I'm right and you're wrong, but if you respond I'll call you hooked." Or, in otherwords, exactly what you were when you responded to the obvious "bait" I threw out there.

A screen play is a play. It is not an option. A set of blockers act as a screen for the runningback receiving the pass. That's 2-3 less blockers to protect the QB. A pass to the flat is not a screen pass, it is a dump off or a pass to the flat. Come on coach... you should know this.

Of course, dumping off to a running back behind the line is not really that much of an option... it means you couldn't get the ball down field. That's something culpepper has chronic problems with. All brought on by the FACT that he can't hit a second RECEIVER to save his life.

Of course, Vick has similar problems... except he even has problems looking at his primary receiver. Happy feet is his biggest crutch.

Just like so many other things in the game it can be called either. the primise is still the same. to take advantage of an agressive defence.
A dump off on this play is in fact indeed nothing more then a screen pass under a different name.
Hence when a commentator says "Nothing was open downfeild so he Dumped it off to the back on the screen"

Same damn thing just different wording for it and that would depend on who is doing the talking.
But since your an expert. You should know that.

Im not going to bother arguing about Culpepper any longer.
One look at his stat sheet does more to show how wrong you are then any arguement anyone can provide.

Mini D · « **Reply #26 on:** January 24, 2005, 01:29:19 PM »

Right.. re-define the word as it suits you.

And one look at culpepper's stat sheet supports my views. Only 4 receivers with over 200 yards. Dump to the runningbacks and let them scramble. Tell me why you need a big name quarterback for that again?

Moss is drawing double coverage on every play. He's still fighting for, and catching whatever comes near him. Virtually any other receiver would have given up alot of those catches as interceptions. Moss makes the offense and culpepper look good. Dismiss him all you want, but that team got where they are because of him.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #27 on:** January 24, 2005, 01:38:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Right.. re-define the word as it suits you.

And one look at culpepper's stat sheet supports my views. Only 4 receivers with over 200 yards. Dump to the runningbacks and let them scramble. Tell me why you need a big name quarterback for that again?

Moss is drawing double coverage on every play. He's still fighting for, and catching whatever comes near him. Virtually any other receiver would have given up alot of those catches as interceptions. Moss makes the offense and culpepper look good. Dismiss him all you want, but that team got where they are because of him.

Im not redefining anything. thats the way it is.
the Screen is as much a pattern as it is a play.
the "flat is a position on the feild
when a RB or anyone else runs a screen pattern, it is to the "flat".. which is the area between the hashmarks and the sideline.

Only 4? Tell me how many are there supposed to be?
Your forgetting that Moss's playing time was greatly reduced this year