1. #115421
    All-Pro dezzzR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    30,197

    Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

    [quote user="JPizzack"][quote user="Morehead State"]


    [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]WOWWW

    Jags released Garrard
    [/quote]</p>


    What????</p>


    [/quote]</p>


    wow.....</p>


    they must be really high on Gabbert
    &gt;.&lt;</p>[/quote]soa tonight.

  2. #115422
    All-Pro Morehead State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Westfield, MA
    Posts
    44,809

    Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

    [quote user="JPizzack"][quote user="bigblue4417"][quote user="Morehead State"]


    [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]WOWWW

    Jags released Garrard
    [/quote]</P>


    What????</P>


    [/quote]
    So much for Mike Thomas...lol
    [/quote]</P>


    did you draft him?</P>


    [/quote]</P>


    Luke Mckown is the starter. I'm fine. He's a solid backup. Anyway I have VJax, Stevie Johnson and Knox. I'm fine. Still have the best team in the league. I expect Thomas to be a 1000 yard guy.</P>
    Get well soon 80.

  3. #115423
    Hall of Famer MattMeyerBud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    60,564

    Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

    [quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="Morehead State"]


    [quote user="lawl"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="lawl"]

    Where did I ever say "in stride"?

    I've never said a WR shouldn't catch the ball. I HAVE said that if the ball does get to the WR it can still be qualified as a bad throw. You disagreed, Bill Walsh, however agreed with me. Walsh being mad at the WR and Joe is the equivalent of my opinion. Whereas you think it is all just on the WR.

    Another tidbit I'll add-(see the bold)

    Are you of the opinion that on the plays where Boss caught the ball and got demolished that it was a bad pass? Because you're definitely inferring that.

    [/quote]
    </p>


    </p>

    It obviously can be abad throw - it doesn't matter though. When the ball comes to the WR he has to make the grab. Its like Receiving 101.

    Bill Walsh mentioned NOTHING about anything we're talking about. Your qouting Montana on a phantom play where you have NO clue if there were even defenders on the field or if they were in a 7 on 7 drill. A generic bland statement prove snothing for your cause.

    They may not be GREAT passes but if they get to the WR at a place where only he can catch its good enough.

    Sometimes **** happens, sometimes you got to get the ball to a guy you see open. Honestly I can't really remember which play ur speaking of specifically. I know Boss go thung out a couple of times..

    Theres one constant when it comes to receiving the ball: If it hits your hands - you have to make the play.

    I'll even say there are a few situations where that could be argued, unfortunately alot of the balls that moorehead is referring to on Eli - isn't.
    [/quote]

    I don't know why you keep bringing up the WRs part of the ordeal. I'm well aware that they made a bad play on the ball. They touched it and dropped it. Unacceptable.

    But, on these plays Eli clearly could have put the ball in a better spot, he knows it, I know it, you know it. Secondly, these throws surely do not end up where Eli wants them to be. With this known, how could you possibly qualify any of this throws as good?

    I don't know why you aren't picking up what I'm saying about Walsh and why its relevant, but ill go further.

    Walsh got mad at Joe Montana when the ball made it to the WR in a place that was catchable, but made him slow his route or such. Meaning the ball got there, and it was STILL a bad throw. You can apply this logic to 90% of Eli's tip ints. The balls are in a spot where even if the WR catches it, he isn't going anywhere but to the ground, but it is quite clear if a good throw is made alot of space is there for extra yards to be gained. This is why it is not a good throw by NFL standards.

    [/quote]</p>


    Lawl. I've been having this exact argument with Matt for months. His view is that the QB's only responsibility is to throw the ball in the vicinity of the WR and the rest is on the WR. If he doesn't catch it, its not Eli's fault.</p>


    What he doesn't understand is that most Division 3 college QB's can do that.</p>


    You will never convince him because he is blinded by his agenda that Eli is never to blame. If he was convinced otherwise, his little world will come crashing down on him and I really don't want to see that happen.</p>


    Best for his to live in his fantasy world.</p>


    [/quote]

    define vicinity.. .hitting them in both hands is more than just in the vicinity

    Moorehead, the only agenda going on here is the cum shots u take in the mouth over nicks and mario. God forbid they don't do something right or perfect, everybody else is hater. You totally dismis the fact that they can do any wrong. Its sad actually. Its to the point where balls bounce off their hands and ur blaming the QB
    [/quote]</p>


    I think Nicks is very good and MM is almost as good. I don't think they are <u>that</u> great. This has nothing to do with the WR's for me. It has everything to do with those fans who refuse to hold our QB accountable for his poor play and he poor decision making.</p>


    Its about my frustration when some call him a "gunslinger" when his past success shows us that when he is especially careful with the ball, we can be great.</p>


    As you know the 4 game playoff run was very average in yards and TD's. He averaged 220 yards and 1.5 TD's per game. That extends to about 3500 yards and 24 TD's for a season. Not bad. But ONE turnover in 4 games and that was on Steve Smith. That is the formula for winning football games. That formula produced three straight wins over teams with a combined record of 45-6. NOT this rediculous, romantic notion of "gunslingers".</p>


    Eli's history PROVES that I'm right. </p>


    [/quote]

    stop it. You've basically taking more shots to the mouth than a boxer these past few weeks with the way you've been talking about them. Again, sorry that I use the terms in the way they actually mean oppose to "WHAT THEY MEAN TO MOOREHEAD".

    Speaking of that Steve Smith interception - why was that interception his fault?

    If you want to talk history - whats the history of interceptions with QBs in Gilbrides offense. (i'll never let u live that down for pointing it out to me)
    [/quote]</p>


    It was on Smith because Eli threw it only where his guy could catch it and Smith took a low ball and deflected it up in the air. I blame the QB much more for a high pass being deflected, but a low pass in on the WR.</p>


    Gilbride's offense is not the same as his offense from 20 years ago. Gilbride ran a run and shoot. Do you even know what that is?</p>


    Maybe you can list the characteristics of the Giants offense that make it a run and shoot. And maybe you can produce any expert on any link that suggests that the Giants run a run and shoot offense.</p>


    Have fun.</p>


    [/quote]

    so then by saying that, your suggesting a high pass couldn't be the only place a receiver could catch it?

    The question is, do YOU know what a run and shoot is. Like i've said before I'd say we run more of a balanced run and shoot but pretty much everything is like the run and shoot. you have the misconception that you need 4 WRs on the field for the run and shoot and thats not true.

    per wiki:

    -The Run &amp; Shoot system uses a formation consisting of one running back and between two and four wide receivers.

    -This system makes extensive use of receiver motion (having a receiver suddenly change position by running left or right, parallel to the line of scrimmage, just before the ball is snapped), both to create advantageous mismatches with the opposing defensive players and to help reveal what coverage the defense is using.

    -The basic idea behind the Run &amp; Shoot is a flexible offense that adjusts "on the fly," as the receivers are free to adjust their routes as they are running them in response to the defensive coverage employed.

    -The quarterback, as a result, also has to read and react to the defense's coverages in a more improvised manner than with other offensive systems.

    -Many of the National Football League teams that used the Run &amp; Shoot in the early 1990s used true wide receivers in all four receiving positions. The types of running backs used varied from smaller backs who could catch passes to big, bruising running backs who could run with power. The frequent passing plays run out of this formation tend to spread out the defense's players. If repeated pass plays work, the defense is not as prepared for running plays; running the ball between the offensive tackles, or just off-tackle, is now possible and more likely to succeed.



    that last one was just to let you know about how far behind the times you are.

    So again, how is this NOT like our offense?


    [/quote]</p>


    </p>


    The run and shoot uses chris crossing pattern. there are always 5 guys running a route. There is no fullback.</p>


    And I read that same Wiki article a few weeks ago. You might take note that it mentions that it was an offense run in the early nineties. Maybe you can show me where it says........</p>


    "that it is also used currently by the New York Giants and offers an excuse for Eli Manning so Eli Cultists don't have to blame him".</p>


    </p>


    Matt...The "run and shoot" died two decades ago. It exists only in the mind of Meyerbud. It lives gloriously on the gridirons in your head. Its a wonderful place. Only accessable when arguing with Morehead or when drinking heavily.</p>


    Go there Matt.....Go there and be at peace.</p>


    [/quote]

    and like i've said MULTIPLE times, we run a hybrid type run and shoot. A more run balanced one to be exact.

    #teamdramatic is BACK
    [/quote]</p>


    Matt....the "shoot" portion of the run and shoot requires a partial sprint out by the QB. The run and shoot required a QB that could throw on the run, which they almost always did. It also required the O line to sprint out as a unit to one side or another. If you ever watched the Oilers of the early 90's (Warren Moon) or the Falcons of the same time ( Jeff George) you would see the same characteristics. The main proponent of the run and shoot is June Jones who was a former QB for the Falcons.</p>


    It is commonly accepted that the zone blitz killed the run ans shoot.</p>


    Instead of cutting and pasting Wikipedia, maybe you should really try to learn what it is before you say something as silly as suggesting the Giants play anything that resembles that offense.</p>


    I watched it being used and it looked more like something you would see in the CFL or Arena football.</p>



    [/quote]</p>




    </p>


    Again, like i said we run a hybrid version of the run and shoot. The main characteristics of our offensive sets, motions, and offensive route running is all based on the run an dshoot.
    </p>




    </p>


    Its great that u watched so much of the Oilers in the early 90s. What about the mid 90s jags?</p>



    Just admit u are wrong. You asked me to explain why we run a more balanced run and shoot. I did that effectively.

    The only thing that is different is the mobility of the QB. We like to keep our QB in the pocket, for obvious reasons, but there are more things taken from the TRUE run and shoot offense than we left out
    [/quote]</p>


    The run and shoot is dead Matt. You are being a child now. Stop because its getting silly. There is nothing about the run and shoot that resembles our offense.</p>


    Oh wait....there are 11 guys in both offenses. Thats where the similarity ends.</p>


    If you are so sure, show me any expert who agrees with you.</p>[/quote]

    hence why i would say a more balance run and shoot...

    lol calling me a baby because you've only made ONE point vs the 5 other points made against ur argument. Sorry, i guess i am a babby. I love proving you wrong
    Fear the name, appreciate the game

  4. #115424

    Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

    [quote user="JPizzack"][quote user="bigblue4417"][quote user="Morehead State"]


    [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]WOWWW

    Jags released Garrard
    [/quote]</p>


    What????</p>


    [/quote]
    So much for Mike Thomas...lol
    [/quote]</p>


    did you draft him?</p>[/quote]
    No. MH did. I have...

    Matt Ryan
    Matt Stafford

    CJ2K
    SJack
    Felix J
    Beanie
    J Ringer

    Jennings
    Moore
    Burleson
    Meachum
    Jordy

    Tony Gonzalez

    Chi
    SD

  5. #115425

    Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

    [quote user="JPizzack"][quote user="Morehead State"]


    [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]WOWWW

    Jags released Garrard
    [/quote]</p>


    What????</p>


    [/quote]</p>


    wow.....</p>


    they must be really high on Gabbert
    &gt;.&lt;</p>[/quote]
    Nope, Luke McCown will be the starter. I saw him called Rex Grossman Lite. Ouch! lol

  6. #115426
    All-Pro Morehead State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Westfield, MA
    Posts
    44,809

    Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

    Anyway Garrard is a good football player. He's definately TC's boy. I think the FO is afraid to pressure Eli with a strong backup (thus Carr) otherwise I'd love to see him here.
    Get well soon 80.

  7. #115427
    All-Pro JPizzack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Poughkeepsie, NY
    Posts
    27,180

    Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

    [quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="JPizzack"][quote user="bigblue4417"][quote user="Morehead State"]


    [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]WOWWW

    Jags released Garrard
    [/quote]</P>


    What????</P>


    [/quote]
    So much for Mike Thomas...lol
    [/quote]</P>


    did you draft him?</P>


    [/quote]</P>


    Luke Mckown is the starter. I'm fine. He's a solid backup. Anyway I have VJax, Stevie Johnson and Knox. I'm fine. Still have the best team in the league. I expect Thomas to be a 1000 yard guy.</P>


    [/quote]</P>


    I took Thomas as my 3rd WR in my 12 team league...was expecting big things.</P>
    Oderint Dum Metuant

  8. #115428
    All-Pro dezzzR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    30,197

    Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

    [quote user="Morehead State"]

    [quote user="dezzzR"]fat mikes saying theres a reeeal good chance sox dont make playoffs[:O]
    [/quote]</p>


    Objective source. A guy who talks about the Yankees 365 days/ year</p>[/quote]bahahaa dude hes an objective source for all ny sports. hes pretty fair

  9. #115429
    All-Pro dezzzR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    30,197

    Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

    [quote user="Morehead State"]Anyway Garrard is a good football player. He's definately TC's boy. I think the FO is afraid to pressure Eli with a strong backup (thus Carr) otherwise I'd love to see him here.[/quote]youre such a ***** lol

  10. #115430

    Re: THEE SWAG THREAD

    [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]would just like to point out to you beckum lovers that Ballard is listed as the starter on the depth chart

    if that doesn't tell u how bad Beckum is, you'll never understand
    [/quote]
    We wouldn't make too much of this. At a burly 6'6/256, Ballard will play
    on run downs as a blocking specialist. Travis Beckum is still in line
    to handle the majority of the passing-down work, though he may be
    another year away from a true breakout season.


    Rotoworld

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts