makewayhomer
Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,030
- Reaction score
- 0
Whether or not you would normally make that play is irelevant.
thank god you dont run our team
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Whether or not you would normally make that play is irelevant.
thank god you dont run our team
Who determines what % he can make the play?
You get one opportunity in a competitve sport, you either do it or you fail.
Most NFL games swing on 3-5 plays. You dont win by making the plays that are easy, you win by making the plays that are difficult.
What point are you trying to make?
Right, we should be running our team based on luck.
Luck exists. some people are incapable of rationally analyzing an event and determining how important luck was. you are one of these people.
actually, thats what you're arguing. take an event, disregard the role chance played in it, and make decisions based solely on the result. THAT is letting luck run your team.
I agree that the Giants were definately targetting Gay exclusively -- but I think it was because he was so obviously playing hurt after the first several series. Give credit to the guy for staying out there, because he would come up writhing after each tackle.
My only question is -- where/who is the backup for Gay, and how come Belichick didn't put him in after the Giants were gunning for him?
The safeties were some rotation of Harrison, Sanders, and Merriweather.
So who does that leave as a CB option? Willie Andrews? Eugene Wilson? Troy Brown (inactive)? Doesn't sound very good...
That makes absolutely no sense. You are saying make decisions based on calling failure bad luck
We lost because the greatest offense in NFL history was ***** slapped in the trenches for two and a half quarters by a DL you didn't think could hold their collective jocks. The worst players on the field in the SB were the NE Patriots Oline and their incompetent assistants, the NE TE's. 5 sacks, 8 knockdowns, untold hits in 21 pressures. That's 50% of NE's total offensive snaps dominated by 4 and occasionally 5 guys you assessed as posing no serious threat to impact a juggernaut passing offense indoors under climate controlled optimum passing conditions. We managed just two scoring drives seperated by two and a half quarters in which we couldn't even sniff the red zone. One of those came before the Giants DL got dialed in, the other came when they were finally, mercifully gassed.
Our defense gave up half as many points on Sunday as they did in the regular season matchup when we only beat them by 3. The problem was the Offense produced considerably less than half as many points.
no, you don't understand.
an intelligent person should be able to separate where 'lack of skill' was the reason for the failure from where 'bad luck' was the reason for failure.
casinos don't throw away perfectly good slot machines when people win. they realize that even when the odds are in your favor, sometimes you lose. but in the long run, putting yourself in a position where the odds are in your favor is all you can do.
I agree with the premise that the D lost the game because that is what transpired. The O-line struggled because that was a Champ quality Giant DL. In spite of that the Pat's offense made it work and scored when it had to and should have counted the most. The D gave up two TDs in the 4th QTR! The weakness in the middle routes with Rodney, Bru and Seau had been exploited since the Eagles game. I think the fact the D, as a whole, hadnt lost a game to this point is a tribute the O and the DL to some extent.