A Balanced Look at the Defense

[ausbacker]

For the record, I don't consider the Patriots D any worse than the Packers or Saints either. These teams are all built in almost the same way, dominant Offense playing with a complimentary Defense capitalizing on turnovers.

 

[Ring 6]

My position is a simple one; it's easier to win a game with an offense that averages 30.2 points and 424 yards of offense per game. This is generally why I refer to the D as a complimentary unit with potential for improvement.

And don't correct me, I chose my words with purpose.

Well you misused masquerading. Something masquerades. You don't masquerade something by hiding it behind something else.

Of course its easier to win with a good offense, who is arguing with that?
But if you look at the portions of games where the game is competitive, the defense has played well 9 times and poorly 3.
The cumulative statistics and yardage stats are WORSE because of the offense that averages 30 points and 400 yards. And those cumulative stats and yardage allowed are the argument that is being made which is exposed by the OP.

 

[ausbacker]

Well you misused masquerading. Something masquerades. You don't masquerade something by hiding it behind something else.

Of course its easier to win with a good offense, who is arguing with that?
But if you look at the portions of games where the game is competitive, the defense has played well 9 times and poorly 3.
The cumulative statistics and yardage stats are WORSE because of the offense that averages 30 points and 400 yards. And those cumulative stats and yardage allowed are the argument that is being made which is exposed by the OP.

That's exactly what it is. I have absolutely no idea how to construct a sentence, an argument or the application of the words I wish to use in them. Thank you for telling me you know what I'm thinking.

Unbelievable.

 

[Ring 6]

For the record, I don't consider the Patriots D any worse than the Packers or Saints either. These teams are all built in almost the same way, dominant Offense playing with a complimentary Defense capitalizing on turnovers.

Feel free to consider them whatever you want. That is a subjective exercise, and you can use whatever criteria you wish to predict the future. What I am talking about is what they have actually done, and in fact 9 times they have done their job effectively and 3 they have not. In my book, that is pretty good. Whether it will continue or not is to be seen one game at a time. My objection is that people are using less than consequential points to revise the history of the first 12 weeks.
Example: If my defense plays well enough to have a 31-3 lead with 19 minutes left and the game is over, I don't belittle that play by what they do when they are running out the clock and protecting the lead, unless my concern is how many yards they give up, or what the margin of victory is. That doesn't mean they played well in those 19 minutes, it means they played well enough for 41 to make those irrelevant to that game, and what they do in a mode of protecting the lead because the only way the game is not over is if we give up huge plays will never matter in a situation where that is not the approach.
I guarantee that when they have a big lead, the game is out of hand and the defense overcompensates to not allow the big play, our defense will play poorly. I don't know how that has anything to do with winning or losing football games.

 

[Ring 6]

That's exactly what it is. I have absolutely no idea how to construct a sentence, an argument or the application of the words I wish to use in them. Thank you for telling me you know what I'm thinking.

Unbelievable.

I'm sorry that you misused a word. But you did.

 

[ausbacker]

I'm sorry that you misused a word. But you did.

Despite being told twice that you're wrong you still insist you're right. Good luck with that balanced approach.

 

[Ring 6]

Despite being told twice that you're wrong you still insist you're right. Good luck with that balanced approach.

Dude, you misused the word.
Yet you think I am wrong because you won't admit you misused it.
You do not 'masquerade' something. You can masquerade as something, or you can MASK something with something else.
This isn't even close to debatable. The context of your comment makes it crystal clear what you were trying to say, and you used the wrong word.

It is very telling of your personality that you are 100% factually wrong, and not only refuse to admit it but try to call you being wrong a flaw in me.
Go to dictionary.com and look up the definition then reread your comment, then if you have the integrity come back and admit you are wrong.
Its no big deal, people misuse words all the time. No one will think less of you to admit than they do of you to be wrong and act like you are right.

 

[Mack Herron]

. No one will think less of you to admit than they do of you to be wrong and act like you are right.

Words to live by.

 

[ausbacker]

Words to live by.

It's hilarious that he's been told three times that he's wrong yet he still insists that I'm at fault for using a word (when I know exactly what it means and applied it in the manner that I intended) that provides the key to the balanced defense review codswallop. Furthermore, it's clear he doesn't know what masquerade means and has gone into a self defense tirade after having his balanced defense assessment discredited given the application of his opinion and the Patriots win-loss record as the defensive fact.

Simple, stubborn folk... God bless them.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Nice contribution. Do you have anything to add that isn't adolescent level?

I can't because you are never wrong..anything i say will be wrong so why add anything to your threads when you are right and everyone else is wrong. You won't listen to anyone anyways. Not going to waste my time thinking of a response because you will come back with....not true...as usual

I will just point out how you are never wrong in the threads you make..that's all. No need to get mad homeslice

It's okay. You can be wrong. it's human nature. You just have to admit it sometimes which is your problem but you will get the hang of it.

 

[Ring 6]

I can't because you are never wrong..anything i say will be wrong so why add anything to your threads when you are right and everyone else is wrong.

If you give a convincing counter argument that I am wrong, I will change my opinion. If all you add is bs like that, what would prompt me to reconsider?

You won't listen to anyone anyways.

That is totally incorrect. I read every response to my posts, and respond exactly to their comments.

Not going to waste my time thinking of a response because you will come back with....not true...as usual

No, its call a discussion. I make a comment, you reply. If I agree or disagree with your reply, I respond. You possessing an opinion means I consider it, but does not mean it is convincing. Please show me a convincing opinion you have made that I dismissed.

I will just point out how you are never wrong in the threads you make..that's all. No need to get mad homeslice

If I create a thread I am stating my opinion, after a lot of consideration. If someone posts an opposing point of view, I respond. I suppose you have a long track record of having an opinion and flip flopping when someone disagrees?

It's okay. You can be wrong. it's human nature. You just have to admit it sometimes which is your problem but you will get the hang of it.

I am certain I am wrong a lot. But if it is an opinion that is not well supported, I wouldn't be arguing it to begin with. In a case such as this thread it is all fact based. In a case of football discussion that involves prediction, everyone is wrong as often as they are right, but you do not know that until after the debate is long over and the results are known.

 

[Ring 6]

It's hilarious that he's been told three times that he's wrong yet he still insists that I'm at fault for using a word (when I know exactly what it means and applied it in the manner that I intended) that provides the key to the balanced defense review codswallop. Furthermore, it's clear he doesn't know what masquerade means and has gone into a self defense tirade after having his balanced defense assessment discredited given the application of his opinion and the Patriots win-loss record as the defensive fact.

Simple, stubborn folk... God bless them.

If you intended to use the word, understand its meaning, and were trying to convey a point with its correct meaning, then the sentence you wrote is simply horrendous English. I assume that the error was the misuse of the word, since in the context of the sentence using the wrong word actually makes sense. If you want to now say that you simply butchered the sentence, then please rewrite it intelligibly so I can understand what you meant.

 

[Ring 6]

It's hilarious that he's been told three times that he's wrong yet he still insists that I'm at fault for using a word (when I know exactly what it means and applied it in the manner that I intended) that provides the key to the balanced defense review codswallop. Furthermore, it's clear he doesn't know what masquerade means and has gone into a self defense tirade after having his balanced defense assessment discredited given the application of his opinion and the Patriots win-loss record as the defensive fact.

Simple, stubborn folk... God bless them.

In what way did I apply the win/loss record as a defensive fact?
That is a total misrepresentation, and you know it.
I broke down game by game the defenses contribution to the outcome. Whether the defense played well enough in that game to deserve to win or lose.
Are you telling me there is a better way to rate what a defense has contributed to the team than its contribution to winning or losing?

Of course it is nice to see that you hold to your form and throw in the obligatory, classless, unprovoked personal attacks.

 

[ausbacker]

You've been told 4 times now.

 

[BradyFTW!]

In what way did I apply the win/loss record as a defensive fact?
That is a total misrepresentation, and you know it.
I broke down game by game the defenses contribution to the outcome. Whether the defense played well enough in that game to deserve to win or lose.
Are you telling me there is a better way to rate what a defense has contributed to the team than its contribution to winning or losing?

Of course it is nice to see that you hold to your form and throw in the obligatory, classless, unprovoked personal attacks.

Well, that's not what you're doing anyways, so it's sorta beside the point.

 

[BradyFTW!]

If you give a convincing counter argument that I am wrong, I will change my opinion. If all you add is bs like that, what would prompt me to reconsider?

Can anyone on this forum ever remember Andy admitting that he was wrong about anything?

 

[bigfandan]

Andy will list all the reasons that this "adquate" defense gave almost 500 yards to rex grossman and the inepted washington offense, with the entire game being competitive. Coming up soon....

Can anyone on this forum ever remember Andy admitting that he was wrong about anything?

 

[borg]

Can anyone on this forum ever remember Andy admitting that he was wrong about anything?

Wonder which series of downs Andy will throw out this game to support his OP that the Pats Pass D is AWESOME..

Add Grossman to the list of assassins

 

[condon84]

Wonder which series of downs Andy will throw out this game to support his OP that the Pats Pass D is AWESOME..

Add Grossman to the list of assassins

That INT to end the game will be the high point.

 

[Kontradiction]

Defense looked fantastic today. What a great, gritty win on the road against a championship caliber team. Good stuff.