2 things lost in this faux controversy

[Ring 6]

Chill dude, believe it or not I thought it was more respectful to provide a response that insinuated that I generally agree or appreciate our back and forths (but just not in this case).........as opposed to just outright disagreeing.

That’s not what that comment means.

I mean, c'mon, within that post you were literally asking what a defender should do when the ball carrier is right in front of him.

So oretending to chase an out of reach receiver is better?

Isn't the obvious answer: play defense?

If you had to answer your own question would your answer be: stop and blatantly turn your back to the play?

I’d say it doesn’t matter because he had no chance to do anything.

That is why I found your post disappointing from a veteran poster such as yourself.

And I found your disappointing trying to create a fake issue. Yup he stopped. The exact same thing would have happened if he didn’t. You don’t make up 5 yards in anyine in ten yards.

 

[brdmaverick]

Alright, this is my comment to this thread, because as @luuked has pointed out, 7 pages is enough and doesn't need to be 8 or more.

I get the feeling in this thread that people feel they must join one of two camps.....

Camp 1: Gilmore gave up on that one specific play in question.

Camp 2: Gilmore is a good player, has had no 'effort' issues on the Pats, and is NOT the reason the Pats defense has struggled out of the gate.

It doesn't have to be one or the other though. It can be BOTH (and is for me). By acknowledging that he gave up on one play in the past does not mean that you are inherently saying that he is a bad player today and a potential trouble-maker for the Pats. Both camps can be right.

 

[brdmaverick]

Doh, now I'm breaking my own rule (didn't last long) b/c this comment came inbetween repsonses.......

That’s not what that comment means.

I said "you're better than this"..........Because in my opinion your track record (which I consider to be good) has shown that you are a better poster than the quality of question than you were asking.

So it still works, maybe there was room for interpretation, I'll conceded that, so I am happy to clear it up.

So pretending to chase an out of reach receiver is better?

Yes, actually. Even though 'faking effort' would lead to the same outcome it actually would look better than obviously giving up and literally turning your back to a play...yes, that actually is worse.

Kind of like the defender wearing #35 on the 49ers in this Elliot TD....

I'd say he's faking it, just jogging along making it look like he's trying to make a play. While that's not great I actually think it would look worse if he got himself to within two feet of the runner and then just stopped and turned his back to the play while it was still going on. Guys like 56 and 36, they made good efforts (though unsuccessful) at the play despite having unfavorable positions.

And I found your disappointing trying to create a fake issue. Yup he stopped. The exact same thing would have happened if he didn’t. You don’t make up 5 yards in anyine in ten yards.

There is no fake issue, no alternate agenda, no smear compaign. This was merely an observation. He didn't have to make up 10 yards on the guy, he was less than a yard away prior to either having crossed the five yard line.


Ok, now I'm done.........unless someone wants to break down the Zeke/49ers play, lol


Here's my peace offering that I think we can all agree to........

We'd be mad or disappointed if we saw Gilmore do this as a Pats player, but we all agree that we don't think he will.

 

[Ring 6]

Doh, now I'm breaking my own rule (didn't last long) b/c this comment came inbetween repsonses.......



I said "you're better than this"..........Because in my opinion your track record (which I consider to be good) has shown that you are a better poster than the quality of question than you were asking.

So it still works, maybe there was room for interpretation, I'll conceded that, so I am happy to clear it up.

It was condescending and passive aggressive.

Yes, actually. Even though 'faking effort' would lead to the same outcome it actually would look better than obviously giving up and literally turning your back to a play...yes, that actually is worse.

I disagree.

Kind of like the defender wearing #35 on the 49ers in this Elliot TD....

I'd say he's faking it, just jogging along making it look like he's trying to make a play. While that's not great I actually think it would look worse if he got himself to within two feet of the runner and then just stopped and turned his back to the play while it was still going on. Guys like 56 and 36, they made good efforts (though unsuccessful) at the play despite having unfavorable positions.

35 was MUCH worse than the Gilmore play. He gave up 20+ yards out with a number of defenders still in position to slow Elliot down.
But even close to the same thing

There is no fake issue, no alternate agenda, no smear compaign. This was merely an observation. He didn't have to make up 10 yards on the guy, he was less than a yard away prior to either having crossed the five yard line.

Not saying there is an agenda saying Gilmore had no shot.

Ok, now I'm done.........unless someone wants to break down the Zeke/49ers play, lol


Here's my peace offering that I think we can all agree to........

We'd be mad or disappointed if we saw Gilmore do this as a Pats player, but we all agree that we don't think he will.

I don’t care much for optics. As I said I have a much bigger probl with sf35 because he gave up on a play he could have influenced. Gilmore taking 3 more steps in vain does nothng fur me.
Apparently we just differ on this. That’s fine.

 

[sambam94]

rewatched gilmore-hogan play and gilmore certainly could have dove and tackled hogan IMO. Not sure if the ball would have been across the goal line or not, but seeing the play again, I'm convinced he could have tackled him if he didn't give up.

 

[luuked]

rewatched gilmore-hogan play and gilmore certainly could have dove and tackled hogan IMO. Not sure if the ball would have been across the goal line or not, but seeing the play again, I'm convinced he could have tackled him if he didn't give up.

Dont take it personally @sambam94 because this goes towards the entire thread.. WHO GIVES A **** ?

If our pro scouting team thought he had a pattern of giving up on plays he would not have gotten that contract. So what the hell is the entire point of the conversation ? Who cares what exactly happened on that play in Buffalo. It doesnt change that he has been approved and signed by BB/Caserio.

I dont get what the ultimate point of this discussion is.

 

[sambam94]

Dont take it personally @sambam94 because this goes towards the entire thread.. WHO GIVES A **** ?

If our pro scouting team thought he had a pattern of giving up on plays he would not have gotten that contract. So what the hell is the entire point of the conversation ? Who cares what exactly happened on that play in Buffalo. It doesnt change that he has been approved and signed by BB/Caserio.

I dont get what the ultimate point of this discussion is.

i do

 

[luuked]

i do

Then what is the point ?

Is this one idiotic scene proof that the entire scouting department needs to be fired ? Do you have a better understanding of Gilmores psychology than BB and Caserio because you have decided he gave up on a play a year ago ? Seriously what is the conclusion here ?