NEM said:
Of course there is. Because HE said it a hundred times doesn't, necessarilly, make it right.
Yea what everyone on this board tries to tell you everyday. Just because YOU say something 16000 times does not make it right, PERIOD.
"Going for the jugular" is a terminology. In any competitition that you want to win, if you have your opponent down, and yuo are in control, you wlant to go for the jugular at any time in order to put him/her, the team, etc. at an even further disadvantage. By "going for the jugular" early in a game, and accomplishing what yu want to do, yuo have every advantage over your opponent for the rest of the game, match, etc...and it allows you to overcome any mistakes that you may make later in the contest, and helps you to secure victory in a much easier fashion than if you had not gone for the jugular and taken control of the situation in a much stronger way.
No **** shirlock. Whoever said that Mcdaniels was trying to NOT score or trying to fail? Are you trying to suggest that it is possible to magically say "ok i need points now so I choose to score now and not later, because I am magic"? Or are you trying to suggest that Mcdaniels intentionally did not attempt to score on those 3 series? Oh wait, you are saying that he tried to score but called bad plays and even though the 11 patriots players on the field didn't execute those plays, it is still the plays that were called that is to blame. Of course somehow he decided to call better plays when it didn't matter as much, or was it still bad plays but now the players were executing them?
And, I believe that any coach, of any sport, of any team will tell you that if they could "go for the jugular" so to speak, at any time in a game, they would gladly do it. No one wants to have to come from way behind, and any team , or player, will tell you, IMO, that they want to get as big a jump on an opponent as they can.....no matter when it is. That is common sense.
WOW again stating the obvious. When did anyone ever say we DIDNT want to score early or we wanted to come from behind?
You are taking the wortds of others. I have NEVER said that i want to score on LEVERY Drive. While it would be nice, I am not ignoran t enough to believe it is possible, too many things can happen.
Of course these "too many things" never happen on any of the series you curse Mcdaniels for though right? In your magical NEM world, the "too many things can happeN" rule doesnt apply when you want to bash Mcdaniels. It's never a case of bad execution, never a case of the opposing defense playing well etc.. hindsight is 20/20, and a plan that fails isn't automatically a bad plan. If the evidence suggests beforehand that a certain plan (or play) is more likely to succeed than another, well that plan (or play) was the right call regardless of outcome. Unless you can see the future then you should never fail.
And yes, it does matter when you score 28. If yu score them in the first half, and if things go bad in the second half, at least you have bujilt up a lead and might still be able to survive your mistakes and the other team's comeback because there is still time.
What if things go bad in the first half? Again you use this hypothetical of things possibly going bad in the future when it suits you. Your argument has become "you should do it now because things could go bad in the future and it might now work". But yuo never ever once stop to think that "things" could have went bad the first time and that's why it failed. You put yourself in this big circular argument and you just keep spinning around it, Going from one thing to the next when it suits you.
But, if you are behind and need to score 28 in the second half, it makes it muchmore difficult on youirself and the opponents have the advantage. Thats why it is not done that often that teams come back from deficits, especially big one... Not to say that it doesnt happen though, and that proves my point. Better to be ahead by 28 at the half than needing 28 to win. Again, common sense.
Common sense is something it is clear that you do not have. The point was 28 points in the 1st half = 28 points in the 2nd half. NOT 28 points in the first half = TRYING to score 28 in the 2nd half. The point is it does NOT matter when you score the points if, in fact, you do score the points. PERIOD. But once again you twist words around and invent things to suit yourself. You create things to argue about and try to force your opinions on the world.
"common sense is not so common" applies to you.
You still dont get the point. You are grasping at straws. McDaniels , and the Pats, had a good second half and the defense had a big hand in helping them. Also, it was the passing game inthe 2nd half that got them going, not the running game....
passing game, running game, both offense...
Over the course of the 6 games,however, he has been very slow to make changes,and or adjust and many of the games we have won could have turned on one, or two, mistakes by us.
Could have would have should have. Oh if ifs and buts were candy and nuts... Your biggest problem is your desire to be right comes before your passion for the patriots winning. Qutie pitiful
Thats the polint that you refuse to accept. When you have a team down, and you have been given opportunities to go for the jugular, by your defense getting you the ball, and you dont take advantage of it, three times in a row, you could easily be setting up your team for failure in the end.
Is there some sort of magic that Mcdaniels should have the ability to FORCE the patriots to succeed when you see fit so that they dont fail later? If he had that ability then there would be no worry about failing later now would there. How about you go break down the 3 series that you didnt like, kind of like Box does and tell us exactly what you have called and why Mcdaniels call was bad on each play of those 3 series... Of course you won't, you'll ignore this challenge, making you look like a chump that got called out to prove something and just ran away and ignored it as if it never happened.
Of courlse, it appears as if you just wont get it, though. Because yu have been led to believe that I am wrong...by the loud Anti-=NEM group, when in fact, you really dont know what the hell you are talking about. See that, now you gone and done it and made an old man mad...
There is an anti-nem group here? I've read the forums enough to form my own opinion on you, I am not led to believe anything. I've rarely if ever saw you ever post anything except your worthless rantings about how the offensive coordinator is doing a horrible job, how your opinions are always right, how everyone else is stupid etc... In fact every time I've read a thread you are in, it's about the OC and always has something to the effect of "I"m right, I know I am, it just takes a while to be proven right". You are NEVER proven right, you are ALWAYS proven wrong. You just take arguments that take a lot to disprove you or are based on opinion or things only people inside the orgnization would be able to prove/disprove. You hope people forget about it but when they don't you ignore it and pick and choose what to resopnd to, always giving out personal attacks.
SINCE WHEN does putting
after a personal attack make the personal attack oK? Do you think no one sees what you do, as if that stupid smiley is your protection from being able to personally attack everyone.
I wrote: So a great gameplan in the beginning, good adjustments at half, but 3 bad series in the 2nd quarter means that he is not doing a good job? hmmmm
You respond: Quite frankly, that ignorant comment doesn't even deserve a response. It shows that your mind is somewhat vacant. But, what the hell, everyone cant all be on the same wave length. Thats what makes the world go around.
Another case of being backed into a corner and rather answer the question you throw out a personal attack. Followed by a smiley of course, I'm guessing to use as your defense in case of a ban that you had the smiley there to indicate sarcasm.
I actually think it's quite funny that you cant' answer this. Your warped mind ( ) can't argue against that now can it, because it is obvious you have no argument. Everythign you have ever said has been proven wrong, used against you, contradicted by yourself etc... but you just keep at it.
Also please stop replying inside of the quotes so that other people cannot quote you. Wonder why you wouldn't want other people to be able to quote you...
50 years of watching television, never once seeing a coach's tape, but thinks he knows everything...
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
