OT: Ravens @ Colts game discussion (AFC Divisional Round)

[emoney_33]

Ugh. Have you not read the orgy of posts directed your way in which this defense faced exactly THREE good offenses and allowed over 30 points and 400+ yards of offense in each of those games? I guess not. It's pretty easy to have inflated stats when you face bad offenses. Seriously, go look up the Patriots schedule on NFL.com then open up a separate page and go to the NFL.com "stats" section and look up each team's offense that we played. Not exactly a murderer's row.

I guess you don't understand what a "decent" defense means, it's either great or horrendous in your black-and-white world I guess.

 

[Kontradiction]

The offense gave away 17 of the 24 points in the first quarter. Being down 24-0 changes the dynamic of the game. For example we couldn't run as much as we PLANNED to because we were in such a deep hole.

151 yards rushing on 51 carries says a lot more about the offense than the defense, but keep grasping. Your facts are missing a lot of information which I continually have to give to you. "220 yards" and "151 yards" is nothing but a way for you to ignore the entire picture.

The defense allowed 3 FG's and the botched 83 yard TD when given normal field position. But keep pretending the offense didn't completely throw that game away.

Please explain to me how 51 carries (and 151 yards) says more about the offense than the defense? I must have missed it. Was the offense on the field trying to stop Ray Rice? Was Brady trying to set the edge? 51 carries says that the defense could not get off the field. If you're point was that the offense should have been on the field more to prevent those 51 carries, then your argument is already full of holes as you concede that the defense as a whole failed and that the team should have relied on the offense more to keep said failure of a defense off the field.

And no, I'm not pretending the offense didn't fail either. This is where your reading comprehension problem comes into play. As a matter of fact, I've blamed the offense for that game just as much as the defense. But let's face it, both units failed. The defense just as much, if not more, than the offense. Your problem is that you cannot admit that. To you, the offense was "decent to good" this season.

 

[Joker]

Come on, the defence wasn't the greatest but lt's dump a little bit of the blame on Brady. He played like an absolute bum last week.

yeah...sort of like Ray Mercer's entire boxing career

 

[emoney_33]

Come on, the defence wasn't the greatest but lt's dump a little bit of the blame on Brady. He played like an absolute bum last week.

Shutup clown, you are an idiot.

Brady was throwing to special teamers like Aiken and Slater. No QB could have been successful with what Brady had to work with.

 

[Kontradiction]

I guess you don't understand what a "decent" defense means, it's either great or horrendous in your black-and-white world I guess.

I know what decent means. That is not an accurate description of the way the defense played last week.

 

[Kontradiction]

Come on, the defence wasn't the greatest but lt's dump a little bit of the blame on Brady. He played like an absolute bum last week.

*ahem*

The offense gave away 14 points. The defense allowed 19. Take away the 83 yard rumble and the defense still allowed 151 yards rushing to a team without a quarterback. Not exactly playing well. Oh, and by the way, I'll be the first to admit that the offense messed up. But people like you excuse the defense for the game all the way around because of the offensive miscues. That's just simply not the case. The defense, for all intents in purposes, served up it's own healthy helping of fail last Sunday as well. But then again, I've told you this before and you seem content to keep excusing the defense. In reality, I'm not sure why I keep posting these cold, hard FACTS to you. But eh, what the hell? I'm bored.

This is the problem here. The offense does not deserve to be excused for that outing, and neither does the defense. Excusing the defense while pointing out offensive errors is simply idiotic.

 

[emoney_33]

Please explain to me how 51 carries (and 151 yards) says more about the offense than the defense? I must have missed it.

Because 151 yards on 51 carries is 2.96 YPC. And any team that has a chance to run 51 times while only getting 2.96 YPC means the opposition didn't hold the ball very long when they had it. You fail to grasp this how?

Was the offense on the field trying to stop Ray Rice? Was Brady trying to set the edge? 51 carries says that the defense could not get off the field. If you're point was that the offense should have been on the field more to prevent those 51 carries, then your argument is already full of holes as you concede that the defense as a whole failed and that the team should have relied on the offense more to keep said failure of a defense off the field.

2.96 YPC on 51 carries... do you understand football?

And no, I'm not pretending the offense didn't fail either. This is where your reading comprehension problem comes into play. As a matter of fact, I've blamed the offense for that game just as much as the defense. But let's face it, both units failed. The defense just as much, if not more, than the offense. Your problem is that you cannot admit that. To you, the offense was "decent to good" this season.

The offense was about 85% to blame for that game. The defense didnt' come CLOSE to failing "just as much" as the offense. For you to even say that shows a complete lack of understanding of the game.

The Ravens had 268 total yards of offense. TWO HUNDRED SIXTY EIGHT. Our offense had 196 TOTAL yards and 4 turnovers.

 

[emoney_33]

This is the problem here. The offense does not deserve to be excused for that outing, and neither does the defense. Excusing the defense while pointing out offensive errors is simply idiotic.

The defense played OK and well enough to win. The offense played atrocious and gave that game away.

The Ravens scored 17 points on 51 damn yards because of those 3 turnovers in the 1st.

 

[ray mercer]

yeah...sort of like Ray Mercer's entire boxing career

What about my win over Tommy Morrison. Knockout of the century.

 

[SVN]

Come on, the defence wasn't the greatest but lt's dump a little bit of the blame on Brady. He played like an absolute bum last week.

i assume you are colts fan who in the last 3 posts wants to steer the discussion that brady is crap football player and manning is not ? everyone knows brady was crap last week .debate is right now how the pats D played.

 

[Kontradiction]

Because 151 yards on 51 carries is 2.96 YPC. And any team that has a chance to run 51 times while only getting 2.96 YPC means the opposition didn't hold the ball very long when they had it. You fail to grasp this how?





2.96 YPC on 51 carries... do you understand football?

You do understand that you pretty much just admitted that the defense was sucking it up last week by inferring that our only chance to win against the Ravens was for our offense to hold the ball as long as possible in order to keep our defense off the field, right? DO U UNDERSTAND FUTBALZ?/

The offense was about 85% to blame for that game. The defense didnt' come CLOSE to failing "just as much" as the offense. For you to even say that shows a complete lack of understanding of the game.

See, this is why I said that I was wasting my time with you (as was SVN). No matter how many stats someone pulls out on you or how many times someone absolutely CRUSHES your argument, you just keep on going, hands firmly over eyes. The Pats allowed 270 yards of total offense to a team whose quarterback had thrown the ball 10 times (completed 4) for a total of 34 yards. The Pats defense allowed this same offense 16 first downs (as compared to our 15). The Pats defense allowed, here, let me bold and underline it just to let this sink into your head: 10 out of 16 third down conversions. This means they couldn't get off the field. The Pats defense allowed the Ravens to hold the ball for 33 minutes. In the end, yes, I would say the defense was just as much, if not more, to blame for the offense. Particularly when you consider that defense wins games in January and February. DO U UNDERSTAND FUTBALZ?/

 

[Kontradiction]

The defense played OK and well enough to win.

 

[emoney_33]

You do understand that you pretty much just admitted that the defense was sucking it up last week by inferring that our only chance to win against the Ravens was for our offense to hold the ball as long as possible in order to keep our defense off the field, right? DO U UNDERSTAND FUTBALZ?/

Uhh how do I answer something so obviously wrong...

You still can't differentiate between "sucking" and playing well enough to win. No defense in the NFL is going to win with a horrendous offensive perfromance, 4 turnovers and that amazingly terrible field position. (And don't mention the 2000 Ravens, they are the exception that proves the rule).

Put another way, if the Ravens offense gave the Patriots offense the ball on the 17, 25 and 9 then the Ravens defense would have allowed a lot more points. Yet you don't think the Ravens defense "sucked it up".

See, this is why I said that I was wasting my time with you (as was SVN). No matter how many stats someone pulls out on you or how many times someone absolutely CRUSHES your argument, you just keep on going, hands firmly over eyes. The Pats allowed 270 yards of total offense to a team whose quarterback had thrown the ball 10 times (completed 4) for a total of 34 yards. The Pats defense allowed this same offense 16 first downs (as compared to our 15). The Pats defense allowed, here, let me bold and underline it just to let this sink into your head: 10 out of 16 third down conversions. This means they couldn't get off the field. The Pats defense allowed the Ravens to hold the ball for 33 minutes. In the end, yes, I would say the defense was just as much, if not more, to blame for the offense. Particularly when you consider that defense wins games in January and February. DO U UNDERSTAND FUTBALZ?/

You really aren't bright are you? 2.96 Yards per carry. Do you understand what that even means? 2.96 yards per carry gets you jack **** unless the opposing offense is so incapable that they give you field positions of 17, 25 and 9 as well as continuously give you the ball back.

The Ravens had MORE yards against the Colts (270) today than they did against the Pats (268). But because the Colts offense didn't give them ridiculous field position, they didn't get to score.

Ray Rice only got 13 carries against Indy but ran for 5.2 YPC. The Ravens didn't run less because of the Colts defense, each time Rice got the ball he did something good with it.

You aren't destroying anyone's argument, you are simply making yourself look like a fool.

 

[BradyBranch39]

I just want to point out that on that BS spot on the 4th down, the chain gang didn't even try to run in a straight line across the field

 

[emoney_33]

15:00 1 00:17 BAL 17 1 83 Touchdown
13:13 1 02:44 NWE 17 5 17 Touchdown - OFF TURNOVER
08:58 1 00:40 NWE 42 3 -1 Punt
06:49 1 02:54 NWE 25 6 25 Touchdown - OFF TURNOVER
02:56 1 01:37 NWE 9 4 0 Field Goal - OFF TURNOVER
11:23 2 02:09 BAL 39 4 10 Intercepted Pass
07:38 2 02:05 BAL 25 3 1 Punt
02:07 2 02:07 BAL 4 7 21 End of Half
13:11 3 01:33 BAL 32 3 8 Punt
09:49 3 03:31 NWE 22 6 18 Field Goal - OFF TURNOVER
01:47 3 06:15 BAL 48 12 52 Touchdown
07:19 4 05:12 BAL 34 8 31 Punt
01:09 4 01:09 NWE 33 2 -2 End of Game


So, what you see here is that Baltimore got 20 points off of offensive turnovers in which they had the following field position: 17, 25, 9, 22. Of those 4 amazing red zone opportunities gift wrapped by the offense, the defense managed to stop 2 of them (into FG). Aside from those GIFTS FROM THE OFFFENSE, the defense allowed one bad TD drive at the end of the 3rd and the hideous failure of the 83 Yard TD run.

I got facts all day, any time you want to stop ignoring them let me know.