Originally Posted by Marcellus:
Reid is on season 21 which is how many Marty coached.
Reid is on his way to his 7th conference championship game and has been to a SB he barely lost.
7 conference championships in 21 season. 33% of the time he gets his team there.
Marty went to 3 conference championships, 14% of the time he made it that far.
Reid is considered an innovator and an offensive genius.
Marty was just a good coach who got a lot out of his defense.
I say all this believing Marty was a great coach.
Marty cant sniff Reid's jock.
This point can't be emphasized enough.
Marty adopted a blueprint and executed it well. He essentially borrowed the Parcells model, installed DT as his own Lawrence Taylor, and rode that to sustained success.
Now you can try to argue that Reid did that somewhat by borrowing key concepts from the WCO but if you looked at the Walsh WCO and the Reid WCO they barely look like the same sport. You look at what Parcells and co. were doing with his defense and what Marty was doing with his, it was virtually identical.
Like I said - if this is arguable, try to argue it. Argue that Marty had more success in the regular season or post-season. Argue that Marty did more with less. Argue that Marty was a greater innovator or had a larger impact on the league.
Don't try to argue that he was good because nobody's disagreeing with that point. Give me anything you have in your quiver that says he was BETTER. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
This point can't be emphasized enough.
Marty adopted a blueprint and executed it well. He essentially borrowed the Parcells model, installed DT as his own Lawrence Taylor, and rode that to sustained success.
Now you can try to argue that Reid did that somewhat by borrowing key concepts from the WCO but if you looked at the Walsh WCO and the Reid WCO they barely look like the same sport. You look at what Parcells and co. were doing with his defense and what Marty was doing with his, it was virtually identical.
Like I said - if this is arguable, try to argue it. Argue that Marty had more success in the regular season or post-season. Argue that Marty did more with less. Argue that Marty was a greater innovator or had a larger impact on the league.
Don't try to argue that he was good because nobody's disagreeing with that point. Give me anything you have in your quiver that says he was BETTER.
Originally Posted by Lilmrp117:
How much of an asshole do you have to be to respond to a simple football debate the way you do when i never called you any names or were rude to you? The clock management issue never came into play yesterday since the game was a blowout. You're not even addressing the issue im talking about or that the article i quoted talked about - probably bc you're too stupid to keep up. Then again, you probably dismissed the whole article as "coachspeak" even though andy and a ton of people he worked with all say it's a deliberate philosophy. If you're too stupid to follow the conversation, then you may as well stay out of it. Posting "stupid" adds nothing jerkoff.
Go back and read DJLN's reply to my post, print it out and staple that to your forehead you ****ing mouthbreather bc that's how you intelligently discuss football.
Gee, you're sensitive.
Okay, I'll try to explain this in a way you might understand.
IF ANDY TRULY BELIEVED THAT NONSENSE HE TOLD THAT REPORTER IN THAT INTERVIEW HOWEVER MANY YEARS AGO, THEN WHEN HE WAS DOWN 24-0 WITH 10 MINUTES LEFT IN THE 2ND QUARTER, HOW WOULD HE HAVE RESPONDED?
I mean, this was a CLASSIC scenario of what your reporter was talking about, right? Andy needs to score quickly twice to get back in the game, there's not a lot of time on the clock, and Andy decides that the best way to do that is to call more than a dozen plays to get a single score. Pretty much the exact same scenario as what happened in 2006 and 2016, am I right?
SO ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORTER, ANDY WOULD'VE SPENT 13-16 PLAYS AND 6 MINUTES TRUNDLING DOWN THE FIELD TO GET ONE (1, SOLO, UNO) SCORE, RIGHT? THAT'S THE NARRATIVE YOU AND THAT REPORTER AND YOUR FRIENDS ARE TRYING TO SELL, YES?
Or maybe Andy settles for a FG, after a 10 play drive or something like that, because Andy has no idea how to read a clock and understand that he needs to score quickly and often. That's the 'philosophy' that Andy supposedly believes in, according to you and your article.
So there's no way that what happened in the 2nd quarter on Sunday should've happened, period.
But obviously it did. So how did it happen? I eagerly await your explanation. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Gee, you're sensitive.
Okay, I'll try to explain this in a way you might understand.
IF ANDY TRULY BELIEVED THAT NONSENSE HE TOLD THAT REPORTER IN THAT INTERVIEW HOWEVER MANY YEARS AGO, THEN WHEN HE WAS DOWN 24-0 WITH 10 MINUTES LEFT IN THE 2ND QUARTER, HOW WOULD HE HAVE RESPONDED?
I mean, this was a CLASSIC scenario of what your reporter was talking about, right? Andy needs to score quickly twice to get back in the game, there's not a lot of time on the clock, and Andy decides that the best way to do that is to call more than a dozen plays to get a single score. Pretty much the exact same scenario as what happened in 2006 and 2016, am I right?
SO ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORTER, ANDY WOULD'VE SPENT 13-16 PLAYS AND 6 MINUTES TRUNDLING DOWN THE FIELD TO GET ONE (1, SOLO, UNO) SCORE, RIGHT? THAT'S THE NARRATIVE YOU AND THAT REPORTER AND YOUR FRIENDS ARE TRYING TO SELL, YES?
Or maybe Andy settles for a FG, after a 10 play drive or something like that, because Andy has no idea how to read a clock and understand that he needs to score quickly and often. That's the 'philosophy' that Andy supposedly believes in, according to you and your article.
So there's no way that what happened in the 2nd quarter on Sunday should've happened, period.
But obviously it did. So how did it happen? I eagerly await your explanation.
Holy shit - you're ****ing dense! I thought we were past this and then you respond to my same post twice and yet you still do not understand my argument. The past game has nothing to do with the issue that I brought up as it was a blowout rather than a close game that required careful clock management in a pressure situation.
Being down 24-0 early in the 2nd quarter is not the same as being in a close game towards the end of the 4th quarter. There was still plenty of time in the game for andy to take his time and score. Yes, it was nice that they scored quickly in the 2nd, but they were assisted by special teams shortcutting the process. Not much need to manage the timing of a drive when you have hardman setting us up in the opponent's territory and a fumble putting us in the red zone. I would hope that a score in those situations would be extra quick since there isn't much field to cover.
Go ahead and keep denying that andy has a philosophy of taking extra time and timeouts to settle players down and make sure he has the right play - despite the man himself saying it and despite, not some reporter, but numerous coaches/best friends of Andy who have worked closely with him for years saying it as well. Did you even read the damn article?
Although I disagreed with him, DJLN is intelligent enough to recognize the issue - he just spins the issue as being a good thing rather than the flaw that I see it as. Seriously, go back and read the article and then read the conversation between myself and DJLN and maybe you'll finally recognize the issue. Then maybe you can keep up with the rest of us instead of quoting play by plays from random drives that do not speak to the issue at all and denying the words of the man at issue himself, and then on top of all that, acting like a smug, know-it-all douche who has to call people names b/c you disagree with them even though you're too dumb to even recognize the issue we are debating. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Lilmrp117:
Holy shit - you're ****ing dense! I thought we were past this and then you respond to my same post twice and yet you still do not understand my argument. The past game has nothing to do with the issue that I brought up as it was a blowout rather than a close game that required careful clock management in a pressure situation.
Being down 24-0 early in the 2nd quarter is not the same as being in a close game towards the end of the 4th quarter. There was still plenty of time in the game for andy to take his time and score. Yes, it was nice that they scored quickly in the 2nd, but they were assisted by special teams shortcutting the process. Not much need to manage the timing of a drive when you have hardman setting us up in the opponent's territory and a fumble putting us in the red zone. I would hope that a score in those situations would be extra quick since there isn't much field to cover.
Go ahead and keep denying that andy has a philosophy of taking extra time and timeouts to settle players down and make sure he has the right play - despite the man himself saying it and despite, not some reporter, but numerous coaches/best friends of Andy who have worked closely with him for years saying it as well. Did you even read the damn article?
Although I disagreed with him, DJLN is intelligent enough to recognize the issue - he just spins the issue as being a good thing rather than the flaw that I see it as. Seriously, go back and read the article and then read the conversation between myself and DJLN and maybe you'll finally recognize the issue. Then maybe you can keep up with the rest of us instead of quoting play by plays from random drives that do not speak to the issue at all and denying the words of the man at issue himself, and then on top of all that, acting like a smug, know-it-all douche who has to call people names b/c you disagree with them even though you're too dumb to even recognize the issue we are debating.
Hey, I see you down there in that hole. Would you like this shovel? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
No need, he appears to have a backhoe in that hole with him and he is still digging.
If people want to homer out and believe that a philosophy of needing to take time and timeouts to get the play right towards the end of a close game bc apparently you can't do it quickly and effectively at the same time is a good thing, then have at it. We will agree to disagree. And people wonder why it is taking so long for andy to win a super bowl. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Lilmrp117:
Holy shit - you're ****ing dense! I thought we were past this and then you respond to my same post twice and yet you still do not understand my argument. The past game has nothing to do with the issue that I brought up as it was a blowout rather than a close game that required careful clock management in a pressure situation.
Being down 24-0 early in the 2nd quarter is not the same as being in a close game towards the end of the 4th quarter. There was still plenty of time in the game for andy to take his time and score. Yes, it was nice that they scored quickly in the 2nd, but they were assisted by special teams shortcutting the process. Not much need to manage the timing of a drive when you have hardman setting us up in the opponent's territory and a fumble putting us in the red zone. I would hope that a score in those situations would be extra quick since there isn't much field to cover.
Go ahead and keep denying that andy has a philosophy of taking extra time and timeouts to settle players down and make sure he has the right play - despite the man himself saying it and despite, not some reporter, but numerous coaches/best friends of Andy who have worked closely with him for years saying it as well. Did you even read the damn article?
Although I disagreed with him, DJLN is intelligent enough to recognize the issue - he just spins the issue as being a good thing rather than the flaw that I see it as. Seriously, go back and read the article and then read the conversation between myself and DJLN and maybe you'll finally recognize the issue. Then maybe you can keep up with the rest of us instead of quoting play by plays from random drives that do not speak to the issue at all and denying the words of the man at issue himself, and then on top of all that, acting like a smug, know-it-all douche who has to call people names b/c you disagree with them even though you're too dumb to even recognize the issue we are debating.
So no explanation.
And the 90-yard drive to score for the fourth time and take the lead? I know Limpwrist here isn't going to understand what happened, but for everyone else . . .
Andy and Pat started on their own 10-yard line with 2:47 left in the half. Now, according to the "Andy is a shitty clock manager" crowd, pay attention: Andy dials up 6 plays that cover 80 yards and only uses a mere 1:42.
If Andy were the terrible clock manager that Limpy et all seem to think he is, then this drive would've taken 13-16 plays, right? Or maybe because there's only 2:47 left in the half, Andy dials up some 15-play meandering (that's the word the reporter actually used, IIRC, "meandering" which means I must've read the article, right?) and never even gets into FG range, yes? That's the dipstick narrative some dolts are swallowing, correct?
However, that turns out not to be the case at all, does it? Limpy? Bueller? Anyone?
Moving on . . .
Now Pat helps him out a bit here on the first play by throwing at Kelce, actually purposefully over-throwing him, because he sees the DPI and wants to make sure it's called. That pass was designed to go to Damien. Whether or not Damien would've gotten the 15 yards is up for debate, but was likely. However, by attracting attention to the DPI, it forces a clock stoppage. Maybe Damien would've been tackled inbounds, so this was a great play by Pat.
Otherwise Pat executes the next 3 plays as designed, though one may have been in fact a designed run. Doesn't matter though, as the Chiefs cover 65 yards over the next 5 plays and uses up just 1:42 of the clock. The next two plays both should've been TDs, but Pat was back-pedaling on the first one and missed Damien, and Pat was being dragged down on the second and missed DRob. Those two plays took up 10 seconds. On 3rd down Pat decides to quit fooling around and hits Kelce for the TD with about :44 remaining.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, was the statement drive. Andy was telling the HOU DC that he could dial up a long drive from any field position and score a TD in less than 2 minutes or drag it out and do it in 6 minutes. That TD was the game-winner.
Now some people are going to nit-pick that Andy should've tried to bleed more clock and perhaps burn down the clock to as close to :00 as possible before scoring. And they may have a small point here. But mathematically the odds of the Texans offense being able to go 75 yards in :44 after going 27 yards on 6 plays in a 1:27 for a PUNT on their previous possession were pretty small.
In fact, it could easily be argued that HOU moving the ball far enough to even attempt a 51-yard FG was more lucky than anything else.
