he's a dumb motherfucker. I don't know why y'all are bothering with this numbnuts.
[Reply]

But your love for the fat one makes you brilliant.... Got it.
[Reply]

Okay. And let's say he burns 2 minutes like he did. He's only up by one point. And as much as we make fun of him, Tom Brady is still Tom Brady and only needs a field goal. What if the Patriots burn clock and get timely first downs on their drive and kick a field goal with less than 30 seconds left? Boy, it sure would be nice to have those 2 minutes back, wouldn't it?

Most "clock management" decisions are nothing more than picking a strategy for victory and hoping for the best. Unless you're snapping the ball with like 10 seconds on the playclock for each play when you're up 28 in the 2nd half (just as much an Alex Smith problem of being a fucking retard as Andy Reid) just about any strategy you use for working the clock in a close game can just as easily bite you in the ass as it can seal your victory.

Vrabel chose the strategy that pissed off Belichick. That's all he did. It happened to be the correct choice. Maybe if he doesn't burn the clock the Titans STILL win. Who can say.

All I know is that Eagles fans are fucking retarded when they talk about clock management, and if you're going to sacrifice all the great characteristics of Andy as a coach so you can have a guy with this supposedly great "clock management" you might be as stupid as they are.
[Reply]

Running the football is not always about being productive. It's about making the defense think more, it's about helping the offensive line get a rhythm, it's about protecting your defense and allowing them to get crucial rest, etc.

And it's about wearing out the opposing defense. If Hunt ran the ball 12 times in the first half, and again in the second half, he likely would have started to make big gains. Why? Because the opposing defense gets tired. Because he is a extremely talented RB that needs the ball to display why he led the league in rushing.

But regardless of second half possessions, Reid never gave Hunt or the offensive line a chance to be successful running the ball. It's just poor coaching and game planning.

No matter how much this league develops dominant passing offenses, stopping the run game in the playoffs will always be important to winning it all. More often than not Reid basically does the opposing defense's job for them.

I am extremely grateful for Andy Reid choosing to take the KC job. He was such an improvement over what we had in the years prior. And I will forever be grateful for his roe in drafting and developing Mahomes.

My wish as a fan is always to win a Championship. Whether it's the Jayhawks, Royals, or the Chiefs. Marty took over a laughingstock and turned it into a perennial playoff team. But after a decade without a SB ring, or even a SB appearance, fans were ready to move on. I don't remember anyone championing the Keep Marty Movement at the time.

Marty is arguably a better coach than Reid, but no one excused his flaws then, so I don't understand why everyone continues to go such great lengths to excuse Reid's flaws now.

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk
[Reply]

Andy can drop a deuce in one of my bathrooms without using toilet spritz. My love is real.
[Reply]

:-)
[Reply]

A) In no universe is Marty a better coach than Reid. There's literally not a single data point that would support it.

B) The myth that 'running wears out the defense' has been so thoroughly disproven at this point that it barely warrants mentioning. You know what wears out a defense? Having to chase guys around the field. Or having to rush upfield to get after a QB. The vast majority of defensive players are bigger than any RB they'll ever tackle - you really think they'd rather chase one of those guys out of the backfield than get in their stance and hit 'em?

Do you not remember Jalen Ramsey or Chris Harris needing oxygen late in games after chasing our guys around? Von Miller with his hands on his knees because he was just gassed trying to get upfield? You're preaching 30 year old dogma with that stuff, man. And if you've listened to some of the old DL on TV or radio lately, they'll all say 'man, we hated having to chase those guys around the field...'. In the end, your logic just doesn't past the sniff test.

And that's without getting into the number of 'causation vs. correlation' arguments that have been done to death on running the football. Yes, teams with high run totals largely win the game, but they almost always have high run totals BECAUSE they were winning the game. There's no statistical support to the idea that 'establishing the run' pays dividends later on.

Additionally, you don't have to run the football much at all to 'make the defense think more'. Again, studies have been done on the effectiveness of play action as it relates to the amount of runs you attempt. Bottom line is that you only have to run often enough to establish running as a credible threat for things like PA to be effective. Andy has always done that. Moreover, the short passing game is equally effective at drawing down safeties/LBs to open up deeper strikes and Andy has always excelled at that as well.

And yes, stopping the run is important. Stopping the pass is MORE important and it's not even close, especially when you look at things like EPA. Andy continues to run the ball often enough to not do significant damage to his ability to pass it. And by passing it he's yielded FAR higher EPA figures and offensive efficiency numbers. So you say he's 'doing the defenses job for them' by stopping his own run, but the inverse of that is he's putting a TON more pressure on them by throwing it. It's simply a better way to move the football the vast majority of the time. He runs often enough to keep teams honest and that's truly all that matters.

You think its simple coincidence that the teams with the best QBs are the squads constantly winning championships? The outliers are the times that a running team goes out and owns. And the Ravens are just an exceptionally extreme version in that they ARE as efficient running as they are passing, but there's not another team in football that comes close to that sort of result.

Y'all are clinging to old saws to inform your opinion of how the game should be played. Meanwhile, it's leading you to argue that the dude who is widely seen as the most innovative offensive mind in football is some mouth-breathing idiot who forgets who to win games.

You're essentially among the ancient Greeks looking to burn Pythagoras as a heretic. The earth's round, bub. And running the football doesn't 'wear out the defense' anymore than passing the football does.
[Reply]

Wow. Now that is some stupid fucking shit I just read.

You believe that constantly having to hit and bring down running backs, (especially in cold weather) is less taxing on a defense than just chasing a bunch of receivers around.

OK dipshit.
[Reply]

Sure, ignore the comments from former players and the numbers themselves. There is NO correlation between running the ball early and defenses playing less effectively later. None at all.

Because gang-tackling some dude who's picking through a line who you probably outweigh by 40 lbs doesn't take much out of a guy who's body is conditioned for contact. Moreover, it takes just as much out of the RB who takes the blow.

Guys like Derrick Henry are EXTREME outliers. And guess what? He WASN'T why the Titans won. They ran and ran and ran and ran and guess how many points they scored in the second half of that Patriots game when the Pats should've been 'worn down' by having to tackle that mountain of a human-being?

Yeah - you guessed it - zero. Not a single fucking point apart from the Brady pick-six. Nothing Derrick Henry did in the second half 'tired out' the defense. They simply gang-piled him then did it over and over again. The Titans defense and Tom Brady are why the Patriots lost that game, not Derrick Henry.

Like I said, you're just a mouth-breathing neanderthal who won't pay attention to what any of the actual research on this topic has clearly shown.

Keep shouting into the darkness, hoss. No skin off my ass.
[Reply]

Leaving your defense on the field for long stretches of time is what wears out your defense.

It's the snap count.

To eat clock and move the chains, most teams run the ball along with a controlled, short passing game.

A tired defense probably doesn't want to have to tackle a physical back like Henry.

They're tired. He's big. It hurts.

Some of you guys are looking at this from an either/or angle, when like most things in life and football, it's BOTH.

They wouldn't want to chase Jamaal Charles in his prime in the 4th quarter either, although Charles would likely take one to the house and they'd at least get a breather.

It's about the sustained drives whether they end in points or not. (IF you have a lead already. Points are better, of course, but wearing a defense out is about snap counts and time on the field without a breather.)

If you're a 190 pound DB, and you're exhausted in the 4th quarter, you don't want to see Derrick Henry's big, fast ass coming through the hole untouched with a head of steam coming at you. You just don't. You'll do your job if you can unless you're a total pussy, but you ain't gonna like it. It's demoralizing.

Think about how you felt as a fan last season, when the other team could just ram it down our defense's throats late in games and we couldn't stop them. If you were demoralized as a fan (and I know I sure was), imagine how it felt to be on the field. Knowing what they were going to do and being powerless to stop them.

Having a Derrick Henry to do it with is just the icing on the cake.
[Reply]

I'm talking about the 'large numbers' view - if you have a guy like Henry, try that approach. But again, even with Derrick Henry, it oftentimes doesn't make a difference - the Patriots game being a perfect example.

Because let's be honest, that 190 lb CB isn't gonna wanna see Derrick Henry running at him in the open field in the 1st quarter. That DB is NEVER going to want to hit a power back. A guy like Peters is gonna make a business decision in the 1st quarter the same as the 4th. A guy like Breeland is going to try to hit him in the 4th same as the 1st. I just don't buy that they're appreciably less likely to go make a tackle UNLESS, as you've noted and as was demonstrated in that playoff game, they just cannot get off the damn field.

So again, if we're talking about that Titans game, the Chiefs were moving the ball really well in the 1st half - there was no reason at all to change that up. And then they were running the ball in early downs on the first couple of drives in the 2nd half before they got behind the sticks (where it would've made no sense to continue running). You do what you're best at to keep them on the field - you don't just mindlessly plow into them because you think you'll wear them out later.

In the Andy Reid era the Chiefs, even when they had Hunt and Smith, were a FAR more efficient team moving the ball through the air. The value of a good running game is in its simplicity - the ability to just hand a dude the ball when your passing game (which requires far more moving parts/timing) is just out of sync. It isn't in its ability to 'wear defenses down'.

The idea that the guys who get hit by SOMEBODY roughly 50 times/gm are suddenly beat up because they had to tackle the average RB who's rarely coming at them at full speed and who rarely has a size advantage on them is just not supported by facts or logic. And if your CBs are out there making a bunch of tackles on RBs, it gets back to the previous point - your defense is probably just bad against the run and you're in trouble because of THAT, not because they're tired. There are outliers, yes - but they're not common.
[Reply]

Remember the Mahomes comeback in Denver? Chris Harris had to have an IV bc he was so exhausted.

He wore a Fitbit and said he ran about 15 miles bc of Mahomes extending plays.
[Reply]

Exactly! Reid's a great coach but his flaws are concerning since historically, they have killed his super bowl hopes. Like Andy, marty was able to get the most out of subpar talent, moreso on D than O whereas Andy does it moreso on O than D.

I'd have to look back at the games more carefully, but off the top of my head, I'm thinking Marty was more a victim of freak things like fumbles and missed FGs, which means that bad luck killed his super bowl hopes more than his flaws did (but understand that his flaws put him in a position where one freak thing could kill the dream). Freak things have certainly happened to andy (mariota throwing a freaking TD to himself and luck fumbling to himself for a TD), but his flawed game management and playcalling has cost him more in the big games.

I think you can argue either coach is better than the other and it would be a reasonable view. But what we all should really be able to agree on is that each coach is a great coach with deeply-concerning flaws. Andy is both a great coach and a flawed one. It's OK to admit both things.
[Reply]

:-)

Imagine being so clueless that you think Marty is better than Reid.
[Reply]

these same idiots pining for marty think we lost the colts game because of the defense

or the steelers game in '16 postseason
[Reply]