Vick flying under the radar

[Big Score 1]

Considering that they're ranking in the middle of the pack in total offense and points scored consistently, you're wrong.

Again I know that you know better than that.

Bill, you know darn well that heavily run oriented offenses are low scoring, when compared to other offenses.

Yep, the defense was not that good last season and was only decent in '04 WHEN COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE LEAGUE. But they were 6th overall in yds and points allowed in a really bad NFC. The fact that a good-but-not-great Falcons team made it to the '04 NFC Championship Game is more of a reflection of the sad state of the NFC that year than the product of a supposedly "dominant" Falcons offense.

The 2004 team was not quite as bad as you're trying to make out here. They had the AFC West that year and took 3 out of 4, beating a very good San Diego team, a good Denver team and a ho hum Oakland team.

OK, so how many COLLEGE teams run the shotgun option?

QUITE A FEW!!!

Therefore, it's NOT A UNIQUE OFFENSE. Get it now?

Don't be a tool. We're not talking College, we're talking NFL.

[Bill Swerski]

Again I know that you know better than that.

Bill, you know darn well that heavily run oriented offenses are low scoring, when compared to other offenses.

 

You mean like the recent Chiefs, Chargers, and Seahawks teams? Or those late '90s Broncos squads?

 

IIRC, those teams were all in the Top 10 in yds and points AND featured the run. Sorry, but you're incorrect again.

 

The 2004 team was not quite as bad as you're trying to make out here. They had the AFC West that year and took 3 out of 4, beating a very good San Diego team, a good Denver team and a ho hum Oakland team.

 

They would've had trouble making the playoffs in the AFC. I don't think that you remember how truly bad the NFC was in '04. Only FOUR teams had winning records that year. FOUR. On the other hand, NINE AFC teams were above .500 in 2004.

 

All the Falcons had to do was beat the 8-8 Rams to advance to the NFC Championship game that year. The '04 Falcons were a good team, but don't give me this "they were a game away from the Super Bowl" crap. You know damn well how easy that had it that year.

 

Don't be a tool. We're not talking College, we're talking NFL.

 

No, you're talking NFL. I made an accurate statement and you're eating your words now.

Edited September 24, 2006 by Bill Swerski

[Big Score 1]

You mean like the recent Chiefs, Chargers, and Seahawks teams?

Or those late '90s Broncos squads?

 

IIRC, those teams were all in the Top 10 in yds and points AND featured the run. Sorry, but you're incorrect again.

Trent Green threw for over 4,000 yards in 2004 and the Chiefs had the NFL's 4th ranked passing offense.

Drew Brees made the Pro Bowl in 2004 and it wasn't for his scrambling ability.

John Elway, Rod Smith & Easy Ed sound familar to you? Denver's passing game was in the teens for the most part overall and for passing yds were 6th, ypa 5th & TD's 5th.

 

As I said, look at teams that are heavily run oriented, like say the 2005 Steelers.

#1 in the NFL for rushing attempts, while being ranked #32 in the NFL for passing attempts.

Now THAT'S a run oriented team Bill.

They even won the Suuper Bowl.

Where did their offense rank?

They would've had trouble making the playoffs in the AFC. I don't think that you remember how truly bad the NFC was in '04. Only FOUR teams had winning records that year. FOUR. On the other hand, NINE AFC teams were .500 or above in

All the Falcons had to do was beat the 8-8 Rams to advance to the NFC Championship game that year. The '04 Falcons were a good team, but don't give me this "they were a game away from the Super Bowl" crap. You know damn well how easy that had it that year..

Yes Bill, I remember 2004. Regardless of how many NFC teams did or did not have winning records, I do remember the 4 games Atlanta played against AFC teams and they won 3 out of the 4. Trying to say something as esoteric as, "Well if they were in the AFC back in 2004 they would have had trouble making the play offs" is ridiculous. That's impossible to prove one way or the other.

No, you're talking NFL. I made an accurate statement and you're eating your words now.

No, we've BOTH been talking NFL....in the NFL forum.

 

IN THE NFL, THE SHOTGUN OPTION, IS A UNIQUE OFFENSE! Understand? Capish? Comprende?

 

You want to talk College ball, get your big butt over to the College forum slappy.

[Bill Swerski]

Trent Green threw for over 4,000 yards in 2004 and the Chiefs had the NFL's 4th ranked passing offense.

Drew Brees made the Pro Bowl in 2004 and it wasn't for his scrambling ability.

John Elway, Rod Smith & Easy Ed sound familar to you? Denver's passing game was in the teens for the most part overall and for passing yds were 6th, ypa 5th & TD's 5th.

 

As I said, look at teams that are heavily run oriented, like say the 2005 Steelers.

#1 in the NFL for rushing attempts, while being ranked #32 in the NFL for passing attempts.

Now THAT'S a run oriented team Bill.

 

No, that's an offense that played very conservativley during the regular season (they threw the ball A LOT MORE in the playoffs). You don't need to throw the passing game out the window to have a highly-productive, run-oriented offense. The '05 Seahawks and Chiefs are two good examples. If you bothered to look up the numbers, you'd find that Seattle was ranked 7th in rushing attempts and 3rd in rushing yds and that the Chiefs ranked 6th and 4th, respectively. And that doesn't include a QB picking up 500+ rushing yds on broken plays. The vast majority of those were DESIGNED rushing plays.

 

You don't seem to understand that offenses can pass the ball effectively AND still be an elite rushing squad. And guess what? They tend to be more productive offenses than those lead by Ron Mexico.

 

Yes Bill, I remember 2004. Regardless of how many NFC teams did or did not have winning records, I do remember the 4 games Atlanta played against AFC teams and they won 3 out of the 4.

 

Yep, they beat a quality Chargers team, a overrated Broncos defense that got exposed big-time in the playoffs, a Chiefs defense so bad that not even their elite offense could get them to .500, and somehow lost to an absolutely awful Raiders team. In other words, they beat two quality teams and coughed up one of the two "gimme" games. Whoppie! I'm surprised that they didn't just hand over the Lombardi trophy right then.

 

Thankfully for them, the rest of their schedule was cake. If they had actually been able to beat the Lions and Bucs, they would've had a shot at homefield advantage throughout the playoffs.

 

No, we've BOTH been talking NFL....in the NFL forum.

 

IN THE NFL, THE SHOTGUN OPTION, IS A UNIQUE OFFENSE! Understand? Capish? Comprende?

 

I never claimed that it wasn't unique IN THE NFL. You need to work on your reading comprehension. Since you obviously don't remember, let's take a look at what I actually said...

 

Atlanta's offensive scheme isn't that unique and is only as good as its players.

 

 

Do you see me claiming that the shotgun offense "isn't that unique TO THE NFL" in that statement? Nope, neither do I. So, now that we're on the same page...

 

IT'S NOT "UNIQUE" IN GENERAL WHEN THEY'VE BEEN DOING IT IN COLLEGE FOR DECADES. Do pro and college football exist completely independently of each other? Do you think that NFL coaching staffs might watch a college football game every now and then? How many NFL coaches and coordinators do you suppose WERE college coaches at one point?

 

So, do you understand now, or do I have to explain it to you three or four more times?

Edited September 24, 2006 by Bill Swerski

[Scooby]

I drafted Warner and Vick late and starting Vick for the 1st time this week.

[Big Score 1]

No, that's an offense that played very conservativley during the regular season (they threw the ball A LOT MORE in the playoffs). You don't need to throw the passing game out the window to have a highly-productive, run-oriented offense. The '05 Seahawks and Chiefs are two good examples. If you bothered to look up the numbers, you'd find that Seattle was ranked 7th in rushing attempts and 3rd in rushing yds and that the Chiefs ranked 6th and 4th, respectively.

You've got to be kidding me.

 

You're trying to sell me on the Steelers being a sheep in wolf's clothing huh? They realllyyy have a prolific passing offense but choooose to have one of the NFL's most lopsided run to pass ratios just for chits & grins.

 

Sorry Bill, but I'm not buying the BS you're spinning here.

 

Cowher's Steelers are the very definition of a heavily run oriented offense and have been for years you goober.

 

However, you're still missing the original point I brought up and continue veering off track to try and compare dissimilar offenses to Atlanta's offense. I said that probably the best way to rate Atlanta's offense and their points scored, is to put them up against other similar heavily run focused offenses and their points scored. Offenses that are well blended like the ones you keep bringing up, are not similar to Atlanta's offense.

You're comparing Apples & Oranges here buddy.

 

The Steelers 2006 offense & the Ravens 2000 offense are far better comparisons.

Now that's comparing Apples to Apples.

 

You don't seem to understand that offenses can pass the ball effectively AND still be an elite rushing squad. And guess what? They tend to be more productive offenses than those lead by Ron Mexico.

What the heck are you talking about? The point was to look at truly comparable offenses and then measure Atlanta's points scored, against like offenses and the points their offenses scored.

 

You are hung up on comparing dissimilar offenses & using points scored as a measuring stick for effective offenses, and if that's your sole criteria, then yes, Atlanta's offense is indeed middle of the pack. Now don't forget though, Atlanta's three way kicker experiment is. After missing 6 of 8 very makable Field Goals & Atlanta's offense leaving 18 points on the table, the "Blast from the Past", Morten Anderson will take over for 40 yarders & closer.

 

The rather large problem I see with you using the measuring stick of simply points scored being the end all & be all to an effective offense, does not paint the whole picture.

 

The Ravens should never have won the 2000 Super Bowl with their 16th overall ranked offense & 14th in points scored.

The 2002 Bucs shouldn't have won the Super Bowl, with their 24th overall ranked offense & 18th in points scored.

The 2003 Pats shouldn't have won the Super Bowl, with their overall 18th ranked offense & 12th in points scored.

 

Conversely, the Colts, Chiefs & Rams, which by your definition have effective & high powered / high scoring offenses, should've had at least 5 or 6 recent Super Bowls between them.

 

If you want an example of one of an effective high powered & high scoring offenses all you have to do is look at the Houston Oilers from 1990 to 1993. Jack Pardee brought the Mouse Davis Run & Shoot to the NFL and those Oiler teams had NFL rankings of #2, #4, #6 & #4 for points scored.

But just like the Colts & Chiefs, their highly effective and high scoring offense got them jack.

 

On the flip side, there are multiple NFL examples of what to you, is a low scoring & somewhat ineffective offense, being more than capable of winning Super Bowls. It's called a Ball Control offense & when combined with a good D, is a dominant force.

 

Yep, they beat a quality Chargers team, a overrated Broncos defense that got exposed big-time in the playoffs, a Chiefs defense so bad that not even their elite offense could get them to .500, and somehow lost to an absolutely awful Raiders team. In other words, they beat two quality teams and coughed up one of the two "gimme" games. Whoppie! I'm surprised that they didn't just hand over the Lombardi trophy right then.

 

Thankfully for them, the rest of their schedule was cake. If they had actually been able to beat the Lions and Bucs, they would've had a shot at homefield advantage throughout the playoffs.

If you're going to write something in here and you don't know what you're talking about (again) just refer to my previous post where I spelled it out for you. They didn't lose to the Raiders you oaf, it was the Chiefs and the 56 to 10 game where Holmes had 4 rushing TD's in the 1st half & then Blaylock came in and scored another 4 rushing TD's against them. Total collapse by the Falcons on both offense & defense.

Be that as it may, I'm not going to get into a stupid argument with you, over an esoteric set of impossible circumstances, that has no relevancy to this thread and happened two years ago. If you want to keep playing this ridiculous set of what ifs from 2004, you'll have to do it by yourself.

 

I never claimed that it wasn't unique IN THE NFL.

Do you see me claiming that the shotgun offense "isn't that unique TO THE NFL" in that statement? Nope, neither do I.

So, now that we're on the same page...

Took you long enough to get there Bill

& for what it's worth, I don't claim the shotgun offense to be a unique offense to either the NFL or College

 

IT'S NOT "UNIQUE" IN GENERAL WHEN THEY'VE BEEN DOING IT IN COLLEGE FOR DECADES.

You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about here, do you Bill?

 

The Zone Read / Shotgun Option has only been around for 10 years at most, not decades, you freakin' moran.

 

Coach Rich Rodriguez started developing this offense while he was at Glenville St, Tulane, and then Clemson. His finished & polished product of the Zone Read / Shotgun Option, is what he's been running at WVU since he became Head Coach in 2000 & Texas copied it up to use with Vince Young.

 

Greg Knapp has designed about 30 different offensive looks the Falcons can run it from (run or pass plays), so he's taken the Zone Read / Shotgun Option to a whole other level.

 

Get your facts straight, stay on topic and we'll continue this discussion

 

But right now, you're going all over the place, trying to debate impossibly esoteric situations from 2 years ago and putting out A LOT of erroneous information.

[CD6405]

Big Score, don't get too wrapped up in this. He's just mad that Vick has made it as far as Peyton in the playoffs and has to find a way to make him bad.

[Big Score 1]

Big Score, don't get too wrapped up in this. He's just mad that Vick has made it as far as Peyton in the playoffs and has to find a way to make him bad.

 

It's cool CD6405. I enjoy a good debate....note the use of "good debate".

 

It just irks me to no end though, when someone I'm trying to have a decent debate with, flys all over the place, posts inaccurate missinformation like the Zone read / Shotgun Option has been used in College for decades, the Steelers aren't really a run oriented team, they're just conservative, evade specific points relevant to the thread and instead wander off in another direction to focus on largely irrelevant statements etc...etc...etc...

 

Bill is probably one of the worst posters here for that. You try and rein him in and get him back on point, but he always seems to still manage to get off track....as well as posting bad information.

 

I think he might be ADD or something

[Bill Swerski]

You've got to be kidding me.

 

You're trying to sell me on the Steelers being a sheep in wolf's clothing huh? They realllyyy have a prolific passing offense but choooose to have one of the NFL's most lopsided run to pass ratios just for chits & grins.

(blah, blah, blah)

 

The Steelers 2006 offense & the Ravens 2000 offense are far better comparisons.

 

Apparently, you missed those playoff games back in January when Roethlisberger averaged 24 passing attempts, 226 yds per game, and threw 7 TDs. But, hey, why bother with the facts when you're busy defending a bad argument like a raging ret@rd...

 

I'll say it again since you obviously didn't understand the first four times: YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE LAST IN THE LEAGUE IN PASSING TO BE CONSIDERED A HEAVILY RUN-ORIENTED OFFENSE. The '96-'98 Broncos teams consistently ranked in the Top 5 in the league in rushing attempts, depsite having Elway, Sharpe, McCaffrey, and Rod Smith. In 1998, Terrell Davis carried the ball almost 400 times, rushed for over 2,000 yards, and crossed the stripe 21 times on the ground. Only a moran like you would argue that the '98 Broncos were not a heavily run-oriented offense.

 

You are hung up on comparing dissimilar offenses & using points scored as a measuring stick for effective offenses, and if that's your sole criteria, then yes, Atlanta's offense is indeed middle of the pack. Now don't forget though, Atlanta's three way kicker experiment is. After missing 6 of 8 very makable Field Goals & Atlanta's offense leaving 18 points on the table, the "Blast from the Past", Morten Anderson will take over for 40 yarders & closer.

 

I never mentioned Atlanta's 2006 offensive rankings because two games is too small a sample size to draw results from. But as I recall, the Falcons had a reasonably-competent kicker from 2002-2005.

 

The Ravens should never have won the 2000 Super Bowl with their 16th overall ranked offense & 14th in points scored. The 2002 Bucs shouldn't have won the Super Bowl, with their 24th overall ranked offense & 18th in points scored.

The 2003 Pats shouldn't have won the Super Bowl, with their overall 18th ranked offense & 12th in points scored.

But just like the Colts & Chiefs, their highly effective and high scoring offense got them jack.

 

I never said that they "shouldn't have won the Super Bowl." Nice try, though.

 

And when did I ever argue that mediocre and bad defenses win SBs? Now you're just being flat-out dishonest.

 

On the flip side, there are multiple NFL examples of what to you, is a low scoring & somewhat ineffective offense, being more than capable of winning Super Bowls. It's called a Ball Control offense & when combined with a good D, is a dominant force.

 

Well, thanks for the important info there, Sherlock. BTW, how many SBs has Ron Mexico's "Ball Control" offense reaped?

 

If you're going to write something in here and you don't know what you're talking about (again) just refer to my previous post where I spelled it out for you. They didn't lose to the Raiders you oaf,

 

Oops, my bad. Thanks for pointing that out, d0uchebag.

 

The Zone Read / Shotgun Option has only been around for 10 years at most, not decades, you freakin' moran.

 

Similar option offenses out of the shotgun have been around in the college ranks for decades, d0uchebag. Hell, even high schools have used elements of those offenses.

 

Coach Rich Rodriguez started developing this offense while he was at Glenville St, Tulane, and then Clemson. His finished & polished product of the Zone Read / Shotgun Option, is what he's been running at WVU since he became Head Coach in 2000 & Texas copied it up to use with Vince Young.

 

Yes, and Mike Bellotti is currently running a very similar offense with Dennis Dixon at Oregon. Which means that there have been hundreds of hours of film available for opposing defensive coordinators to study. Thanks for proving my point.

 

Greg Knapp has designed about 30 different offensive looks the Falcons can run it from (run or pass plays), so he's taken the Zone Read / Shotgun Option to a whole other level.

 

Andy Reid and Mike Shanahan created their own incarnations of the WCO as well. Yet, they weren't considered "groundbreaking" offenses by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Get your facts straight, stay on topic and we'll continue this discussion

 

If you're willing to admit that the '98 Broncos were a heavily run-oriented offense, we can continue. If not, you obviously don't know what the fu@k you're talking about and really aren't worth talking to.

Edited September 24, 2006 by Bill Swerski

[Big Score 1]

Apparently, you missed those playoff games back in January when Roethlisberger averaged 24 passing attempts, 226 yds per game, and threw 7 TDs. But, hey, why bother with the facts when you're busy defending a bad argument like a raging ret@rd...

 

I'll say it again since you obviously didn't understand the first four times: YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE LAST IN THE LEAGUE IN PASSING TO BE CONSIDERED A HEAVILY RUN-ORIENTED OFFENSE. The '96-'98 Broncos teams consistently ranked in the Top 5 in the league in rushing attempts, depsite having Elway, Sharpe, McCaffrey, and Rod Smith. In 1998, Terrell Davis carried the ball almost 400 times, rushed for over 2,000 yards, and crossed the stripe 21 times on the ground. Only a moran like you would argue that the '98 Broncos were not a heavily run-oriented offense.

I never mentioned Atlanta's 2006 offensive rankings because two games is too small a sample size to draw results from. But as I recall, the Falcons had a reasonably-competent kicker from 2002-2005.

I never said that they "shouldn't have won the Super Bowl." Nice try, though.

 

And when did I ever argue that mediocre and bad defenses win SBs? Now you're just being flat-out dishonest.

Well, thanks for the important info there, Sherlock. BTW, how many SBs has Ron Mexico's "Ball Control" offense reaped?

Oops, my bad. Thanks for pointing that out, d0uchebag.

Similar option offenses out of the shotgun have been around in the college ranks for decades, d0uchebag. Hell, even high schools have used elements of those offenses.

Yes, and Mike Bellotti is currently running a very similar offense with Dennis Dixon at Oregon. Which means that there have been hundreds of hours of film available for opposing defensive coordinators to study. Thanks for proving my point.

Andy Reid and Mike Shanahan created their own incarnations of the WCO as well. Yet, they weren't considered "groundbreaking" offenses by any stretch of the imagination.

If you're willing to admit that the '98 Broncos were a heavily run-oriented offense, we can continue. If not, you obviously don't know what the fu@k you're talking about and really aren't worth talking to.

I can't make heads or tails of that gobbledy goop Bill

 

Are you getting your facts straight & staying on topic this time?

 

Or are you just spouting your normal insult laced garbage?

 

That's your usual SOP when you're looking like a

[Bill Swerski]

I can't make heads or tails of that gobbledy goop Bill

 

Looks like the HTML formatting didn't work out. You'll have to talk to DMD about that.

 

Are you getting your facts straight & staying on topic this time?

 

Yes, as always. I'm also using those facts to blow HUGH holes through your weak arguments.

 

Or are you just spouting your normal insult laced garbage?

 

You mean like calling me a "moran." Geez, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

 

But feel free to spin it whichever way you like. You do a fine job of misrepresenting posts and being intellectually-dishonest whenever you're losing an argument.

 

That's your usual SOP when you're looking like a

 

Speaking of fools, tell me again that the mid- and late-90's Broncos teams weren't heavily run-oriented. That ridiculous argument pretty much tells everyone who the fool is.

 

Have a nice day, clown boy.

[Big Score 1]

Looks like the HTML formatting didn't work out. You'll have to talk to DMD about that.

 

Yes, as always. I'm also using those facts to blow HUGH holes through your weak arguments.

You mean like calling me a "moran." Geez, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

 

But feel free to spin it whichever way you like. You do a fine job of misrepresenting posts and being intellectually-dishonest whenever you're losing an argument.

Speaking of fools, tell me again that the mid- and late-90's Broncos teams weren't heavily run-oriented. That ridiculous argument pretty much tells everyone who the fool is.

 

Have a nice day, clown boy.

 

Yadda, yadda, yadda....followed by....blah, blah, blah

 

See not much has changed with you over the years has it Bill?

 

Once a tool, always a tool.

[Bill Swerski]

Yadda, yadda, yadda....followed by....blah, blah, blah

 

See not much has changed with you over the years has it Bill?

 

Once a tool, always a tool.

 

 

I see that you never addressed my question. How typical.

 

You're as hypocritical and condescending as they come.

[Big Score 1]

I see that you never addressed my question. How typical.

 

You're as hypocritical and condescending as they come.

 

[Chavez]

 

You're as hypocritical and condescending as they come.

 

I don't know about hypocritical, but as far as condescension - "physician, heal thyself"

[Bill Swerski]

 

 

No, please tell us again how the '96-'98 Broncos offenses WEREN'T "heavily run-oriented."

 

LOL at the d0uchebag who makes ridiculous statements and then uses personal attacks to distance himself from them.