Henning/Crossman

This is statistically proven. It's been in the top third of the league how many times? 0. It's sniffed it a couple times and that's really not good enough. Our running game hasn't been good enough. Our passing game has only occasionally been good enough. We're not producing enough.

In points. Not yards. Again, a team like this is going to have a small advantage in points, but we've been below average in yards almost the entire time. That's just not good enough.

 

Even if we look at yards, 16th and 13th equals "crappy"? You have seriously lost your mind. I remember a time when it used to be difficult to beat you in an argument because you wouldn't lie blatantly or say things so mind-bogglingly dumb.

I need a new challenger, seriously. Calling all contenders, I need someone more capable of matching me in an argument so report to the front desk.

Yeah, points. You know, the things that actually determine who wins and who loses a particular game. You know, the things you criticized Weinke for not producing in that record-setting yardage performance. Remember? You downplayed the importance of yardage and talked about the scoreboard, but now you want to pretend that the yardage is what's important. So what's the truth? Are we judging the offense by points or did Weinke actually have the best performance in this team's history?

 

On average, this offense has been crappy. Mediocre. Uneventful.
When that's the "best" that this offense has to offer? Fuck yes. Those were the pinnacle of this offense and they still don't suggest anything exceptional at all.

Sure, points define a team. Yards define offenses and defenses. But sure, let's use your criteria - we've been in the top third of the league once. In five years.

Because it was in trash time. You know that just as well as I do. "Record setting performance"?
And sure, Weinke needs to produce yards when the game actually matters. Is it actually a tactic to be really sensitive about Weinke, or is it just a weakness?

 

So which is the more important measure of an offense and the offensive players, magnus? Is it yardage or points?

 

Points, obviously, but Im glad most of us agree on one thing. Crossman needs to go. WHat has also hurt the offense this year is the terrible fucking FP we've suffered through this year. Its hurt the defense as well.

Honestly, the critical firings IMO, are Crossman and Sunseri. BUt since two of our DL made it to the Pro Bowl, Sun stays. Fuck that. Flajole might go, Maser might go, and I would be very happy to see a new direction for the offense, without Henning.

 

it's yardage, in a season. If a team spends its entire year behind and throwing, then yards are meaningless. I can't believe you're equating Weinke's performance in a blowout loss to an entire tenure as a coach.

Unless you need the argument to be something else. Other than the far, far extremes like the 2000 Ravens/Titans defense argument or the milestones set by the Colts, how often do you see teams' units rated by points, and not yards? How many times this year have I posted an opponent's offense and defense, in yards?

Evaluate them by points only, if it makes your argument better. We're still barely above average at best in that criteria, with a much higher ranked defense, special teams, and turnover ratio over that time.

 

I have to give you credit, I underestimated you again. I actually didn't think you'd say something so obviously untrue just to avoid admitting that you made a mistake. Yards are more important than points - holy shit, heh.

 

Mags' point on turnovers and points was true (and obvious).

 

So were my points about:

1) a run-heavy offense will produce significantly fewer yards on average than a pass-heavy offense.

2) magnus dismissing Weinke's performance because the record-setting yardage total was largely meaningless to the outcome of the game.

3) NFL games are won and lost based on scoring more points than the opposition, not gaining more yards than they do.

 

Philisophically, a change would be welcome (from my perspective).