Henning/Crossman

Yeah, the question is pretty much rhetorical since no one will have the nerve to say that our '96 defense was "crappy," I'm just pointing out the absurdity of what magnus has been saying. Of course points are far more important than yards, and even when you are discussing yards it's obvious that ranking 13th or so isn't "crappy."

 

So the 1996 defense ranking 12th in yardage allowed doesn't make them "crappy," but the 2004 offense ranking 13th in yardage gained was "crappy" according to you.

Oh, and it's cool that apparently when judging defenses, points are more important than yards. Nice consistency there. Just keep talking, mags, you're doing fine.

 

Yes. They did something exceptionally well. A lot of things, actually. Stopping the pass wasn't one of them, which is why we were good at points, turnovers, and sacks, because we took chances and sometimes failed. Giving up a total of ten TDs was special. There's no real analogy here, but it's a neat recollection.

 

Points are points. The fact that we have a mere 18 takeaways absolutely has an effect on our scoring output (or lack thereof). How much of an effect? It's debatable.

Field position has been a fucking nightmare this season, which speaks as much to our scoring woes more than "Jake sucking" or "Henning being stale."

Little things.

 

Why? You're doing a great job trying to put words into my mouth to argue things that aren't relevant to the point.

One good offense, 13th. It was 5 slots higher in scoring. That's not record-setting. That's decent. I said, as a whole, we've been crappy. Obviously, that's not good enough to argue against, you've gotta invent things I supposedly said. Because you're "winning".

 

How the offense does also affects the points the defense gives up, both in terms of field position and how it influences play-calling by opposing offenses. That's just the nature of the game that everything is interrelated.

The obvious fact is that points are much, much more important than yardage.

 

Wait, so now that offense was "good"? Didn't you already say that our offense was:

I'm confused, magnus. Which is it? Good or crappy?

 

Sherlock, no shit.

Points are all that matter. We don't generate nearly enough takeaways, and we have struggled with FP all year. Why? Many mitigating circumstances, all of which have been (and will be) debated here.

 

Easy tiger. I'm humiliating magnus, no need for you to get riled up.

For the record, though, the lack of turnovers this season is worthy of an entirely different discussion.

 

This defense is clearly not built to carry a team...not that they should have to.

Baltimore had an average offense in 2000, but they moved the chains with Lewis/Holmes. We are below average at this point, and the defense does not have the luxury of watching their offenive cohorts pound the rock, move the chains, and keep them relatively fresh.

It's a problem. Major one.