Henning/Crossman

Every year. Average. Crappy. Yes.

I stated, well before crappy, we had one above average, good year. If you were looking to the points, and not being belligerent, you'd have seen that.

 

I don't think the defense has to be flawless every last year hoping the offense gets it right one year.

(yards)

agreed, pending being told what I think otherwise.

 

The lack of takeaways has had a negative effect on our scoring output, just as the abundance of takeaways in 2004/2005 had a positive effect on scoring. Don't play the mind games w/me like you do w/the board, and just be honest enough to admit that it does matter. The topic belongs right in the center of this mess o' a thread....tiger.

 

So the 2004 offense that finished 13th out of 32 teams was "crappy." At the same time you said they were also "good." Crappy is not a synonym for good, magnus.

Also, if the 2004 offense was crappy because it finished 13th in yardage, and yardage is the most important measure of a unit, then that would seem to imply that the 1996 defense which finished 12th in yardage would also be "crappy" according to your definition. But you have said that they weren't crappy, which sure looks inconsistent.

Do you need a time out, magnus?

 

I don't exactly look at it as "yards"....just first downs. Moving the chains. Yes, gaining yards will get you first downs. So yards, I suppose, do matter.

But points matter more. And the difference is usually found in field position and takeaways (both effected negatively/positively by the ability of a defense to get teams of the field)

Like someone said, it all intertwines.

 

yes. Undoubtedly, being able to get the ball in opponent territory, or drive 30 yards to get into FG position because of good defense and average punt returning, is a good way to pump scoring. It's a factor, a major one.

It's part of how this team's built, undoubtedly. Field position, defense, running, making plays. Sometimes we make the plays, and if we don't, we better be able to run. When we can't do either, apparently we're just screwed.

speaking again to points, out of ten units - five years of passing and rushing - we've been above average in three of those units, two of them passing. The one rushing was Davis falling forward.

 

one things for sure, this year's offense is

 

It certainly does, but over the course of the season we're talking about less than three points of difference per game. It's not the huge factor you seem to be thinking. Meanwhile you're forgetting that those same turnovers would actually limit the yardage totals since there is less distance to cover.

Chief, I think someone hijacked your account because you normally post with a great deal more intelligence than you have today, and because you don't seem to remember who you're talking to. I already showed you didn't know what you were talking about several times today, so let's not pretend that you're somehow above getting exposed.

 

Undoubtedly they matter. First downs, time of posession. Things in this team's mission statement. That we rarely achieve consistently.

To evaluate the units? I disagree. Of course, the averages are below par for both over time.

 

Not at all. Do you?
Can you make a point based on things this offense actually did or didn't accomplish? Or do you have to extrapolate some silly point about the 1931 Cardinals to try to trap me into something irrelevant?