Henning/Crossman

oll

the awesome thing is that as funny as this is, you're taking this seriously.

 

This is what you should have been focusing on from the beginning. Aside from the year with Mr. Holly Robinson and this year with the Chris Delhomme beast at quarterback, we've been solid on offense. We haven't been spectacular or dominating at any time, which is certainly worth some concern. And as I've said, Henning is not immune from criticism and I'd be fine with upgrading at OC if we can do that.

My point, however, was to show that you were being highly deceptive when you said such nonsense as the offense has been "crappy every year," or that yards are more important than points. Those two things are absurd, and you know them to be absurd. You only said them because you didn't want to admit a mistake and you only ended up digging yourself a deeper and deeper grave. If you could ever just admit your screw-ups when they happen, they wouldn't get dragged out like this and you wouldn't get so thoroughly embarrassed.

 

Several means more than 2. Can you remind me when you proved this to be true more than twice today?

Jenks? C'mon dude...you didn't prove a thing on that. You said to ask any G he's played (which you haven't, and I won't)....I have watched every game, and watched tape on every game (like you, Chief/Tiger)....I know what I have seen: a decent DT who jumps offsides about once a game. But he CAN be dominant.

 

it is amusing. he's not always right, but he fights like hell trying.

 

You disagreed regarding the offense, but then you back-peddled when I pointed out that the 1996 defense only ranked 12th in yardage. You knew at that point that you'd been caught and beaten.

 

And that would be a nice retort, had I been constructing an argument that turnovers = higher yardage ranking.

More takeaways = better FP = more points. That was my point from word one.

 

You said he got knocked on his ass, which you certainly don't have proof of. Meanwhile I have numerous screenshots of Jenkins penetrating into the backfield over multiple games. Do you really want me to post all of them in this thread?

You also said that I "was pimping Brad Johnson as a viable replacement a while ago." I showed that wasn't what I said at all.

Then you said, "Jake is not doing anything worse than he did in 2003." I proved that wrong.

And lastly, you suggested that Jake was struggling on third downs because he was being put in more long yardage situations than normal. I proved you wrong by showing that we've had pretty much the same number of 3rd downs between 3 and 7 yards that we've had each of the last four years.

 

Statistically, the team has been below average on both fronts offensively. I don't know how that's "solid".

Not at all. Which was the point, before you got caught up in trying to "win" to completely escape that point.

I said that, correct. Look at the averages. Of course, you took that and went another direction with it, which you're prone to do to try to "win". Either that, or you just didn't get it, which I doubt.

No. Of course, this is self-serving either way, and which is part of why the whole "truth" thing is so silly. You're trying to lay another trap - "agree with me or you're just lying." Creative, useless, and uninteresting.

 

I never said that wasn't true. What I said was that it's much more sensible to judge a unit by how many points it scores or allows than how many yards it gains or gives up. And that's true.

 

No. And just as with the Weinke example, it's not at all related. It's the "all frogs are toads" argument.