Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2008 20:02:12 GMT -5
He's off crunching numbers and doing all sorts of other shit with data...cuz he's a gamer.
|
|
|
Post by Energy Vampire on Jul 10, 2008 21:43:11 GMT -5
lol hoss cracks me up. Because i said "if we run, we'll win, hands down"
this team obliterated us...but its not the 4 picks in only 30 attempts, its definitely the RUNNING GAME that hurt us.
The run game hurt us less than the pass game. Of course you'll never admit that because its easier to fool yourself into believe you somehow proved me wrong in this game.
The run game still outperformed the pass game, period. Also: the qb's sacks added to that negative rushing, and of course the out of position FB hurt it even more, but it was worth a shot.
But yeah...-.9 a carry with 1 fumble (not lost) is definitely worse than 100 or so yards passing, - 20 or so yards rushing, and 4 picks which turned into TDs...you're a brilliant football mind hoss
i "lol" at your bitterness
|
|
|
Post by Energy Vampire on Jul 10, 2008 21:44:54 GMT -5
He's off crunching numbers and doing all sorts of other shit with data...cuz he's a gamer. i was out shopping for a new car actually, so i kinda was crunching numbers, just nothing to do with gaming. Meanwhile hoss was here having orgasms over a game he doesn't really care about. rednecks, i love em
|
|
|
Post by HuffNfeffeR on Jul 11, 2008 5:37:03 GMT -5
I just thought it was funny there Chip.
|
|
|
Post by Energy Vampire on Jul 11, 2008 6:12:35 GMT -5
thought what was funny? that the running game once again outperformed the passing game?
|
|
|
Post by HuffNfeffeR on Jul 11, 2008 6:19:22 GMT -5
I suppose it is all in how you define "outperform".
|
|
|
Post by Energy Vampire on Jul 11, 2008 6:34:21 GMT -5
i suppose if you define it incorrectly it might change things. But anyone who thinks the QBs numbers helped the team more than the RBs numbers is not someone worth talking to, since obviously they aren't very good at the concept of football.
|
|
|
Post by Kenneth on Jul 11, 2008 8:27:22 GMT -5
I don't see how it's that hard to see that both the running and passing games performed horribly. I really don't see the point in trying to argue that a running game that had negative yards "outperformed" anything, or vice versa. They were both complete shit.
|
|
|
Post by wvudale on Jul 11, 2008 9:23:45 GMT -5
I don't see how it's that hard to see that both the running and passing games performed horribly. I really don't see the point in trying to argue that a running game that had negative yards "outperformed" anything, or vice versa. They were both complete shit. But.......that would end the circle of my idea is better than your idea....we can't let that happen.
|
|
|
Post by Energy Vampire on Jul 11, 2008 9:53:40 GMT -5
both were shit...you didn't see me on here pounding my chest and saying "haha look at the dominance of the run game"
but hoss's argument this entire time has been "do more of what hurts you less"
its obvious that running hurt us less that game.
So i'm seeing if he'll admit he was wrong before, or admit he's wrong now...its gotta be one or the other
|
|
|
Post by Kenneth on Jul 11, 2008 12:59:43 GMT -5
its obvious that running hurt us less that game. I'm not really sure where you're getting that. The running game had negative yards. The passing game had 100 yards, four picks, and some sacks. How is one of those obviously worse than the other? I just don't don't understand how you could possibly think there is some objective way to compare those two statlines and arrive at a valid opinion on one of them being better than the other for this particular game.
|
|
|
Post by Energy Vampire on Jul 11, 2008 15:44:37 GMT -5
premise a)
We would not have won this game regardless of passing more or running more, both would have led toa loss
premise b (or the hoss premise): you have to do the thing that hurts you least, the most.
premise c) turnovers that lead to points for the opponent are a commonly tracked stat for football, and shows an indicator for your passing game "hurting more than helping"
premise d) 2 of our 4 interceptions not only ceased drives early, but led to 7 points for the other team
premise e) the qb scored 0 td's through the passing game
premise f) while the RB tandum (which included 66% out of position players) had negative yardage, they never turned the ball over, leading to easy scores for the other team.
g) since neither the pass game or the run game scored points, and only the pass game can directly be linked to handing points to the other team, even though both sucked pretty bad, the running game sucked far less.
h) if the running game sucks far less than the pass game, it should be utilized more than the pass game
Therefore: we need to run more (not more than we are already mind you, even though the theory would indicate that, but 60/40 or 65/35 is probably enough)
|
|
|
Post by HuffNfeffeR on Jul 11, 2008 15:51:55 GMT -5
GLB is the greatest thing that ever happened in the history of VBL 1 or 2. God Bless the GLB and this (these) thread(s). My life would be incomplete without them. I have honest to god laughed more over the last few weeks than ever.
|
|
|
Post by HuffNfeffeR on Jul 11, 2008 16:05:48 GMT -5
Whoa...slow down there Chip...
I laugh often loudly at your stupidity...
This proves how little you know about this game. I have figured it out. You not only don't know anything about sports, but you also know nothing about reading. Clearly statistics are out of your realm of reality.
There were four picks...you got that right. But only 2 of them turned into TDs.
But let me count how many times the brilliant rushing game screwed us...
lets see...on the first possession, we(Brock) rushed once for negative yards, then passed for 10.5 yards, then (broke) rushed for negative yards again...killing an 11 yard game...we punt...TD.
OK that one got us.
Still in the second QTR, two rushes, one missed pass, punt...TD
That would be two.
3rd QTR Rush right 2.5, Rush middle -1.5, pass complete 7 yards, PUNT...FG!
Three
Next offensive series...Rush right -.5, rush middle -2, pass complete 6.5, punt...FG!
Four
Next offensive series...Rush middle .5, Rush right 3, incomplete pass, Punt...TD!
Five...
I quit.
At least if your are going to talk shit...read the outcome.
Oh and I ain't admitting shit - ever.
|
|
|
Post by Kenneth on Jul 11, 2008 16:52:58 GMT -5
The interceptions five the other team good field position that often results in easier scores, but at least the passing game occasionally does something positive. Yeah, we threw four picks, but we also had positive 100 yards. We didn't fumble, but we had negative yards. I still don't think that your explanation makes it anywhere close to "obvious" that the running game performed better than the passing game.
Your premise for that claim is that gaining 100 yards and turning it over four times is necessarily worse than gaining negative yards and turning it over zero times. The only real difference is that when we throw interceptions, the other team gets the ball with better field position. When we weren't throwing interceptions, though, we were occasionally gaining yardage. With the running game, we were always giving the ball away every single time. So again I don't see how one of these is clearly better than the other. They're both horrible, and I see the difference between the two as being negligible.
|
|
|
Post by Energy Vampire on Jul 11, 2008 17:51:46 GMT -5
Oh and I ain't admitting shit - ever. that's cause you're a dumb redneck, typical backwoods WVian. You really want me to count the number of drives that the pass didn't get us first downs either? shut the fuck up hillbilly How about in past games all the 3 and out pass drives? dumb redneck, go chug some Milwaukee's best in your pickup truck and complain about gas prices or something
|
|
|
Post by Energy Vampire on Jul 11, 2008 17:58:06 GMT -5
The interceptions five the other team good field position that often results in easier scores, but at least the passing game occasionally does something positive. Yeah, we threw four picks, but we also had positive 100 yards. We didn't fumble, but we had negative yards. I still don't think that your explanation makes it anywhere close to "obvious" that the running game performed better than the passing game. Your premise for that claim is that gaining 100 yards and turning it over four times is necessarily worse than gaining negative yards and turning it over zero times. The only real difference is that when we throw interceptions, the other team gets the ball with better field position. When we weren't throwing interceptions, though, we were occasionally gaining yardage. With the running game, we were always giving the ball away every single time. So again I don't see how one of these is clearly better than the other. They're both horrible, and I see the difference between the two as being negligible. Ask someone on the street the following question about football, don't tell them its a videogame. "Obviously both suck, but tell me...which one sucks less: A QB that gains 100 yards on 30 attempts, completing about 17. Gets sacked twice for a total of -10 yards, and throws 4 interceptions, 2 of which lead to TDs for the opponent. Or One of the running backs carried the ball 7 times and ended up with -1 yards rushing. Fumbled, but did not turn the ball over once (OL recovered) If you honestly think 99% of people aren't going to say teh QB sucked more, you are just in denial. I asked 6 people in my office today, without them knowing which side i was on, and that it was a game...for all they knew it was a pure hypothetical or a NFL game or something, they all said "better run the ball more" Ona side note: rats, knowing we had an oline in at FB...why did you leave the FB runs on at all? just asking, not criticism
|
|
|
Post by Energy Vampire on Jul 11, 2008 17:59:14 GMT -5
Whoa...slow down there Chip... I laugh often loudly at your stupidity... This proves how little you know about this game. I have figured it out. You not only don't know anything about sports, but you also know nothing about reading. Clearly statistics are out of your realm of reality. There were four picks...you got that right. But only 2 of them turned into TDs. But let me count how many times the brilliant rushing game screwed us... lets see...on the first possession, we(Brock) rushed once for negative yards, then passed for 10.5 yards, then (broke) rushed for negative yards again...killing an 11 yard game...we punt...TD. OK that one got us. Still in the second QTR, two rushes, one missed pass, punt...TD That would be two. 3rd QTR Rush right 2.5, Rush middle -1.5, pass complete 7 yards, PUNT...FG! Three Next offensive series...Rush right -.5, rush middle -2, pass complete 6.5, punt...FG! Four Next offensive series...Rush middle .5, Rush right 3, incomplete pass, Punt...TD! Five... I quit. At least if your are going to talk shit...read the outcome. Oh and I ain't admitting shit - ever. Also hoss, you wanna go back through and see which of those series was brock with those carries? also, i like #4 the best...the running game gained 2.5 yards, the qb gained 0...yet you seem to think the passing game wins that one too? lol moron
|
|
|
Post by wvudale on Jul 11, 2008 18:32:52 GMT -5
Decaf.
|
|
|
Post by HuffNfeffeR on Jul 11, 2008 20:25:00 GMT -5
OK, your right there Chip...take that one out.
I guess I will admit it. The run game is better. If we started on the 20 and played out our rushing game we wouldn't have fiven up a safety...because we would have only went backwards to the 1.
|
|
|
Post by HuffNfeffeR on Jul 11, 2008 20:29:16 GMT -5
And I drink nothing but the best...I am high fuckin class...Jim Bean for me and Hank Jr.
|
|
|
Post by wvudale on Jul 11, 2008 20:37:09 GMT -5
HilllllBilllly!
|
|
|
Post by HuffNfeffeR on Jul 11, 2008 21:10:21 GMT -5
I think what kill him is that Chip knows how much better it would have been with Jimmy Dolin.
I dont know what you are getting at...because, I went through and Brock had two carries with positive yardage. One went for 1/2 yard and one went for 3 yards.
|
|
|
Post by Energy Vampire on Jul 11, 2008 21:18:20 GMT -5
right, i'm saying the bulk of the negative yardage came from name redacted and the lineman playing fullback.
Brock was barely in the negatives... at -1 yards rushing. Yes it sucked, but -1 is hardly throwing us back at getting a safety.
can't you just quit trying to be against me for the sake of it, and admit with you own "do more of the thing that hurts us least" its the run game? I mean good god. Despite what you guys try to warp it to, i've never pushed for 100% carries for brock, i've never pushed for 70% or greater rushing. The pass game is abyssmal. Hopefully out new OC won't fuck with it much and we'll get a chance to see a run game in which the starter ges more than 7 carries (same as the backup out of position FB...which was worth a shot btw, but obviously was a fail)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2008 21:31:29 GMT -5
So now we are back to the "Brock is best" argument?
I thought a few posts ago you were talking about not caring who got the carries, we just needed to run more.
Get over it...really.
|
|
|
Post by Energy Vampire on Jul 11, 2008 21:46:19 GMT -5
...mown if you can't see a diffence in "my hb is better than your hb" and "my hb's success shouldn't be lumped in witht eh success of 2 out of position players" i don't even know where to begin.
A fb is one thing, but an olinemen got carries too. I'm just saying don't use "all backs" when 66% of the backs aren't even HBs its not a fair comparison
|
|
|
Post by Energy Vampire on Jul 12, 2008 7:14:59 GMT -5
boy that passing game looked sharp today
lol
|
|
|
Post by Energy Vampire on Jul 12, 2008 7:30:20 GMT -5
and matt, may i make a humble suggestion:
on your guard, you have spread your equipment around a lot. Obviously we all know there is a soft cap at 48 in a stat that makes them cost 2 per. So the static gain you get from equipment is more "valuable" when tacked on stats you already have soft capped. It seems you have spread yours to all kinds of lower stats, and I think your guy would be vastly improved if you switched your equipment to all focus on your highest stat, and used your training/leveling points to boost the stuff you feel needs to catch up
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2008 9:56:30 GMT -5
Jerome played some offense, huh?
Also--our QB sucks. We need a new one to fully implement the passing game.
|
|
|
Post by Energy Vampire on Jul 12, 2008 10:48:13 GMT -5
i've tried to improve the QBa couple tiems via trades, but has nothing really good to trade. THe value of a custom equipment/boosting QB is pretty good. We don't want one a few levels higher that doesn't boost or use custom though.
You can joke how you want since its mine and I know that's the motivation, but please tell me if you see something with his build that isn't good as a pocket QB....because everyone on GLB forums seems to think its a great build with a shitty group of receivers/line but i'm open to suggestions
|
|