What to look out for against the Saints.

[Art]

Madd,

Largely, I have no idea what you're saying here.

The system worked in the opener on offense and I don't think Ramsey played. Players played better and ran their routes better and the game clicked better. They did that less capably in a couple of losses. The defensive players admit that many of the glaring errors they were making in the first three games were corrected some and there weren't as many mistakes as there were in the first three and for that you saw some improvement. Trotter even said if it wasn't for the mistakes we did make, we could have held them to 20 yards rushing, which says, they know if they play within the scheme without mistake, it'll help carry them.

The eternal debate of whether it's the players or the coaches isn't even one you appear to be making. The effort level of the players is fine. But, look over the first half of the Titans game for me and tell me something. When you watch Lavar, tell me if he doesn't look slow and unsure. When he moves after the QB, he's moving in slow motion. Then, watch the second half. He looks shot of or a cannon on a few plays. He didn't change his effort. He changed his comfort. He grew more and more sure of himself and he got over a mental hump that kept him wondering what he should be doing and he just started doing it.

He didn't record many stats, but, in the second half, he pressured McNair into making mistakes and throwing earlier than he wanted and keeping him from running. The light did go off for him. In the opening game, Smoot wouldn't have been where he was to make the INT. He'd have been playing zone thinking he had over the top help and that first INT would have been a TD. The fact that the players have said they have gotten more and more comfortable in the scheme carries a lot more weight with me than you saying they haven't.

If all that mattered was individual players stepping up we wouldn't be hearing quotes like Lewis saying all he wanted was his guys to stop blowing their assignments, or, quotes like, "I think that week off definitely helped us," Trotter said. "It allowed us to work on some little things, going back to the drawing board and looking at some old film and making some corrections that we wouldn't normally be able to make. . . . We knew we had a lot of talent, but we weren't doing anything with it. . . . It's finally starting to come together, guys knowing where to be, guys doing their jobs. We still have a lot of corrections to make. If we didn't make as many mistakes as we did, they might have only had 20 [rushing] yards."

Or Bailey saying, "I just think we did the same things better," Bailey said (of the second half shutout). "It was obvious we were in the wrong places a lot [in previous games]. But a lot of guys stepped up and didn't make a lot of mistakes in this game. We're getting more comfortable with what we're doing."

Or Gardener saying, "When you lose, there's going to be tension," Gardener said. "The coaches expect us to play at a certain level, and play at the Pro Bowl caliber we're supposed to be playing at. We're not playing at that level yet. But when it does come together, watch out. We're all accepting this defense now. A lot of us came from just simple defenses. We're all going to get a degree in this one. We're all going to have to buy into the program and get it done."

Players seem to think they played within the scheme more effectively and with fewer mistakes. To me, that repairs many of the holes you feel you've punched .

[yank]

Wait just a sec on the Marty Ball in DC vs the Marty Ball in SD thing. The Chargers are absolutely NOT running the same system that Marty/Jimmy Raye did with the Skins last year. They have Cam Cameron running Norv's system that the Chargers ran the year before. So they're in their second year with their offense.

Ladanian Tomlinson is leading the league in rushing first downs and is averaging 4.8 yards a pop. Brees is averaging 60 percent completions. They looked like the old Marty Ball in their wins because their run D i(including the Pats) s suspect and they flat out couldnt stop LT. They were ahead and were able to run the ball. Who wouldnt? Reminded me of Gibbs with Riggo and Norv with SD and nobody would confuse Gibbs or Norv with Marty ball. When they got behind against Denver they did look exactly like the Skins last year.

The Chargers D is definitely starting out better than the Skins D last year. However, Kurt Schottenheimer made a big change after getting smacked around at the beginning with how he used Lavar. The 10th ranked D ensued.

So the theory that it doesn't take much to change coaches is not supported by a blanket comparison between the Skins early record last year and the Chargers this year.

[Art]

Yank.

Agreed. We know Marty has Cam calling his plays in San Diego. That alone would have kept him employed in Washington. Essentially, Marty came to D.C. and removed a successful offensive and defensive system -- with the offensive scheme being the same one he's running now -- and replaced them with something no one on the roster had ever done. No one on the roster had ever played predominate zone coverage on defense. No one on the offense had ever been in the WCO. He brought in a few guys, as Spurrier did, but, whether the guys we had could run the WCO or not, the offense was so completely unimaginative that we were hopeless.

In San Diego, Marty has left the offensive system in place, and done little to change the fundamental type of defense they have run pretty well. If Marty had done the things here that he did there, he'd still be here and we'd be happy about it. .

[MRMADD]

Guys, be really careful about the Chargers "comfort" level. They've won one real game. They're not that good. Tomlinson is, Brees will be, but as a team, they're not there yet.

<<The eternal debate of whether it's the players or the coaches isn't even one you appear to be making. The effort level of the players is fine. But, look over the first half of the Titans game for me and tell me something. When you watch Lavar, tell me if he doesn't look slow and unsure. When he moves after the QB, he's moving in slow motion. Then, watch the second half. He looks shot of or a cannon on a few plays. He didn't change his effort. He changed his comfort. He grew more and more sure of himself and he got over a mental hump that kept him wondering what he should be doing and he just started doing it. >> Art

Funny... at first you said it takes 10 games to get "comfortable". Now you're saying Lavar got comfortable at halftime. Hmm... is that comfort with the scheme, or just individual effort? You're making some pseudo-psychological argument about his "mental hump" (I'll let that one go...), but you haven't been inside his head, have you?

<<Players seem to think they played within the scheme more effectively and with fewer mistakes. To me, that repairs many of the holes you feel you've punched .>> Art

Not even close. You seem to buy their excuses hook, line, and sinker. Just because the Washington Post prints it doesn't mean it's true. Often, the opposite is true. What did you expect them to say?

You say that missed tackles are solely the result of not understanding the scheme. Well, go back and watch Owens TD. That had NOTHING to do with the scheme. Plenty of players were in position to make the tackle, and they didn't. On Sunday, suddenly guys remembered how to tackle (well, maybe not Champ).

Let me explain this so a child could understand it: If you look back, usually teams with new coaches struggle. Many people blame the adjustment to a new scheme. What this totally ignores is the fact that teams with new coaches usually SUCKED the year before, resulting in a new coach being hired. Very few successful teams installed new offenses. Did the Rams falter when Martz took over?

So you seem to think that the Chargers, who were 5-11 last year, benefited from keeping their offense and defense intact, but the Jets, who were 10-6 last year, did not. Can you explain why? Your little theory is pretty short on evidence.

The Skins, who were 8-8 but finished strong, have the same record as the Chargers from this standpoint: both teams have beaten bad teams and lost to good teams (with one exception). The Chargers have only beaten Cincy, Houston, Arizona, and New England. New England was impressive, but the rest were not. If we'd had the same schedule, we'd at least be 3-1. Would you be complaining about the scheme then?

Get back to patching your holes.

[Art]

Madd, reply within.

"Guys, be really careful about the Chargers "comfort" level. They've won one real game. They're not that good. Tomlinson is, Brees will be, but as a team, they're not there yet."

Agreed. The Chargers will have some rough games and probably won't finish better than 8-8.

"Funny... at first you said it takes 10 games to get "comfortable". Now you're saying Lavar got comfortable at halftime. Hmm... is that comfort with the scheme, or just individual effort? You're making some pseudo-psychological argument about his "mental hump" (I'll let that one go...), but you haven't been inside his head, have you?"

Perhaps you missed the part where I said 10 games is kind of an arbitrary number. You certainly seemed to miss where I said in, "if you put this game in Week 10 or so, when you'd imagine the Redskins would be comfortable." You see the wording there Madd? It can be 10. It can be today. It can be 16 games. It could be never. Whatever point you'd imagine it may come together, you should feel free to weigh. Players say it takes a year to really get a system down. My guess is we'll start to perform consistently well within the scheme by the later part of this year, but, we won't have it down for at least that long, and perhaps longer.

But, while I haven't been inside Lavar's head, I have read Lavar's words. He said the guys got a lot more comfortable within the scheme. Smoot said it. The players didn't just uniformly decide to get it. My guess is Smoot's INT sparked it on that side of the ball. Football is a game of momentum and once we got on a roll, things started to flow better and we looked more and more comfortable everywhere. In the second half of the game Patrick Ramsey was taken to the ground on one throw -- that the delayed safety blitz. He was touched on one other throw -- that a six-yard or so completion to Doering on a third down with us ahead 24-10.

The offensive line didn't just start to get a better feel for each other. They didn't just start to increase their intensity. If it's not there early it's not going to get better as the game wears on. As a team, the players started to just play. They stopped thinking so much, and started being confident within their assignments and they just played well for a while.

You seem to want to explain it as some sort of switch the players all turned on at the half. You'd be a rich man if you could tap that switch. Personally, I'll just continue listening to what the team is telling me about what they did.

"Not even close. You seem to buy their excuses hook, line, and sinker. Just because the Washington Post prints it doesn't mean it's true. Often, the opposite is true. What did you expect them to say?"

I see. So, here we largely agree on the premise that things could and should be better right now than they've been. But, so desperate you are to be contrary you've decided to come up with the theory, and actually write it for us to marvel at your imagination, that the players have gotten together in mass to create a story to tell the public, hiding the real reasons they feel they are playing better, for some other reasons, of which you'd have me believe would be just individual effort.

Curious. Why not just tell us that? Why go to the lengths of hiding the truth behind a uniform message of working through the problems they've had with assignments and playing where they are supposed to be playing as the reason? Let me know, because, it now appears you are taking a trip inside their heads, since their mouths don't seem to jibe with whatever reality you've created.

All I can do is comment on what is clear to them and to me based on what they indicate is clear to them. You are much bigger brained and are able to see beneath the words and find the real meaning. You should be saluted.

"You say that missed tackles are solely the result of not understanding the scheme. Well, go back and watch Owens TD. That had NOTHING to do with the scheme. Plenty of players were in position to make the tackle, and they didn't. On Sunday, suddenly guys remembered how to tackle (well, maybe not Champ)."

No, Madd, I've never said missed tackles are solely the result of not understanding the scheme. I've said that missed tackles happen to everyone. They can happen even when you are thoroughly comfortable with the scheme. I even went about explaining to you that Ray Lewis once missed double digit tackles against us int he Ravens Super Bowl year. There's no question that missed tackles happen for any number of reasons.

It is clear though from listening to the players and the coaching staff that the players have not been in the proper position on many plays. This leads them to have to make tackles in positions that don't favor them on many plays leading to breakdowns in the fundamentals. Trotter spoke to this. He even spoke to the fact that his game has always been blowing up holes in the hole or the backfield. Taking on blockers right at the line of scrimmage.

He spoke about seeing himself on film late to fill. Did he suddenly forget how to run to his hole? Or is he lying when he says that he's been thinking about his assignment and finds himself meeting the blocker later than the play requires, which means if the other people are doing their job, suddenly they are out of position to make the sure tackle, and have to dive to make the saving one.

While I've never suggested it is solely the scheme and the players being confused within it, you seem to reject the concept that the players may actually know what they are talking about and that not being where they are supposed to be also contributes to poor tackling.

Stephen Davis was wide open in the end zone on a pass from Lockett this past week. Did the safety, Williams, suddenly forget how to cover, or, did he react poorly to the action of the play vacating his responsibility and allowing an easy score? And, if he said, as he did, that it was his fault and that he left his area of responsibility, would he be lying too, to cover for some lack of effort, which is essentially what you are arguing the Redskins are doing to the man.

"Let me explain this so a child could understand it: If you look back, usually teams with new coaches struggle. Many people blame the adjustment to a new scheme. What this totally ignores is the fact that teams with new coaches usually SUCKED the year before, resulting in a new coach being hired. Very few successful teams installed new offenses. Did the Rams falter when Martz took over?"

If you are going to explain things the way a child can understand, I would recommend you do a couple of things. First, don't be so elementary that you embarrass yourself with comments like, "Did the Rams falter when Martz took over?" See, I can't grasp what you are saying, because, Martz took over the same team he coached the year before and he didn't touch the offense at all. He did touch the defense and it was No. 30 in football. They certainly faltered as compared to the year before.

Second, there are always examples of anything. You can prove an elephant can hang off a cliff with only his tail wrapped around a daisy if you wanted to argue theoretical physics. So, a child can't understand the distinction in any given situation that may allow for success, or may be the cause of struggle in situations like ours. San Diego isn't a situation like ours. Carolina is. Why are they better now, and we worse now than we each were to end last year? I understand it. I have explained it to you. So have your players. I'd listen to them, because, even a child can understand it.

"So you seem to think that the Chargers, who were 5-11 last year, benefited from keeping their offense and defense intact, but the Jets, who were 10-6 last year, did not. Can you explain why? Your little theory is pretty short on evidence."

Huh? Are you actually comparing the situations with the Jets and the Chargers? I have no idea why teams win games one year and lose them the following. I know there are many reasons. From strength of schedule, to injuries, to simply not playing well, which can lead to pressing to make plays, which makes you miss them and the situation crumbles.

But, as this has absolutely nothing to do with my theory or the words of our players, I have a hard time grasping your reasons for bringing it up. Why the Pats go from 5-11 to the Super Bowl or why the Rams go from the Super Bowl to 0-5 has absolutely nothing in common with the situation in Washington where the coaching staff was almost totally turned over and the systems were entirely changed. You keep coming around to the Chargers as some sort of eureka for any contrary point. I can't help you if you see how off base your end-all point is.

Especially since the REASON you keep talking about the Chargers being successful to this point is because you want to show that teams can change coaches and get better, and since we both agree completely on that, you keep making a point that doesn't change the fact that teams also can get worse. At least for a while.

"The Skins, who were 8-8 but finished strong, have the same record as the Chargers from this standpoint: both teams have beaten bad teams and lost to good teams (with one exception). The Chargers have only beaten Cincy, Houston, Arizona, and New England. New England was impressive, but the rest were not. If we'd had the same schedule, we'd at least be 3-1. Would you be complaining about the scheme then?

Get back to patching your holes."

This is almost a good point Madd. But, unfortunately for you I'm not complaining about the scheme. The players are. Well, the players were until at least one of them decided to undercut Lavar, and then it stopped and became more of a tone of, "We just have to do our jobs." I can live with that tone.

Pointing out that given the task we've undertaken to learn a new system that is very different and more complex than our guys are used to on either side of the ball we should not expect our guys to be performing at the level they should be able to perform at later in the year isn't a complaint. It's a statement of fact supported by people much more intelligent than you or me about football. The players.

But, at 3-1, you can be sure if we looked like we didn't know what the hell we were doing half of the time, I'd be pointing out, "Just wait until we get things down." The reason I picked 9-7 for this team is because I didn't feel we'd play as a unit early enough to accomplish much more. With our defensive talent in this system for a year, and no other changes made to the roster, I'd pick 12-4 or better. You seem to think they should be at peak efficiency already.

Hey, I'd love that to be so. I see that it's not and keep listening to the players to let me know why. See. Holes patched.

[Potato Sack]

Originally posted by Dirk Diggler

This past Sunday, I had one eye on the SKins and one eye on the Steelers/Saints game with this upcoming contest in mind.

The Steelers were gashing the Saints run defense by running off tackle plays, speed draws, and short pitch plays - designed to get the RB past the overpursuing end. I'm telling you, the Saints are only concerned about sacks and can be gutted if you are patient. They try to get out to big leads because they know how weak they are up front at stopping the run. Well, what team doesn't try to get out to big leads?

The point is that they are very suseptible on defense and if they can't just tee off on poor old Patrick - they are in trouble.

In that case, our O-line will have to DEFINITELY step up all game! Yomar mentioned Davis being a critical link to this game. I'm thinking the critical link would have to be our Offensive Line. If they can keep the pressure from getting to Ramsey, he's going to light it up.

The other side of the coin is our defense. They've GOT to pin Brooks in and bring pressure as well. We're going to have to see more blitzing packages than we have in the past 4 games.

This is going to be a close one, but we'll WIN! HTTR!!

[Tramp]

The key to this game for the 'Skins will be rushing. In the past three games, the Saints "D" line has given up more than their previous average in rushing yards and has made opposing RB's look good by contrast. But the way they continue to win anyway is by diversification. The formula isn't Brooks to Duece....or Brooks to Donte', they actually have a variety of weapons and utilize their game plan effectively. How else could they come back from 20 points back at Chicago, and then almost come back the next week from another 20 point deficit?

Their offensive line work has been superior, and they have a rookie ( not, no Stallworth , but LeCharles Bentley ) that almost looks Pro Bowl worthy. The key to the New Orleans offense is variety, not strength. Brooks isn't the fastest ( his cousin is ) and Duece isn't the biggest ( compared to Ricky Williams ), but they have a stockpile of weapons at their disposal ( Sloan, Boo Williams, Jake Reed, Jerome Pathon, Joe Horn ). Bailey and Smoot are among the best, but they can't be all over the field. Look foir the Saints to neutralize them and take the short game to victory.

[MRMADD]

Art: Wow! That was quite a novel you wrote. Now what did you say? You went off on so many tangents trying to prove something -- anything -- that you completely abandoned your original thesis. Game, set, match to me.

<<While I've never suggested it is solely the scheme and the players being confused within it, you seem to reject the concept that the players may actually know what they are talking about and that not being where they are supposed to be also contributes to poor tackling. >>

Well, yes you did suggest that it was their inability to grasp the intricacies of the scheme that caused them to be out of position and miss their tackles. You tacked the "solely" on there to CYA.

I was very clear (not clear enough for you, obviously): yes, it takes time to adjust to a new scheme. Yes, you can expect some early difficulties. However, the players still are responsible for making plays. If a receiver runs the wrong route out of confusion and the QB throws an INT, you can blame the scheme if you like. If a receiver runs the RIGHT route and the QB throws the ball to the safety, it ain't the scheme. Similarly, if the receiver runs the right route and gets hit in the numbers with the ball, but drops it anyway, it ain't the scheme. You keep saying it is, but it isn't. These guys are pros, and they've had 9 months to learn the scheme. We all knew it wouldn't happen overnight, but the fingerpointing has already ceased on the team. Now they're saying that they just need to get it done. You're the only one still blaming the 'scheme'.

Saying "I'm confused" after 9 months of learning is a cop-out. I could teach you theoretical physics in 9 months . Even Bruce used that excuse, and as far as I can tell all he's expected to do is rush the QB (or maybe they're asking him to just run himself way out of the play, but that's another story). How could he be confused?

<<Stephen Davis was wide open in the end zone on a pass from Lockett this past week. Did the safety, Williams, suddenly forget how to cover, or, did he react poorly to the action of the play vacating his responsibility and allowing an easy score? And, if he said, as he did, that it was his fault and that he left his area of responsibility, would he be lying too, to cover for some lack of effort, which is essentially what you are arguing the Redskins are doing to the man. >> Art

Art, what the hell are you talking about? Williams blew it. His mistake. He can't blame the scheme, as our players did -- but don't anymore.

<<If you are going to explain things the way a child can understand, I would recommend you do a couple of things. First, don't be so elementary that you embarrass yourself with comments like, "Did the Rams falter when Martz took over?" See, I can't grasp what you are saying, because, Martz took over the same team he coached the year before and he didn't touch the offense at all. He did touch the defense and it was No. 30 in football. They certainly faltered as compared to the year before. >> Art

Wow, I'd be pretty happy if the Skins made the Superbowl. Martz has make the playoffs both seasons as HC, and his offense has led the league in scoring and total offense the past three seasons -- although it's lots of fun to watch them struggle this year. You've got pretty high expectations.

<<Second, there are always examples of anything. You can prove an elephant can hang off a cliff with only his tail wrapped around a daisy if you wanted to argue theoretical physics. So, a child can't understand the distinction in any given situation that may allow for success, or may be the cause of struggle in situations like ours. San Diego isn't a situation like ours. Carolina is. Why are they better now, and we worse now than we each were to end last year? I understand it. I have explained it to you. So have your players. I'd listen to them, because, even a child can understand it. >> Art

I don't think even theoretical physics would help you explain hanging your tail over a cliff, or whatever the hell you're talking about. But I would like to clue you in on one thing: often, sportswriters have an article in mind, and then go ask leading questions to solicit the answers they're looking for. So when you read those articles, read them with a grain of salt. Don't be so naive.

Because I know you have a pathological need to have the last word, I won't reply to this thread again. It's been beaten to death. But I would enjoy another extremely long and convoluted post about elephant tails, theoretical physics, daisies, and player conspiracies to hide the truth from us. It makes me chuckle.

[Art]

"Art: Wow! That was quite a novel you wrote. Now what did you say? You went off on so many tangents trying to prove something -- anything -- that you completely abandoned your original thesis. Game, set, match to me."

Sorry Madd. I realize a declarative victory probably makes you feel better, but since I answered each point you brought up, it makes it difficult to pretend you are confused that each point was answered. But, coming in second is not a shame in things. We all can't be better at something than someone else:).

"Well, yes you did suggest that it was their inability to grasp the intricacies of the scheme that caused them to be out of position and miss their tackles. You tacked the "solely" on their to CYA."

No Madd. This is where you are lying again. I replied to your quote. Directly. You wrote, the post right before my "novel" the following: "You say that missed tackles are solely the result of not understanding the scheme. Well, go back and watch Owens TD. That had NOTHING to do with the scheme. Plenty of players were in position to make the tackle, and they didn't. On Sunday, suddenly guys remembered how to tackle (well, maybe not Champ)."

That's a direct quote. You wrote that I did say missed tackles are solely the result of not understanding the scheme. So, actually it's not a CYA for me at all. It was a poor attempt by you to attempt to paint me into a position I never took and then when called you've decided to lie and say I am using your words to cover me. What I've discovered in talking to you is you don't appear bright enough to keep track of what you are saying, so you often get confused when someone speaks about one of your points as if they are making something up. This is now the third time your own words have escaped you. At some point I'm going to simply cut you off at the knees if you can't at least be honest enough to speak truthfully about what you've said. That point may be coming pretty quick. I love a give and take. What I do not like is debating with a guy who's too thick to realize what he's said and then tries to blame the other guy for using his words.

I did, however, suggest, just as you said, that an inability to play within the scheme and to their assignments often caused tackles to be missed that might not normally be missed. Absolutely. The players have said the same.

"I was very clear (not clear enough for you, obviously): yes, it takes time to adjust to a new scheme. Yes, you can expect some early difficulties. However, the players still are responsible for making plays. If a receiver runs the wrong route out of confusion and the QB throws an INT, you can blame the scheme if you like. If a receiver runs the RIGHT route and the QB throws the ball to the safety, it ain't the scheme. Similarly, if the receiver runs the right route and gets hit in the numbers with the ball, but drops it anyway, it ain't the scheme. You keep saying it is, but it isn't. These guys are pros, and they've had 9 months to learn the scheme. We all knew it wouldn't happen overnight, but the fingerpointing has already ceased on the team. Now they're saying that they just need to get it done. You're the only one still blaming the 'scheme'."

Now this passage appears congenial, thoughtful, meaningful and on target. Again. We don't disagree one bit here, except with how you continue to misrepresent what I'm saying. When players make mistakes in their assignments, it can lead to breakdowns on both sides of the ball. That's not blaming the scheme for the mistake, though last year I would have blamed the scheme for some of the offensive ineffectiveness to be sure. It's blaming the players understanding of what they are doing within the scheme that leads to the mistake. You do understand the difference, right? While I may not be a huge fan of the Lewis scheme in general, there is no question it works. It's not the scheme's fault if a linebacker is playing the wrong gap and a player gets good yards because if the scheme is deployed properly, the play is not going to work. It's the fault of the player's understanding of what he's doing within the scheme. It's that understanding that Jessie Armstead talks about when he says it took the Giants five weeks to have a clue in John Fox's defense and that he thinks it'll be a couple of more weeks before this defense starts to really come together.

Do you understand the difference between the two statements, or not?

"Saying "I'm confused" after 9 months of learning is a cop-out. I could teach you theoretical physics in 9 months . Even Bruce used that excuse, and as far as I can tell all he's expected to do is rush the QB (or maybe they're asking him to just run himself way out of the play, but that's another story). How could he be confused?"

What you can tell isn't what actually is happening, might be part of the problem with what you're talking about. That the players have consistently spoken of their comfort within the scheme as a growing process is what we're addressing. You seem to think it should already be accomplished. Reality dictates that it takes time in some defenses to really start to come together. But, that's not me saying it. It's professional football players saying it.

"Art, what the hell are you talking about? Williams blew it. His mistake. He can't blame the scheme, as our players did -- but don't anymore."

What I'm talking about is an example of a player making a mistake within the scheme. No one is blaming the scheme for the mistake. No one in Washington was blaming the scheme for the mistakes we've made. Everyone in Washington, and Tank Williams, talked about how they made a mistake within the scheme. Washington players were taking it further, saying they were confused as to what they were being asked to do. Lavar started to take it even further, talking about being drafted as a linebacker and how he can't be doing combat with those big guys. Then someone stepped up and embarrassed Lavar in the media and it's reverted back to comfort within the scheme again.

"Wow, I'd be pretty happy if the Skins made the Superbowl. Martz has make the playoffs both seasons as HC, and his offense has led the league in scoring and total offense the past three seasons -- although it's lots of fun to watch them struggle this year. You've got pretty high expectations."

And, again, Martz didn't touch the offense after the Super Bowl and did change the defense to make it No. 30 in the league. One year. Same players. Completely different results. You don't think the scheme, and how the players take to it matters? Sorry.

"I don't think even theoretical physics would help you explain hanging your tail over a cliff, or whatever the hell you're talking about. But I would like to clue you in on one thing: often, sportswriters have an article in mind, and then go ask leading questions to solicit the answers they're looking for. So when you read those articles, read them with a grain of salt. Don't be so naive."

Madd, I'd like to clue you in on one thing. I was a professional sports writer. I even covered a few Redskin games. I know exactly what reporters and writers of all sorts do. I also know how stories take life and when stories are leaked and why. I also talk to a couple of beat writers on a weekly basis and I hear some things you don't, and they can't print. Trust me, you don't want to start teaching me how a story takes life.

"Because I know you have a pathological need to have the last word, I won't reply to this thread again. It's been beaten to death. But I would enjoy another extremely long and convoluted post about elephant tails, theoretical physics, daisies, and player conspiracies to hide the truth from us. It makes me chuckle."

What should make you chuckle is that you don't get what is a very simple thing to grasp. Worse, you and I don't even necessarily disagree. You've just decided nothing can be left alone so you've decided to target specific things, forget your own words, and have to be taught the very basics of how sometimes even stupid questions can require less stupid answers.

I think you should read over what's been in this thread, and you may want to ask yourself why you've had trouble understanding words that are very similar to your own. Or, whether you just decided to start this back and forth out of some principle of proving you can.

The last word taken. Much thanks.

[GoSaintsGo]

First I would just like to welcome myself. This is a very nice board you guys have. Anyways As a Saints fan Iam a tad bit worried about our Lbs and Secondary. However if our Dline does come with a cosistent pass rush this weekend then I think our secondary will hold up just fine.

Alot skins fans seem to be relieved that Stallworth isnt playing(there is a slim chance he could play) that is a plus i guess for yall but our offense did play pretty good without him this past weekend. Dont underestimate Pathon he is starting to look like he did at Indy. Also Deuce is awesome and can break a big one at anytime( a big difference from Ricky).

Iam also a big fan of Partick Ramsey, I watched in a few games when he was with Tulane. He is awesome and i hope he has a great career with the skins. He deserves to win because he just didnt have the Defense to do it with Tulane. But anyway i am hoping for a great game this weekend!!

[CounterTre]

First I would just like to welcome myself.

:laugh:

Welcome!

I think the one thing that is almost guaranteed is a fun game to watch this weekend. It's either gonna be a track meet, or a lot of busted chops. Either way I see a d*mn good game for the fans.

[MRMADD]

Funny... I take the high road again, and little Art resorts to personal insults again. So let me just point out where YOU'RE lying:

<<What I'm talking about is an example of a player making a mistake within the scheme. No one is blaming the scheme for the mistake. No one in Washington was blaming the scheme for the mistakes we've made.>> Art

No, Art -- You did blame the scheme for the mistakes. Let's go back to your first post to illustrate:

<<We are still so new to the systems we're playing on both sides of the ball, that despite obvious progress in the execution of plays within the scheme, we aren't so solid within the scheme that we can't get pushed around a little and ultimately collapse while desperately trying to come back to make a play. ... As a team, we

have essentially spotted the league five games last year and again this year while we are figuring things out. >> Art

You said we're spotting the league five games while we figure things out. Couldn't be any clearer than that, right? So you're blaming our performance in our first five games on learning the scheme! Why is this so hard for you?

<<At some point I'm going to simply cut you off at the knees if you can't at least be honest enough to speak truthfully about what you've said. That point may be coming pretty quick. I love a give and take. What I do not like is debating with a guy who's too thick to realize what he's said

and then tries to blame the other guy for using his words. >> Art

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We know. As soon as you're clearly and definitely proven wrong, you resort to personal attacks. When you still get humiliated, you delete my posts to guarantee that no one sees your humiliation.

<<Madd, I'd like to clue you in on one thing. I was a professional sports writer. I even covered a few Redskin games. I know exactly what reporters and writers of all sorts do. I also know how stories take life and when stories are leaked and why. I also talk to a couple of beat writers on a weekly basis and I hear some things you don't, and they can't print. Trust me, you don't want to start teaching me how a story takes life. >> Art

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Here's an intelligent argument: I know stuff that you don't know, that I'm not going to tell you, so don't argue with me. That's hilarious.

The funny thing is that if you'd swallow your pride, you'd realize that you agree with me (or maybe if we'd BOTH swallow our pride -- but that's a lot of swallowing). The one area where I disagree with you is the idea that we're "spotting the league 5 games" while we learn the new stuff. That's so defeatist that I seriously doubt that your "inside information" tells you that a single player or coach feels that way. Quitters and losers feel that way. Winners don't make excuses -- and they certainly don't spot ANYONE five games for any reason. I don't think you really meant that.

<<Now this passage appears congenial, thoughtful, meaningful and on target. Again.>> Art

Well, it must have been accidental :laugh: . You know how I like to stir things up. Now because I replied, you get the last word again. I promise I won't reply this time!

[lavarthebeast]

I give Art props for one thing. He's the only moderator I've seen on the internet that mixes it up with members and takes criticisms without banning or deleting threads.

[MRMADD]

He's certainly no coward!

[Art]

Madd,

I can be very quick with this. Or, quick for me at least . You just proved precisely what I've been saying. Here is a perfect example of how you twist yourself into a knot and YOU create the misunderstanding by refusing to follow your own words.

You wrote this.

"No, Art -- You did blame the scheme for the mistakes. Let's go back to your first post to illustrate:"

That is false.

You then wrote this:

"So you're blaming our performance in our first five games on learning the scheme!"

That is true.

You see how easy it is when you say the correct words? I'm absolutely not blaming the scheme for the problems we've had to this point. While I may not like the scheme, it's not the scheme that's failing. It's the players understanding within the scheme that's failing, which is what I've said for weeks and longer when talking about how long it may take for our defense to grasp the scheme.

In two sentences you said two different things that I said. I've been continually responding to you saying I'm blaming the scheme for our problems because I have not been. I have been blaming our problems on learning the scheme however. That's precisely right and those are two radically different statements.

We have chosen each of the last two years to spot the league five games while we re-learn defense. That's true. We did it last year, corrected it, then threw away everything we did last year to learn something new this year.

And, I have not resorted to personal attacks with you at all. You continue to lie when you are arguing a point you don't even know why you are arguing. I know I'm arguing just so you discontinue twisting my words into something they aren't. When you say I used the world solely to cover myself, that's a lie. I used the word solely because you used it to attribute a statement to me that was completely incorrect.

Here, in two of your first few sentences you attribute to me two entirely different statements. One is correct. The other is not. And you don't seem to know the difference and from your own inability to process simple language, you get yourself busted. That's on you my friend.

I have absolutely NOTHING to swallow my pride over. I have told you early in this thread that we, largely, agree on what we are saying. Where you've decided to go wrong, and let your own pride interfere with that agreement is that you have decided to nitpick and lie. I won't abide that.

But, let's sum this whole thing up quickly. After a couple of replies to each other, your pride caused this, "We agree about Lewis and his defense. We disagree about the players' responsibility for our struggles. But I still can't resist poking a few holes in your argument: "

And then you began to twist my words into something that wasn't being said. So, when you suggest swallowing one's pride, you ought to remember, one of us isn't displaying any, and is merely responding to the other who, by his own admission, "still can't resist".

I don't think it's more clear. Learn to resist, especially in arguments I already said we were largely in agreement on (more than once even) and largely simply corrected your continued false characterizations after you simply couldn't resist.