Minimum Risk Gambles

[Om]

OF, see the zoony's post above? That's how I came into this. You've suggested I took a "cheap shot" at your "initial statement." If you'd stopped tapdancing long enough to answer the question the first time, you'd have been able to spare us the condescending lecture about comprehension.

You also continue to ignore the fact that of the two differing opinions we have offered on whether Gibbs was "old school conservative" on 4th downs his first time around, only one of us has provided ANY evidence in support. And it ain't you. Who's being "cheap" in this discussion again?

[zoony]

You value your opinions pretty highly to think that I need to defend myself.

Why are you on this board Oldfan? Honest question.

Are you here to learn? Are you here to be a part of the community? Are you here to meet other 'Skins fans and talk some football?

Or are you here to preach, argue, and whine?

Because quite frankly, you appear miserable. Why put yourself thru all this? Seriously. If there were something that consistently made me miserable, then I'd stop doing it.

.....

[Riggo#44]

You value your opinions pretty highly to think that I need to defend myself.

You have no defense, that's why, again, you're tapdancing.

:banhim:

Let him return to the day room of the nursing home, and reminice about the days Rocky Marciano beat Joe Louis!

[Oldfan]

zoony --That's it exactly. Close the thread. End of subject.

You have a tough time tolerating opposing opinions, don't you? Most of the posters in this thread agreed with the me or at least found my theory interesting. Did you notice that?

Fact is, Bellicheck would look pretty effing stupid with Brunell behind center. :2cents:

Bellichek would never have Brunell behind center. He would never limit his options so drastically.

[Oldfan]

Why are you on this board Oldfan? Honest question.

Are you here to learn? Are you here to be a part of the community? Are you here to meet other 'Skins fans and talk some football?

Or are you here to preach, argue, and whine?

Because quite frankly, you appear miserable. Why put yourself thru all this? Seriously. If there were something that consistently made me miserable, then I'd stop doing it.

.....

zoony, now I remember why I had you on my ignore list at one time. You're like a little barking dog nipping at my heels. You're a simple nuisance.

[Riggo#44]

You have a tough time tolerating opposing opinions, don't you? Most of the posters in this thread agreed with the me or at least found my theory interesting. Did you notice that?

You have a hard time answering direct questions, you notice that?

[DjTj]

Bellichek would never have Brunell behind center. He would never limit his options so drastically.

Except that he had Bledsoe behind center until he got injured ...

...and previously as the head coach of the Cleveland Browns he brought in a free agent QB by the name of Vinny Testaverde...

That's not that far off from Brunell IMO.

[Henry]

Bellichek would never have Brunell behind center. He would never limit his options so drastically.

Do the names Bernie Kosar, Vinnie Testeverde and Drew Bledsoe ring any bells?

[Oldfan]

Do the names Bernie Kosar, Vinnie Testeverde and Drew Bledsoe ring any bells?

Do any of those QBs resemble a "game manager" QB who plays not to lose?

If it wasn't clear the first time, by "not limiting his options" I was talking about the type of QB and not the quality. Kosar, Testaverde and Bledsoe would be unlikely to throw the ball away on fourth and six if the receiver wasn't wide open.

[Riggo#44]

Do any of those QBs resemble a "game manager" QB who plays not to lose?

If it wasn't clear the first time, by "not limiting his options" I was talking about the type of QB and not the quality. Kosar, Testaverde and Bledsoe would be unlikely to throw the ball away on fourth and six if the receiver wasn't wide open.

You spin me right round, baby

right round like a record, baby

Right round round round

You spin me right round, baby

Right round like a record, baby

Right round round round

[Oldfan]

Om -- OF, see the zoony's post above? That's how I came into this. You've suggested I took a "cheap shot" at your "initial statement." If you'd stopped tapdancing long enough to answer the question the first time, you'd have been able to spare us the condescending lecture about comprehension.

You were the one offering the logical fallacy and you were the one doing the dancing.

You also continue to ignore the fact that of the two differing opinions we have offered on whether Gibbs was "old school conservative" on 4th downs his first time around, only one of us has provided ANY evidence in support. And it ain't you. Who's being "cheap" in this discussion again?

You should be embarassed to claim that one play supports your position and challenges mine.

Out of curiosity, if it's your opinion that Gibbs was not conservative in his fourth down calls in his first tour, is it your opinion that he has grown conservative with his advancing years or that he isn't conservative on those calls now?

[Henry]

If it wasn't clear the first time, by "not limiting his options" I was talking about the type of QB and not the quality. Kosar, Testaverde and Bledsoe would be unlikely to throw the ball away on fourth and six if the receiver wasn't wide open.

Nah. That's quality you're talking about.

In your intial post you say "Phil Simms told us that Belichek goes for it on fourth down more than any coach in the league."

Is that over the course of his coaching career or just this year? Did he specify? Or are you just throwing out your opinions and expecting us to accept them just because you're such a darn smart messageboard veteran?

I suspect when Belichek had Vinnie throwing the ball things were probably a little different, which is the point several people have been trying to make.

[deejaydana]

There are actually 900 other reasons why the Patriots are better than us...

[Oldfan]

You spin me right round, baby

right round like a record, baby

Right round round round

You spin me right round, baby

Right round like a record, baby

Right round round round

My clarification is a spin?

Tell me that it doesn't make more sense that way. Do you think I was saying that Belichek would not have a QB of lesser quality than Brady?

You're grasping at straws.

[Morneblade]

Geneally speaking, it's a good idea if you're going to make a claim about something you should be prepared to back it up with something other than your opinion. Otherwise you have no crediblity. Otherwise it's just your opinion, and we all know about those stinky things.

I'm not targeting anyone here specifically, but just sayin'.....

[Henry]

My clarification is a spin?

Tell me that it doesn't make more sense that way. Do you think I was saying that Belichek would not have a QB of lesser quality than Brady?

You're grasping at straws.

Do you think Zoony was suggesting that Brunell's style of play was the reason he said

Fact is, Bellicheck would look pretty effing stupid with Brunell behind center.

When you have the most clutch, fearless, calm-under-fire, not-human, deadly accurate passer in the history of the NFL, well... DUH, you go for it on the 34.

When you have 90% of the other QB's in the league, you don't.

If you are only addressing one line of that three line response, your point becomes pretty meaningless. Have a straw.

[Om]

You were the one offering the logical fallacy and you were the one doing the dancing.

Incorrect. I presented one piece of evidence (something you have yet to do) in support of my stated opinion, and I offered it as nothing BUT a single piece of evidence. Your only response, since you apparently don't have anything of substance to support your opinion, has been to try repeatedly to undercut what I used in support of mine by calling it something it was not and then attacking it.

You know your fallacies, right? Name that one.

You should be embarassed to claim that one play supports your position and challenges mine.

The only embarrassing thing is that long after you've proven to everyone reading along that you're simply being argumentative rather than "debating," is that I continue to play along. I must be more bored today than I thought.

Out of curiosity, if it's your opinion that Gibbs was not conservative in his fourth down calls in his first tour, is it your opinion that he has grown conservative with his advancing years or that he isn't conservative on those calls now?

He's been far more conversative this time around. For any number of reasons, some of which we can reasonably speculate about---like not having a Tom Brady or even a Joe Theismann in his prime at his disposal for instance---and some we can only guess at. Like the currently popular one that he's just a scared old geezer now.

My guess is, as his offense gets better overall as they tend to do when the QB is solid, and his defense returns to form, his 4th down calls will get more aggressive.

[Oldfan]

Henry -- Nah. That's quality you're talking about.

C'mon, Henry. You're a fair-minded person. The others are on a mission here. Stop piling on. I explained what I meant and I'm not a liar.

In your intial post you say "Phil Simms told us that Belichek goes for it on fourth down more than any coach in the league." Is that over the course of his coaching career or just this year?

I didn't hear this first from Phil Simms. I read it on the internet. I have read that the Romer study was hot news around the league when it was first published in 2002 and that most of the coaches in the league dismissed it.

In the same article, I read that Bellichek was an exception and that the Patriots went for it on fourth down more than any coach in the league. I also read that Parcells was a believer...which Simms also confirmed.

I suspect when Belichek had Vinnie throwing the ball things were probably a little different, which is the point several people have been trying to make.

Well certainly. That point was already granted in the first two words of my reply to Om when I said, "True enough."

All factors influence decisions. But, do you challenge the logic of the gambing strategy, taken as a general theory?

[Oldfan]

Geneally speaking, it's a good idea if you're going to make a claim about something you should be prepared to back it up with something other than your opinion. Otherwise you have no crediblity. Otherwise it's just your opinion, and we all know about those stinky things.

I'm not targeting anyone here specifically, but just sayin'.....

Do you understand the difference between an unsupported claim and an opinion? It doesn't sound like you do.

[Oldfan]

Do you think Zoony was suggesting that Brunell's style of play was the reason he said

It doesn't matter. I was making my own point.

[Morneblade]

Do you understand the difference between an unsupported claim and an opinion? It doesn't sound like you do.

I know enough to support mine. You don't.

[Dan T.]

It's too bad that a lot of hostility has marred an otherwise interesting topic. I suggest everybody back off a bit. Direct counter-arguments as just that, and not as attacks. And recipients, don't take them as attacks, just as counter-arguments.

Don't make me stop this car.

[Henry]

Well certainly. That point was already granted in the first two words of my reply to Om when I said, "True enough."

All factors influence decisions. But, do you challenge the logic of the gambing strategy, taken as a general theory?

You qualified that 'true enough' with:

But it's a Catch -22. If you don't have a QB like Brady, there's more need to gamble.

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion, especially considering the basis for your entire arguement that gambling on offense is effective is that Belichek gambles and succeeds. Well, Belichek DOES have Brady.

Unless you can find a coach that gambles effectively without an elite QB it's going to be tough to get past 'true enough.' Sorry.

Personally, I'm a big fan of conservative playcalling. But that's just me. I can't stand guys like Easterbrook who average things out and hold them up as proof that gambling is the way to go (I think TheDane touched on this.)

Yours is an interesting idea, but I'd need more than the evidence you've put forth so far to change my mind.

[Riggo#44]

C'mon, Henry. You're a fair-minded person. The others are on a mission here. Stop piling on. I explained what I meant and I'm not a liar.

I didn't hear this first from Phil Simms. I read it on the internet. I have read that the Romer study was hot news around the league when it was first published in 2002 and that most of the coaches in the league dismissed it.

In the same article, I read that Bellichek was an exception and that the Patriots went for it on fourth down more than any coach in the league. I also read that Parcells was a believer...which Simms also confirmed.

Well certainly. That point was already granted in the first two words of my reply to Om when I said, "True enough."

All factors influence decisions. But, do you challenge the logic of the gambing strategy, taken as a general theory?

I can't believe this didn't hit me sooner...old...curmudgeony...refuses to admit he's wrong...OLDFAN IS DR. Z!!

[Morneblade]

I can't believe this didn't hit me sooner...old...curmudgeony...refuses to admit he's wrong...OLDFAN IS DR. Z!!

So, what's this about voting for Reed and not MOnk for the HoF, Dr. Z?

Huh?

HUH?!

:owned: