I have a concern about the Shanahan offensive scheme.

[RedskinParadigm]

How does bend-but-don't-break compliment a ball control offense when it allows the opponent to play ball control and keep your offense off the field? It doesn't compliment a quick-strike offense either. I think such a strategy makes sense only when you have a two score lead to protect and you are perfectly happy with an opponent helping you to milk the clock.

The Giants match up well against the Patriots who are more talented. The Giants have been better at controlling the ball against the Patriots defense, thus keeping the Patriot offense off the field. The Giants pass rush is good at keeping the Patriots passing game from controlling the clock.

Because a bend-don't-break defense's goal is to disallow touchdowns and a ball-control offense places a premium on efficiency. They work in concert because, together, they force the opposing offense to score as many points as possible in as few possessions as possible. And when the bend-don't-break defense is effective at disallowing touchdowns, it puts the opposing offense in trouble with regards to maximizing points per drive.

The perfect example of this was the 2001 New England Patriots. That team had the 24th ranked defense in terms of yards, the 26th ranked defense in terms of first downs allowed, but the 6th ranked defense in terms of points allowed. Their offense (in an effort to protect Tom Brady in his first season as a starter) ranked 8th in rushing attempts and 24th in passing attempts (with only a 6.9 yards per passing atteempt). They were a textbook bend-don't-break defense and ball-control offense. That team was able to take out one of the most powerful offenses of all-time in the Warner/Faulk Rams in the Super Bowl.

[Oldfan]

The "Mike Shanahan" scheme is alive and well in Houston. They have won 15 of their last 21 games. Was that factored into your analysis of the inability of the "Mike Shanahan" scheme to win games? Seems like it wins games just fine and puts up gaudy stats at the same time.

Kubiak has been in Houston with that scheme since 2006. That's 96 games through 2011. So, no, I'm not convinced by cherry-picking the last 21 games. But I will be convinced to change my mind if it continues, especially if it has success in the playoffs.

[DC9]

If you're referencing the article I think you're referencing, where Plummer was complaining about how they had a good record in 2006 but Mike was chewing them out during the week, the 2006 Broncos were probably the lamest 7-4 football team in the league, and Plummer's play at that point had been mediocre to say the very least---he was completing 55.6% of his passes, and had thrown 11 touchdowns and 12 picks. Plummer's argument was essentially "we were winning so what did it matter that we weren't executing"; I don't think Mike gives a crap about the offensive rankings. But his offense was barely mediocre.

And that right there, tells you that Plummer was a decent player who didn't want to be pushed into being a better player... which is why his opinion should be taken with a grain of salt and not used to justify whatever twisted crap you have going on in your head.

Strong post NLC.

---------- Post added October-11th-2012 at 11:23 AM ----------

Kubiak has been in Houston with that scheme since 2006. That's 96 games through 2011. So, no, I'm not convinced by cherry-picking the last 21 games. But I will be convinced to change my mind if it continues, especially if it has success in the playoffs.

You aren't convinced by that but you use a quitters word as the basis of a thread?

[Bang]

I don't have any hatred at all, I am simply questioning some of his choices and decisions as I have a right too. I also think with one or two years of Rex Ryan going to the Jets and Harbaugh going to the 49ers they did have a turn around,

the jets had talent onthe roster, especially on defense, when Ryan took over. When Harbaugh took over he had a team that had been rebuilding for six years. Alex Smith, top pick, Vernon davis, Frank Gore, Justin Smith Patrick Willis, .. the 9ers drafted really well since about 2005... and Mike Singletary just could not get the job done.

The difference between the two?

ryan achieved temporary results through bluster and bull****, and 3 seasons later he's looking at the hot seat because his team flat out sucks. Any major personel changes? Not really. His QB can't handle it, he has no receivers.. still.. and he's trying to run a scheme that's 25 years out of date.

How are they doing now?

an embarrassment? A complete joke? Are those words too kind for the current state of the Jets?

Harbaugh was the final piece to a puzzle that had been building for quite some time. Saying they had an immediate turnaround is like taking brownies out of the oven and saying they appeared by magic. No, they had the ingredients mixed up and baked for a while, and then they were ready. Harbaugh is a good coach, and he took the talent that had been accumulated and made it play cohesively.

what it took the Cardinals what 3 years with Whisenhunt?

with a Hall of Fame Qb and two the best wide receivers in football. Talent. Some of the best.

The Lions too took what 2 years after Martin Mayhew took over?

Yeah, picking in the top ten for an entire decade isn't going to help your cause much. the Lions prove that even a blind dog finds a bone once in a while.. especially if you drop him directly onto a bone pile.

How they doing now? Looking rather weak..

It doesn't take 5 full years for a future HOF coach to turn a program around unless he doesn't know what to he is doing. I like Shanny as our HC but just like he messed up in Denver, I fear he is doing the same thing here, and I have every right to voice that. The fact is he was asked after a year off why did he come back, he said he came back to work with his son and get his son experience, hell he said that right after being interviewed, sorry if that isn't what you want to hear. I bet you now that the Rams have Fisher by next year they will have it turned around, Cleveland won't have it changed until Holmgren leaves, he is HEAD COACH material only, when you give him too much power he screws up, check his resume in Seattle before he got all the power to what he did when he was just the coach. The Bucs too will be in the playoffs as well within 2 years. The Dolphins, Bills and Titans won't because they have bad head coaches period.......

What i've shown you is that every situation is different.

In Washington, as opposed to every other one of those miracle turnarond teams you mentioned... the roster has been completely overhauled.

go look how many 2008 Redskins are still on this team, as opposed to how many players inherited by Wisenhunt, Harbaugh, Ryan, and Schwartz that have stayed on their teams.

This entire team needed t be rebuilt, from the front office on down.

Draft picks had been wasted. free Agents were poor fits and did not belong here.

The entire roster was a mish-mash of Gibbs players, Zorn players, and Vinny rejects. They had a team that had been built and rebuilt (piecemeal) for two different offensive styles within 3 years... so we have pieces that are meant for one style (ground and pund) and another style (Zorn's WCO thing.)

There have been 7 head coaches here in the last decade.

No turnover like that in any of those other cities you mention.. and the effect of that is to create zero continuity.. and a complete patchwork hunk of junk.

So while you have the right to voice your opinion... I exercise the right to show you why you may want to rethink it.

~Bang

[terpskins10]

Isn't that sort of confirmation bias, then?

I mean, if you already have a hunch, and then you're taking the word of one guy---a guy who's not terribly fond of Mike to begin with---to back-up your statement...

Someone reads separate articles where both McNabb and Haynesworth said Shanahan is pretty much egotistical, wants to control his players, and never wants to deviate from his scheme. That person find these comments to be credible because that person suspected it for a while.

[Dark Acre]

...

A very good ball control offense will do well winning football games, but its effectiveness will not show up in the stats rankings because the strategy results in fewer drives for both teams -- fewer drives equals less points and less yardage.

Thanks for acknowledging Joe Gibbs as the greatest offensive genius in NFL history. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was/1983.htm

(Actually, a ball-control O should result in more points since it's not the # of possessions that matters as much as the # of possessions you score on.)

[Oldfan]

Because a bend-don't-break defense's goal is to disallow touchdowns and a ball-control offense places a premium on efficiency. They work in concert because, together, they force the opposing offense to score as many points as possible in as few possessions as possible. And when the bend-don't-break defense is effective at disallowing touchdowns, it puts the opposing offense in trouble with regards to maximizing points per drive.

The perfect example of this was the 2001 New England Patriots. That team had the 24th ranked defense in terms of yards, the 26th ranked defense in terms of first downs allowed, but the 6th ranked defense in terms of points allowed. Their offense (in an effort to protect Tom Brady in his first season as a starter) ranked 8th in rushing attempts and 24th in passing attempts (with only a 6.9 yards per passing atteempt). They were a textbook bend-don't-break defense and ball-control offense. That team was able to take out one of the most powerful offenses of all-time in the Warner/Faulk Rams in the Super Bowl.

You called the 2001 Patriots a perfect example. It's one of the few examples, you will find. That win was a fluke.

The Chicago Bears have been playing ball control on offense and bend but don't break on defense for years. In the mid 80s they had dynasty caliber talent and managed to win one Super Bowl when Jim McMahon had a perfect storm of luck.

[terpskins10]

I'd never trust the opinions of either of those guys.

Hayneswortyh is not an honorable person, by any stretch.

McNabb got shuffled out of 3 cities in 2 years... and has a histroy of throwing temmates under the bus.

"Whydidwe lose? go ask the defense".. one of his great postgame playoff loss quotes.

"We got a lot of young guys who don't know what they're supposed to be doing in every situation" he said after his last playoff loss... to which Shady McCoy took great exception.

Mcnabb and Haynesworth are not giving up any opinions i'd find to be respected. they've shown nothing but sour grapes.

~Bang

Look at the first sentence of the OP and go back and read my post. I think you'll know what I mean a little better.

[Bang]

Someone reads separate articles where both McNabb and Haynesworth said Shanahan is pretty much egotistical, wants to control his players, and never wants to deviate from his scheme. That person find these comments to be credible because that person suspected it for a while.

I'd never trust the opinions of either of those guys.

Hayneswortyh is not an honorable person, by any stretch.

McNabb got shuffled out of 3 cities in 2 years... and has a histroy of throwing temmates under the bus.

"Whydidwe lose? go ask the defense".. one of his great postgame playoff loss quotes.

"We got a lot of young guys who don't know what they're supposed to be doing in every situation" he said after his last playoff loss... to which Shady McCoy took great exception.

Mcnabb and Haynesworth are not giving up any opinions i'd find to be respected. they've shown nothing but sour grapes.

and to the OP,, Jake Plummer also falls into this area. He's a bonehead. Without shanahan giving him his shot at glory, he's forgotten.

~Bang

[terpskins10]

I'd never trust the opinions of either of those guys.

Hayneswortyh is not an honorable person, by any stretch.

McNabb got shuffled out of 3 cities in 2 years... and has a histroy of throwing temmates under the bus.

"Whydidwe lose? go ask the defense".. one of his great postgame playoff loss quotes.

"We got a lot of young guys who don't know what they're supposed to be doing in every situation" he said after his last playoff loss... to which Shady McCoy took great exception.

Mcnabb and Haynesworth are not giving up any opinions i'd find to be respected. they've shown nothing but sour grapes.

~Bang

Look at the first sentence of the OP and go back and read my post. I think you'll know what I mean a little better.

[DaSkinzBaby]

the jets had talent onthe roster, especially on defense, when Ryan took over. When Harbaugh took over he had a team that had been rebuilding for six years. Alex Smith, top pick, Vernon davis, Frank Gore, Justin Smith Patrick Willis, .. the 9ers drafted really well since about 2005... and Mike Singletary just could not get the job done.

The difference between the two?

ryan achieved temporary results through bluster and bull****, and 3 seasons later he's looking at the hot seat because his team flat out sucks. Any major personel changes? Not really. His QB can't handle it, he has no receivers.. still.. and he's trying to run a scheme that's 25 years out of date.

How are they doing now?

an embarrassment? A complete joke? Are those words too kind for the current state of the Jets?

Harbaugh was the final piece to a puzzle that had been building for quite some time. Saying they had an immediate turnaround is like taking brownies out of the oven and saying they appeared by magic. No, they had the ingredients mixed up and baked for a while, and then they were ready. Harbaugh is a good coach, and he took the talent that had been accumulated and made it play cohesively.

with a Hall of Fame Qb and two the best wide receivers in football. Talent. Some of the best.

Yeah, picking in the top ten for an entire decade isn't going to help your cause much. the Lions prove that even a blind dog finds a bone once in a while.. especially if you drop him directly onto a bone pile.

How they doing now? Looking rather weak..

What i've shown you is that every situation is different.

In Washington, as opposed to every other one of those miracle turnarond teams you mentioned... the roster has been completely overhauled.

go look how many 2008 Redskins are still on this team, as opposed to how many players inherited by Wisenhunt, Harbaugh, Ryan, and Schwartz that have stayed on their teams.

This entire team needed t be rebuilt, from the front office on down.

Draft picks had been wasted. free Agents were poor fits and did not belong here.

The entire roster was a mish-mash of Gibbs players, Zorn players, and Vinny rejects. They had a team that had been built and rebuilt (piecemeal) for two different offensive styles within 3 years... so we have pieces that are meant for one style (ground and pund) and another style (Zorn's WCO thing.)

There have been 7 head coaches here in the last decade.

No turnover like that in any of those other cities you mention.. and the effect of that is to create zero continuity.. and a complete patchwork hunk of junk.

So while you have the right to voice your opinion... I exercise the right to show you why you may want to rethink it.

~Bang

Well then things are broken down like that I can't argue. I bow to your "bossness" This has caused me to rethink and agree, but I still think Mike should be calling 3rd down plays when it's 3rd and 7 and above in distance :pfft:

[DaSkinzBaby]

Harbaugh turned the Niners around quickly because the main problem there had been the coaching. It takes longer when the roster has to be rebuilt. Here, Vinny had drafted for a conservative WCO and a 43 defense. When Mike changed schemes, we pretty much had to start over. Mike got off to a slow start in 2010, but he's done better lately.

Agreed 100% with this post......

[Bang]

Look at the first sentence of the OP and go back and read my post. I think you'll know what I mean a little better.

thanks

~Bang

[RedskinParadigm]

You called the 2001 Patriots a perfect example. It's one of the few examples, you will find. That win was a fluke.

The Chicago Bears have been playing ball control on offense and bend but don't break on defense for years. In the mid 80s they had dynasty caliber talent and managed to win one Super Bowl when Jim McMahon had a perfect storm of luck.

Well I'd hardly say it was a fluke since the Patriots won two more Super Bowls using essentially the same philosophies. They didn't become a vertical offense until Randy Moss joined, and that was after their SB wins. Belichick's defensive philosophy has always been bend-don't-break at heart. His emphasis is to take away the strength of a team as opposed to attacking a weakness. He's much more conservative, defensively, than people perceive him to be.

Another bend-don't-break scheme at heart is the Tampa-2. It prevents big plays and allows a lot of underneath stuff.

Now the caveat here is that you can be so good with those conservative schemes that you don't even really bend. We saw that with the 2002 Bucs (who also ran a ball-control WCO under Gruden and Brad Johnson) and the 2003 Patriots. But that doesn't erase the fact that, philosophically, both teams built themselves to be bend-don't-break first before they emphasized the other stuff.

Obviously, the goal of every team is to build an offense that can control the clock equally as well as they can score quickly, while at the same time having a defense that can get off the field quickly without compromising itself with regards to big plays. It just rarely happens that way. Sometimes you have to sacrifice one strength for another, and my argument is that a team can win with any single philosophy, so long as it compliments what the team is doing on the other side of the ball.

[Oldfan]

Isn't that sort of confirmation bias, then?

What he said wasn't a broadside attack of Mike. Plummer made a very specific criticism which aligned with other evidence that caused my suspicion. That's not confirmation bias in my opinion, but you many see it otherwise if you are so inclined.

I think bad defense is just bad defense. It doesn't matter if your offense goes on lengthy, 8-10 play, 5-10 minute drives if the opposing offense can score 6 points on a 4-play drive and only take 3 minutes off the game clock.

We aren't talking about bad defenses here. We are talking about defensive stats. A defense that only has to defend 10 drives will rank higher than a team that has to defend 14 drives. Ball control offenses grind out time-consuming drives which means that there are fewer drives in a 60 minute game for both teams.

What Plummer is saying doesn't even bare your statement out, because the offense Plummer ran was very much a "ball control" offense; they ranked 19th in passing offense and second in rush offense.

I told you in the OP why I don't regard the ZBS running game as a ball control factor. Do you have a reason for assuming it is?

I read the rest of your comments on Plummer. I don't see the relevance. Plummer was there. He says that Mike was obsessed with the stats. That kind of very specific criticism isn't the kind of thing that someone says when they are just lashing out against someone thy dislike.

---------- Post added October-11th-2012 at 12:06 PM ----------

Well I'd hardly say it was a fluke since the Patriots won two more Super Bowls using essentially the same philosophies.

That doesn't jive with my memory. Belichik's defensive philosophy since adopting the 34 has been to stop what offense does best. That pretty much excludes bend-but-don't-break except against big play offenses.

Another bend-don't-break scheme at heart is the Tampa-2. It prevents big plays and allows a lot of underneath stuff.

Now, I see our problem. We define terms differently. I don't regard the Tampa D as synonymous with bend-but-don't-break.

Now the caveat here is that you can be so good with those conservative schemes that you don't even really bend. We saw that with the 2002 Bucs (who also ran a ball-control WCO under Gruden and Brad Johnson) and the 2003 Patriots. But that doesn't erase the fact that, philosophically, both teams built themselves to be bend-don't-break first before they emphasized the other stuff.

Okay, now we are closer together on our terms.

O

bviously, the goal of every team is to build an offense that can control the clock equally as well as they can score quickly, while at the same time having a defense that can get off the field quickly without compromising itself with regards to big plays. It just rarely happens that way. Sometimes you have to sacrifice one strength for another, and my argument is that a team can win with any single philosophy, so long as it compliments what the team is doing on the other side of the ball.

I can agree with what you wrote, but our differences on specifics remain. IMO, Blache's defense was bend-but-don't-break if there ever was such a thing and it nullified Zorn's conventional ball control WCO.

[KCClybun]

I read the rest of your comments on Plummer. I don't see the relevance. Plummer was there. He says that Mike was obsessed with the stats. That kind of very specific criticism isn't the kind of thing that someone says when they are just lashing out against someone thy dislike.

You sure about that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPF0rEuJdPA

"He's obsessed with stats" isn't any more specific than "he's an egomaniac who won't adjust".

I put what you said in the context of what happened. Plummer saying Mike was obsessed with stats at a time when his play on the field, quite frankly, sucked. I also pointed out that that Mike Shanahan ran the ball and managed Plummer very carefully. Your personal feeling on the ZBS don't bare the facts out.

Plummer said something about the offense you already believed and you are now using that as confirmation that the conclusion you had already arrived at was correct, despite evidence to the contrary both then and now.

[DC9]

Well then things are broken down like that I can't argue. I bow to your "bossness" This has caused me to rethink and agree, but I still think Mike should be calling 3rd down plays when it's 3rd and 7 and above in distance :pfft:

I don't. We have a rookie quarterback and we run a simple passing game while he is getting his feet wet. There is a reason that he doesn't throw a lot of picks... and it's because we manage him on 3rd down. I suspect we get bolder as the season progresses though.

[DaSkinzBaby]

I don't. We have a rookie quarterback and we run a simple passing game while he is getting his feet wet. There is a reason that he doesn't throw a lot of picks... and it's because we manage him on 3rd down. I suspect we get bolder as the season progresses though.

Not sure I agree RG3 can throw a pick on any down, I don't think 3rd downs are his Kryptonite. My thought is using him the best way on 3rd downs, meaning that Pistol Option could be deadly, if he looks to run the defenders come up to tackle, he lobs it to an open receiver. First Down, if they keep following the receivers downfield he can run for the first down, either way I think we need to do better.......Isn't the key of offense production not so much the system but the coaches ability to use his players strengths to the advantage?

[DC9]

Not sure I agree RG3 can throw a pick on any down, I don't think 3rd downs are his Kryptonite. My thought is using him the best way on 3rd downs, meaning that Pistol Option could be deadly, if he looks to run the defenders come up to tackle, he lobs it to an open receiver. First Down, if they keep following the receivers downfield he can run for the first down, either way I think we need to do better.......Isn't the key of offense production not so much the system but the coaches ability to use his players strengths to the advantage?

Right, and I'm not in disagreement. What I am saying, is that they are letting Robert see what 3rd down looks like (especially with all of these 3rd and longs). And it plays more to the teams strengths to allow him to not throw into an exotic look and risk a pick (as well as into his confidence). If you look, we've been very safe on 3rd down... running, screens, and drag routes exclusively. These are designed to be safe and have us punt the ball away and flop field position at a minimum. If something cool happens and a reciever breaks a tackle and moves the chains, even better.

It's not uncommon with rookies, but I would look for things to get more interesting this week especially... as we get close to the halfway point of the season and as we try to ween Robert off of running the ball as much as possible.

[MassSkinsFan]

Since I didn't see a link to the article anywhere, here it is:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2009/01/62191430/1

The former Broncos signal caller told the Denver Post that Shanahan's firing last month was "past due."

"I think he had done what he could do," Plummer said, "and was just tapped out as far as his coaching style wasn't motivating guys anymore."

Plummer told the Post that Shanahan, viewed by many as an offensive wizard, was obsessed with the team's ranking in offensive statistics.

"It's hard on a team. We were 7-2 at one point my last year and we came out of a meeting with our heads bowed and we were all just sulking around like we had just been berated for not putting up 40 points, for not leading the league in offense, for not creating enough turnovers," Plummer said.

"It was a weird style to be coached that way. It really took it out of you as a player. I've been on 2-7 teams that had better attitudes coming out of team meetings than oftentimes when we came out of team meetings after Shanahan felt a need to motivate us even more."

When I read that, I think the thurst of the comments from Plummer relates to the incessant drive to improve rather than the focus on stats. He offers that up as an indication that things weren't ever good enough for MS, but doesn't cite that as the primary issue. The primary issue, according to Plummer, is that Shanny can't motivate people.

Additionally, Plummer doesn't say which stats Shanny was focused upon. It could be TOP, 1st downs, passing yards or DVOA for all we know. He does mention three things: points scored, offensive ranking (presumably overall offensive rank), and turnover creation (which is not an offensive stat).

I don't think the original quote provides enough context to confirm you suspicions of.

[Oldfan]

..."He's obsessed with stats" isn't any more specific than "he's an egomaniac who won't adjust"...

We disagree on that. The charge of being an egomanic is the very kind of broadside someone with an ax to grind would say. To say he was obsessed with offensive stats is more specific and not a terrible accusation.

I put what you said in the context of what happened. Plummer saying Mike was obsessed with stats at a time when his play on the field, quite frankly, sucked. I also pointed out that that Mike Shanahan ran the ball and managed Plummer very carefully.

Who cares? It makes no difference here who was right or wrong in the Plummer-Shanahan fight. His play sucked therefore he must be lying is not a logical deduction.

Your personal feeling on the ZBS don't bare the facts out.

What facts contradict me on my analysis of the ZBS? Please be specific.

Plummer said something about the offense you already believed and you are now using that as confirmation that the conclusion you had already arrived at was correct, despite evidence to the contrary both then and now.

We have covered this point sufficiently. We disagree.

[Bang]

Who cares? It makes no difference here who was right or wrong in the Plummer-Shanahan fight. His play sucked therefore he must be lying is not a logical deduction.

.

What about his play sucked for most of his career... therefore it's possible he may not understand what the hell he's talking about?

He was a self centered complainer.. sort of like Jay Cutler without the skill.

~Bang

[RedskinParadigm]

Now, I see our problem. We define terms differently. I don't regard the Tampa D as synonymous with bend-but-don't-break.

This is likely where we differ. I view "bend-don't-break" as a philosophical emphasis of preventing touchdowns over giving up yards and/or extended drives. There are other defenses that focus on pressuring an offense into mistakes in an effort to get off the field or generate turnovers.

I think of the Tampa-2 as the pre-eminent bend-don't-break defense.

I think of the Buddy Ryan 46 (and most derivatives of the 46 like Rex Ryan's version of the 3-4 or Gregg Williams' version of the 4-3) as the polar opposite of the bend-don't-break philosophy.

Even though Belichick runs a 3-4, I view his philosophy as much more similar to the Tampa 2 than I do the Buddy Ryan derivatives. You're right, his emphasis is on taking away the strength of an opponent, but with the aerial proficiency league-wide in the modern NFL, that most often translates into locking down the opponents' primary receivers. Anecdotally, I can remember seeing clips of Belichick telling his defense on the sideline to not let Cruz-Nicks beat them (against NYG in the SB), not let B.Edwards/K.Winslow beat them (when both were actually good with Cleveland), and not let Steve Smith and Muhsin Muhammad beat them (against Carolina in the SB). The usual result of that is to allow a lot of the smaller plays to lesser players. Historically, Belichick's defenses have consistently ranked higher in points per game than they were in yards per game. To me, that supports the idea that he is bend-don't-break.

[DaSkinzBaby]

What about his play sucked for most of his career... therefore it's possible he may not understand what the hell he's talking about?

He was a self centered complainer.. sort of like Jay Cutler without the skill.

~Bang

Ouch!! Bang that was pretty harsh wouldn't you say?

[pjfootballer]

What does this matter though?

It makes for a great scapegoat recipe at the end of the season. We now know who wanted Gano gone and Cunwhiff signed... if this guy Kai proves to be half-way decent then we will not be discussing how horrible of STC Danny Smith is. Sometimes, players have to be held accountable at some point.

Every once in a while a blind squirrel finds a nut. I hope Kai is it. Why did it take Danny Smith 7 years and several kickers to find one (if in fact this is the one, we don't know that yet)?

Back on topic, it seems that losing teams are always pouring over the stats while winning teams don't care.

Bang, NLC and Paradigm bringing the heat today.