I think the Redskins will win

[Art]

I have no bias at all, that's what amusing, KT.

I like Spurrier. I'm a supporter of his. I'm not against him whatsoever. I do, however, realize he's not a very good NFL coach right now. That's the complete opposite of bias. The score of the game at the half of that game was 6-3, was it not? Each team had four possessions, did they not? They had two interceptions, one punt and one field goal. We had two field goals, one punt and one blocked field goal.

They opened the second half with another turnover. They had a fourth turnover late. Now, for the record, that's FOUR turnovers. We had NO turnovers. That's a difference of 4 in our favor. Now, if I'm to seriously understand your position, in a game in which we had a 4 turnover advantage and won by three when their last drive was stopped on downs, WE outcoached THEM?

Do you recognize how ignorant that appears? When you have THAT sort of turnover margin you SHOULD win. In fact, you almost NEVER lose. We have, of course, but, other than that, it's like once in every three years. In some cases getting a turnover is schematic and a sign of good coaching. Petitbone produced a TON of these. Remember the last Super Bowl to open the second half when he designed a defense to stop the very play the Bills came at us with and Gouveia got the pick.

That's smart coaching. That's adjusting and out manuevering the opposition. Bailey's pick in man coverage is not really the same sort. Nor is his tackle for a loss that caused a fumble. Nor Bauman's INT on a late pass from Brady in man coverage. These are individual plays that individual players are capable of making.

But they aren't born of design. They are, as with most turnovers, happenstance. You can TEACH going after the ball. You can be a team that gets more turnovers than others by scheme because you are so aggressive you take chances to produce turnovers. We're not really that and most teams aren't really that. The old Bears kind of were and had the talent to be.

But I digress.

In a game in which we had a 4-0 turnover margin, the Pats STILL out gained us. They were playing with some remarkable number of starters injured. Like SEVEN. We were at home. If you wonder about bias, ask yourself where yours comes in as you can't seem to ask yourself how a team at home with the injury advantage and a 4 turnover margin can be out produced AND only win by three.

When you ask yourself that, you'll know it wasn't that WE were ahead of them schematically. And perhaps in your desperation to prove otherwise, you could have chose a better case.

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by Art

This is fairly inane. I realize a number of you begrudge the obvious and here the obvious is Parcells is an excellent coach who makes a difference in the ability of his football team. Mistakes happen by humans. No, Spurrier wouldn't be blamed for a poor snap from center or from a QB not being ready for a snap. Anymore than he's to blame for fumbles or interceptions or missed field goals. Mistakes are part of the game.

Where he is responsible is for penalties. False starts and even holds as there is technique to avoid that. He is responsible for creating positive matchups that favor us and limiting those that don't. He is responsible for teaching the team, including the defense, that everyone has a job and everyone must DO their job. I don't know that I blame Spurrier either for our defensive problems. He's trying to be like Gibbs and leave the defense alone. But as the head coach when he sees the same types of mistakes and blown assignments caused by freelancing, he either has to compel Edwards to do something about it, or he has to himself.

When time and again you see Ramsey throwing into double coverage despite having an eight man blitz on, you know there's something wrong with the prep of getting him ready to play. Against the Giants when you have first and goal from the one and the Giants blitz up the middle on first down, then play edge defense on second down, then have your tight end covered on a play action on third down, sacking your QB, you know what good coaching is and what it isn't.

Spurrier is very capable of running exquisitely designed and executed routes. But too often teams know everything we're doing and we know too little of what they are.

No one is arguing that Parcells is a bad coach. That argument is unsustainable given his record of success.

I'm at a loss for words here. This argument is very surreal. You appear to be using the Giants games as examples of being outcoached. Am I going to have to argue that we weren't outcoached in the Giants game? I must be dreaming. I don't think I'll address that right now. I hope you'll just take it back since it's so goofy to ignore drives where we scored nicely and finished nicely. Teams do get stopped at the 1 sometimes, but when they win, that they got stopped at the 1 does not prove that they were outcoached. And by the way, the onus is on you to prove they were outcoached in a winning effort. Turnover ratio of +3 in terrible weather conditions points to good preparation, by the way. That's a fairly standard interpretation, in fact I heard it on the radio just yesterday.

As for preparation, let's be very clear. I think Parcells prepares his team well, and Spurrier prepares his team differently. Spurrier is also learning better what it takes to prepare a team in the NFL, but he isn't doing as terrible a job as you make it out in my opinion. I also think that saying that these are root causes is ignorant; for one thing, it ignores that while having penalty problems, many offensive linemen openly said that they felt they were prepared well, and that it shouldn't be happening. I'm not saying that means they were prepared well, but I do question how final an assertion can be made of a root cause at this point. Also, it seems (fingers crossed) that they have largely addressed the problem.

Parcells is a great coach; it only makes him look better when he takes a team that was led disastrously by Chan Gailey. That had two effects; it made a team that was NOT untalented look bad last year, and it also made the players ready to try to make this year their year. It seemed that way in the offseason, somehow, that they were ready. I'm sure it helped having a coach with credentials and NFL experience at that point as well, I'm not trying to belittle that. However to say that we have such a clear talent advantage seems foolish. On defense we have advantages at CB and LB, although their LBs are playing very well and have been underrated in my opinion. They have a clear advantage at S (Iffy and Matt v. Roy and Darren... I think it's pretty clear who's the better pair), and at DL I think most would give them the nod. Their WR trio is arguably the best group in the league. We might have more talent spread over our group as a whole, but that three can compete with any trio in the NFL, I think.

I have so much more to say, like how you seem eager to call the good plays that we make the result of opposition mistakes, and the good plays the Cowboys make the result of good coaching. The bad plays the Cowboys make... like being unable to score in games (that's plural, games, with an "s")... that's on the players' lack of talent.

Hmmm.

[KTrainSkinsFan]

Wow

First off, I am using the case that this whole argument is about...the Pats/Skins game...why would I use any other case? If you want me to use other games then I can do that easily. How much credit did you give Spurrier for setting up the Seahawks with the WR screen and then going to the WR pass for the score?

Secondly, I am using your DIRECT QUOTES to argue you. YOU SAID, "Offensively after a nice start, I remember looking on with dread as we just got stoned in the second half." Once again, if we did well in the 1st Half, how could we have got outcoached for the game? Even if we did get outcoached in the 2nd Half? I would like that question answered in your next response and please, you can save the weak 'Belichek hadn't adjusted yet"...if that is true then that means he was OUTCOACHED.

Your reasoning seems to work like this: We got 4 turnovers->We still only won by a close margin->We got outcoached. What I don't get about that is, even you have stated that there is more to a game than coaching. Do you have any HARD evidence that coaching was the reason for our close margin of victory?? I don't think you do...I think all you have is OPINION and OPINION by nature is BIASED.

To quote you further:

"You can outcoach the opposition in a win under any number of crazy scenarios where they outgain you."

But then when arguing why we were outcoached in the Pats game you say:

"In a game in which we had a 4-0 turnover margin, the Pats STILL out gained us."

Hmm, let me check...nope, no bias there.

I read this quote of yours and I can't help but laugh:

"As for outcoaching the Dolphins, let me say first that it's VERY hard to clearly outcoach the opposition in a game you lose."

Hmmm, let's see, I think you might be arguing that right now...so, let me get it right, it's VERY hard to argue that Spurrier outcoaches anyone in defeat but it's ok if it's Belichek...No Art, you aren't biased at all.

I guess I'm just being ignorant.

[shawn]

in my opinion games played in the early season are different than the ones at the end of the year. Given that off seaosn movements in this FA era teams chemsitries are different and many coordinators don't know enough about opposition to be able to game plan accordingly.

it took a few games but teams figured out that they can blitz the skins effectively, early in the season that wasn't as evident. Teams figured that they can run on the skins and devised game plans accordingly. it usually takes 5 to 8 games and that gives good coordinators enough film to decipher weaknesses and devise game plans.

in the case of cowboys teams figured out that they are not able to run the ball effecively and they don't have to defend with a saftely close to the line and the front 7 can handle the run defense. subsequently they have been dropping their safties in pass defense and that has hurt the passing game.

the cowboys have also played their toughest part of their schedule in the past 4 weeks. cowboys played a soft schedule early on but the past 4 weeks has proved (as expected ) that the cowboys don't belong among the elite.

things could have been different if schdules were different. if the easy part of the schedule was at the end of the season then the cowobys would have probably finished with a few wins and everyone would have been saying that they had a nice winning streak, etc and they can build on that for next year....

now in regards to this weeknds game, I think the skins have a great chance to win. Their defense should and probably will take a page out of the other teams game plans and defend against the run with the front 7 and drop the safties in pass coverage. The LBs are able to stay with dallas TEs and be able to minimmally neutralize them.

The redskins offense has been playing much better as of late and the cowboys defense has been struggling, and the skins are playing at home and its a big rivalry.

the redskins have been playing everyone close this year other than the tampa game and they really haven't been out of any game and have had a chance to win the 4th in almost every game.

this is going to be a close game.

[Art]

It would be beneficial to you, KT, if you actually finished reading the thoughts and accepted them for what they were. Yes, it's very difficult to clearly outcoach another team in a game you lose. You can do it. Do you know when you can do it? You can do it in a game where your team has 4 turnovers and you are still only a 3-point loser. You can't do it when not only does your team lose but you are also outgained in the process.

Did you miss the portion where I said it's VERY hard to clearly outcoach the opposition in a game you lose? I don't think you did, because you quoted me. And since you quoted me I assume you understand the language well enough to know what the words mean.

It's very hard means it's very hard, though not impossible. Clearly outcoach means clearly outcoach, not, possibly outcoach. You could have understood that from reading the person I was responding to who said Spurrier clearly outcoached.

Yes, it's very hard to clearly outcoach someone in a game in which your team loses. It's possible, though hard. Now, it's EASIER to outcoach someone in a game in which your team loses. That's possible. Do you know the difference between the two statements? Hint. One has clearly in it and one doesn't.

Further, an example of clearly outcoaching someone in a loss would be when your team has seven starters out, four turnovers, on the road and you still out gain the opposition AND only lose by three. That would be an example of clearly outcoaching someone in a loss. You still lost, so the victory is hollow, no doubt.

If you'd like, I can break down every word so you better understand. Or, you can pretend you do and try to accurately capture what I'm talking about.

My reasoning for recognizing what Belichek did to the Redskins and Spurrier is from watching the game and seeing how well he adjusted to us, despite limited talent on hand and a problem with his own team killing itself with turnovers. The ability to totally confuse and frustrate Ramsey. The near total shut down of our passing game after a nice early start -- though certainly offset by a sound running game for a stretch there on our part.

The ability of a coach to out coach someone else comes from in game adjustments that are made. It was not abnormal to see a Gibbs team with Petitbone taken early but then things were altered in the second half. It's not exactly as if we've been a strong starting team, but, in the games we have started well, particularly the Pats and the Bucs, we were still outcoached in each game because THEY adjusted to us and we had no ability to answer.

Very frequently we are the team that is stoned early and it takes us three quarters before we find a way to get it going. And while that shows some promise for Spurrier in adjusting enough to eventually find openings for us, it is likewise seen by many of the opponents we've faced.

Their ability to adjust and alter the game with our complete inability to do anything about it is where Spurrier has found himself on the short end in almost every game this year. It's the very ability to respond to what the opposition is doing and to stop it that makes a coach a great coach capable of being a legitimate Xs and Os guy.

Spurrier's not there right now.

You asked how much credit I give Spurrier for the call he made against the Seahawks on the Gardner play. I give him a great deal of credit. That was a brilliant coaching call. Rhodes, to that point, was arrogantly stupid all game. Spurrier's offense was doing pretty well, though there seemed to be little wide open. That call to end the game was brilliant and is the sort of call that lifts a coach above another. The sort of call that by the nature of the call completely outsmarts the opposition and by design if it does so puts you in position to make big plays.

Rhodes is the one guy Spurrier clearly got the better of this year. In large part because Rhodes was dumb. In large part because Spurrier seemed to find himself in that game and call out a good old ball play that for the first time in weeks seemed to totally catch the opposition off guard.

But, trick plays aren't really the measure of intelligence. Rolling the dice and taking that sort of gamble is fantastic when it works, but it can't be the basis of an offense. Gibbs would run trick plays and they would work as well. But the basis of his greatness was being so much smarter than the other guy that he could generally come up with ways to beat them.

The guys who gave him trouble were the guys who had their teams well prepared for the nuances they might see from Gibbs. Guys like Parcells. But, again, I digress.

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by Art

It would be beneficial to you, KT, if you actually finished reading the thoughts and accepted them for what they were. Yes, it's very difficult to clearly outcoach another team in a game you lose. You can do it. Do you know when you can do it? You can do it in a game where your team has 4 turnovers and you are still only a 3-point loser. You can't do it when not only does your team lose but you are also outgained in the process.

Did you miss the portion where I said it's VERY hard to clearly outcoach the opposition in a game you lose? I don't think you did, because you quoted me. And since you quoted me I assume you understand the language well enough to know what the words mean.

It's very hard means it's very hard, though not impossible. Clearly outcoach means clearly outcoach, not, possibly outcoach. You could have understood that from reading the person I was responding to who said Spurrier clearly outcoached.

Yes, it's very hard to clearly outcoach someone in a game in which your team loses. It's possible, though hard. Now, it's EASIER to outcoach someone in a game in which your team loses. That's possible. Do you know the difference between the two statements? Hint. One has clearly in it and one doesn't.

Further, an example of clearly outcoaching someone in a loss would be when your team has seven starters out, four turnovers, on the road and you still out gain the opposition AND only lose by three. That would be an example of clearly outcoaching someone in a loss. You still lost, so the victory is hollow, no doubt.

If you'd like, I can break down every word so you better understand. Or, you can pretend you do and try to accurately capture what I'm talking about.

My reasoning for recognizing what Belichek did to the Redskins and Spurrier is from watching the game and seeing how well he adjusted to us, despite limited talent on hand and a problem with his own team killing itself with turnovers. The ability to totally confuse and frustrate Ramsey. The near total shut down of our passing game after a nice early start -- though certainly offset by a sound running game for a stretch there on our part.

The ability of a coach to out coach someone else comes from in game adjustments that are made. It was not abnormal to see a Gibbs team with Petitbone taken early but then things were altered in the second half. It's not exactly as if we've been a strong starting team, but, in the games we have started well, particularly the Pats and the Bucs, we were still outcoached in each game because THEY adjusted to us and we had no ability to answer.

Very frequently we are the team that is stoned early and it takes us three quarters before we find a way to get it going. And while that shows some promise for Spurrier in adjusting enough to eventually find openings for us, it is likewise seen by many of the opponents we've faced.

Their ability to adjust and alter the game with our complete inability to do anything about it is where Spurrier has found himself on the short end in almost every game this year. It's the very ability to respond to what the opposition is doing and to stop it that makes a coach a great coach capable of being a legitimate Xs and Os guy.

Spurrier's not there right now.

You asked how much credit I give Spurrier for the call he made against the Seahawks on the Gardner play. I give him a great deal of credit. That was a brilliant coaching call. Rhodes, to that point, was arrogantly stupid all game. Spurrier's offense was doing pretty well, though there seemed to be little wide open. That call to end the game was brilliant and is the sort of call that lifts a coach above another. The sort of call that by the nature of the call completely outsmarts the opposition and by design if it does so puts you in position to make big plays.

Rhodes is the one guy Spurrier clearly got the better of this year. In large part because Rhodes was dumb. In large part because Spurrier seemed to find himself in that game and call out a good old ball play that for the first time in weeks seemed to totally catch the opposition off guard.

But, trick plays aren't really the measure of intelligence. Rolling the dice and taking that sort of gamble is fantastic when it works, but it can't be the basis of an offense. Gibbs would run trick plays and they would work as well. But the basis of his greatness was being so much smarter than the other guy that he could generally come up with ways to beat them.

The guys who gave him trouble were the guys who had their teams well prepared for the nuances they might see from Gibbs. Guys like Parcells. But, again, I digress.

Art, I hope you will call LC and set him straight. He needs to hear from you, he just doesn't understand football like you do. HE seems to think the Redskins had some kind of crazy plan in the second half, and that Spurrier may have outcoached Bellichick. Ridiculous! LC seems to think that Spurrier wasn't trying to outgain Bellichick... in fact, this quote from LC seems to imply that he thinks Spurrier may have just been trying to have more points on the scoreboard at the end of the game, instead of doing that AND outgaining the genius Bill. He hasn't talked to you, clearly.

Here's the quote:

"He gave us the run," receiver Laveranues Coles said. "Coach Spurrier was taking advantage of whatever the he gave us, and that's what we're about. Matching wits with a guy like that, Coach did that and came out on top."

I hope you have his number. You probably do, since you have insider knowledge about how poorly Spurrier has been preparing the team. I suggest that you approach the argument with him in the same manner that you've approached it here...

"They outgained you, LC... Spurrier was outcoached, don't you see? Even though you threw 7 times in the second half... they lost and they outgained you... don't you see that this is one of the rare times a loser can clearly outcoach a winner?"

In that same article:

The Redskins hired officials this week for practice to cut down on penalties, but they still had nine for 75 yards.

I think you need to call that sportswriter too, and explain that Spurrier didn't address the penalty problem with any preparation, but that Parcells would have. I mean, you have certainly convinced all of the readers of this thread.

I hope you recognize my sarcasm.

Here's the link:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/recap/NFL_20030928_NE@WAS

These long posts aren't helping your argument.

[Art]

And ignoring we won by three despite a 4-0 turnover advantage at home against an injured team isn't helping yours. It's stunning to me to see people so unwilling to be critical of a person like Spurrier. If I can do it, you should be able to as well. If I can see where he's failed this year, it shouldn't be a shock to you to have that pointed out.

If my judgement of how a game is coached is based on what a particular player might say, I'd be inclined to believe we're coming out behind the game in terms of player comments about how they like our coaching.

I've commented here previously that it appears Spurrier has done a good job of limiting penalties in recent weeks. I've commented on where his improvement as a coach is obvious. In two games this year with a plus 8 turnover advantage, Spurrier has coached us to a minus 4 point difference.

If you think he's coaching his boys up with the No. 23 offense and No. 22 defense I hope you realize you'll need more than sarcasm to be persuasive.

[KTrainSkinsFan]

You are right, I need your help in understanding the ideas you are putting together. (Like I said, I may be ignorant).

The reason why I will never win this argument is that you can simply redefine "outcoaching" or "clearly outcoaching" any time you want...because you are so smart!

"The ability of a coach to out coach someone else comes from in game adjustments that are made"

Is this the only aspect of outcoaching/'clearly' outcoaching? If it is then I am once again confused (forgive me) because I thought that you were praising Parcells earlier for having his team "prepared" (remember that word?) with an INITIAL game plan...which I think Spurrier may have done, as evidenced by the team's success in the first half of the Pats game.

Notice I used the words "think" and "may have". I use words like that because I am a fan of the Redskins and not a player/coach/manager. I was in the stands, there is no way that I could know what Spurrier was thinking, what the team practiced, etc.

You, on the other hand, are taking statistics...turnovers, score difference, yards gained...and then blanketly, blindly, attributing them to good or bad coaching. Don't you think something is wrong with that? Am I wrong for thinking something is wrong with that? School me, great teacher. (but please, keep it short)

[Art]

KT,

I don't have to be smart at all to simply redefine "outcoaching" to "clearly outcoaching". You see, since YOU quoted what I said and the phrasing was clear, you have to be dumb to try to say I said one thing when you have direct quotes that I said something else.

But, moving beyond that. You're correct, I'm using stats, and turnovers and score difference and yards gained to help formulate what is actually happening out there. I'm looking at an offensive team with MUCH more talent than last year's offensive team not being any more productive. I'm also watching as play after play the opposition knows exactly where we are going with the ball and how we have no answer to it.

Now, as I suggested after seeing the Saints game up close, there is a lot that Spurrier can't be held responsible for in terms of design because guys are running very open for him at times. The problem remains that he's not preparing his QB to take advantage of those instances.

And that too frequently there is no surprise to what we are bringing to the opposition. No mismatch that we create. When you are a bad offense you are rarely a well-coached one. We're a bad offense. It's impossible to avoid that. I shouldn't have to provide any great teaching to you to recognize that.

Spurrier is the single weakest NFL coach I've seen this year. He's been consistently out prepared and out coached. It's embarrassing to see time and again how our running backs can't pick up a simple inside blitz. How Rock can have two open blitzers and miss both. This is coaching.

As Aikman said during one of our broadcasts before it got REALLY ugly, the Redskins don't appear to be a team that spends a lot of time getting ready for what they might see on Sunday. That sums up this team better than almost anything else. Both on offense and on defense we rarely seem ready for the other guys.

And, I say all this AS a guy who thinks Spurrier can make it happen. But only if he gets back to being Steve Spurrier.

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by Art

And ignoring we won by three despite a 4-0 turnover advantage at home against an injured team isn't helping yours. It's stunning to me to see people so unwilling to be critical of a person like Spurrier. If I can do it, you should be able to as well. If I can see where he's failed this year, it shouldn't be a shock to you to have that pointed out.

If my judgement of how a game is coached is based on what a particular player might say, I'd be inclined to believe we're coming out behind the game in terms of player comments about how they like our coaching.

I've commented here previously that it appears Spurrier has done a good job of limiting penalties in recent weeks. I've commented on where his improvement as a coach is obvious. In two games this year with a plus 8 turnover advantage, Spurrier has coached us to a minus 4 point difference.

If you think he's coaching his boys up with the No. 23 offense and No. 22 defense I hope you realize you'll need more than sarcasm to be persuasive.

Once again, I have to be very clear. Did I say Spurrier is a great coach? Did I even say Spurrier is a good coach? This is a rare time when I won't look at my former posts when I make an assertion like this, but I'm confident I did not say such a thing. I am not a big Spurrier fan. Ask InstiGATOR if you don't believe me.

However- I have to take offense at this cut-and-dry attitude you seem to have about things. The Cowboys success this year comparable to last year is due to Parcells preparation. Parcells amazing preparation makes all the difference in the world and the Redskins would have 9 or 10 wins if he was our coach. That is all conjecture. Would Parcells have more success than Spurrier? Yes, I would think so, maybe every year, but especially the first couple of years. Saying how much, though... is a stretch for me. Is Parcells making a difference in their organization? Yes, I would think so, again. How much, though... is once again a stretch. They were shut out twice this year. In full games (plural, that is an s on the end of that word) they didn't manage a single point.

Not even a field goal. Was the ball bouncing funny that day? Were there just a lot of human mistakes? I mean, Coach Parcells had them ready to score, right? They have one of the best trios of WRs in the league, and in a losing effort last Sunday, Zuriel Smith led all WRs with 1 catch. If you didn't know, old Zuriel isn't considered to be a member of that trio.

I am not trying to make any assertions on how great a job that Spurrier is doing. I'm glad you are saying he's improving, I think he is too. At least, I hope he is. I share the concerns of a lot of posters here, but also realize that although we see the effects

of things, the causes remain somewhat out of reach. We can guess, but I don't think we should be so sure of ourselves.

You said:

"And ignoring we won by three despite a 4-0 turnover advantage at home against an injured team isn't helping yours."

You're going to make me cry soon. You just repeat yourself incessantly, without addressing what I said. So now the problem isn't that we were outgained by them, but that we had 4 turnovers and we only won by 3. So. If they had punted on a couple of those turnovers (and I know some of them were on 3rd downs, KT even posts to that effect in this thread), then he wasn't outcoached. Stop the insanity! Yes, we had 4 turnovers. Yes, we only won by 3. The problem is, we weren't trying to win by more than 1. I don't think the team cared. There is just too much going on in a game to do the kind of analysis, but let me point a couple things out. When teams are down, as the Patriots were, they PASS a lot. When teams are up, as the Redskins were, they RUN a lot. The Redskins threw 7 times in the second half; in the game, they threw the least in Spurrier's tenure up to that point. You're surprised we were outgained? You're surprised we surrendered a lot of points in the second half without scoring any? Our defense didn't stop them well in the second half, that's true. That happens. Does that mean we were outcoached, when, in desperation, they managed to score two TDs? They also punted in the second half, but that gets discounted, right?

Stop the insanity! What keeps me sane is, I don't see you talking about being outgained anymore, so I guess the fact that Spurrier threw for a tenure-low 22 times in the game, and that he threw only 7 times in the second half silenced that part.

Baby steps... baby steps.

[KTrainSkinsFan]

Wow...7 pass attempts in the 2nd Half...great post SkinsNumberOne.

I guess Ramsey "couldn't figure out a place to go with the ball." the 7 times he ATTEMPTED to throw it in the WHOLE HALF.

This argument is starting to become a joke...'clearly' we are arguing against Art's biased perception of what went on in the game. I give up...you win.

[Art]

Yes, the Cowboys were shut out twice. They aren't a very good team. They are a five-win team dressed up as a playoff contender. They are going to be exposed by anyone who's remotely good. They've been exposed by everyone they've played who's been remotely any good.

Football is the single sport where coaching matters more than any other sport. But talent also matters. And it especially matters in games against other coaches of very high quality where your advantage won't be as pronounced. When Spurrier came into the league I was a very big supporter of the move. I remain in his corner. But I said at the time that the biggest difference for him in adjusting to the NFL will be that HE is no longer the smartest kid in class.

Unlike college where he'd rarely run into a coach of his ability, he'll run into them every week in the NFL. This has been the single biggest difference in most Redskin games this year. The coaching advantage hasn't been on our side. Sometimes it's been TERRIBLY lopsided against us.

Now, against New England, no, I'm not surprised we surrendered a lot of points but didn't score any. I'm not because we scored 14 in the second half which is the same as they scored. I am somewhat surprised you'd argue a Spurrier team wasn't trying to score more points. Wasn't trying to gain more yards. Wasn't trying to put the game away. Are you actually thinking it seems intelligent to me to write off the New England game to Spurrier playing Marty ball?

The Redskins didn't "run" a lot against New England in the second half. We ran 14 times in the first half. We ran 15 times in the second half. This is Steve Spurrier we're talking about. With 2:05 left he runs to get to the two minute warning. Then, he sees his line have two false starts. He doesn't run again to make the Pats use time outs. He passes. He passes again. (The second should have been a catch).

Spurrier doesn't sit on leads. He doesn't milk the clock. He doesn't manage games. He calls ball plays. If we're running good, he's probably going to call a run. If we're passing good he's probably going to call a pass. He doesn't take down and distance into account. Spurrier calls the good play against the defense he sees. That's who he is. He doesn't care about the clock. Spurrier runs with two seconds left just for the heck of it.

He is who he is. And who he is right now is a guy who simply can't figure out how come nothing he's doing is working. The big reason is because he's not seeing the QB pull the trigger well enough to attack the open area. Ramsey has failed there. So has Hasselbeck. I think as they get experience and more understanding they will start to complete some of the passes we don't know complete and we'll all wonder at Spurrier's magnificance.

But when they aren't doing it, we look under prepared. And we have all year.

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by Art

KT,

I don't have to be smart at all to simply redefine "outcoaching" to "clearly outcoaching". You see, since YOU quoted what I said and the phrasing was clear, you have to be dumb to try to say I said one thing when you have direct quotes that I said something else.

But, moving beyond that. You're correct, I'm using stats, and turnovers and score difference and yards gained to help formulate what is actually happening out there. I'm looking at an offensive team with MUCH more talent than last year's offensive team not being any more productive. I'm also watching as play after play the opposition knows exactly where we are going with the ball and how we have no answer to it.

Now, as I suggested after seeing the Saints game up close, there is a lot that Spurrier can't be held responsible for in terms of design because guys are running very open for him at times. The problem remains that he's not preparing his QB to take advantage of those instances.

And that too frequently there is no surprise to what we are bringing to the opposition. No mismatch that we create. When you are a bad offense you are rarely a well-coached one. We're a bad offense. It's impossible to avoid that. I shouldn't have to provide any great teaching to you to recognize that.

Spurrier is the single weakest NFL coach I've seen this year. He's been consistently out prepared and out coached. It's embarrassing to see time and again how our running backs can't pick up a simple inside blitz. How Rock can have two open blitzers and miss both. This is coaching.

As Aikman said during one of our broadcasts before it got REALLY ugly, the Redskins don't appear to be a team that spends a lot of time getting ready for what they might see on Sunday. That sums up this team better than almost anything else. Both on offense and on defense we rarely seem ready for the other guys.

And, I say all this AS a guy who thinks Spurrier can make it happen. But only if he gets back to being Steve Spurrier.

RATS! I just posted that you realized how getting outgained in the Patriots game was misleading, and now I read this. Very depressing news, indeed. Say it with me. Seven throws in the second half. 22 throws in the whole game. Tenure-low. Trying to win the game without doing anything fancy. Win the game by 3.

Those are the points in my favor.

In your favor, we have... injury riddled Patriots. Surrendered 4 turnovers and came up with 3 less points. Outgained the opposition.

For the most part, when you lose, you were outcoached. When you surrender a bunch of turnovers and don't lose by a lot, kudos, that's something to keep the blues away in the next week. Did you outcoach the opposition because you threw when you were losing, and you completed some passes and scored some points when you were already losing, while they were mostly running? Did you do a good job coaching when you had a lot of injuries and still managed to be competitive? Sure, that's easy to say. But did you clearly outcoach the opposition? No. You did not. Is it arguable, that the other coach outcoached you in this scenario... that the other coach who got a W, got it by beating your injured team and getting 4 turnovers, but "only" winning by 3? Yes, it's arguable.

Art, you are wrong. You can't say we were clearly outcoached in that game, and I would say that with the lead we didn't screw up the game and lose... as LC said, and I thought it before reading it... Spurrier ran the ball in the second half. Sometimes, he ridiculously ran the ball, when usually he would never do that. He was outcoached because he ran the ball with the lead?

We aren't really a running team, I think (you'll probably disagree and say we are, the way this argument is going), but that day we ran 29 times with a 4.0 yards per rush average. Spurrier must be a moron to do that. This just wasn't a good example you used, Art.

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by Art

Yes, the Cowboys were shut out twice. They aren't a very good team. They are a five-win team dressed up as a playoff contender. They are going to be exposed by anyone who's remotely good. They've been exposed by everyone they've played who's been remotely any good.

Football is the single sport where coaching matters more than any other sport. But talent also matters. And it especially matters in games against other coaches of very high quality where your advantage won't be as pronounced. When Spurrier came into the league I was a very big supporter of the move. I remain in his corner. But I said at the time that the biggest difference for him in adjusting to the NFL will be that HE is no longer the smartest kid in class.

Unlike college where he'd rarely run into a coach of his ability, he'll run into them every week in the NFL. This has been the single biggest difference in most Redskin games this year. The coaching advantage hasn't been on our side. Sometimes it's been TERRIBLY lopsided against us.

Now, against New England, no, I'm not surprised we surrendered a lot of points but didn't score any. I'm not because we scored 14 in the second half which is the same as they scored. I am somewhat surprised you'd argue a Spurrier team wasn't trying to score more points. Wasn't trying to gain more yards. Wasn't trying to put the game away. Are you actually thinking it seems intelligent to me to write off the New England game to Spurrier playing Marty ball?

The Redskins didn't "run" a lot against New England in the second half. We ran 14 times in the first half. We ran 15 times in the second half. This is Steve Spurrier we're talking about. With 2:05 left he runs to get to the two minute warning. Then, he sees his line have two false starts. He doesn't run again to make the Pats use time outs. He passes. He passes again. (The second should have been a catch).

Spurrier doesn't sit on leads. He doesn't milk the clock. He doesn't manage games. He calls ball plays. If we're running good, he's probably going to call a run. If we're passing good he's probably going to call a pass. He doesn't take down and distance into account. Spurrier calls the good play against the defense he sees. That's who he is. He doesn't care about the clock. Spurrier runs with two seconds left just for the heck of it.

He is who he is. And who he is right now is a guy who simply can't figure out how come nothing he's doing is working. The big reason is because he's not seeing the QB pull the trigger well enough to attack the open area. Ramsey has failed there. So has Hasselbeck. I think as they get experience and more understanding they will start to complete some of the passes we don't know complete and we'll all wonder at Spurrier's magnificance.

But when they aren't doing it, we look under prepared. And we have all year.

Art. 22 attempts in the game. Tenure low. Art.

Please.

7 attempts in the second half.

Spurrier didn't run much in the second half, you're right.

Washington Redskins at 08:15

1-10-WAS36 (8:15) T.Canidate up the middle to WAS 45 for 9 yards (R.Harrison).

2-1-WAS45 (7:43) T.Canidate right guard to NE 48 for 7 yards (W.McGinest).

1-10-NE48 (7:13) T.Canidate right tackle to NE 47 for 1 yard (R.Phifer).

PENALTY on WAS-D.Dockery, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at NE 48 - No Play.

1-20-WAS42 (6:55) T.Canidate left end to NE 28 for 30 yards (T.Poole). FUMBLES (T.Poole), touched at NE 12, recovered by WAS-R.Gardner at NE 12. R.Gardner to NE 12 for no gain (E.Wilson).

1-10-NE12 (6:05) L.Betts left end to NE 7 for 5 yards (R.Phifer).

2-5-NE7 (5:20) PENALTY on NE-R.Seymour, Encroachment, 4 yards, enforced at NE 7 - No Play.

2-1-NE3 (5:15) R.Cartwright left end for 3 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

J.Hall extra point is GOOD, Center-E.Albright, Holder-B.Barker.

NE 3 WAS 20, Plays: 5 Yards: 64 Possession: 3:07.

64 yards, Art. All rushing Art. All rushing. Third quarter.

It's hard to run more after you score the touchdown. We ran 5 times on that 64 yard drive, and got a touchdown.

I think I've made the mistake of posting long posts, sometimes the point gets lost in long posts. I'll try to be shorter in the future. Hopefully this thread is almost done.

[Art]

Since you seem to believe repetition of seven throws is crucial to your position, allow me to respond that we had a 4-0 turnover advantage at home, against a team with numerous starters out, and we won by three only after leaving them timeouts at the end of the game.

The repetition here is the 4 turnovers. Four of their drives were stopped by turnovers. That's four of them. None of ours were. None. Not one. That's 0. That's repetition.

That's an important number. I'd submit to you that the 4 is a bigger number than the 7. What do you think? Might even be the 4 ALLOWED the 7. How about that? But again, we ran 14 times in the first half. We ran 15 times in the second half. By saying we ran a lot in the second half your point seems to be that we altered what we were doing, took advantage of what they were doing, and we ran more in the second half than the first.

Perhaps you don't mean that at all. Perhaps you mean we ran a lot in the first half and we ran a lot in the second half. I don't know. You'll have to let me know.

Throwing seven times in the second half, completing 2 of them, is not an earth-shattering number. After completing seven passes in two drives to open the game, completing 3 the rest of the way is disquieting, but, forgivable. As I wrote, the running early in the second half offset the pass.

And yet, we ran a lot, passed late, won by three, had a 4-0 turnover difference at home against a team with multiple starters out. And THIS is the game you are desperately in need of proving was a Spurrier classic. Dude, you may want to write longer to confuse the issue a little longer because that's all it boils down to and that's not a good place for you to be.

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by Art

Spurrier doesn't sit on leads. He doesn't milk the clock. He doesn't manage games. He calls ball plays. If we're running good, he's probably going to call a run. If we're passing good he's probably going to call a pass. He doesn't take down and distance into account. Spurrier calls the good play against the defense he sees. That's who he is. He doesn't care about the clock. Spurrier runs with two seconds left just for the heck of it.

So now Spurrier is adjusting his game plan to the defense? That seems to contradict earlier things you have said, about Spurrier not adjusting. Without saying anything about why Spurrier did it like you probably will, the 65 yard drive I previously posted was:

1. All rushing

2. Successful, given that it scored a touchdown in the end.

3. Done with the lead.

Maybe he did it because he knew they were giving him the run, as LC pointed out in a prior post. Maybe he did it because they had the lead and he wanted to reduce mistakes. The thing that I would glean from it, though, is that he made a coaching decision that worked. It does not sound like he was outcoached in the second half (something you said earlier), or that we struggled against them since they had us figured out (another thing you said earlier).

What it does sound like, though, is that you're backpedaling.

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by Art

Since you seem to believe repetition of seven throws is crucial to your position, allow me to respond that we had a 4-0 turnover advantage at home, against a team with numerous starters out, and we won by three only after leaving them timeouts at the end of the game.

The repetition here is the 4 turnovers. Four of their drives were stopped by turnovers. That's four of them. None of ours were. None. Not one. That's 0. That's repetition.

That's an important number. I'd submit to you that the 4 is a bigger number than the 7. What do you think? Might even be the 4 ALLOWED the 7. How about that? But again, we ran 14 times in the first half. We ran 15 times in the second half. By saying we ran a lot in the second half your point seems to be that we altered what we were doing, took advantage of what they were doing, and we ran more in the second half than the first.

Perhaps you don't mean that at all. Perhaps you mean we ran a lot in the first half and we ran a lot in the second half. I don't know. You'll have to let me know.

Throwing seven times in the second half, completing 2 of them, is not an earth-shattering number. After completing seven passes in two drives to open the game, completing 3 the rest of the way is disquieting, but, forgivable. As I wrote, the running early in the second half offset the pass.

And yet, we ran a lot, passed late, won by three, had a 4-0 turnover difference at home against a team with multiple starters out. And THIS is the game you are desperately in need of proving was a Spurrier classic. Dude, you may want to write longer to confuse the issue a little longer because that's all it boils down to and that's not a good place for you to be.

Dude. Rewrite history all you want. It's all in the thread. You chose this game to illustrate Spurrier getting outcoached. No one else did. No one said this was a Spurrier classic.

You further said Spurrier was clearly outcoached.

I submit to you that you look very foolish right now, given that you've admitted that Spurrier ran the ball because that's what they gave him. I submit to you that the quote I posted from LC seems to have been dead-on, as illustrated by a beautiful 65 yard TD drive in the third... Spurrier took what they gave him, the run. Despite his instincts which seem to say "pass, pass, pass", he ran, and took the lead. The team won in the end.

I submit to you that in no way does this sound like a game where Spurrier was clearly outcoached, and I submit that this argument makes you sound worse and worse.

[Art]

What the hell are you talking about? How exactly is it when I say exactly the same thing over and over you come the belief I'm backpedaling? Let me say it again.

When you win a game by three against a team with multiple starters out and which surrenders 4 turnovers to your none on the road, YOU aren't the guy who was the genius in the game. The guy who kept it even remotely close is. And that they had the ball WITH time outs left at the end of the game is even MORE of an indictment against us in this matchup.

Do you know we had seven passes in the first quarter against the Pats? Do you know how many we had in the fourth quarter? Well, that would be seven.

We had SIX plays in the third quarter. So what that they were all running plays. We scored twice, once with a short field, and a nice run/fumble by Canidate, and the world is round. Did Spurrier design the fumble and recovery by Gardner, or just the run for 30, or what?

As I said earlier. This is INANE.

Spurrier had a 4-0 turnover advantage AT HOME against an injured team and he won by three but ONLY after giving the opposition the ball with timeouts and time left -- thanks to late game passing.

Nothing changed. Spurrier didn't dedicate to the running game when he normally wouldn't. He ran from the one. Then he ran five times on a 64 yard drive with 42 coming on an exquiste run by Canidate and a subsequent hustle play by Gardner to preserve the play. I wouldn't knock Spurrier had we not picked up that fumble. I also wouldn't credit him with genius that we did.

And in the fourth quarter when we had the normal amount of plays what did we do? We passed seven times. That's what we do. We'd have passed seven times in the third as well had we not had Canidate break free from several tackles from the line of scrimmage on a run. Kudos to us.

I was screaming loudly when that happened. Very happy.

I just would prefer to be happy knowing our guys are better prepared to play than they have been. Including than they were against the Pats.

[Art]

Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne

Dude. Rewrite history all you want. It's all in the thread. You chose this game to illustrate Spurrier getting outcoached. No one else did. No one said this was a Spurrier classic.

You further said Spurrier was clearly outcoached.

I submit to you that you look very foolish right now, given that you've admitted that Spurrier ran the ball because that's what they gave him. I submit to you that the quote I posted from LC seems to have been dead-on, as illustrated by a beautiful 65 yard TD drive in the third... Spurrier took what they gave him, the run. Despite his instincts which seem to say "pass, pass, pass", he ran, and took the lead. The team won in the end.

I submit to you that in no way does this sound like a game where Spurrier was clearly outcoached, and I submit that this argument makes you sound worse and worse.

No you don't sweetheart.

Go back to the first page of this thread. Find out who mentioned the Pats game first. Find out what I said in return. I didn't draw this game up as my battlefield. You boys did. I'm just stunned you're still fighting given the positions. You boys simply couldn't understand how it was possible Spurrier didn't get the best of the coaching matchup. You guys have drawn this up as your necessary victory.

Again, the position I have is that winning by three at home against an injured team and a 4-0 turnover ratio while allowing the opposition to have time outs, time and the ball to end the game is not a sign of superior coaching in that contest.

That's summed up in one paragraph. Sum your position up so that I understand in one paragraph how Spurrier actually DID outcoach Belichek?

Spurrier always tries to do what the defense gives him. That's the essense of WHO he is as a coach. It always has been. It's the fundamental principle of his scheme. Acknowledging it is not a great admission to you. But, if simple awareness stated openly is what it takes to thrill you, then, by all means, be thrilled.

[KTrainSkinsFan]

Originally posted by Art

KT,

I don't have to be smart at all to simply redefine "outcoaching" to "clearly outcoaching". You see, since YOU quoted what I said and the phrasing was clear, you have to be dumb to try to say I said one thing when you have direct quotes that I said something else.

So, let me get this right....

Let's take this one step at a time...

So, are you saying that outcoaching/'clearly' outcoaching means ONLY adjusting during the game? A short, concise answer will suffice.

[Art]

I don't think that's fully the case, no, KT. It's a great big part of outcoaching someone. The ability to make in-game adjustments that change the course of a game in your favor is a skill that great coaches have. It's a skill we've seen exploited against us somewhat frequently this year.

But, not every great coach is the sort of coach who is skilled at these sorts of in-game adjustments. They can still outcoach the opposition through preparation and putting an assignment sure group out there. By game planning against weaknesses you perceive from film and being productive against those weaknesses. Spurrier has had some of those moments -- specifically against the Pats and the Bucs -- early. Even some of the in-game adjustment moments late, or for spells of the game.

But, in the end, even if you are perfectly prepared, assignment sure and productive early in a game, if the opposition can move its pieces on the board to STOP how you've prepared, and you can't adjust to that, then, you've been outcoached. Every time. That's the checkmate in coaching.

[SkinsNumberOne]

What do you think?

Originally posted by Art

No you don't sweetheart.

Go back to the first page of this thread. Find out who mentioned the Pats game first. Find out what I said in return. I didn't draw this game up as my battlefield. You boys did. I'm just stunned you're still fighting given the positions. You boys simply couldn't understand how it was possible Spurrier didn't get the best of the coaching matchup. You guys have drawn this up as your necessary victory.

Again, the position I have is that winning by three at home against an injured team and a 4-0 turnover ratio while allowing the opposition to have time outs, time and the ball to end the game is not a sign of superior coaching in that contest.

That's summed up in one paragraph. Sum your position up so that I understand in one paragraph how Spurrier actually DID outcoach Belichek?

Spurrier always tries to do what the defense gives him. That's the essense of WHO he is as a coach. It always has been. It's the fundamental principle of his scheme. Acknowledging it is not a great admission to you. But, if simple awareness stated openly is what it takes to thrill you, then, by all means, be thrilled.

Art, You are correct, someone else said that Spurrier outcoached/beat Bellichick. I did not support that comment, nor did I make that comment. I have repeatedly said (and you have said it yourself) that it is very hard to argue that the coach of a losing team outcoached another team. Thus, the onus is on YOU to show how bellichick outcoached Spurrier. There is NO onus on ME to show YOU how Spurrier outcoached Bellichick. The score shows a win for Spurrier, and for many, that is enough (however, AGAIN, I am not trying to prove Spurrier outcoached Bellichick, I don't believe I ever said that; I only have to prove that Spurrier was not clearly outcoached in a game he won). Doing what it takes to win in a given situation is what coaches get paid to do, not win pretty, not lose pretty with a lot of injuries, but just win.

Until you admit that you contradict yourself from post-to-post occasionally I am not going to continue posting in this discussion. The latest contradiction is made in your last paragraph; you now say that "Spurrier always tries to do what the defense gives him. That's the essense of WHO he is as a coach. It always has been. It's the fundamental principle of his scheme."

In a previous post, you have said "But, trick plays aren't really the measure of intelligence. Rolling the dice and taking that sort of gamble is fantastic when it works, but it can't be the basis of an offense." The implication there is clearly that the basis of Spurrier's offense is rolling the dice and taking gambles. But recently you have shifted to "taking what the defense gives you" being the basis, which to me sounds much more conservative than what Spurrier does. In fact, I remember a game last year against a terrible Jacksonville run defense, that Spurrier passed quite a bit because the weather was good. Does that sound like someone who took what the defense gave?

And yet, in this game, he won. He threw 7 times in the second half, and a low during his tenure, which to me is important to repeat because he has seemed too egotistical to turn away from the pass even when it's obvious he should (you have cited an example from the game where he should not have passed, and I tend to agree, although he should have gotten the first down and got robbed by the refs). In this game, as LC pointed out, he took what he was given (perhaps because Bellichick guessed Spurrier would want to throw and realized a little too late what the error was? I don't know, maybe, but I don't need this to be true to make my point) and came out on top in the end. The question I am answering is not whether he outcoached Bellichick. The question I am answering is whether he was "clearly outcoached" by Bellichick, an assertion you made earlier. And the answer, to me, is decidedly no.

If you would like to admit the contradiction you made that I alluded to above, and continue this debate further, that's cool. If you're tired of arguing with me, and you want to just say we differ on *opinion*, that's cool too. If you don't want to admit you contradicted yourself, that's not cool.

Past experience tells me you will most certainly not admit defeat, which is cool, but I hope you would at least be willing to move away from the assertion that a coach who lost a game by 3 with many critical injuries and 4 turnovers "clearly outcoached" another team. Bellichick certainly made a valiant effort. Spurrier certainly made some mistakes at some points, arguably (especially in that last drive, I wanted him to run the clock down as well). At some points in the game, Spurrier made decisions that gave us touchdowns. At the end of the game, regardless of where momentum was at the end, we won because we scored more points than the opposition. We did not get all of our points because the ball fell into our lap, in fact, one time when it did at the 1 on a 3rd and 4, it may have been the result of being ready for a direct snap to the running back (according to nfl.com). Outcoached? I don't think so. Clearly outcoached.... decidedly not, to me.

[KTrainSkinsFan]

Originally posted by Art

But, in the end, even if you are perfectly prepared, assignment sure and productive early in a game, if the opposition can move its pieces on the board to STOP how you've prepared, and you can't adjust to that, then, you've been outcoached. Every time. That's the checkmate in coaching.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard...by that logic, no team should ever run or play conservative with the lead, the prevent defense should never be used, and all comebacks that fall short equal an outcoaching.

Some game plans are made KNOWING that the defense will adjust at some point...the object is to score enough points in the time they haven't adjusted to win the game....(yes, football games are played with a time limit, it isn't Chess). If I am a football coach and I see that the other team has 'adjusted' to me, but, I have assessed the 'adjustment' and have realized that it won't be enough to overtake my score within the time limit and I can just run the clock out, (7 pass attempts) that, in and of itself, IS AN ADJUSTMENT.

I guess you contend that Spurrier didn't do that...he was 'clearly' outcoached'...that's fine...but, it is a very weak argument since YOU DON'T KNOW (Maybe that 'coach' Avatar is getting to your head a bit). We all can make our assumptions based on bias. I choose not to assume either way.

[Art]

KT,

We didn't run conservative plays with the lead. We were up 14 and before we could run another play we were up 7. Up 7 we threw seven times. We ran 8 times. We weren't going for conservative. We were trying to sustain drives. We weren't good at it. And at the end, instead of making the Pats use time outs, we threw twice -- though the second should have been ruled a catch and could have made forgivable the play call.

We were up three with the opposition in good range for a possible field goal drive. They had time and time outs. They happened to make some pretty terrible calls toward the end of the game themselves, to our great fortune. Sometimes stupidity balances out.

Seven pass attempts isn't an adjustment. You guys are freaks. We only ran SIX plays in the third quarter because of their turnover and long drives otherwise. We threw the same amount in the fourth as we did in the first and one less than we did in the second. The game situation was such that passing wasn't an adjustment. We happened to be on the one. We probably are going to run.

We happened to have a 42 yard run and fumble that put us back in scoring position. We happened to run again. It's great. We've had six straight run plays called any number of times this year. It just so happened that the entire third quarter was over then. Nothing changed in the fourth.

And again, my point is in a 3 point game where the opposition has the ball and time outs at the end of the game, where we have the advantage in turnovers by a 4-0 clip and we are at home and we're playing a weakened team that WE didn't win the coaching battle. Your position is that we did.

Your assumptive bias seems a reach, don't you think?

[Art]

Number One,

It would probably help if you understood what a contradiction is before asking me to apologize for making one. A trick play is not the foundation of an offense. That's not at all contridicted by saying Spurrier's offense is, by nature, designed to adapt play by play to what the defense is showing.

Even attempting to assert these two are somehow even related thoughts much less contradictory thoughts makes you appear to be a halfwit. Don't be a halfwit. Please. No where have I ever said the basis for Spurrier's offense is to take gambles. I've written time and time again that the basis for his offense is to take what the defense gives on every play.

We had this very discussion LAST TRAINING camp when Spurrier tipped the offense to the defensive plays and Cowboy fans mocked it without understanding that the rationale behind doing so is to show the guys that there's the correct play for every defense.

Spurrier is a gambler. He is a risk taker. He has to always be that to be as great as he may become. But, that's not the basis for his offense. Not only is there no implication that such is the case, but, there's not even a HINT of it. In fact, when you say I intimate that such is the case right after posting my quote that says it's NOT the case.

See, you wrote, "The implication there is clearly that the basis of Spurrier's offense is rolling the dice and taking gambles."

You wrote this right after quoting me, correctly, as saying, "But, trick plays aren't really the measure of intelligence. Rolling the dice and taking that sort of gamble is fantastic when it works, but it can't be the basis of an offense."

Now, perhaps halfwit is too generous. I need you to explain right now how you came to the conclusion that the implication of my statement is that the basis of Spurrier's offense is rolling the dice and taking risks from the sentence in which I wrote, "IT CAN'T BE THE BASIS OF AN OFFENSE."

You initially assert to me a position someone else took. You've rightfully corrected that implication. Now, you need to correct this error as well. And then, we can move on and you can rise back up to halfwit status, or even, a three-quarter wit depending on how rapidly you recognize this idiocy and correct it.

Or, you can scream about insults and how I'm deflecting, and then I get to giggle and extend this .

Lost in your meandering need to have an apology for your own lack of comprehension are some very sound and reasonable points. All of which have been spoken about, but can fairly be spoken of again. Just not until we get you to focus on what's real and stop creating positions in words you even quoted yourself.