Chiefs Do you agree with this quote? - Page 3

Hammock Parties · 08-04-2008, 01:25 PM

"If you’ve got a good defense, your thought process changes on offense."

blueballs · 08-04-2008, 02:51 PM

Even if they don't think your gay
you should still try and score
every chance you get

Demonpenz · 08-04-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

and why Belicheck has more rings than fingers....

Herm, unfortunately, will never understand....

i am sure that has nothing to do with Tom Brady "RoolMeyes:

Deberg_1990 · 08-04-2008, 02:55 PM

"I hate Big Offense"

Herm

**the Talking Can** · 08-04-2008, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demonpenz

i am sure that has nothing to do with Tom Brady "RoolMeyes:

we're talking about systems....Belicheck understnds that you have to have a dynamic offense...obviously it helps to have talent...talent is a prerequisite for anything, offense or defense..

run up the butt/swing pass football is outmoded, outdated, pointless, stupid, offensive, and boring....

Deberg_1990 · 08-04-2008, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

obviously it helps to have talent...talent is a prerequisite for anything, offense or defense..

I wonder how Belicheck would look with Huard as his QB?

Pasta Little Brioni · 08-04-2008, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

I wonder how Belicheck would look with Huard as his QB?

I doubt they'd be throwing 40 times a game that is for sure.

**Bowser** · 08-04-2008, 04:14 PM

Yes. It shouldn't, but it does.

Oh, to have a coach that wants to attack on BOTH sides of the ball.

Mecca · 08-04-2008, 04:17 PM

I hate that attitude, first and foremost you should want to be good on both sides of the ball, and if that is the case 1 shouldn't override the other.

You should always have your foot down on the peddle to put the other team away, getting up 1 score and being conservative is how you lose games...

Zouk · 08-04-2008, 04:24 PM

Yes this is somewhat true.

But far more important is the quality of your QB / pass protection vs. the ability of your opponent's QB / pass protection. That drives the chess match and how you manage the clock and pacing. Turnovers determine the outcome of a majority of games, meaning that offenses actively lose most games. Knowing when and how to avoid this is key.

This is why Dungy and Belichick coached one way in Tampa (and still almost made the Super Bowl with Shaun King) and Cleveland (and won a division title with a minimally talented team) and a different way in Indy and New England.

Fairplay · 08-04-2008, 04:47 PM

To broad a statement to give a yes or no to.

**Bearcat** · 08-04-2008, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claythan

"If you’ve got a good defense, your thought process changes on offense."

That's a lot of code for 12 words.

Anyway, I think it should change your thought process to an extent. Like others have said, you can take more risks... go for it on 4th and inches instead of kicking a long field goal or punting it for field position. On the other hand, there's logic in not doing something stupid on offense with a few minutes to go when you have a lot of confidence in your defense. It doesn't mean you run the ball 3 times up the middle and then punt, but maybe you don't pass on 3rd and 7 when you can force the other team to go 80+ yards in a few minutes to score a TD.

When I see the quote, I think play-to-play, which will come down to "well, it depends...". It shouldn't change your philosophy, which should be to play to win. Just because you're in a defensive game doesn't mean you go into a shell and hope to win on the last play, especially when you're playing against Peyton f***ing Manning.

**the Talking Can** · 08-04-2008, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

I wonder how Belicheck would look with Huard as his QB?

better than herm....

**cdcox** · 08-04-2008, 06:26 PM

The goal of your offense should be maximize its net points, which I'm defining as the points the offense scores minus the points your offense contributes to the other team (by letting them score more points than they normally would without the offensive screw ups). This offensive goal is completely independent of what your defense is capable of. If you maximize the net points by the offense, in the long run, you will win the most games possible given your defensive abilities.

Now, those who are mathematically less astute (cough Herm, cough Marty) will select a strategy that lowers the average net points for that situation in return for lower risk. Statistically speaking, these coaches are willing to trade a lower average in order to get a lower variance. Long term, over enough games, this is a losing strategy.

Maximize your net points on offense, and the risk will take of itself.

philfree · 08-04-2008, 06:51 PM

Sometimes.

PhilFree

mcan · 08-04-2008, 07:09 PM

I voted YES, but I don't think the difference should be drastic.

No matter the quality of your defense, your goal should be to move the football as far as you can on every play, ultimately to the end of scoring points. This should be done with an estimated expected value computation.

The quality of your defense DOES figure into that expected value. However, I think most "Smash mouth" teams have it backwards. If your defense is steller, then going three and out hurts your team less. You can, therefore, afford to be MORE aggressive on offense. Conversely, if your defense stinks, you should try to avoid taking high risk shots that might lead to turnovers and/or three and outs.

View Poll Results: Do you agree with this quote?
Yes	58	65.91%
No	30	34.09%
Voters: 88. You may not vote on this poll

08-04-2008, 01:25 PM
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $3230478	Do you agree with this quote? "If you’ve got a good defense, your thought process changes on offense."
Posts: 285,825

08-04-2008, 02:51 PM	#31
blueballs Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Casino cash: $10004900	Even if they don't think your gay you should still try and score every chance you get
Posts: 14,233

08-04-2008, 02:55 PM	#33
Deberg_1990 In Search of a Life Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: San Antonio Tx. Casino cash: $2534454	"I hate Big Offense" Herm __________________ Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning: Matt once made a very nice play in Seattle where he spun away from a pass rusher and hit Bowe off his back foot for a first down. One of the best plays Matt has ever made.
Posts: 66,914

08-04-2008, 04:14 PM	#37
Bowser sorta mod-ish Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: KC North Casino cash: $2111616	Yes. It shouldn't, but it does. Oh, to have a coach that wants to attack on BOTH sides of the ball.
Posts: 103,179

08-04-2008, 04:17 PM	#38
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $1257050	I hate that attitude, first and foremost you should want to be good on both sides of the ball, and if that is the case 1 shouldn't override the other. You should always have your foot down on the peddle to put the other team away, getting up 1 score and being conservative is how you lose games...
Posts: 112,431

08-04-2008, 04:24 PM	#39
Zouk Veteran Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: DC Casino cash: $10004900	Yes this is somewhat true. But far more important is the quality of your QB / pass protection vs. the ability of your opponent's QB / pass protection. That drives the chess match and how you manage the clock and pacing. Turnovers determine the outcome of a majority of games, meaning that offenses actively lose most games. Knowing when and how to avoid this is key. This is why Dungy and Belichick coached one way in Tampa (and still almost made the Super Bowl with Shaun King) and Cleveland (and won a division title with a minimally talented team) and a different way in Indy and New England.
Posts: 1,454

08-04-2008, 04:47 PM	#40
Fairplay A certain set of skills Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: texas Casino cash: $10026683 VARSITY	To broad a statement to give a yes or no to.
Posts: 25,265

08-04-2008, 06:26 PM	#43
cdcox www.nfl-forecast.com Join Date: Sep 2000 Casino cash: $1351769	The goal of your offense should be maximize its net points, which I'm defining as the points the offense scores minus the points your offense contributes to the other team (by letting them score more points than they normally would without the offensive screw ups). This offensive goal is completely independent of what your defense is capable of. If you maximize the net points by the offense, in the long run, you will win the most games possible given your defensive abilities. Now, those who are mathematically less astute (cough Herm, cough Marty) will select a strategy that lowers the average net points for that situation in return for lower risk. Statistically speaking, these coaches are willing to trade a lower average in order to get a lower variance. Long term, over enough games, this is a losing strategy. Maximize your net points on offense, and the risk will take of itself.
Posts: 45,661

08-04-2008, 06:51 PM	#44
philfree Indian Twitter Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Free Agency Casino cash: $176198	Sometimes. PhilFree __________________ [/SIGPIC]
Posts: 15,347

08-04-2008, 07:09 PM	#45
mcan Apr 13,1949 – Dec 15, 2011 Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Kansas City, MO Casino cash: $9996085	I voted YES, but I don't think the difference should be drastic. No matter the quality of your defense, your goal should be to move the football as far as you can on every play, ultimately to the end of scoring points. This should be done with an estimated expected value computation. The quality of your defense DOES figure into that expected value. However, I think most "Smash mouth" teams have it backwards. If your defense is steller, then going three and out hurts your team less. You can, therefore, afford to be MORE aggressive on offense. Conversely, if your defense stinks, you should try to avoid taking high risk shots that might lead to turnovers and/or three and outs.
Posts: 3,761