Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicPal
Actually, I was kidding. However, I wasn't reading into it too much 'cause Herm and Chan both love to run a ball-control offense. If you read the sentence where Chan states he's more interested in his players beating the person in front of him instead of devising schemes like Al Saunders did, then you'll understand that this brand of football is exactly what most people don't like 'cause it only scores a few points per game, but more importantly, keeps games close.
The problem with the "we're going to beat them by one point" theory is always this: You're up by one point and your opponent has the ball with 2 mins to go, and you have a chance to lose the damn game- even by a simple field goal.
Nobody wants that. I don't mind ball control when you're a couple of touchdowns ahead, but ball control all game long only makes for games to be too close for comfort.
|
You're still getting hung up on the "one point" term. It's not a theory at all. As someone already eloquently stated, the goal is not going to be scoring exactly 1 point more than the opponent in various amusing ways. It's not going to be a totally different method than what DV and Al had. That was a power running game too. They just had better offensive talent to execute it. It looked so much better because the had the talent to pull it off.
The point I believe he's trying to make is that it only takes 1 point more to win. In no way does it mean the goal is to keep the scoring low. We're going to keep it simple and do whatever it takes to come out on top at the end of the game. 56-55 is still a one point victory.