That is one of the things that makes Chadwell a winner. It's not easy preparing for an offense, in one week, you rarely see. That would have given us a chance in the SEC. It would have evened things out since we will rarely be close in player talents to our opponents.
USC one of most improved OL in 2024
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
"Sending an extra man" means more than 4 rushers. 5 rushers is referred to as sending an extra man, and that doesn't include unblocked players, if the OL dies their job. That is the definition of a blitz. Not every blitz is more rushers than blockers. Have you ever paid madden, or any game where you control the strategy?
Or watched any film breakdown, because there is no way to beat a free rusher accept to throw to the vacated spot on the field or just break a tackle. You're gonna insult me, like I haven't been analytical on the strategy. When Muschamp explained how we defended against the RPO, I went into detail on why I thought that was a terrible approach that didn't maximize our talent. When we were looking for a new staff, I went into detail about how I wanted a nickel base with an emphasis on "no position" principles, because I thought it was the way to beat modern offenses and that's what we got on White's scheme. This was the old site so I don't think any of it carried over, it was also on the insiders forum. I talk matchups and strategy and you're gonna act like I'm clueless? How about you answer the question, do you have a reason to think the OL did bad other than the occasional white jersey in the backfield? And if that's all you have, then why does it not change your view if every OL was engaged when the first for got through fairly constantly? And, what is the counter for more rushers than blockers, when you can't hit the quick pass? And lastly, how many guys do each OL have to block for you to consider it a success, since 1 clearly isn't good enough?
You seem to think these are easy questions you refuse to answer.
I am choosing the units I think pulled their weight. I based it on what I saw, and for the most part, I saw them do their jobs.
Not every blitz is more rushers than blockers? Congratulations for repeating what I just said in the post you quoted.
They even have this cool thing where DL drop into coverage and LB's or safeties rush the passer.
Of course, I could have just overestimated your ability to understand that I was speaking about a zone blitz.
And do you honestly believe our sacks and TFL's constituted an "occasional white jersey in the backfield"? I can't really believe that's your assessment with how "good" you are at reviewing film and being analytical. (I probably need to call out the sarcasm there)
It's obvious you think the OL did a good job. It's also obvious you're not going to admit they played badly no matter how poorly they did. You are just so very special to see what no one else does. Must be all that experience playing Madden. Lol
Guy, I know everything you said, I knew it well before it said it. How about you watch the tape and tell me how many TFLs and sacks are on the OL. I already checked the sacks and the OLwasn't overpowered, they were outmanned. The white jerseys in the back of almost always his we didn't have enough blockers to account for. Did you notice we ran more power than we've run since 2020? That was too address the numbers issue. I've been hitting up football minds I know, and they're saying I'm right on all of the theory, so the only way I'm wrong is if my count in the pressure and box are wrong, the impact of those are correct.
Can't argue with all that logic. You hit up the "football minds" you know, and on top of playing Madden????
You've convinced me. Our OL is awesome, everyone else who watched the game is just nuts.
You're awesome.
Satisfied?
And I in no way suggested playing madden would make you in expert in football, but it's enough to get the basic level of knowledge that inorder for someone to be blocked, you need someone to block them.
Well, I could talk about hitting up friends for their opinion and playing a video game to distract from our OL play. But that wouldn't really be offering a good argument either.
You're strawmanning again. I haven't played a football videogame in a couple of years, the point i was making was just basic enough to be evident in that. I also detailed what I said on film, and only hit up dudes I know to see if I'm really missing something as obvious as you say, haven't heard anything I missed yet. You're also not telling me what I missed, you just seem to think the OL could be the only thing that accounted for what we saw, which is presumptive and dumb.
You're misusing the term again.
Perhaps some Pokémon to help build that vocabulary?
I agree the point you made was basic at best. But I also think you're in serious backtrack mode once the Madden line fell so flat.
I also don't believe the OL was the sole reason for what we saw. I never said that. And trying that strawman (see, that's how to use the term properly) is as weak as the Madden line.
Maybe some of those other units that you thought were "top half of the SEC" had some shortcomings as well. Just as long as we place zero blame on the OL, right?
Misrepresenting an argument with one that's easier to beat isn't strawmanning suddenly? Or do you think you accurately represented my arguments?
I don't think I can be condescending enough to adequately represent your "arguments".
Is that your new definition for "correct"?
And yeah, you haven't played in years, but you want to impress us with your knowledge gleaned from playing.
The backtracking tells me all I need to know about how that blew up in your face.
Not knowledge gleaned from playing, just knowledge which could also be easily attained from a game, because it's basic enough you have no excuse. I never said that's why learned about football, that's your strawman for what I said.
There you go, misusing the term again. Perhaps Pokémon wasn't the game to really help your vocabulary. Maybe try Rocket League?
Madden sure has made you an "expert" at something. Or maybe it was that awesome way you "asked some friends".
Last edited:
"an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach""
Certainly send to fit that definition.
Send what?
I'll give you credit, you cut and pasted the definition well enough. You've got that down.
Now you just need to apply the definition to the real world correctly. Maybe you could ask "some friends" about that too.
You are the one that brought up video games, not me.
Go call yourself some names.
Well, that was a week or two ahead of schedule. I assumed you'd wait till after UK and LSU proved you wrong like ODU did, then slink away and hide.
I guess I was wrong.
Get unlimited access today.