Re: going apeshit over Parcells

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:41:48 -0600, santolina wrote
(in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>):

> 
> Daniel Seriff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 19:03:45 -0600, santolina wrote
>> (in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>):
>> 
>>> Daniel Seriff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:46:58 -0600, santolina wrote
>>>> (in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>):
>>>> 
>>>>> Daniel Seriff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:51:31 -0600, santolina wrote
>>>>>> (in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>):
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> If it still worked, people would use it.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> There are still a number of schools that use an option-oriented
>>>>>>>>>> offense.  Air Force isn't the only one.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Who? Name them.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Rice, Army, Navy, Nebraska, etc., etc., etc.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I don't think Army belongs on this list, based on the run/pass
> ratios.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Not all option offenses are run-first, and most are adaptable to fit
>>>>>> personnel. Army, for example, was unable to field a decent passing QB
>>> for
>>>>>> quite a while. Now they have one who can throw.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The team still sucks, but that's quite beside the point.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It doesn't matter what you call it, a team on which the QB almost
> never
>>> runs
>>>>> is not running remotely the same type of offense as a team where the
>>>>> QB leads in rushing attempts.
>>>> 
>>>> Which is only marginally relevant to the definition of "option
>>>> offense". QED.
>>>> 
>>>>>>> There's no telling what the future holds, but if Nebraska continues
>>>>>>> to have 3-4-7 loss seasons even they might abandon the option.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> No, they just need to pass more to win. ($1)
>>>>> 
>>>>> You can't pass frequently if you have few passing options, which
>>>>> "option" teams don't.
>>>> 
>>>> Army runs an option offense. Army passes frequently. QED.
>>> 
>>> Army is not running remotely the same type of offense as what the other
>>> three teams are running. Or would you like the term "option offense" to
>>> mean anything that pleases you?
>> 
>> It sounds like you think that option offenses are just a bunch of QB draws
>> and double-sweeps.
>> 
>> Please don't blame me for the fact that you know fuck-all about football.
> 
> Please explain how Army and Nebraska are running remotely the same offense.

Why would I bother? I never said they were the same offense. I said they were 
both option offenses. Either the difference is too stubtle for you, or you 
have absolutely no clue what the term "option offense" actually means.

> An offense where the quarterback has the "option" of a pass or a run, but
> almost always chooses pass, is not remotely the same as an offense where the
> quarterback has the same "option" but nearly always chooses run. That's
> because offenses are integrated wholes.
> 
> If you think that the '72 Dolphins and the '84 Dolphins were running the
> same offense because the formations looked kinda the same then I'm not the
> one who knows fuck-all.

If you honestly think that any of this is at all relevant to anything that I 
said, you'd probably be convincingly out-argued by a beached whale.

You're welcome to spend your life as the monkey riding the 'tard-cart who 
thinks that the category "option offenses" is comprised exclusively of QB 
draws and double-sweeps. No skin off my nose.

-- 
Daniel Seriff

I really think I should hang out with rappers more often.