Start John Beck Madness Thread

Tell me when the last time a team has won a Superbowl without having some form of balance, and barely eeking out wins on a weekly basis, and maybe your case will hold weight. Otherwise go back to playing with your Tonka Toys.

I suspect you are the kind of fan who, if the Skins won the SB, would bitch that they didnt go undefeated, lead the league in every statistic, and had to eek out the SB win with a last second field goal. And now, back to my tonka toys.

Good post. There's no reason to think Mike will stick w/ any particular QB if he thinks the guy in waiting will produce more wins. One thing we absolutely know about our HC is he is all about winning.

I also agree Grossman controls his own destiny outside of Kyle's playcalling and gameplan. Sure Rex can make better decisions and avoid forcing the ball to covered targets. It also seems like it would be damn easy for him start protecting the ball when he's trying to waddle away from rushers. Those things are certainly in his control. On the other hand Kyle could help minimize errors by committing more to the run, especially when we have a hell of a RB corp, and giving Rex more downfield looks rather than lateral ones. Missing Armstrong obviously hurts but still we could throw the deep ball a lot more to Davis and Tana. Play-action should also be worked in more IMO.

That may be the only thing outside of his own ability that can save his job. But we may sacrifice Torain down the stretch if we have to go to the run to much. With Hightower hurt, we need to be careful.

The bye is going to seem like forever but came at a good time. Hopefully they can put some schemes in place in time to help Rex out.

Um, last year? The Packers barely made the playoffs at 10-6 and they did so by "eeking out" several victories. And they lacked balance on offense, as their leading rusher had 703 yards. They were 5th in passing yards but near the bottom in rushing yards.

I consider one fascet of an offense overcompensating for a weaker area in the offense, a form of balance. And they had a pretty good defense too as far as I can remember. They also lost Ryan Grant for the season in game 1, and Finley for the year in game 5. Against us. 34-7 vs Buffalo in week 2. 9-0 vs the Jets in week 8. I realize it's not a blowout by any means, but it's still more points then we've won by in the last 3 games. 45-7 in week 9 vs Dallas. 31-3 in week 11 vs the Vikings. 34-16 in week 13 against San Fran. 45-17 in week 16 vs the Giants. That doesn't strike me as a team who is "eeking out wins on a weekly basis". And if you take this season into account it appears as if their geared up to represent the NFC in the Superbowl in back to back seasons.

I suspect you are the kind of fan who, if the Skins won the SB, would bitch that they didnt go undefeated, lead the league in every statistic, and had to eek out the SB win with a last second field goal. And now, back to my tonka toys.

I don't think me wanting the team to improve in as many areas as possible makes me any less of a fan than anyone else. I don't know what fan wouldn't want their teams weaknesses to become strengths.

I consider one fascet of an offense overcompensating for a weaker area in the offense, a form of balance. And they had a pretty good defense too as far as I can remember. They also lost Ryan Grant for the season in game 1, and Finley for the year in game 5. Against us. 34-7 vs Buffalo in week 2. 9-0 vs the Jets in week 8. I realize it's not a blowout by any means, but it's still more points then we've won by in the last 3 games. 45-7 in week 9 vs Dallas. 31-3 in week 11 vs the Vikings. 34-16 in week 13 against San Fran. 45-17 in week 16 vs the Giants. That doesn't strike me as a team who is "eeking out wins on a weekly basis". And if you take this season into account it appears as if their geared up to represent the NFC in the Superbowl in back to back seasons.

1) "One fascet of an offense overcompensating for a weaker area in the offense" is the definition of a lack of balance.

2) You neglected to mention all of their narrow victories, their six losses, and the fact that they barely got into the playoffs. While they had some big wins (as did we against the Giants this year), most of the time they were scrapping.

Your initial point was that teams which lack balance don't scrap their way to the Lombardi. Why don't you just admit that you were wrong when you so clearly were?

1) "One fascet of an offense overcompensating for a weaker area in the offense" is the definition of a lack of balance.

2) You neglected to mention all of their narrow victories, their six losses, and the fact that they barely got into the playoffs. While they had some big wins (as did we against the Giants this year), most of the time they were scrapping.

Your initial point was that teams which lack balance don't scrap their way to the Lombardi. Why don't you just admit that you were wrong when you so clearly were?

Balancing out the loss of production in one area by creating it in another still accounts for a balance in overall yardage. And as a team they rushed for 1,130 yards, but I'm not talking run/pass yardage balance. Those statistics will never be balanced, because in almost all circumstances in the current game you are going to pass for more yardage than you rush.

Yes, they had some narrow victories, and yes, they lost 6 games, there aren't many winning teams who don't do a little of both, but my point was that they were also winning a number of those games by wide margins. By example there were several games where they weren't "eeking out wins", but instead handling their competition easily, and putting up droves of points in the process.

I never said anything about scraping their way to the Lombardi. You're only hearing/reading selectively and interpreting it however you choose.

Balancing out the loss of production in one area by creating it in another still accounts for a balance in overall yardage. And as a team they rushed for 1,130 yards, but I'm not talking run/pass yardage balance. Those statistics will never be balanced, because in almost all circumstances in the current game you are going to pass for more yardage than you rush.

Yes, they had some narrow victories, and yes, they lost 6 games, there aren't many winning teams who don't do a little of both, but my point was that they were also winning a number of those games by wide margins. By example there were several games where they weren't "eeking out wins", but instead handling their competition easily, and putting up droves of points in the process.

I never said anything about scraping their way to the Lombardi. You're only hearing/reading selectively and interpreting it however you choose.

No. The problem is not with my interpretation.

It is straightforward. The Packers did not have a balanced attack. They were 5th in passing and 23rd in rushing. You can spin as you want, you can tell me that the sky is red. But the facts remain the facts.

You neglect that your original comparison was with us "eeking" out wins, but we have had some close wins and a big win - much like the Packers last year.

We could also talk about other teams which were unbalanced and played many close games yet still won the Super Bowl, something which you said didn't happen. The Steelers, the Patriots one year, the Ravens - there are many other counterexamples to your point.

So, let's sum up: you were rude to another Warpath member on your way to making an erroneous statement. Now, rather than admitting your mistake, you are being rude to me. You are not making friends nor are you offering arguments to which we should listen.

Shall we juxtapose a couple of quotes?

Tell me when the last time a team has won a Superbowl without having some form of balance, and barely eeking out wins on a weekly basis, and maybe your case will hold weight. Otherwise go back to playing with your Tonka Toys.


Balancing out the loss of production in one area by creating it in another still accounts for a balance in overall yardage. And as a team they rushed for 1,130 yards, but I'm not talking run/pass balance. Those statistics will never be balanced, because in almost all circumstances in the current game you are going to pass for more yardage than you rush.

Yes, they had some narrow victories, and yes, they lost 6 games, there aren't many winning teams who do a little of both, but my point was that they were also winning a number of those games by wide margins. By example there were several games where they weren't "eeking out wins", but instead handling their competition easily, and putting up droves of points in the process.

I never said anything about scraping their way to the Lombardi. You're only hearing/reading selectively and interpreting it however you choose.

First: I am sorry, but the bolded statement in your second quote is simply inane. There is no such thing as "a balance in overall yardage" there is "overall yardage" and the way that yardage is gained - either through rushing or passing A "balanced attack" obviously does not mean equal yards in each - please don't be obtuse by alleging that was the assertion. GBay did not have a balanced attack last year, they had the 5th best passing offense and the 24th ranked rushing offense.

A balanced attack clearly means that, when comparing a team's rushing and passing attack to the other teams in the league, the passing and rushing attacks rank about the same. Thus, if you have a top 5 passing attack, and top 5 rushing attack, you have a balanced offense. If you have a top 5 passing attack and a bottom 5 rushing attack your offense is unbalanced. The bigger the gap in the ratio, the more unbalanced the offense. Last year, no matter how you try to dress it up, GBay was a very unbalanced team - no one worried how to stop their run game last year. Despite this unbalanced attack, and perhaps because of it, they won the Super Bowl - they simply had a very good offense even if it was completely unbalanced.

Second: You most certainly asserted that a team "barely eeking out wins on a weekly basis" hadn't won a SB. In 10 of its 16 games last year, GB either lost or won by a TD or less. Additionally, in one its TD+ games, it didn't even score a TD; just 3 field goals. At four games, last year, GB had lost to the Bears and scraped by a then very bad Detroit team while blowing out a bad Buffalo team. [You're right, we didn't blow anyone out yet. Not sure, after 4 games, that that fact is proof that we won't blow anyone out this year].

Stop trying to weasel out of your words.

No. The problem is not with my interpretation.

It is straightforward. The Packers did not have a balanced attack. You can spin as you want, you can tell me that the sky is red. But the facts remain the facts.

You neglect that your original comparison was with us "eeking" out wins, but we have had some close wins and a big win - much like the Packers last year.

We could also talk about other teams which were unbalanced and played many close games yet still won the Super Bowl, something which you said didn't happen. The Steelers, the Patriots one year, the Ravens - there are many other counterexamples to your point.

So, let's sum up: you were rude to another Warpath member on your way to making an erroneous statement. Now, rather than admitting your mistake, you are being rude to me. You are not making friends.

Another misinterpretation. In the context of the disagreement I was having with Irish we were talking about the Redskins being 3-1, and I called 2 of them "tenuous wins", and my comparison was based, in a linear way, on that interaction. So obviously it had to do with the Redskins.

Furthermore, I never said anything about teams who made it to the Superbowl who "didn't" play hard fought matchups in route to the Championship, just that they didn't "eek out wins on a weekly basis", which I believe reflects what we have done over the past 3 weeks. I didn't mean it that to insinuate that Superbowl bound teams never play close games throughout the duration of a season, just that they don't consistently win their games in that fashion. I don't consider that to be erroneous. And it also eludes to my thinking that we don't put up enough points as an offense to make a strong surge for the playoffs/superbowl, but we'll know in the near future whether that's a valid point.

Another misinterpretation. In the context of the disagreement I was having with Irish we were talking about the Redskins being 3-1, and I called 2 of them "tenuous wins", and my comparison was based, in a linear way, on that interaction. So obviously it had to do with the Redskins.

Furthermore, I never said anything about teams who made it to the Superbowl who "didn't" play hard fought matchups in route to the Championship, just that they didn't "eek out wins on a weekly basis", which I believe reflects what we have done over the past 3 weeks. I didn't mean it that to insinuate that Superbowl bound teams never play close games throughout the duration of a season, just that they don't consistently win their games in that fashion. I don't consider that to be erroneous. And it also eludes to my thinking that we don't put up enough points as an offense to make a strong surge for the playoffs/superbowl, but we'll know in the near future whether that's a valid point.

I haven't yet misinterpreted you and you are unkind to say that I have.

As others have said, stop trying to weasel out of your words. Be a man and be accountable for what you've said.