RumpleForeskin wrote:Just try me, tards.
We did.
And you offered up something about running for less yards per carry being a strategic key.
What more is there to discuss?
This?
fewer posessions for Manning equate to a higer rate of success against the Colts
So, the opponent having fewer possessions equates to an increased chance at victory?
Wow, let me write that one down in the playbook, Mr Lombardi.
OK, I see your math skills haven't got any sharper in the last few hours. Again, I'll try to help.
Let's see... hmmm... "fewer posessions[sic]."
Uhm, don't know if you noticed this or not with your self-proclaimed football expertise, but in almost every football game played at any level, the number of possessions for each team is within two of each other, barring an onside kick or a TO on a kickoff/muffed punt/etc. Matter of fact, that's the ONLY way the number of possessions can vary by more than 2.
Tell me you knew?
So, there goes your moronic fucking "key to the game," eh? Unless of course the Rumple playbook calls for the deadly tandem of Colt-crushing strategy -- 1) Win the coin toss, and 2) Onside kick every time you score.
Is this
really what you're trying to say?
And you have the gall to call anyone else a "tard"?
Since you're completely fucking clueless as to the basics of football math -- it's how many points you score on the possessions you have, dumbass. If you score more on yourt possessions than your opponent does on his, you win, since both teams are going to have...
are you sitting down?...
THE SAME NUMBER OF POSSESSIONS, give or take one or two(barring the aforementioned uncommon circumstances).
Sorry, douche -- you may
think you're pretty clever with the "keep Manning off the field" bit, but you've not fooled anyone here into thinking your head is anywhere but deep in your ass.
Yes, Manning is very effective at leading his team down the field. That's not in question. What is in question, is your inability to grasp the concept that he's equally effective whether it be on 5 drives or 15. The number of possessions in no way changes the fact that a team has to score with greater efficiency than the opponent(regardless of which teams). If a team is more effective with a ball-control offense, then so be it. Despite your delusional ramblings to the contrary, more time-of-possession means you probably executed well in the running game. It still doesn't change the balance of possessions between the two teams, nor does it alter Manning's ability to lead his team efficiently down the field.
And frankly, I'm not understanding the mental shortcoming that would even lead anyone to believe otherwise. By limiting the opponents' possessions, you are, BY DEFINITON, limiting your own. Either way, whoever executes more efficiently on offense wins the game...period...not open for debate, since the team with the most points on the board wins the game at the end of the 4th quarter.
Unless you really want us to believe you advocate attempting an onside kick at every opportunity(which you've yet to mention, thank goodness). Otherwise, I don't exactly see your math when you talk about "limiting possessions." If your strategy involves getting on your knees and praying that the Colts turn it over on kickoffs and punts, then... well, that's why your team is a laughingstock, much like yourself.
And, just for the sake of
continuing the well-deserved Rumple pile-on discussion, let's say you do "limit possessions." Let's couple the limited possessions with the theory of "less rushing yards is more" -- newsflash, idiot... less rushing yards per attempt equals less first downs, which equal less scoring drives, and non-scoring drives end in punts. And take a big guess who takes the field after you punt to Indy?
You aren't limiting shit by rushing for less per carry, you flaming fucking idiot. But props for being the only person here not laughing their balls/ovaries off at your expense.
And feel free to keep tossing "tard" around. It will make for more wonderful long-term humor here, since the superlative stupidity you've espoused here is going to have some SERIOUS legs for a long, long time to come. That's the STONE COLD LEAD PIPE LOCK of the week, right there.
