I will admit that I was wrong about them never blitzing but I also made another statement after you showed them stop the other team on blitzes 3 out of 4 tries and saying that I must just be remembering the ones where they failed that they didn't blitz.
Remember when I said you keep moving the goalposts? This is an example of it. You were shown to be in error, now you change your opinion to fit the data ... how does that make you right?
Those percentages just listed that they only blitz 1 out 6 attempts. Not a high number in my opinion.
How do you know? You said they NEVER blitzed. Now you've moved the goalposts to "well they do blitz but not enough"
I would rather they blitz 1 out of 3 or 4 tries but again I have always liked aggressive defenses. Just my preference.
What is the success rate of teams that blitz to the levels that you want? What if you want something that is not good? Just because it is what you think is agressive? That would make no sense.
I also said in my post that the NFL is way too conservative on 3rd and 10 + so just being under the NFL average doesn't mean anything.
How are you in any position to judge what NFL coaches are doing?
So you were right that they did blitz but I am still standing by my statement that they should have blitzed more frequently.
Again, moving the goalpost. Really, going this far to after you've been shown to be wrong are every single turn? You were wrong on all the numbers and all the theories? Now you've changed again. You wanted all the situations that you didn't like taken out, you wanted 3rd and 10+ rather than usual 3rd and long, everything hand-tailored and still, you were never right.
Sorry, I understadn your frustration but you cannot clain to be right when you're wrong. You said one thing and it was another. Now you are saying you are switching it up.
I also showed you my stats that teams were making 1st down at least 50% in half the games and 40% in a few more games and even if it was only 2 tries in a game that still showed me in my mind that uh oh 3rd and 10 plus. I bet the other team makes it. Only 5 games did the Rams do better than stop them 40% of the time. Note - 2 of the games last year the Rams did not have a 3rd and 10 or longer that fell within my statement.
I proved you made errors in that research. I proved that in most of those games you complained about there were only 2 tries. So it was either 1 of 2 or 0-2. You called 1 of 2 a failure but 0-2 was perfect. So, you only accept perfect. That is an unreasonable standard. And that is what you have been all along. Unreasonable. You want what you want. Not what reality is.
You didn't like usual breakdowns of down and distances you wanted what you wanted so I broked down that.
You say, "in your mind" -- well, that really does not count. You see things emotionally. You get mad, you get frustrated and want to place blame. That is not the way to analyze things.
When I ran YOUR numbers I had to correct for errors and found that you own research showed that the Rams were only allowing 35% conversions. That is good.
But again, after I showed you were trying to take a good rate and turn it into bad, you are making the same claim again ... I guess to what? Prove your self right? To save face?
When you call those several 1 for 2 games failures it is two small a sample because of the 0-2 perfect, 1-2 failure issue. There is no room for anything in the middle. You created 4-5 games (I cannot rememeber) that were binary.
That is just not fair and does not prove you right, I'm sorry.
The Rams were good --- not as good as YOU wanted (but nothing will every please you, it seems, short of perfection) --- in the situations you thought they stunk.
The Rams blitzed --- not as much as YOU wanted (but the NFL average was not enough to please you) ---in situtations you said they didn't blitz.
It's time to admit you maybe didn't see what you think you saw and the numbers, these new numbers and the fim clips I show have proven it over and over and over and over and over. It's just overwhelming.
Whereas if I saw anywhere from 3rd and 2 to 3rd and 7 that I had higher confidence that the Rams would stop them.
But the numbers didn't back that up. I SHOWED you those numbers. It was the not what you thought. Go back and check. I also challenged you to double check the numbers just so you couldn't go back and claim something new --- as you are now.
