Joe Barry'd again

[HokieHigh]

2 hours ago, MrBobGray said:

So my issue with this is it's a bunch of made up lies?

For one, they absolutely did change their defense to stop him running.  They had McDuffie show a rush then drop out to QB spy a number of times in the second half, at the very least.  For two, the stat about how they averaged more yards per play when they ran zone read feels like the definition of lying by omission: she deliberately never explains the context of that, but her wording suggests that the Giants averaged more yards per play on those 13 zone read plays than any other NFL offense is averaging for all their plays this season.  Which would be 6.7 yards per play.  It's not hard to average more than 6.7 yards per play across 13 plays; a few big explosive gains and you're basically guaranteed to. 

This is always my problems with the criticisms of Barry (or Pettine or Capers).  It's not that there aren't lots of things to be critical of, but those are never the things that actually get criticized.  For instance people love to claim that Barry is calling a lot of "soft zones" and "prevent defense" because the Packers run off coverage, but there's nothing inherently passive about off coverage.  Part of the reason you play off is because it gives you vision to the ball; it's a lot easier to break on a pass if you have the space to see it coming.  The issue isn't that it's passive, it's that they pair often under-manned off coverage with overly aggressive rush plans.  If you're going to aggressively rush the QB, you need to take away the routes he can hit easily under pressure because otherwise you're just speeding the QB along to the right decision.  Instead you have five at the LoS, three guys covering deep, and three guys trying to cover roughly 800 square yards in between.  That's not a joke number; 15 yards of depth x 53.3 yards across = 799.5 square yards.  The Packers put a bunch of guys deep to take away shot plays and then rush the QB hard to ensure he doesn't have time to take those shots anyway, defeating their own coverage. 

To me, there is a distinction between a lie and negligent ignorance. This is probably a case of the latter. 

[KFP7]

1 hour ago, Norm said:

Does Love have one more start than the stats they're using for AR? Is that what was going on? 

Deguara's dad

[incognito_man]

6 minutes ago, HokieHigh said:

To me, there is a distinction between a lie and negligent ignorance. This is probably a case of the latter. 

Ok Hanlon

[R T]

2 hours ago, MrBobGray said:

So my issue with this is it's a bunch of made up lies?

For one, they absolutely did change their defense to stop him running.  They had McDuffie show a rush then drop out to QB spy a number of times in the second half, at the very least.  For two, the stat about how they averaged more yards per play when they ran zone read feels like the definition of lying by omission: she deliberately never explains the context of that, but her wording suggests that the Giants averaged more yards per play on those 13 zone read plays than any other NFL offense is averaging for all their plays this season.  Which would be 6.7 yards per play.  It's not hard to average more than 6.7 yards per play across 13 plays; a few big explosive gains and you're basically guaranteed to. 

This is always my problems with the criticisms of Barry (or Pettine or Capers).  It's not that there aren't lots of things to be critical of, but those are never the things that actually get criticized.  For instance people love to claim that Barry is calling a lot of "soft zones" and "prevent defense" because the Packers run off coverage, but there's nothing inherently passive about off coverage.  Part of the reason you play off is because it gives you vision to the ball; it's a lot easier to break on a pass if you have the space to see it coming.  The issue isn't that it's passive, it's that they pair often under-manned off coverage with overly aggressive rush plans.  If you're going to aggressively rush the QB, you need to take away the routes he can hit easily under pressure because otherwise you're just speeding the QB along to the right decision.  Instead you have five at the LoS, three guys covering deep, and three guys trying to cover roughly 800 square yards in between.  That's not a joke number; 15 yards of depth x 53.3 yards across = 799.5 square yards.  The Packers put a bunch of guys deep to take away shot plays and then rush the QB hard to ensure he doesn't have time to take those shots anyway, defeating their own coverage. 

Always enjoy your voice of reason and calling out nonsense. But a Packer nation that has a bad case of Joe Barry derangement syndrome is now spilling over into the national scene and misinformation works best for the mob to make their point.  

[Leader]

20 minutes ago, R T said:

Always enjoy your voice of reason and calling out nonsense. But a Packer nation that has a bad case of Joe Barry derangement syndrome is now spilling over into the national scene and misinformation works best for the mob to make their point.  

LOL  They called Barry's overall defense soft and questioned why.....which has been a general tenet of just about everybody around here (including those with "Joe Barry derangement syndrome") for quite some time. Maybe even you...cant say I remember.

[Leader]

1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

But yes in the other thread it's because there are comparisons everywhere between Rodgers and Love and their first 13 starts in their first full year of starting. And obviously it's intellectually dishonest to try and include that first KC start of his on 1-2 day notice for him as some weird counter example.

This is interesting. All day you've been going back and forth with that CHI poster and over multiple posts you call him stupid, ignorant but most of all - the overriding concept - was he was being intellectually dishonest.

But, it wasnt until this comment to @Norm of just a short while ago where you cite exactly what you find about his comment so intellectually dishonest.

Why didnt you ever say it to the CHI guy?

You could have ended the discussion hours ago - all that rancor - if you'd simply stated what you actually disagreed with him about. Didnt say it once...and unless he's read the above comment from you to Norm, he still doesnt know.

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, Leader said:

This is interesting. All day you've been going back and forth with that CHI poster and over multiple posts you call him stupid, ignorant but most of all - the overriding concept - was he was being intellectually dishonest.

But, it wasnt until this comment to @Norm of just a short while ago where you cite exactly what you find about his comment so intellectually dishonest.

Why didnt you ever say it to the CHI guy?

You could have ended the discussion hours ago - all that rancor - if you'd simply stated what you actually disagreed with him about. Didnt say it once...and unless he's read the above comment from you to Norm, he still doesnt know.

He knows. Intent is required. And if he didn't, it was out of selective ignorance. Either way it was an indefensible choice he continued to defend.

(There's nothing wrong with unintentional and self-aware ignorance. That word should lose its negative connotation. Everybody is ignorant of a infinite amount of things. It's ok to be ignorant. It's then ok to know it and admit it.)

Edited December 14, 2023 by incognito_man

[Zycho32]

So would saying Joe Barry runs defenses the way 14-year olds do on Madden be accurate?

[Mr Bad Example]

1 minute ago, Zycho32 said:

So would saying Joe Barry runs defenses the way 14-year olds do on Madden be accurate?

Nah. When I was 14....well, Madden didn't exist but the similar type games I used to basically run punt block as my base d

[Leader]

5 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

He knows. Intent is required. And if he didn't, it was out of selective ignorance. Either way it was an indefensible choice he continued to defend.

(There's nothing wrong with unintentional and self-aware ignorance. That word should lose its negative connotation. Everybody is ignorant of a infinite amount of things. It's ok to be ignorant. It's then ok to know it and admit it.)

He was claiming Love's total games played should include the KC game. You were claiming the KC game shouldnt be included because he only had 1-2 days to get ready.

Okay, fine. A point of disagreement....but you never told him why you disagreed with him. Meanwhile you repeatedly called him all sorts of names. My question is why didnt you simply tell him what you disagreed with him about?

[incognito_man]

28 minutes ago, Leader said:

He was claiming Love's total games played should include the KC game. You were claiming the KC game shouldnt be included because he only had 1-2 days to get ready.

Okay, fine. A point of disagreement....but you never told him why you disagreed with him. Meanwhile you repeatedly called him all sorts of names. My question is why didnt you simply tell him what you disagreed with him about?

I didn't call him any names. I labeled his behavior.

[Norm]

I called him a poopoo face

[incognito_man]

Just now, Norm said:

I called him a poopoo face

You're supposed to call poopoo faces poopoo faces though 

[Leader]

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

I didn't call him any names. I labeled his behavior.

Not really, but whatever.

[packfanfb]

"Gotta have all 11" guys. That's the only answer here.