How much stock do you put into the Jags?

[pwny]

4 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Show me a single post where I said Jacksonville wasn't balanced. You can't. The end.

Show me a single post in that discussion tree where anyone other than you wasn’t talking about the Jaguars. You can’t.

So either you decided, on your own, to discuss the Patriots vs an imaginary team or you were talking about the Jags. Which one?

[lancerman]

3 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

The implication is obvious to anyone with half a brain. Don't try to weasel out of it. We all know what you were arguing. The fact that you didn't explicitly name the Jaguars isn't fooling anyone. You lose. iPwn wins. The end.

And you would be 100% wrong and once again show why your judgement is questionable at best and why your opinion shouldn't be valued by anyone. Because certainly never said or implied that the Jaguars were unbalanced. I debated a philosophy that defenses solely win championships. 

[jrry32]

2 minutes ago, lancerman said:

They had two good drives the entire game. They team as a total scored 4 TD's. The first came off a good drive. The 4th came off good drive. The 2nd came off a fumble by Blount and the 3rd came off a pick six. So even if you want to ignore the fumble a historically great offense scored 3 TD's the entire game, failed to convert 87% of their third downs, had ball control for less than a third of the game, and had far fewer first downs. For an offense as historically great as the Falcons that year which would be something like the 7th most dominant offense of all time, that's not a dominant game. 

And the facts don't back you up. My argument only feels when you talk in platitudes and make an appeal to emotion and ignore the actual data. 

Matt Ryan - 12.4 YPA

Falcons HBs - 5.8 YPC

This argument - Over.

[lancerman]

Just now, iPwn said:

Show me a single post in that discussion tree where anyone other than you wasn’t talking about the Jaguars. You can’t.

So either you decided, on your own, to discuss the Patriots vs an imaginary team or you were talking about the Jags. Which one?

The first one, which is what I said. I had no obligation when you made a post that wasn't quoting or directed to me to correct you and say I wasn't saying the Jaguars was imbalanced. I never said the Jagaurs were imbalanced. 

[lancerman]

Just now, jrry32 said:

Matt Ryan - 12.4 YPA

Falcons HBs - 5.8 YPC

This argument - Over.

1/8 on third downs. 

2TD's not off turnovers. 

Scoreless for the last third of the game. 

Had the ball for only a third of the game. 

Discussion over. 

[CKSteeler]

The Patriots lost two playoff games at home to the Rex Ryan led Jets. That's a team run by Tom Coughlin. It would be hubris for any Pats fan to dismiss them, let alone a Steelers fan given the history against the Jaguars.

Do I think they make the Super Bowl? No, I wouldn't bet on it, but they could easily knock off one of the two teams coming off their bye. And I wouldn't be shocked if they did.

The Jaguars pass defense is special right now. And Super Bowl teams usually have one thing going for them that is, in short, special.

[jrry32]

1 minute ago, lancerman said:

And you would be 100% wrong and once again show why your judgement is questionable at best and why your opinion shouldn't be valued by anyone. Because certainly never said or implied that the Jaguars were unbalanced. I debated a philosophy that defenses solely win championships. 

Smetana's post:

7 hours ago, smetana34 said:

So we agree then that if Pit/Ne win [against Jacksonville], it will be on the heels of their defenses, not offenses?

Your response:

7 hours ago, lancerman said:

It will be both. I think the better balanced team matters more than who has the better defense. I think typically when it's purely a strong offense vs a strong defense, that's where the defense makes its bread and butter. But I'd rather have a top 5 defense and a top 5 offense face the best defense in the league with maybe a fringe top ten or even mid level offense. 

[jrry32]

2 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Discussion over. 

Agreed. As usual, you lose, but you're too blind to see it.

[pwny]

7 minutes ago, lancerman said:

The first one, which is what I said.

But then what’s this about?

2 hours ago, lancerman said:

Maybe you should have read the quote I responded to

I’m having a real tough time understanding. I’m supposed to know that you weren’t talking about the Jaguars because of the content of the person you replied to - but then also you decided without anyone else’s input to discuss an imaginary team even though the person you were replying to was talking about the Jaguars.

Doesn’t make sense to me.

[lancerman]

Just now, CKSteeler said:

The Patriots lost two playoff games at home to the Rex Ryan led Jets. That's a team run by Tom Coughlin. It would be hubris for any Pats fan to dismiss them, let alone a Steelers fan given the history against the Jaguars.

Do I think they make the Super Bowl? No, I wouldn't bet on it, but they could easily knock off one of the two teams coming off their bye.

It's one thing to not dismiss them. It's another entirely to act like it;s outrageous to say that they shouldn't be favored to beat both Pittsburgh and New England on the road. That shouldn't really even be debatable. 

Nobody should be favored in two away games against two teams that currently sport a coach and QB who have appeared in 6 of the last 10 Super Bowls (07, 08, 10, 11, 14, 16), who have the QB's who currently have the most Super Bowl wins in the league, who have two top 10 defenses, who have the best offensive skill players in the league at their positions (RB/WR/TE). Even if the Jaguars were a historically great defense, that would still be an incredibly difficult task. The last and only team to go on the road and beat some combination of the Steelers/Patriots/Manning's team needed their QB to have one of the statistical greatest QB playoff runs ever. That's what it took. It's insanely difficult. 

[lancerman]

4 minutes ago, iPwn said:

But then what’s this about?

I’m having a real tough time understanding. I’m supposed to know that you weren’t talking about the Jaguars because of the content of the person you replied to - but then also you decided without anyone else’s input to discuss an imaginary team even though the person you were replying to was talking about the Jaguars.

Doesn’t make sense to me.

Smetana' initial post that started this was that "defense trumps offense in the playoffs". I usually disagree with that anyways. But I pointed out that it's kind of irrelevant because he was making the case that it was all about NE and PIT's offense when in fact both teams sport top 10 defenses. Then he countered that so you agree that if they won it would be based off their defense. Which is football philosophy I disagree with and I said it would be a combination of both where I went back to disagreeing with his initial point that "defense wins championships". My first post was explaining that even if you took that stance it was irrelevant because the Patriots hand Steelers have strong defenses anyways. My second was responding to the philosophy he stated in his first post. I never once said anything like the Jaguars were unbalanced. 

Even if you took the most egregious interpretation of what I said, it still wouldn't equal me saying Jacksonville is unbalanced. Maybe (and I wasn't arguing this) you could infer that I was saying PIT and NE were more balanced, but I never questioned Jacksonville being a balanced team. And I wasn't really even too concerned with Jacksonville at all by the time I posted that. I took offense to a blanket statement of "defense wins championships" which I both disagree with and wasn't even applicable to the situation. 

[lancerman]

14 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Agreed. As usual, you lose, but you're too blind to see it.

If you had a good argument you wouldn't have needed to ignore the points I made. None of which you addressed. Run along.

[jrry32]

8 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Smetana' initial post that started this was that "defense trumps offense in the playoffs". I usually disagree with that anyways. But I pointed out that it's kind of irrelevant because he was making the case that it was all about NE and PIT's offense when in fact both teams sport top 10 defenses. Then he countered that so you agree that if they won it would be based off their defense. Which is football philosophy I disagree with and I said it would be a combination of both where I went back to disagreeing with his initial point that "defense wins championships". My first post was explaining that even if you took that stance it was irrelevant because the Patriots hand Steelers have strong defenses anyways. My second was responding to the philosophy he stated in his first post. I never once said anything like the Jaguars were unbalanced. 

Even if you took the most egregious interpretation of what I said, it still wouldn't equal me saying Jacksonville is unbalanced. Maybe (and I wasn't arguing this) you could infer that I was saying PIT and NE were more balanced, but I never questioned Jacksonville being a balanced team. And I wasn't really even too concerned with Jacksonville at all by the time I posted that. I took offense to a blanket statement of "defense wins championships" which I both disagree with and wasn't even applicable to the situation. 

Which is completely wrong. The Steelers defense has looked like crap since they lost Shazier, who is now on IR. The Patriots defense hasn't been good all year. They're 29th in YPG allowed and 31st in YPP allowed. They're a fringe top 10 unit at best (because they're 6th in PPG allowed), and that's being generous. 

[lancerman]

Just now, jrry32 said:

Which is completely wrong. The Steelers defense has looked like crap since they lost Shazier, who is now on IR. The Patriots defense hasn't been good all year. They're 29th in YPG allowed and 31st in YPP allowed. They're a fringe top 10 unit at best (because they're 6th in PPG allowed), and that's being generous. 

Until the Miami game a week ago the Patriots were on an 8 game stretch where they gave up in order 14, 17, 7, 13, 16, 8, 17, 3 points in their games. Where they jumped from last in the league to in the top 5 for a split second in ppg and now rest at 6. Aside from the first 4 games, they've been anything buy horrible. And points matter not yards. PPG is a far greater indicator of playoff success. So basically aside from a team they historically struggle with away in Miami and the offense that sports one of the best QB's in the league, the best RB in the league, and for a portion of the game the best WR in the league, they've dominated everyone since week 5. Likewise with the Steelers they played two games without Shazir. One was against a divisional rival they always struggle with at some point in the season and the other was against the Patriots offense (where they actually weren't playing that bad at all against them)

So no you're completely wrong

[jrry32]

Just now, lancerman said:

Until the Miami game a week ago the Patriots were on an 8 game stretch where they gave up in order 14, 17, 7, 13, 16, 8, 17, 3 points in their games. Where they jumped from last in the league to in the top 5 for a split second in ppg and now rest at 6. Aside from the first 4 games, they've been anything buy horrible. And points matter not yards. PPG is a far greater indicator of playoff success. So basically aside from a team they historically struggle with away in Miami and the offense that sports one of the best QB's in the league, the best RB in the league, and for a portion of the game the best WR in the league, they've dominated everyone since week 5. Likewise with the Steelers they played two games without Shazir. One was against a divisional rival they always struggle with at some point in the season and the other was against the Patriots offense (where they actually weren't playing that bad at all against them)

So no you're completely wrong

You played a grand total of two teams that ranked better than 20th in PPG, Atlanta (15th) and San Diego (16th). Atlanta was in the midst of a slump. San Diego was the only impressive performance in that group. And Melvin Gordon torched your run defense in that game.

Basically, the Patriots rode a weak schedule to a good result and didn't look that good doing it. Your defense is not an impressive unit. Nobody fears it.