Bradie James - Getting Better?

[theogt]

Are you actually wrong, or just playing the role of being wrong? I think that's where the confusion lies. I'm just going to assume you're wrong since you got owned on the zone blitz thread. Like I said, you guys are basically arguing over semantics.

Owned in the zone blitz thread? There were like 20 posters that came into that thread to say that I was right. And summerisfunner, the person I was arguing with, eventually admitted that I was right.

I don't ever even remember speaking with you on this site before. Sounds like you're upset that I embarrassed you in the past. Sorry if you can't let it go.

 

[Kilyin]

Owned in the zone blitz thread? There were like 20 posters that came into that thread to say that I was right. And summerisfunner, the person I was arguing with, eventually admitted that I was right.

I don't ever even remember speaking with you on this site before. Sounds like you're upset that I embarrassed you in the past. Sorry if you can't let it go.

I don't need to speak with you to see what you're about. You're completely transparent. You've never embarrassed me, just yourself.

 

[theogt]

I don't need to speak with you to see what you're about. You're completely transparent. You've never embarrassed me, just yourself.

Sure thing, kiddo. Thanks for you wonderful contributions to this thread!

 

[Kilyin]

Sure thing, kiddo. Thanks for you wonderful contributions to this thread!

Since you're going to sit here and tell an outright lie... let's just look at the thread.

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81967

One person agreed with you. Some dipchat named dwmyers. Everyone else was on the "wow, this guy is dumber than a bag of rocks" wagon (that wagon has alot of mileage, apparently). You'll even notice I posted in the thread if you look closely enough. I didn't 'speak' to you though because I generally find arguing with morons is an exercise in futility.

And no, nobody ever eventually admitted you were right. Why would they? Keep on fibbin'.

 

[theogt]

Since you're going to sit here and tell an outright lie... let's just look at the thread.

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81967

One person agreed with you. Some dipchat named dwmyers. Everyone else was on the "wow, this guy is dumber than a bag of rocks" wagon (that wagon has alot of mileage, apparently). You'll even notice I posted in the thread if you look closely enough. I didn't 'speak' to you though because I generally find arguing with morons is an exercise in futility.

And no, nobody ever eventually admitted you were right. Why would they? Keep on fibbin'.

The zone blitz argument happened over multiple threads. Kinda like this one is happening now. summerisfunner, the person with whom I argued, eventually AGREED WITH ME. How can you be this ****ing dumb?

And dwmyers has more knowledge about football in his pinky than you've display in 3000+ posts.

 

[Kilyin]

The zone blitz argument happened over multiple threads. Kinda like this one is happening now. summerisfunner, the person with whom I argued, eventually AGREED WITH ME. How can you be this ****ing dumb?

And dwmyers has more knowledge about football in his pinky than you've display in 3000+ posts.

Right, a second ago you claimed you didn't even know who I am, now you can suddenly comment on the content of all the posts I've ever made here.



And even if dwmyers is half as knowledgeable as you say (as if a reference from you means anything) he's still only one person, not twenty. Lie and get caught much? It's okay, just try and backpedal and change the subject like you always do.

You're a walking contradiction. Show one shred of proof backing up your shoddily spun tales, kiddo.

 

[superpunk]

In hindsight, this thread maybe should have been named;

"Bradie James - getting faster?"

Let me introduce you to the Lee family.

http://i5.***BLOCKED***/albums/y198/thorthemighty/lee.jpg

http://i5.***BLOCKED***/albums/y198/thorthemighty/lee4.jpg

http://i5.***BLOCKED***/albums/y198/thorthemighty/lee5.jpg

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You forgot uncle Bruce!!

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Owned in the zone blitz thread? There were like 20 posters that came into that thread to say that I was right. And summerisfunner, the person I was arguing with, eventually admitted that I was right.

I don't ever even remember speaking with you on this site before. Sounds like you're upset that I embarrassed you in the past. Sorry if you can't let it go.

no I didn't, because I was right

you were wrong saying that zone coverage had little to do w/ a zone-blitz

 

[theogt]

no I didn't, because I was right

you were wrong saying that zone coverage had little to do w/ a zone-blitz

But you agreed with me that you can have a zone blitz without every player playing zone coverage.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

But you agreed with me that you can have a zone blitz without every player playing zone coverage.

fair enough, but the whole argument started w/ me saying that we'd be playing a zone-blitz because Wade said he would blitz in any situation, which includes blitzing while the D is in zone coverage

the whole idea behind a zone-blitz is that the D is allowed to stay in a zone coverage, and that the O will be confused by the DE and OLBs exchanging responsibilties, even though you can still have players, usually just the corners and a safety, playing man, which you pointed out

 

[theogt]

fair enough, but the whole argument started w/ me saying that we'd be playing a zone-blitz because Wade said he would blitz in any situation, which includes blitzing while the D is in zone coverage

the whole idea behind a zone-blitz is that the D is allowed to stay in a zone coverage, even though you can still have players, usually just the corners and a safety, playing man

But here's the kicker. You can blitz, in zone coverage, without it being a zone-blitz.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

But here's the kicker. You can blitz, in zone coverage, without it being a zone-blitz.

would that be w/o the DE and LBs exchanging responsibilities?

 

[theogt]

would that be w/o the DE and LBs exchanging responsibilities?

Yessir.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This semantic argument ranks right up there with Rack going on and on about W/SOLB vs L/ROLB.

You guys arent even arguing about what something is but rather what something is called.

 

[theogt]

This semantic argument ranks right up there with Rack going on and on about W/SOLB vs L/ROLB.

You guys arent even arguing about what something is but rather what something is called.

Yeah, that was pretty bad. I blame it on alcohol.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

This semantic argument ranks right up there with Rack going on and on about W/SOLB vs L/ROLB.

You guys arent even arguing about what something is but rather what something is called.

don't act like you haven't been involved in at least one argument over semantics

I think everyone is guilty of it at one time or another, in my case, several

btw, like the sig? LOL

 

[Bob Sacamano]

looking back at that thread, theo

we should have stopped arguing at post #35

You can have a zone or man coverage with a zone-blitz. More often it will be zone, but it certainly can be man. As far as the change of responsibility part (which is the key to the definition of what a zone-blitz is), there's not a single play in the playbook that calls for that. Hence, there are no zone-blitzes in the playbook.