For The TO Fans... A Highlight Video

[khiladi]

"If true, this only bolsters my argument. If Garrett and Romo are compelled to throw to TO even though he's not getting open, it again suggests they're trying to appease him." Or is could just suggest that nobody is open and Romo is forcing the ball, like Parcells use to say. Why did Romo throw in INT to Miles Austin that game? How many passes were incomplete thrown inthe direction of Austion? It is ironic that you spoke about effectiveness as it relates to Miles Austin because of the running game in the Green Bay game, but ignore this effectiveness as far as it concerns TO. Last time I checked, Austin doesn't get double-teamed that much.

 

[khiladi]

The reality is you have't done anything other than stated Dallas would be more effective if they had a running game. Welcome to what we already know.. That is why TO scored on the very first drive of the second half when they ran Barber 2 times during that five play drive and threw 3 times to TO... But yeah, you forgot about that...

 

[khiladi]

"Unfortunately for your argument, the game did not end after the first and second quarter. You see, it's fallacy to only consider data that supports your position. It's called cherry-picking, and it invalidates your entire argument."You mean the first half of a game doesn't dictate why Dallas did what they did the second half? It is called adjustments, which Garrett is pathetic at.

 

[Rampage]

wow.....

 

[ScipioCowboy]

There you go again. Your picking and choosing what you want to weight against. Why have you chosen two receivers, instead of four receivers? Your whole argument is predicated on the fact that WE IGNORED THE RUN to appease TO. We DISTRIBUTED THE BALL WAY MORE in the passing game against the Commanders, then we did against the Packers. So how can you argue that the very basis for going away from the running game was because we wanted to go to TO? Further, targetting TO primarily doesn't establish trying to appease TO, because he is the "I" receiver in the Garrett offense. Michael Irvin was the primary target in the Norv offense. Does that mean the Cowboys were trying to appease him?

"Once again, you're failing to understand the difference between the number of passes a receiver actually catches and the number of passes that are thrown in his direction."I am quite aware of the stat and your failing to understand the point, which is the amount of passes thrown the way of Crayton, Miles Austin, and other receivers went up. If your argument is that Dallas ignored the run trying to appease TO, then how do you explain that a significant number of passes that took away from Dallas oppurtunity to run went to receivers besides TO? Like I said, the only thing your demonstrating in the argument is Dallas made a consistent effort to run the ball against Green Bay. What caused Dallas to do this, per your own words, is appeasing TO. Yet, there are a considerable number of factors that show Dallas was attacking Washington differently than they did Green Bay.

The emboldened portions are flagrantly wrong.

Let's compare the pass distribution totals of both the Green Bay game and the Washington game:

Green Bay
Owens: 7 pass attempts
Witten: 9 pass attempts
Crayton: 2 pass attempts
Austin: 3 pass attempts
Barber: 4 pass attempts
Bennett: 2 pass attempts
Curtis: 1 pass attempt
Jones: 1 pass attempt

Washington
Owens: 19 pass attempts
Witten: 10 pass attempts
Crayton: 10 pass attempts
Austin: 6 pass attempts
Barber: 2 pass attempts
Bennett: 1 pass attempts
Curtis: 0 pass attempts
Jones: 0 pass attempts

More receivers were targeted in the Green Bay game than in the Washington game, and pass attempts to Witten and Austin remained relatively constant.

Only two receivers were thrown substantially more pass attempts against Washington: Crayton and -- surprise, surprise! -- Terrell Owens, who had a whopping 12 additional passes thrown his direction. Incidentally, 12 is exactly the number of incompletions Owens accrued during the Washington game.

Here are the totals broken down by percentage of pass attempts:

Player: percentage of pass attempts against Green Bay / Washington
Owens: 23 percent/40 percent
Witten: 29 percent/21 percent
Crayton: 6 percent/21 percent
Austin: 10 percent/13 percent
Barber: 13 percent/4 percent
Bennett: 6 percent/2 percent
Curtis: 3 percent/0 percent
Jones: 3 percent/0 percent

From the Green Bay game to the Washington game, the player who saw the largest increase in the percentage of passes thrown his direction was -- once again -- Terrell Owens. His percentage almost doubled, which is ludicrous when we consider that the Cowboys threw 16 additional pass attempts against Washington.

Not only did the Cowboys have more players involved in the passing game against Green Bay (despite throwing 16 fewer passes), they were far more equitable in their pass distribution.

In the Washington game, if the Cowboys had given 12 additional carries to Marion Barber rather than throwing 12 incompletions to Owen, Barber would've had 20 rushing attempts, which is in the vicinity of his ideal workload. Total rushing attempts for the game would've increased to 23, which is very near the Cowboys' average last season of 25.

Therefore, it's a perfectly reasonable assertion that Dallas sacrificed rushing attempts in order to appease TO.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playb...y_by_play&season=2008&week=REG3&override=true

 

[khiladi]

Do you even know how to add? We threw the ball 29 times receivers other than TO in the Commanders game to 22 times in the Green Bay game, verifying exactly what I stated, which is we distributed the ball way more to receivers other than TO, seven times more in fact. Whether or not that distribution included more receivers other than TO in the Green Bay than Washington does nothing to the point. The fact is Garrett tried to attack the Commanders with the pass. But keep trying with the spin. Keep ignoring the fact that TO has always been the primary receiver, because he is the "I" receiver in the Garrett offense. Whether one replaces him with Roy or some other receiver, there is a primary receiver that is targetted, just like Michale Irvin was the primary receiver for Cowboys. Throwing to him more doesn't mean one is trying to 'appease' him. Keep ignoring the fact that you argued that Miles Austin wasn't used effectively in the Commanders game, because we ignored the run, all the while negating that effective usage of TO doesn't count when we abandon the run.

 

[khiladi]

We threw the ball 20 more times in the Commanders game. In the game against the Cardinals, which was after the Commanders game, Tony Romo threw it 38 times, 10 more times than against the Packers, and Barber had 17 carries and 11 receptions. Felix Jones even touched the ball 3 times. Why did our offense look pathetic and why was Romo getting killed in the pocket? Because he was trying to appease TO? And this game was two games after the Commanders game. Your whole argument is a joke. The only thing you have provne is that if Dallas dedicated itself to the run, it would be more effective. Congratulations....

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Do you even know how to add? We threw the ball 29 times receivers other than TO in the Commanders game to 22 times in the Green Bay game, verifying exactly what I stated, which is we distributed the ball way more to receivers other than TO, seven times more in fact. Whether or not that distribution included more receivers other than TO in the Green Bay than Washington does nothing to the point. The fact is Garrett tried to attack the Commanders with the pass. But keep trying with the spin.

Here's the source of your confusion. Performing a valid comparison between two games requires far more than simple addition; for this reason, my last posting included a comparison between the percentages of pass distribution in each game.

Assuming your figures are correct, they indicate that 76 percent of the total passes against Green Bay were thrown to receivers not named Terrell Owens. Meanwhile, 61 percent of the total passes against Washington were thrown to someone other than the drama king. Between the two games, the allotment of passes directed at TO went up by 15 percent -- an increase that becomes even more mind-boggling when we consider that the Cowboys threw 16 more passes.

Now, let's consider your previous statements:

We DISTRIBUTED THE BALL WAY MORE in the passing game against the Commanders, then we did against the Packers.

which is the amount of passes thrown the way of Crayton, Miles Austin, and other receivers went up.

In light of the above data and analysis, it should be clear (even to you) that both of your above statements are false.

Keep ignoring the fact that TO has always been the primary receiver, because he is the "I" receiver in the Garrett offense. Whether one replaces him with Roy or some other receiver, there is a primary receiver that is targetted, just like Michale Irvin was the primary receiver for Cowboys. Throwing to him more doesn't mean one is trying to 'appease' him. Keep ignoring the fact that you argued that Miles Austin wasn't used effectively in the Commanders game, because we ignored the run, all the while negating that effective usage of TO doesn't count when we abandon the run.

The primary receiver does not supersede the primary running back. When the primary receiver is afforded 21 opportunities with the football and the primary running back is afforded only 10 (less than half as many), the issues of forcing balls and appeasement become very real, regardless of who the primary receiver is.

 

[khiladi]

Here's the source of your confusion. Performing a valid comparison between two games requires far more than simple addition; for this reason, my last posting included a comparison between the percentages of pass distribution in each game.

There is no confusion.

Whether TOs passes went up or not doesn't change the reality, and that is Dallas went pass first. You can qualify it by percentage or number of times thrown his way, it doesn't change this reality. Your whole argument is predicated on the fact that Dallas abandoned the run to appease TO. That is false, because Dallas' pass numbers went up significantly for all the receivers. Garrett chose to attack the Commanders by the pass and the numbers went up for not only TO, but other receivers as well.

Further, the comparison isn't valid, precisely because it is two games. You want to conveniently ignore games like Arizona, where Barber was the primary target, because it totally invalidates your argument that the reason they were not spreading the ball around was to appease TO. The Arizona game was after the Commanders game, which you claim is the game Dallas started trying to force the ball to TO. They then went and got Roy Williams after the offense just wasn't perfomring. Why would Dallas go out and get Roy Williams to try and open up the offense, when, according to you, Dallas was simply abandoning the run to try and appease TO. Maybe just maybe, Garrett's passing game was figured out. But when they still didn't get it done, excuses were made for Garrett again, among them Roy Williams doesn't know how to run routes. It continues today as if Garrett wasn't responsible for this debacle, though he is the primary reason for the failure of the offense. One cannot make any real systematic judgement on any player in the Cowboys offense, because Garrett didn't put any of them in a position to succeed, let alone TO. Crayton became essentially a non-factor the whole year, while 2007 he moved the chains way more. Even the excuses regarding injuries is over-played, because when Barber went out, Choice performed very well. When Proctor was in, Garrett didn't shorten routes our roll Romo out. The consistent staple of this offense was shot-gun and if the pressure really came on, Garrett just resorted to 2 tight-end sets.

Assuming your figures are correct, they indicate that 76 percent of the total passes against Green Bay were thrown to receivers not named Terrell Owens. Meanwhile, 61 percent of the total passes against Washington were thrown to someone other than the drama king. Between the two games, the allotment of passes directed at TO went up by 15 percent -- an increase that becomes even more mind-boggling when we consider that the Cowboys threw 16 more passes.

If I throw less times, and the number of passes increases by one to TO, the percentage increase is going to be a lot more than if a I throw a lot more and increase the passes to TO once. Who cares? The passes went up for other receivers in the Commanders game attesting to the fact that Dallas wanted to attack the Commanders through the air. There is nothing mind-boggling about it. Your ignoring so much evidence, just continually harping on TO versus the touches to Barber, as if the whole offensive plan was predicated on these two. This is why you continually ignore the Arizona game, where Barber was the feature of the offense and it was pathetic. This is why you ignore such things about 'effectiveness' of passes thrown to TO, but speak about the 'effectiveness' of passes thrown Miles Austin in the context of the run. You ignore the fact that Austin was targetted more in the Commanders games than Green Bay in this context.

The primary receiver does not supersede the primary running back. When the primary receiver is afforded 21 opportunities with the football and the primary running back is afforded only 10 (less than half as many), the issues of forcing balls and appeasement become very real, regardless of who the primary receiver is.

The secondary receiver, Patrick Crayton, and so did Witten, have as many opppurtunities as Marion Barber. But keep spinning away for Garrett's ineffectiveness. As I said, congratulations for informing us that Garrett abandoned the run and it hurt our offense. There is a reason Wade spoke specifically about the running game and how it prevents TOs and forced INTs, and there is a reason Dallas went out and tried to get Dan Reeves...

 

[Hostile]

I posted this a week ago. It has reached 24 pages. I moved it to the NFL Zone a couple of days ago. It's still alive.

All it was originally was a highlight video.

I think this man says it best.

[youtube]k7phlHG78do[/youtube]

 

[ScipioCowboy]

There is no confusion.

Whether TOs passes went up or not doesn't change the reality, and that is Dallas went pass first. You can qualify it by percentage or number of times thrown his way, it doesn't change this reality. Your whole argument is predicated on the fact that Dallas abandoned the run to appease TO. That is false, because Dallas' pass numbers went up significantly for all the receivers. Garrett chose to attack the Commanders by the pass and the numbers went up for not only TO, but other receivers as well.

These claims are incorrect, as I explained here and here.

If I throw less times, and the number of passes increases by one to TO, the percentage increase is going to be a lot more than if a I throw a lot more and increase the passes to TO once. Who cares?

Very good. You're almost there. You merely need to carry the logic to its conclusion:

If you throw more times, each individual pass represents a smaller portion of the total population size. The Cowboys threw more passes against Washington than Green Bay; therefore, each Washington pass was worth less than each Green Bay pass.

Now, follow me here: In order for TO to have taken up 15 percent more of the pass distribution against Washington than Green Bay, he must have been throw a much higher number of passes -- at the expense of both the running game and other receivers.

The passes went up for other receivers in the Commanders game attesting to the fact that Dallas wanted to attack the Commanders through the air. There is nothing mind-boggling about it. Your ignoring so much evidence, just continually harping on TO versus the touches to Barber, as if the whole offensive plan was predicated on these two. This is why you continually ignore the Arizona game,

If you think the Arizona game invalidates my argument, you don't understand my argument. In my very first posting on this thread, I said the following:

In order to become a balanced offense and utilize every weapon at their disposal, Jason Garrett and the Dallas Cowboys must be patient -- as they were against Green Bay. Unfortunately, TO was not going to let them be patient.

In the Arizona game, the Cowboys ran the ball 22 times, and passed 39 times. That's not balance. Barber is normally the check down in the passing game; he caught so many passes because TO wasn't getting open. At the very least, Barber was catching the passes thrown his direction, unlike the drama king.

However, more importantly, TO was already a vociferous malcontent at this point in the season; he had started complaining about his role in the offense weeks earlier -- despite being given 21 opportunities with the football against Washington.

where Barber was the feature of the offense and it was pathetic. This is why you ignore such things about 'effectiveness' of passes thrown to TO, but speak about the 'effectiveness' of passes thrown Miles Austin in the context of the run. You ignore the fact that Austin was targetted more in the Commanders games than Green Bay in this context.

Actually, Owens's effectiveness is at the very heart of my argument. You see, TO's skills are clearly declining -- he had one dominant game last season. One. Out of 16.

In his most effective capacity next season, Owens would no longer be the focal point of the offense. The running game and Witten must be the focal points -- a premise that I doubt Owens would ever accept.

The secondary receiver, Patrick Crayton, and so did Witten, have as many opppurtunities as Marion Barber. But keep spinning away for Garrett's ineffectiveness. As I said, congratulations for informing us that Garrett abandoned the run and it hurt our offense. There is a reason Wade spoke specifically about the running game and how it prevents TOs and forced INTs, and there is a reason Dallas went out and tried to get Dan Reeves...

Would you mind pointing out and reposting any excuses I've made for Jason Garrett? Thanks.

 

[khiladi]

Man, you just keep modifying your opinions as the days go on, contradicting yourself over and over again. Now the argument is that Dallas was targetting Marion Barber in the Arizona game because TO wasn't getting open. So in the Commanders game they were trying to appease TO by forcing him the ball even when he was NOT open, but in the Arizona game they were going to Barber because TO wasn't getting open. And then you say that they were doing this because TO was becoming a mal-content. I thought you said they were trying to appease TO by forcing him the ball even when he was not open, including DOUBLE-COVERAGE. Let us not even talk about the fact that you would think Romo could go to other receivers, if he is going to ignore TO and try and throw it to other receivers. Let us also us not forget that you stated this:"The primary receiver does not supersede the primary running back. When the primary receiver is afforded 21 opportunities with the football and the primary running back is afforded only 10 (less than half as many), the issues of forcing balls and appeasement become very real, regardless of who the primary receiver is."Notice very carefully how you have taken into account the PASSES thrown to Barber in the Commanders game. So which is it? It is obvious. Your point was shot a long time ago, but keep spinning away.

 

[khiladi]

And no, TOs skills allegedly declining were NOT your argument. Your argument was that Dallas ignored the running game to appease TO. That is why you specifically talked about Miles Austin being effective when they actually ran the ball, but claimed that despite the fact he was thrown to more in the Commanders game, he wasn't as effective because they didn't run the ball. You suspend 'effectiveness' for TO, but not for Miles Austin, because you want to make a case that Dallas was trying to appease TO, ignoring the run game. Now that your argument has gone to oblivion, your changing it to TOs skills 'clearly' declining.

 

[khiladi]

You also never addressed the drives in the Commanders game, where TO was ignored and Barber was thrown in the mix, but the drives of the Cowboys clearly stalled. You also failed to address the fact that the first drive of the third quarter, Dallas had a five play drive, with 3 of those passes going to TO, and the other two times Barber was thrown in the mix. Your argument that TO implies that he somehow doesn't know that his own statistics benefit with a good running game. Was TO complaining when Barber touched the ball twice in that drive?

 

[khiladi]

"Now, follow me here: In order for TO to have taken up 15 percent more of the pass distribution against Washington than Green Bay, he must have been throw a much higher number of passes -- at the expense of both the running game and other receivers."So is it the running game or the other receivers? Your argument was at one point in time clearly focused on the running game. Now your changing it to both the other receivers and running game, because the argument that Dallas went pass first to appease TO doesn't stand an ounce of ground. When Miles Austin was targetted more in the Commanders game, you then made it about effectiveness of the passes he caught in Green Bay. When I brought up the fact that Jason Garrett goes pass first, you made another ridiculous argument that it was in 2007 when TO hadn't lost a step. Your just all over the place trying to recoup your lost argument.

 

[khiladi]

How about you ignoring this point when you asked about when you ignored Garrett? The secondary receiver, Patrick Crayton, and so did Witten, have as many opppurtunities as Marion Barber. But then again, let us get back to the other issue. You see, by implicitly saying Dallas was trying to appease TO and that is why they ignored the run, your making excuses for Garrett. In fact, you pretty much contradict yourself because you have said in this very same post, now that TO is gone, the offense can focus on the running game and Witten being the primary targets. You can spin it any other way you want to.

 

[khiladi]

The fact is, Dallas did utilize the weapons it had at disposal. In the Commanders game, they tried using Crayton more, and Miles Austin. That didn't get it done. They tried against Arizona as well, but Barber was the primary target. They didn't get it done. Patience isn't an asset of Garrett's offense. In 2007, he didn't handle the running game. 2008 was his first year and not only that, the OL took a serious nose-dive. The timing-based run blocking schemes aren't the product of TO. The pass-blocking schemes are not a product of TO. Was it TOs fault the OL couldn't sustain a block? If Romo can be excused, then why not TO? You also ignored the fact of Dallas TRYING TO GET ROY WILLIAMS TO OPEN UP THE PASSING GAME. That is implicit and damning evidence regarding your claims, because it implicitly implies that the other receivers were not getting it done. You think they got Roy Williams to act as a decoy so they could toss more balls to TO?

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Man, you just keep modifying your opinions as the days go on, contradicting yourself over and over again. Now the argument is that Dallas was targetting Marion Barber in the Arizona game because TO wasn't getting open. So in the Commanders game they were trying to appease TO by forcing him the ball even when he was NOT open, but in the Arizona game they were going to Barber because TO wasn't getting open. And then you say that they were doing this because TO was becoming a mal-content. I thought you said they were trying to appease TO by forcing him the ball even when he was not open, including DOUBLE-COVERAGE. Let us not even talk about the fact that you would think Romo could go to other receivers, if he is going to ignore TO and try and throw it to other receivers. Let us also us not forget that you stated this:"The primary receiver does not supersede the primary running back. When the primary receiver is afforded 21 opportunities with the football and the primary running back is afforded only 10 (less than half as many), the issues of forcing balls and appeasement become very real, regardless of who the primary receiver is."Notice very carefully how you have taken into account the PASSES thrown to Barber in the Commanders game. So which is it? It is obvious. Your point was shot a long time ago, but keep spinning away.

"Now, follow me here: In order for TO to have taken up 15 percent more of the pass distribution against Washington than Green Bay, he must have been throw a much higher number of passes -- at the expense of both the running game and other receivers."So is it the running game or the other receivers? Your argument was at one point in time clearly focused on the running game. Now your changing it to both the other receivers and running game, because the argument that Dallas went pass first to appease TO doesn't stand an ounce of ground. When Miles Austin was targetted more in the Commanders game, you then made it about effectiveness of the passes he caught in Green Bay. When I brought up the fact that Jason Garrett goes pass first, you made another ridiculous argument that it was in 2007 when TO hadn't lost a step. Your just all over the place trying to recoup your lost argument.

I've been very consistent in my argument throughout our exchange, as I demonstrated in my previous posting. If anyone is attempting to change the argument, it's you.

For instance, you were first poster to broach the topic of pass distribution. I only pointed out that your assertions about pass distribution were incorrect -- here, here, here, here, and here.

You also mentioned the Arizona game and Marion Barber before anyone else did. Nothing I've asserted regarding the Arizona game has contradicted my initial argument, and I can prove it:

In my second posting on this thread (a week ago), I stated the following:

In order to become a balanced offense and utilize every weapon at their disposal, Jason Garrett and the Dallas Cowboys must be patient -- as they were against Green Bay. Unfortunately, TO was not going to let them be patient.

Then, yesterday, I said this:

In the Arizona game, the Cowboys ran the ball 22 times, and passed 39 times. That's not balance. Barber is normally the check down in the passing game; he caught so many passes because TO wasn't getting open. At the very least, Barber was catching the passes thrown his direction, unlike the drama king.

Furthermore, TO wasn't becoming a malcontent by the Arizona game. He already was a malcontent. He'd already complained to the media, and he would do so again and again throughout the course of the season.

You're the one who's trying desperately to change arguments. Unfortunately for you, every subsequent argument you posit is more poorly conceived than the last one.

And no, TOs skills allegedly declining were NOT your argument.

Actually, it was my argument, and I made it a whole week ago in my second posting on this thread.

Your argument was that Dallas ignored the running game to appease TO. That is why you specifically talked about Miles Austin being effective when they actually ran the ball, but claimed that despite the fact he was thrown to more in the Commanders game, he wasn't as effective because they didn't run the ball. You suspend 'effectiveness' for TO, but not for Miles Austin, because you want to make a case that Dallas was trying to appease TO, ignoring the run game. Now that your argument has gone to oblivion, your changing it to TOs skills 'clearly' declining.

Untrue. Once again, in my second posting on this thread, I stated the following:

Unquestionably, TO creates opportunities for other players. But he must be willing to let other players take advantage of those opportunities and share in his spotlight -- especially when his skills are clearly deteriorating.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

You also never addressed the drives in the Commanders game, where TO was ignored and Barber was thrown in the mix, but the drives of the Cowboys clearly stalled. You also failed to address the fact that the first drive of the third quarter, Dallas had a five play drive, with 3 of those passes going to TO, and the other two times Barber was thrown in the mix. Your argument that TO implies that he somehow doesn't know that his own statistics benefit with a good running game. Was TO complaining when Barber touched the ball twice in that drive?

Actually, I addressed the Commander game in totality, which is a far more effective and revealing strategy than cherry picking individual drives as you're doing.

And if TO was complaining about Barber getting two touches on a drive during a game in which he received 8 touches total, TO has more problems than even I can imagine.

How about you ignoring this point when you asked about when you ignored Garrett? The secondary receiver, Patrick Crayton, and so did Witten, have as many opppurtunities as Marion Barber. But then again, let us get back to the other issue. You see, by implicitly saying Dallas was trying to appease TO and that is why they ignored the run, your making excuses for Garrett. In fact, you pretty much contradict yourself because you have said in this very same post, now that TO is gone, the offense can focus on the running game and Witten being the primary targets. You can spin it any other way you want to.

Incorrect.

In fact, I blame Garrett more than anyone. Appeasing TO should never have been a consideration. Thankfully, the problem has been excised.

The fact is, Dallas did utilize the weapons it had at disposal. In the Commanders game, they tried using Crayton more, and Miles Austin. That didn't get it done.

The central issue here is effectiveness. The Cowboys were effective against Green Bay because they involved more players and were more even in their pass distribution. They were less effective against Washington because they didn't involve as many players and were less equitable in their pass distribution -- all in order to appease TO.

 

[khiladi]

There you go again, yet again avoidin to answer your own inconistencies. You can cut-and-paste and high-light what you want, but that doesn't change reality. IF TO BEING A MAL-CONTENT HAD ALREADY OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE ARIZONA GAME, WHICH HAS AND WILL ALWAYS BE MY POINT, THEN WHY WEREN'T THEY TRYING TO FEED THE BALL TO OWENS IN THE ARIZONA GAME, BUT WERE CHECKING DOWN TO BARBER? You claimed that they were forcing the ball to TO even in double-coverage simply to appease him in the Commanders game and because of that THE OFFENSE WENT ON A DOWNWARD SPIRAL. SO WHICH IS IT?