McC-ran offenses *have always* included at least one big boy in backfield

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Um. Do we really have to rehash this so soon?

There indeed were no indications in that interview he'd changed his philosophy regarding roster composition, FB or otherwise. "Flat wrong"... ??? That's rich. The King interview spoke of change, but not that change. And the one time he came close to speaking to it at all, McC suggested he had "gotten away" from some things, and mentioned having more personnel packages in that.


Ding ding ding.

You win. You said the magic words.

There is no quicker way to persuade me that it's no longer worthwhile to engage a person than for that guy/gal to try to throw a blanket insult onto whatever the substance of the conversation was. "Word salad" says "I can't argue with the substance you've presented at a granular level, so here, I'll just zoom out to 30000 feet and disparage the granular level."

I'll leave you alone now.

This is why I said you need to work on your reading skills. Reread my OP and find the part where I claimed he had talked about "roster composition." When you cannot take the loss and drop it.

In that interview he did talk about "formation deployment" which cuts right to the matter here ie what types of players he is going to deploy in what type of formations. To have a FB or power back is part of that discussion.

And you have been nothing but condescending. Spare me the victim routine. You are typing out 400 word posts that posit very little other than this pissing contest. Word salad.

 

[_sturt_]

Reread my OP and find the part where I claimed he had talked about "roster composition."

That's all fine, except what you did claim was that he "talks about changing in just about every way." (Can you say "disingenuous?" I know you can.)

In that interview he did talk about "formation deployment" which cuts right to the matter here ie what types of players he is going to deploy in what type of formations. To have a FB or power back is part of that discussion.

So wait. Didn't you effectively just say in the previous sentence that you never claimed he talked about roster composition... but in the very next one.. you're saying, "Well, really, he did talk about roster composition, he just used the term 'formation deployment' (admittedly, I missed that, but I'll take your word for it) which I think can be translated to mean 'roster composition' after all."

Which is it?

But let's shove that one aside and give you that one anyway, okay? Cue the Dixie Chicks... here's your trouble... (as already mentioned in a recent post here) McM went away from the FB in the season he was fired. Until then, it had been a routine element of the McC offense. And again again... in the interview you've cited, McC indicates having "gotten away" from things in terms of motion and player personnel packages, which suggests he regretted that and was intending to get back to his earlier philosophies.

And you have been nothing but condescending.

victim routine

I'm sorry, victim, for making you feel condescended to. But after all, you're the one who is superior since you can deal with ambiguity and obviously I cannot. You said so, so it must be true.

More soberly and complete honesty, I respect people. That should not be taken to mean I respect what people say necessarily. There's a difference.

"Word salad" = "Here, let me show everyone what intellectual cowardice really looks like."

And now, really, this time I'll quit engaging. Points and counterpoints are getting repeated, and it's, um, point-less. Last word is yours, if you choose. I've no further interest.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's all fine, except what you did claim was that he "talks about changing in just about every way." (Can you say "disingenuous?" I know you can.)


So wait. Didn't you effectively just say in the previous sentence that you never claimed he talked about roster composition... but in the very next one.. you're saying, "Well, really, he did talk about roster composition, he just used the term 'formation deployment' (admittedly, I missed that, but I'll take your word for it) which I think can be translated to mean 'roster composition' after all."

Which is it?

But let's shove that one aside and give you that one anyway, okay? Cue the Dixie Chicks... here's your trouble... (as already mentioned in a recent post here) McM went away from the FB in the season he was fired. Until then, it had been a routine element of the McC offense. And again again... in the interview you've cited, McC indicates having "gotten away" from things in terms of motion and player personnel packages, which suggests he regretted that and was intending to get back to his earlier philosophies.



I'm sorry, victim, for making you feel condescended to. But after all, you're the one who is superior since you can deal with ambiguity and obviously I cannot. You said so, so it must be true.

More soberly and complete honesty, I respect people. That should not be taken to mean I respect what people say necessarily. There's a difference.

"Word salad" = "Here, let me show everyone what intellectual cowardice really looks like."

And now, really, this time I'll quit engaging. Points and counterpoints are getting repeated, and it's, um, point-less. Last word is yours, if you choose. I've no further interest.

"just about" was part of the bold. you clearly do not understand what that means.

"formation deployment" is something he said. It is not "roster composition." You then move on to admit that MM moved away from the FB completely blowing up your core argument. You try to gloss that over with a red herring but I have no interest in chasing around your new tree while your forest has burned down.

All I get from that is you are trying to con people into thinking the lack of a FB spells doom for the offense.

 

[buybuydandavis]

Cowboys have TEs to do the FB type dirty work. Seems a bit overblown to be concerned about a big back. How about a few good RBs? There's more than one way to peel a potato.

I'd really like a big back to *pair* with Pollard so we can put Pollard in motion and try to get him matched up against a LB wide. A FB who can run fits the bill well. I'm big on a 1 big back, one RB/WR hybrid offense.

We sent Pollard deep *once* in 4 years, finally last year, and it yielded a 60 yard td. Those kind of shots should be a *staple* of our offense. Pollard is too fast for most LBs, and Dak has developed a nice deep ball.

 

[_sturt_]

I'd really like a big back to *pair* with Pollard so we can put Pollard in motion and try to get him matched up against a LB wide. A FB who can run fits the bill well. I'm big on a 1 big back, one RB/WR hybrid offense.

The point inside your point... I think McC would defend his allegiance to carrying a Kuhn et al on the roster almost all those years in GB by saying his QB was always too important, too valuable, to not have some adequate-to-good blocker in the backfield that could be utilized. We used to have a halfback who was among the best halfbacks at protecting the QB, of course, so that achieved the role before now.

Let's see what happens.

 

[Mr_437]

Lmao

 

[Stash]

Cowboys have TEs to do the FB type dirty work. Seems a bit overblown to be concerned about a big back. How about a few good RBs? There's more than one way to peel a potato.

Who specifically do you have in mind?

I only see one guy - McKeon - who can capably handle H-back or fullback duties. And he’s not even a lock to make the roster.

 

[Mr_437]

Who specifically do you have in mind?

I only see one guy - McKeon - who can capably handle H-back or fullback duties. And he’s not even a lock to make the roster.

Schoon can do it all he is next level blocking. I believe Ferg can make all the blocks too. And of course, McKeon. IMO Cowboys have 3 TEs that can make those blocks, and they'll carry 1 receiving TE.

 

[gimmesix]

Lmao

My wife rolled her eyes, but I thought it was funny, so I did it anyway. (Of course, my wife rolls her eyes at all of my jokes.)