WotAGuy Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 I'm not "defending" (most abused word at TSW of all time) Scott. He's saying it's not a D that should depend on one guy i existence to decipher it on the field. Scott would know. I guess I don't know how else to say this. He is clearly saying it doesn't need 12 years to figure out what to do in that D. You are clearly saying Scott is lying---that it actually took him many years to figure it. I don't believe you. You must be reading a different interview because I am not seeing all these statements you are attributing to Scott. Got a link so the rest of us can be in on these conversations you've had with him?
Mr. WEO Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 (edited) You must be reading a different interview because I am not seeing all these statements you are attributing to Scott. Got a link so the rest of us can be in on these conversations you've had with him? Start with the one linked by the OP. "Scott, though four years removed from the NFL, then attempted to break it down for Dareus on the show, reminding him that Ryan’s defensive schemes use code words to make the learning curve easier for his players. “I can explain to you the entire defense,” Scott said. “(One) call might be ‘Bull Fire Zone.’ What’s the first letter of bull? … Boundary. (The pressure is) coming from the boundary. That’s all Dareus has to know." “As a defensive lineman, you only have like four (or five) fronts. Man, if you can’t remember five fronts, I don’t know what to tell you, bro. We can’t put the play book in crayon.” Edited December 31, 2016 by Mr. WEO
WotAGuy Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 Start with the one linked by the OP. That is what I read. Show me the lines in the article where he is "clearly stating" all of the things you claim. And while you are at it, show me where I was "clearly stating" Scott is lying. Apparently your definition of "clearly stating" means "my delusions".
nedboy7 Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 Add to this his suspensions and coming back to the field not in shape and getting injured. Scott is dead on. Ive read where some have questioned Dareus's work ethic, yet he credits his lack of preparation on Ryan's system. And I'm not sure what Rex's system has to do with the horrendous tackling this club displayed all year, specifically the nail in the coffin Dolphins game. Unable to perform basic job functions and not being dedicated to your job when your being paid a kings ransom are not system issues. He wouldn't last a week in New England. Thank you for making sense. A rare occurrence on this once reasonable board.
Mr. WEO Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 (edited) That is what I read. Show me the lines in the article where he is "clearly stating" all of the things you claim. And while you are at it, show me where I was "clearly stating" Scott is lying. Apparently your definition of "clearly stating" means "my delusions". look up. I added the quotes Also, you keep implying Scott took years to learn this system. He says otherwise Edited December 31, 2016 by Mr. WEO
WotAGuy Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 look up. I added the quotes I don't see any quotes that equate to your claim of him "clearly stating" nonsense. And you conveniently ignore the point I am trying to make by focusing on the complexity argument. You didn't answer the questions about your job or about my "lying". Care to stay on point?
Mr. WEO Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 I don't see any quotes that equate to your claim of him "clearly stating" nonsense. And you conveniently ignore the point I am trying to make by focusing on the complexity argument. You didn't answer the questions about your job or about my "lying". Care to stay on point? Look, Scott's comments CLEARLY show that the Defense is not that complex---therefore, it does not take "years" to learn. What don't you get from his very straightforward comments. The length of time he spent in that D didn't matter. He is telling you this but you keep saying he's wrong or lying (by your inference)--you think that he took years to learn the D, and therefore shouldn't criticize Dareus. In any job, if learning how to preform it is not the difficult, there is no benefit of being on the job for 12 years vs. 2.
WotAGuy Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 Look, Scott's comments CLEARLY show that the Defense is not that complex---therefore, it does not take "years" to learn. What don't you get from his very straightforward comments. The length of time he spent in that D didn't matter. He is telling you this but you keep saying he's wrong or lying (by your inference)--you think that he took years to learn the D, and therefore shouldn't criticize Dareus. In any job, if learning how to preform it is not the difficult, there is no benefit of being on the job for 12 years vs. 2. You must work at McDonalds. I thought you were in the medical field?
chris heff Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 (edited) I'm not "defending" (most abused word at TSW of all time) Scott. He's saying it's not a D that should depend on one guy i existence to decipher it on the field. Scott would know. I guess I don't know how else to say this. He is clearly saying it doesn't need 12 years to figure out what to do in that D. You are clearly saying Scott is lying---that it actually took him many years to figure it. I don't believe you. Except it did depend on one guy the defense was significantly worse without AW, as it was last year. It was painfully obvious. So we're the othe ten guys on the field stupid or lazy? Were the guys that replaced AW lazy and stupid as well? Dareus would know whether he and his teammates on the Bills (not the Ravens and not the a Jets of five years ago) were struggling better than Bart Scott. Edited December 31, 2016 by chris heff
Hapless Bills Fan Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 Let's try this: Bills and Eagles Common Opponents. (...) I meant to respond to these posts earlier, but this is my last full day in Buffalo before we fly back to Miami and we went for a hike and took some photographs. Go Bills. Good post, thanks for putting in the research! Hope you enjoyed the hike. Where'd you go?
Mr. WEO Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 Except it did depend on one guy the defense was significantly worse without AW, as it was last year. It was painfully obvious. So we're the othe ten guys on the field stupid or lazy? Were the guys that replaced AW lazy and stupid as well? Dareus would know whether he and his teammates on the Bills (not the Ravens and not the a Jets of five years ago) were struggling better than Bart Scott. Is AW a savant? How is it possible he is the only player on the entire defensive roster who can read an offense? Scott was saying that the front 7 shouldn't need AW calling the D to figure out what to do.
chris heff Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 Is AW a savant? How is it possible he is the only player on the entire defensive roster who can read an offense? Scott was saying that the front 7 shouldn't need AW calling the D to figure out what to do. Except that they did, which by definition makes it too complicated.
Mr. WEO Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 Except that they did, which by definition makes it too complicated. ...or, by deduction, Scott is correct.
FireChan Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 (edited) It doesn't matter if Scott is right or not. Either way, with the injuries and dummies on this team already, the system wasn't gonna work. Whether or not it was "too hard," is relative. Edited December 31, 2016 by FireChan
chris heff Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 ...or, by deduction, Scott is correct. Scott, as I stated previously, is a Rex Ryan apologist. What makes this painfully evident is the crayon comment. Thus by deduction any statement he makes is questionable.
Mr. WEO Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 Scott, as I stated previously, is a Rex Ryan apologist. What makes this painfully evident is the crayon comment. Thus by deduction any statement he makes is questionable. This is laughable. You have no basis upon which to "deduce" this conclusion. LOL "deduction"! There's no need to be a TBD messenger sniper on this one.
Big Blitz Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 (edited) What the hell D was Pettine running? We seemed to pick that up no problem. Was it not Rex's? Anyone listening to or buying what these chicken bleep players are saying is delusional. From Russ on down....disaster. Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk Edited December 31, 2016 by Big Blitz
John from Riverside Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 Maybe its not that its too complicated....maybe its because it relies on down linemen to take on multiple blockers.....and the guys behind those down linemen are not getting it done?
FireChan Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 What the hell D was Pettine running? We seemed to pick that up no problem. Was it not Rex's?Anyone listening to or buying what these chicken bleep players are saying is delusional. From Russ on down....disaster.Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk A simplified multigap scheme.
K-9 Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 A simplified multigap scheme. So did Ryan. Cursory film review confirms this.
Recommended Posts