Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SUNRA
Yeah, that's what I thought. You used my comments concerning the experienced coach vs. the enlightened fan to support your point about Noble and Salave'a, but you didn't comment about my point which was that the defense should turn an INT into a TD. Your comment was , now we're asking the defense to score off of the turnover, like the defense isn't doing enough." After you mentioned that, Coach Blache commented extensively about his goal to have the defense turn INT'S or fumbles into TD's. His explanation being that given the history of the defense, it was happy to get the turnover, but not forseeing the possiblility to score with effective blocking. I would like for you to comment about this specific point since you didn't on that thread.
|
Hmmm... I thought I
did address that issue in the thread to which that point was relevant:
http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread...3&page=2&pp=15
Anyway, here's the quote from that thread in which I respond to that inquiry:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by joecrisp
I took exception to your suggestion that the defense needed to score more points because you were trying to defend Mark Brunell's ineptitude by asking why the defense wasn't scoring points. I thought that suggestion was a little absurd, considering that the defense's primary purpose is to stop the opposing offense from scoring points-- and this defense is among the best in the league at achieving that goal.
Points scored by the defense are something that shouldn't be counted upon-- they certainly help, and it certainly makes sense to explore the possibility of improving upon that aspect of the game, but you can't reasonably expect to lean upon the defense to score touchdowns week in and week out to win games. That's the offense's primary purpose, and this offense isn't getting the job done.
And by the way, this "enlightened fan" has sought out Greg Blache for enlightenment about defensive tactics, has spoken with him about his defensive philosophy, and has a deep respect and admiration for the man. I completely agree with his opinion that the defense can improve in the area of capitalizing on turnovers. But that doesn't mean we should direct our blame to the defense for losses which were clearly the result of ineptitude on the part of the offense and special teams.
Defenses like the Ravens of 2000 are extraordinarily rare, and the fact that it would take a defensive effort of that magnitude to overcome the deficiencies of this offense is absolutely appalling. Forgive me if I'm too busy dissecting the offense to point fingers at the defense.
|
To extend that response to your question, SUNRA, I think it's obvious that this team needs to do whatever it can to put points on the board. But I also think the offense's inability to score is of far greater concern than that of the defense. That's why you evoked such an incredulous response from me when you posted the following:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SUNRA
Instead of complaining about what Brunell isn't doing, Let's talk about how our defense can score some points off of turnovers when the offense is struggling.
|
Taken in the context of the ongoing debate over the offensive struggles and whether Brunell should be the starting quarterback, it seemed as if you were trying to deflect the blame for the team's struggles to the defense. I don't know if that was your intent, but that's certainly how it came off.
Perhaps you were simply pointing out something that also needs to be considered-- in addition to all of the offensive problems-- and that's a justifiable point. It just seemed like you were trying to substitute the defense as some sort of surrogate scapegoat, and I found that rather galling, given the tremendous job they've done stopping opposing offenses.