I don't believe in balance. I believe in doing what works and hammering away at what works until they figure out how to stop it. Often, they can't because they don't have the scheme or the personnel to stop it.
"zombieslayer" wrote:
I LOVE this attitude! The primary justification for a balanced attack is to be less predictable so as to "keep the defense honest." But who cares if you're being predictable if they can't stop you? If they can't stop you,
you're going to win games (barring late-game defensive collapses, of course), and that's all that matters, right?
I've never been a fan of the "balanced attack." Last year I wanted to throw rotten organic matter at the screen every time I saw Mike McCarthy go away from what was working and try something else . . . all in the name of "balance." Almost without exception, these shifts in tactics killed whatever momentum we had going for us.
A balanced attack, in my opinion, is symptomatic of a mediocre team for much the same reason that a highly efficient company is either teetering on the brink of bankruptcy or is already insolvent.
He'd be a lot MORE confident if he were throwing TDs instead of settling for FGs, that's fo shizzle.
"zombieslayer" wrote:
I couldn't agree more. I was one of the very few guys screaming and yelling whenever Mike McCarthy settled for field goals, until the pattern kept reasserting itself time and time again -- resulting in loss after loss -- and then I started to see a few converts toward the end of the season. I've been a vocal supporter of McCarthy heretofore, but if I see him settling for FGs again this season instead of lunging for the jugular, I will lose faith in him quickly.