of weak on the Holmes-Richardson and Wheatley-Garner fronts there.
all, didn't Holmes carry the ball only 15 times in the first two games
in fact, carried the ball 29 times the first two weeks, to
agree with you that Levens (perpetually injured) should not have been
had been touted the year before as the heir apparent to Jerome
message contains a substantial amount of tendentiousness, i.e.,
Garner’s impact as a receiver out of the backfield and those touches
went tendentiously unmentioned. Anyway,
without further ado... Lllllllllllet’s get rrrrrrready to
rrrrrrumblllllllllle... (Now read this carefully now, skepniks and
Holmes versus Richardson last year, without doubt Richardson’s Week-3
injury hastened the process of Holmes’s emergence, but the
quintessential word there is “hasten.”
Any kind of understanding of a Vermeil-Saunders offense
illuminates Richardson’s being a “misfit.”
Richardson in K.C. 2001 reminded me of Holcombe’s incumbency
when Vermeil first arrived in St. Louis.
Actually, as big backs, Richardson and Holcombe remind me of each
other, period. Holcombe is
a back who actually has some skills, though they have yet to be realized
in the NFL, and could or would be quite effective if in a system
suitable to his style of play. In
Vermeil’s system, though, he made a better fullback than tailback.
The same should have been readily seen for Richardson and in that
it would have to be known that Richardson’s days as a tailback were
numbered. An injury and for
sure the process would be hastened, never to be (intentionally)
reversed, which is what happened.
I am not claiming, as many have (mis)interpreted, that I can read a
coach’s mind or be able to empirically deduce all conclusions and
outcomes. I do not only
“not claim” that, but that is not even what I want to do.
It does not have to be that complicated or abstruse.
The “art” that I am espousing more involves assessing
systems, learning from history, seeing the patterns over the years and
not being afraid to put to use some good ole’ intuition.
It is about seeing and observing general trends and patterns and
then “feeling it” (the “no mind” of Taoism if you will) rather
than analyzing with a fine-tooth comb and “figuring it out” or
“cracking the code,” an “it” and “code” which do not even
exist. The prediction that
I made for this year that best exemplifies this is Pittman 2002 equaling
Wheatley 2000 and Alstott 2002 equating to Crockett 2000.
The situations, if simply and objectively viewed for what they
are, with Gruden’s being the head coach in both, make them extremely
similar. Just avoid
With regards to “slip-ups” like those Wheatley made last offseason and preseason, bottom line, you can analyze and debate them to death or you can take them for exactly what they are and anticipate and act. Even the word “slip up” in this context is passive in nature. I never saw Wheatley 2001 as “slipping up” (and able to recover). I saw him as simply “slipping,” which, think it through, logically precludes the consideration of recovering or not or at least does not conduce that line of thinking the way Dave’s choice of wording does. Right or wrong, predicated on one’s ability to see/insight, the latter is a philosophically “active” statement, causing you to think more actively rather than a passive statement, conducing you to probably avoid “making a call” altogether. If he started “coming back,” then that is what I would have seen at that time and I would have changed my position accordingly. He never did and, thus, I never did or had to either! Point being, do not over-think it... moreover, to the point of indecision! Do not let your brain belie your eyes. “I know that he sucks or I see him ‘slipping up,’ so I am going to assert that he is going to make a comeback, or at least make my decision based on my indecision.” :rolleyes: and :confused: Would you wager a significant amount of money on a horse well past its prime and coming off of a string of bad races in a Stakes race? I know I would not (then again I am not a gambling man ;) ) – (and no that is not a double-chin) [smiley=rollinwithlaughter.gif] (“the Gridiron” way). Just let yourself see what you see without letting your mind get in the way (the “no mind” of Tao). Doing it the way our respondent suggests/does may make you look like a rational guy in debates, but a loser on the fantasy football gridiron.
on Fantasy Football"
Copyright © 2002 - Product of FantasyFootballer.com. All rights reserved.
Revised: 08 Oct 2014 11:56:29 -0700 .