of all time. If the stats don't bear me out, then they are close. No-one else in the history of the game has been as good in play action than he.
How many Giants' TDs in the last coupla decades have been to Amani Toomer on the play action. Lots. Big downfield plays? Plenty. First downs? Gobs.
If you think about it, Amani has been running play action passing plays at a very high level for a very long time. Who else can we say has been better at it?
Art Monk? Maybe. Michael Irving? Anyone from outside the NFC East? I don't know. Amani has got to be way up there, if not the greatest. And I say he's the greatest receiver ever in play action passes. What think you?
I understand that the NFL doesn't keep statistics on "number of play action passes." But we've all been watching the game over the years.
If you looked exclusively at play action passing plays, and ranked all the receivers according to their performance in those plays, then Amani'd be right up there all time, I think.
I also understand that if you took all the play action passing plays OUT of consideration, then just about all of Amani's top fifty best plays as a Giant would be taken off the table. Amani has thrived on play action. Why? Who knows? That's a subject for interesting discussion.
In the meantime, who would you say has done better? I'm thinking of all the great "play action" QBs and matching them to receivers. Don Maynard?
Who did Johnny Unitas throw to? You might have to go that far back, if you can indeed find any NFL receiver who has thrived on this particular play to a greater extent than our own Amani.
But think about it. Every play action pass is thrown to a receiver. I was thinking about how Amani has thrived in play action over his career. I seem to remember him leading the team with something like 7 TD catches one year, and all or almost all of them were off of play action.
Some teams run play action more than other teams. It's especially prevalant amongst Super Bowl winning NFC East teams, of which there have been many over the years.
Who can we say has ever done better off of play action than Amani? It's a judgement call, since the effort put forth to actually quantify the answer would be too enormous. (Identifying and seperating out play action passes from receivers' stats... If someone could use a computer to winnow out such an actual stat, then I'd be impressed.) But in the meantime, we've got our memories and impressions. Cris Carter was good at off of the play action, wasn't he?
I was just thinking about how Amani is the All Time Giants receiver, which isn't saying much, but he's also moving up all time amongst all receivers, especially in class and in quietly going about his business of helping his team hugely, as well as in statistical compilations...
And then it occured to me. No-one has done better in the history of the game than our very own Amani Toomer, in this particular situation in a game. Why? His size, his discipline, the precision of his routes. His ability to get open on NON-play action plays, which just throws something else into that split second when the CB is trying to determine "run or pass." First, they've got to defend against the slant. When they've decided that they don't have to worry about that, and that it's a running play... Well, it's too late. Think about it. One of the greatest receivers in the game has been playing for us for decades.
and a good running game makes for a good playaction pass. There's no such thing as a playaction receiver. David Tyree beat Asante Samuel in the Super Bowl on a playaction pass. Does that mean Tyree is a starting calibre Wide receiver because he beat an All Pro corner?
In my book, Jerry Rice is tied with Lawrence Taylor as "Greatest Football Player of All Time." His 100+ TDs impacted more games than anyone else's anything, except LT's ferocity.
But he played in the "Run n shoot." Play action wasn't as big a part of their success as it has been with teams like the Giants, Steelers, Redskins, Cowboys, Unitas' Colts, etc.
Jerry didn't NEED no play action to get open. That doesn't speak ill of him, obviously. But it precludes him, maybe, from being the best "play action" receiver of all time.
Although you could be right. Play action wasn't a big part of the Niners' scheme. But even a small percentage of 100+ TD passes just might be enough to put him over the top. Good call!
(It's all guesswork. Heck. They don't even keep stats on play action plays for QBs, much less WRs.)
I hear what you're saying. But there is an actual statistical leader in this category. Just because receivers have never been known for their acuity in this play, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. There has never been an Amani Toomer to play the game before. His dominance off of play action, in my mind, has been so striking over the years, and so long-lived, that it couldn't be JUST the fact that he played in a system that uses that particular play a lot to great effect. I hope he comes back next year, helps in the Super Bowl winning season just like he did this year, and finally gets his due consideration from the dirty unwashed.
Whatever. The run n shoot was what Warren Moon ran in Houston. Jerry Rice didn't play in that type of scheme, you guys are right. But in my mind, the WCO is just a very slightly more politically correct version of the run n shoot. I don't care for it. Jerry Rice would have excelled in the NYG smashmouth scheme of old resurrected in this years' playoffs. He wouldn't have had 100+ TDs. But he would have had as many rings. Either way, I don't care for it. It ain't Giants' football. It's not how we win championships around here. Play action is what it's all about. Amani Toomer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
maybe they can be interchangeable except for the fact they are basically totally different. Don't let facts get in the way of your opinions or argument.
They're fundamentally different, except that they are both "pass first" offenses. The NYG, when we play championship football (which we've been known to do over the years) play "run first" football. (At least in the Super Bowl Era.) We run the ball, then work the play action.
The WCO works the short passes like we work the running plays. In the WCO, the short passes open up both the longer passes, and the running game itself, through screens and draws, etc.
I don't care for it. That's why I disdainfully call it the "run n shoot." You giving me shit for this proves that either you just want to give me shit, or you haven't a clue about Giants football.
We went through our "pass first" years. It ended in Buffalo late last season. That era of Giants football (which resulted in one NFC Championship and no Super Bowl wins) is now history. We have become a smashmouth team again. To great effect. Thank God!
Amani Toomer is the greatest play action receiver of all time.
The running game isn't opened up by screens. But the running back, in the WCO, is engaged through the passing game too. And the short passes to the wide receiver open up the RB's game, whether it be on the ground (primarily through draw plays) or through screen passes.
I am giving you shit because you aren't making sense. Â
Actually the original WCO was developed to put more emphasis on accuracy then arm strength. The original WCO still needed a strong running game. Only later with teams like the Eagles did it substitute the short passing game for the running game.
As far as the run and shoot goes it is about pounding the ball and going over the top of the defense. How you run the offense depends on each coach. You remember the days when they would throw the crap out of the ball which pretty much led to the disappearance of the run and shoot.
What are you talking about by saying I don't know Giants football? What does knowing the difference between the WCO and the run and shoot have to do with us? Every offense uses play action. Do you have any information to back up your opinion of Toomer being the best "play action receiver" other than pure opinion?
Tomorrow, if you're bored, maybe you can explain to us morons the "basically totally different" aspects of the two schemes. Ahh. Don't bother. You guys are all a bunch of Gen-X New Wave Passing Game Wusses. You don't remember.
Remember that feeling when Ahmad Bradshaw got the first down on fourth and one during the S.B. Winning drive? That's what I'm talking about. Remember when he busted it for something like 80 yards, breaking open the game against Buffalo? That's what I'm talking about. Once you all have had a good taste of that, then you'll no longer consider the differences between the WCO and the Run n shoot significant.
Well, obviously, the problem is your ignorance of the "run n shoot."
The run n shoot is when you take the TE and the FB out of the game pretty much permanently, and run four WR sets all game long.
The Bills ran a variation of the run n shoot, only they kept the TE, and sometimes, if I'm not mistaken, even put in a FB. The Houston Oilers with Warren Moon ran the offense better than any other team, and for longer.
I skipped over most of the commentary on this thread. I just want to say, that for a Giants fan to try to declare Amani Toomer the best "play action receiver" (if there is such a thing) is utterly ridiculous. If you specifically remember a ton of plays that Amani made off of play action, then you probably haven't had enough time to watch the other receivers in the NFL.
So even if you could say that 74.8 percent of Amani's receptions were off of play action (is that a credit to him, or to the rest of the offense?), you still wouldn't know if anyone's better.
The only thing I can think of is that it was Brandon, and not Ahmad, who got the first down on fourth and one in the S.B. My point still stands. The running game, as resurrected and sent to the Moon when Coughlin got enough confidence in Bradshaw to give him the ball in the second half of games (which happened in the Buffalo game) was what turned our offense and our team around. We re-discovered smashmouth, in the nick of time. You all, who don't remember Ottis Anderson and Joe Morris (except maybe as kids) don't even know what I'm talking about. Next season, you'll see. Derrick, Brandon, Ahmad, and Eli will take it to the same level. If our D holds out, fuhgedabowdit. Dynasty!
To know about football players that played before you were born.Any fan of any team should know about the best players that ever played for there team.
You are trying to insult me by saying that I don't know anything about the WCO. How is this an insult to a true Giants fan? I don't care about the WCO, or any run n shoot, or any kind of offensive scheme or formation or whatever, if it isn't smashmouth. You all have got to understand that. WCO is not how we do things around here. Fuhgedabowdit!
(And the run n shoot was a scheme that Buddy Ryan also used in Philly briefly, and which involved lots of 4 WR sets. Other coaches tried it over the years. The Houston Oilers with Warren Moon were the only team to run it successfully for entire games and seasons. Look it up.)
what are you talking about? Did anybody disagree with smashmouth football? You made the point that Toomer is the best play action receiver of all time. Other than your opinion what do you base that on? You go from one thing to another and another and keep drifting further and further away from the point you are trying to make.
If you think we run a smashmouth offense then I have no idea what to tell you. I'm with you on the fact that I love a good smashmouth offense, but we don't run that kind of offense. At all. That is not Tom's way.
Are you enjoying futzing over me like an old hen? What is it with you folk? You have no imagination. No creativity. Why start a thread about "play action QBs?" Haven't there been enough of them over the years? You guys have got to lighten up, or kiss my Irish ass, or both (or neither -- who cares?)
But you're all sounding like a bunch of orthodox old female chickens clucking over something that doesn't fit within your narrow confines of "appropriate subjects to sound off on." Taste my fartjuice, troll posse!
teams with jim kelly use the run n shoot? and what about the chargers when don coryell was around? was that the first run and shoot or am i thinking of something else?
was when we had those smashmouth 10 minute drives back in the 80's.If i remember right we had one that was close to 11 minutes against the 9ers one year.That was so great.I don't think football will ever be like it was back then though.
Let me give you some irony here. You claim that we run a smashmouth offense, yet cite the Oilers of the 90s as a team that ran the run'n'shoot. Tell me, who was the OC of those Oilers run'n;shoot teams?
Balance used to be his way. Until Buffalo. Then he found smashmouth. Hallelujah.
It's a very recent phenomenom, so it's easily missed. But after Buffalo, we discovered smashmouth. Eli didn't have to be the second coming of Elijah (I know -- he's Elisha). All he had to do was play the role of Phil Simms and Jeff Hostetler. And he was able to do that. And he will continue to be able to do that, to the severe detriment of the rest of the NFL. You'll see.
If you can back that up with stats (excluding the actual Buffalo game where we went to a running game in the second half due to weather), that we actually had a smashmouth offense then I will concede to you. Give me the run/pass ratios for all the playoff games plus the Pats game week 17.
Oh he who I wished for 15/16ths of the season that someone would pull a "Buddy Ryan" on him. He deserved it. But he discovered smashmouth.
He didn't Coughlin did. But as funny as it sounds, the progenitor of the run n shoot did an EXCELLENT job calling SMASHMOUTH plays in the Buffalo game, and in the playoffs thereafter.
LTS, I have not looked at the stats yet myself, but it would not shock me if we threw the ball more than ran in the first place. It is at least going to be about 50-50.
By the way, regarding Gilbride, I was not saying we were ever running the RNS. We ran the same offense al year, a balanced offense. Coughlin's offense.
Thank you. You get it! I thought of the two of them, too. Joey Namath was THE greatest play action QB of all time. Don Maynard, it would make sense, would benefit from this, statistically, if not in qualitative terms.
The Redskins OWN the play action pass, more than maybe any other team, over the years. Art Monk is a good guess, too. I also remember both of these players catching TONS of play action passes, too. Was I off when I remembered Cris Carter this way?
Jerry Rice was the greatest, but play action wasn't his thing. It's like Michael Jordan being the greatest, but not the best at the finger roll (although he was great at that, too...)
i only said jerry rice because of his stats.I had absolutely no clue who is the best and i doubt anyone does.Is there any sites that keep stats like yards off of play action so we can end this?
My definition of smashmouth isn't all about stats. It's about "frame of mind." Derrick could do it all. But he went down. Brandon was part of the puzzle. But he couldn't do the whole thing. It wasn't until Bradshaw was inserted into the second half strategy (and never taken out) that our running game solidified to the point where Eli didn't have to be John Elway for us to win a Super Bowl. All he had to be was Phil Simms. And he was.
why end it? I deliberately picked a subject that can't be decided in anyone's head by a quick perusal of NFL.com's stats page. It's about intangibles. Heart. Maybe coincidence. But Amani has thrived off of play action like no-one I can think of. Yours was a good guess. You might have missed me saying so early in this thread. I said something to the effect of "even if only a small percentage of 100+ TDs came off of play action, that might be enough to put him over the top."
But ultimately, I still come up with Amani Toomer. Don Maynard, maybe. Art Monk, possibly. They both excelled particularly in play action, as well as in total terms, just like Amani.
Lynn Swann! Oooooohhhhhhhhh! Good call! As great as he's regarded, he's underrated, because he was that good. And he was way better than Amani. And he caught a LOT of play action passes.
You don't go on many of my threads, do you? The weirdness happened, not because of you, believe me. Thank you for the conversation. You answered my question.
but your guess wasn't lucky at all. I guessed Maynard and Monk for the same reason. (Both good guesses.) But Lynn Swann, like I said, as great as he is regarded, is WAY WAY better even than that. He was kind of like the Michael Jordan of football, if in nothing else than his style. Jerry surpassed him. But before Jerry, there was Lynn. And Lynn didn't play in no WCO pass-first offense, either!
Mudbear simply refuses to create a common ground of argumentation. By common ground, I mean a shared set of definitions and statements about a particular subject matter (in this case, football).
When there is no common ground for discourse to proceed, even trying to hold a conversation is useless. It is as if you were speaking English to a man who is only fluent in Japanese. (Let us suppose that universally recognizable facial and body gesticulations are excluded)
clicking random threads that catch my attention and this was one of them.Can't believe i actually helped though.I was just bored and screwing around lol.
why is being a "great play action receiver" a good thing? that almost implies that the receivers best attribute is getting open when the defense is being lulled to sleep by the rest of the offense. am i wrong here? to say that amani toomer is a "great" play action receiver seems to say that he doesn't have the natural skills to be great, but instead has to rely on deception to be productive. i just don't get the point of what you're trying to say.
I mean, you are certainly wrong about us becoming smasmouth, but I think you know that. Contrary to what some people are saying, I think you did pose an interesting question though. There is an art to being a good play action receiver, unlike some here said. Is Amani Toomer the best ever? Obviously not, although I love Amani.
I hear what you're saying, but the common ground here is "the best WR in play action." That's not a complicated concept, although it has to be a judgement call, lacking hard stats of such a thing.
I think you all will see what I mean next year. Balance didn't work, until we had an RB who could take it to the house subbing for a 260 pounder who can cut and who can run like the wind.
"I think you all will see what I mean next year. Balance didn't work, until we had an RB who could take it to the house subbing for a 260 pounder who can cut and who can run like the wind," was in reference to us being a "smashmouth team" in the playoffs this year. Sure, Eli threw the ball more than Simms or Hostetler ever were asked to do. But it never worked until the Bradshaw/Jacobs Express got hooked up. Then it worked to historic perfection.
consider that offenses weren't nearly as explosive then as they are now. a better comparison wouldn't be raw yardage totals spanning decades, but a comparison of yards relative to their peers.
It's a good thing, because the Giants run it to perfection. I believe that a team that can do four things excellently is halfway to the Super Bowl Championship. 1) Run the ball. 2) Stop the run. 3) Kick a FG. 4) Punt.
Lynn Swann was the fastest player in the NFL, maybe ever. That's why he got more TDs/yard receiving than Amani. He didn't play in a WCO, so he didn't pile up the stats. But the four rings would've been scattered around the league if not for him. And that's on a "run-first" team.
title has nothing to do with a team or an entire offense...you're just asking: who is the greatest play action receiver? which is a loaded question, as i alluded to earlier.
but im tired and bored. so im going to sleep. hope you find your answer there mudbear.
If you can't stop their run or kick FGs or keep a semblance of field position, then you can't run the ball. If you can't run the ball, then you can't do play action effectively.
mudbear....you are making assertions that are based in nothing but your own hazy recollections. lynn swann maybe the fastest player in the history of the nfl? no. that is absolutely false. i would wager my life savings that he's not in the top 10, 20, 30, or 40. hell, there are probably 5 players in every years nfl draft since 1995 that are faster than lynn swann ever was.
if you do any of those four things, then you'll be playing from behind. If you're playing from behind, then unless you're the 85-86 NY Giants (who weren't behind too much anyway) you can't establish the running game. (Obviously, you can't establish the running game if you can't run the ball, but the other three items play into it too.) If you can't establish the running game, then play action becomes not a dagger, but a butter knife, a "going-through-the-motions-trying-to-keep-the-other-team-honest" kind of move. With a running game, even if it's only in the defenders' heads (as was partially the case with the Giants opponents during their smashmouth run), the play action pass is an "oh-shit-I-just-fucked-up-in-the-worst-way-possible-and-Amani's-name-is-going-to-be-in-headlines" kind of thing. See?
Lynn Swann wasn't running a footrace or a 60 yard dash. He was catching touchdown passes in the NFL. He never ran against any other WR in his career. But when he played, he beat EVERY cornerback, safety help, bump n run, zone scheme, and FOOTBALL player to the end zone like they weren't even there.
I'd say he was the best football player on a team full of Hall of Famers. He was the stick that stirred the drink. He was the slugger, who batted fourth, and made everything else the team did translate into points on the board.
I don't give a damn about "numbers." If you haven't guessed by now.
went beyond the spactacular, incredibly graceful acheivements of athletic endeavour that were his TDs. The fact that he was on the field made everything else down to Rocky Bleier's inside slants click.
Who was better? I'm a particular fan of their middle LB with the big mustache whose name escapes me at this late hour. He's one of the reasons I love football. I grew up watching that excellence. But I'd still have to say that Lynn Swann's ability to make spectacular touchdown catches way downfield routinely "stretched" defenses in ways rarely seen nowadays. There have been other WRs who have done the same thing. But Lynn was blessed to play in a dynasty on a team full of Hall of Famers, I will grant you. It's what ultimately did set him apart until Jerry came along and did it with two, dang near three DIFFERENT QBs...
Lynn Swann set the table. Without him, the drink would have been all uneven in the glass, and besides, what good is a mixed drink without a swizzle stick? Preferably on a beach with a little umbrella on the end of said swizzle stick. How can you argue with such logic?
Well, I do remember the names on D off the top of my head right now Â
But they're both "pass-first" offenses. Why are people giving me shit, when someone else on this thread talked about the run-n-shoot in terms of "running the ball, and going over the top of the defense." Rubbish! Another person on here said that it was a "formation" and not a "scheme."
I caught a lot of shit on this thread, but none of it is sticking. At least I understand what the hell I'm talking about. If most of you don't, that's not MY problem.
shit and will continue to catch shit because there is no such thing as a "play-action WR", and if there is one, a WR who thrived in a run-oriented offense would be the one that would be the best.
Simply put, you take shit because you are a moron of a large magnitude.
with all the shit you have taken i definitely would of deleted it and hoped people just forgot.I actually was having a good time talking about this last night though.I was bored out of my mind.This got me laughing hard So it helped big time
The basic tenet is to run the ball, and then go over the top. Which goes 180 degrees against what you think it is. And you're the one who called it a formation (4 wide all the time, no TE or FB). You're very confused on football terminology here, and not really using logical arguments.
But hey, if you know what you're talking about, I suppose it doesn't matter if anyone else does. That's why you posted it, right, to show everyone else they don't know?
Submit ridiculous premise, catch a bunch of shit, change original premise without ever admitting to doing so, catch more shit, proclaim intellectual superiority, catch more shit, claim victory.
Don't worry if your thread gets no responses for the first hour or so... simply carry on the conversation with yourself.
Sprinkle in supposed vivid memories of events that, at best, happened NOTHING like you "remember", and at worst never actually happened. And presto! There you have a classic mudbear thread and the building blocks for one of the great BBIdiots of all time.
just a few weeks ago, mudbears favorite "memory" was of a Giants drive in the SB against the Bills where OJ Anderson rand 12 straight times for 65 yards. He recalled it as vividly as the color of a summer sky.
Unfortunately, OJ never carried the ball more than 3 plays in a row and had something like 25 yards in the drive mudbear had as one of his favorite "Giant memories".
go terps:
mudbear : 4/1/2008 12:23 am
Your story reminds me of looking into my brother-in-law's eyes at the stadium right after Brian Westbrook returned the punt 97 yards to beat us a few years back.
muddy...
Giant Mike : 4/11/2008 9:57 am
I don't think it's a memory issue at all. Looking over your entire body of work i'd say a perception of reality problem. You have none.
thread the other day and got absolutely smashed by people telling me how stupid i was.Needless to say i deleted the thread after being bashed for 15 minutes.I understand that if 40 people call you a duck start quacking.But this dude just takes it and takes it like he likes it.He has heart that's for sure.
Here is more along the lines of what I was thinking:
1. Persistent mental disorder or derangement. No longer in scientific use.
2. Law
a. Unsoundness of mind sufficient in the judgment of a civil court to render a person unfit to maintain a contractual or other legal relationship or to warrant commitment to a mental health facility.
b. In most criminal jurisdictions, a degree of mental malfunctioning sufficient to relieve the accused of legal responsibility for the act committed.
3.
a. Extreme foolishness; folly.
b. Something that is extremely foolish.
you gladly. You're all full of shit, but I'm glad I can help you with your mental self-images. Fools feel better when they rag on people they don't understand.
The "run n shoot" is an offense whereby 4 wide receiver sets are used, taking out the TE and the FB. Anyone who says otherwise (especially if they say it twice after being corrected the first time) is a yutz.
Saying that a WR who is good at play action is "not a good wide receiver" is similar to saying that a hockey player who's good on the power play is "not a good hockey player." Maybe he isn't, but his coach won't treat him that way.
It's not a difficult concept. Which receiver has done the best off of play action? For you to all amuse yourselves by taking a negative slant on this novel notion is embarassing. I'm glad I'm not such an asshole as you all are. Especially you, Davisian. I would get some interesting diagnoses about your state of mind by a head shrink if I were to show him the hateful comments you've put up on this board about me. Why? Because you disagree with me? Because you think I'm crazy? That's reason to be such a fucking asshole? You're a piece of shit.
The rest of you are just like a bunch of children piling on in a schoolyard. Well, I'm a man amongst boys, and I laugh at how important it is for you all to feel superior to me. And then you're all so stuffed with your own self-importance that you think I should delete this thread 'cause it's embarassing to me! You guys are the ones who should feel shame. But that's one of the problems with you fumblenuts. You all don't even know what it's like to feel shame.
It's obvious that you all misunderstand me deliberately, just so that you can get a rise out of me. "Oh, it's mudbear. Ha ha! All I've got to do is twist his point just that little bit, pretend like I'm serious, and give him shit. That'll be amusing!
Pathetic! It's true that I'm pretty pathetic to play your stupid games. But my lameness is nothing compared to the lameness you all exhibit on every one of my threads.
Submit ridiculous premise, catch a bunch of shit, change original premise without ever admitting to doing so, catch more shit, proclaim intellectual superiority, catch more shit, claim victory.
If a collective of sharp minds were all telling me Â
similar sentiments over and over, I'd seriously do some self-examination. Anyone know what Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
Yep, batshit crazy.
I'm Irish, that means I'm impervious to psychoanalysis.. Â
But lets recap. I poke fun at the off the wall, unsupported and usually wrong assertions that you insist are true, then you call me a piece of shit asshole, and I'M the one who's got issues?
Anyway.. You amuse me. I ADORE your complete lack of self awareness.
I just hope that my new head shrink can do the play action..
Does that mean I shouldn't try to educate you all? What "different result" am I supposed to be looking for from you? Do you think I give a damn whether you all "like me?" Or whether you all "agree with me?" You all are fools. I'm sorry that you think that self-worth comes from positive reinforcement by strangers who don't know shit. I don't think that.
And you're welcome if you get self-worth out of thinking that I'm batshit crazy. Someone's got to make you feel better about yourselves, I guess.
You are a total asshole to me. It amuses you. Getting amusement from being a total asshole is pretty pathetic.
Where did I "change my premise" in this thread? Some people are clueless. They make shit up whole cloth in their head, and expect me to wring my hands because the BS they just created is thrown my way. Some people need to get a life.
Thank you for educating this "fool". And I "like you". Can I subscribe to your pamphlet and/or newsletter? Will it have rankings of the best play action recievers?
It's more like this: State ridiculous premise. Get misunderstood (often deliberately). Have people throw their red herrings back at me. Try to explain why it's a red herring. Sigh as the thread becomes one about someone else's red herring argument.
but Michael Irvin was pretty darn good on play action... though it helped that he had Aikman on the other end and the D jacked up to stop Emmitt and the OLine... wow they were good (didn't even mention Novachek, who was good on the receiving end of play action as well).
And no, I don't think I've ever heard the term play action WR Â
>If the stats don't bear me out, then they are close. No-one else in the history of the game has been as good in play action than he.<
Show everyone what stats actually help your case here ? Please provide a link from anywhere on the internet about stats being kept for "play action " receivers.
be going, but it still doesn't cloud my memory of that Rams-Giants playoff game in 1989.
It is my favorite memory ever. I looked at my brother who had his Giants sweatshirt with an oblong mustard stain down the front of it that resembled the shape of New Jersey, and then I saw the tears in his eyes as Sheldon White deflected a pass in overtime that landed right in the arms of Mark collins, and how my sibling pumped his fist (covered in brand new sheepskin gloves he got at Christmastime) as Collins took the ball into the endzone for the winning score.
in the war in Iraq? I heard he was the best play action Secretary of Defense of all time. Fake the ground surge and go with the air strike. We'd be out of Iraq by now. Damn.
The "greatest" "play action" WRs are those that played with great RBs, whose coaches used the play action pass a lot. This is obvious.
That's why the few hardy souls (and I thank you all) who tried to actually have a conversation about this, picked Don Maynard and the best of the NFC East, since Joe Namath and the NFC East teams were and are particular aficianadoes of this play.
But there might be more to it than that. A "great" "play action" receiver, one who excels on this particular play MORE than other recievers, is one who is particularly effective at taking advantage of an out of position defender.
"But," many of you have said, "any WR can take advantage of an out of position defender." On one level this is so. But there are those WRs who take advantage MORE effectively than others. Why? It's an open question. I'd say that all the things that make good WRs, make them good "play action" WRs. But maybe taller ones do better. The idea of play action is to get the defense moving forward, and sending the WRs and TEs out in the hopes that they'll get open BEHIND the defender. A tall receiver is an easier target, in such a circumstance, for the QB. Also, discipline and precision in route-running, while again being an attribute that ALL good receivers need to have, could be something that gives a WR an edge in this particular play, as compared to one who's not so disciplined.
"Any" WR can get open more easily when the defenders are playing the run. Certain great ones can take advantage in a bigger way.
is a decent comment, although still working off a bullshit premise, you have failed to realize that Toomer isn't even the Giants WR targeted most often by play action. That would be Plaxico, especially on some of the deep routes.
But now I'm just feeding the horrendous insanity of this thread - a topic that has no defined parameters - no means of supporting the shitty argument - and no way of supporting the ancillary comments.
Toomer has been targeted by play action far more than Plaxico, as a Giant. I'm talking career here. Whatever. You still couldn't help with the ad hominem insults, even while making an actual point about the topic.
You all need to lighten up, and you need to expand your imaginations. (Or not. Whatever.)
What the hell are you talking about -- "no defined parameters." Oh. I'm sorry. Next time I'll have ALL the parameters clearly defined. Otherwise, there's no way to have a decent conversation about it. We all know that enumeration is truth, right?
this was a topic that deliberately DIDN'T have "parameters." Read my early posts. There's NO WAY anyone is ever going to be able to compile significant statistics on this subject. That doesn't mean it's not a legitimate subject for a decent conversation.
But then again, I'm talking to a bunch of PE majors here. Figures you can't handle it.
when I say "no defined parameters"?? Isn't it self-explanatory?
If you lay out an argument, shouldn't you define the BS that you are talking about?
Let me put it this way, you just can't make up a concept and then say someone is the best at said concept just because you named that person. You need to support it with facts. That is the rules of debate.
at least for sane people.
But then again, sane people wouldn't make an argument "over the course of one's career" and say that a guy like Toomer is better than anyone else ever on something that is unsupportable.
Here is what you said in the second post of this thread:
Quote:
If the stats don't bear me out, then they are close.
Sorry, but in my experience with comprehension, that statement completely negates this one you just made:
Quote:
In case you didn't notice,
mudbear : 9:50 am
this was a topic that deliberately DIDN'T have "parameters." Read my early posts. There's NO WAY anyone is ever going to be able to compile significant statistics on this subject.
But then again, nothing surprises me about a guy whose greatest Giants memory was a figment of imagination.
v.intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points. 3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.
v.tr.
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.
n. 1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete Conflict; strife.
How do you presume to know what my greatest Giants' memory is? Just because the stats can't be found, doesn't mean one can't speculate on them. If you don't like this, then go away.
Expand your mind. Throw away your latent hostility. See what it's like to have a conversation that is NOTHING like any other that you've had on this board. Or not. But if you don't, kindly just walk away. For the sake of your own souls. God is listening.
If these people don't want that card played, then perhaps they should stop calling me an insane idiot.
This is a thread about FOOTBALL. How can anyone be truly thought of as insane because he started a thread about a child's game the premise of which certain people don't like?
us your favorite giants memory - I don't presume anything.
You said it was watching OJ Anderson click off something like 13 straight runs for 80 yards when he actually never carried the ball more than twice in a row on a drive where he carried it 5 times for 30 yards or something like that.
It was YOUR memory - and I would assume your greatest memory would be one that was at least based in reality.
Perhaps it is just a microcosm of the batshit crazy dude you are.
Yeah. I've got to stop doing this. I'm enabling people to be real assholes. Either I'm insane, in which case these gopherbrains are making fun of a mentally ill person. Or I'm not insane, which means they're calling someone insane when he's not. God doesn't like this. He won't be happy.
What's so nutso about the concept of a "great" "play action" receiver? I don't make threads that talk about the same garbage you guys live your lives with. It's too boring.
I try to start threads that will expand your minds. I'm not saying that they'll teach you anything about facts and statistics and reality. But they'll teach you that thinking can be non-parallel. It can be intuitive. It can be about subjects that no-one has ever thought of before.
You guys react like I'm asking you to plant a bomb in your brains. You can't handle it. That's not my problem. I will continue to blow your minds. Some of you may even learn from it. Most of you will just get a nice feeling in your brain from thinking that you're better than me at talking about a child's game. Whatever. You're welcome either way.
Muddy, the reason you are getting such ridicule here is that the premise is well, bad. There is a reason there are no stats to look up to support or debunk your premise is that there is no such thing as a “play action WR”. The idea of it makes no sense whatsoever. A WR and (in a vast majority of cases) the CB responsible for him could care less what is going on in the backfield at the snap of the ball.
The purpose of the play action is to freeze safeties and LB’s to allow the WR’s and extra step or two to get behind them. The WR does very little, if anything, different on a play based on what the QB is doing with the ball. He is running his pattern. If the play action works effectively he may end up behind the safeties or in a zone vacated by a LB stepping up to the LOS. This has nothing to do with a particular skill-set of the WR.
If you were to break down every play of a season for every WR you would find that the best “play action WR” was the WR who played on the team that had the best play action QB and a RB who helped sell it. And a WR quick enough to make a safety pay for his indecision, which would include about 90% of NFL WR’s.
The most a WR can do to help play action is appear to be looking to block somebody at the start of the play, but he cannot actually engage anybody because he is running a pass pattern. You will occasionally see a TE engage a defender on a play action pass then break free to catch a dump screen. I do not think this was what you were referring to since I don’t think they have ever run this play to Toomer. The man you describe as the best “play action WR” of all time.
The above is obvious to most of us. Which is why, I suspect, nobody else has broke it down for you. Feel free to change your original premise now, and defend it like a badger. I’d expect no less. Cheers.
like Giant Mike said - it isn't whether or not you have a good memory - it is that you describe something vividly, like noticing the smile on someone's face or the scenery around the event, without remembering the event.
Sounds like somebody who either has a vivid imagination, or makes shit up.
Put it perfectly. I wanted to try and post something similar...but all I could come up with was 'are you high?'. He did a much better job than I would've.
All this thread did was bring back ugly memories of Scott Norwood kicking that game winning FG against us in the Super Bowl. I was sitting right next to fatman.
but it won't end it, because every one of us here is too simple or close mided to understand the original premise, so we resort to childish attacks and the poster who clings to a flawed theory despite many attempts to explain what is wrong with that theory, and responds the those disagreeing with condesending comments.
BTW, I believe NFL game logs have tracked plays where play action has taken place for the last few years or so, if anyone wants to do a copius amount of research which still wouldn't prove anything.
Some of you obviously haven't read the whole thread. Â
I stated quite clearly that this is a question, the statistical analysis of which is pretty much impossible. It was a few posts down, but it's in there.
A lot of you think that a thread about a question of which there is no way to get a statistical handle on it, is a waste of time, or an invalid question.
I don't think so. We managed, between the BS (from you all and from myself) to talk about Joe Namath and Don Maynard and Johnny Unitas and the NFC East and smashmouth and WCO and run n shoot and all kinds of stuff. Subtract the childishness (from myself as well as from you), and there was an interesting conversation going on here. That was all I wanted.
A receiver who runs precise routes will do better on play action, in general, because the QB has to go through the motion of the fake handoff, which can cut down on the time he has to survey the field. A WR who is always where he is supposed to be, is a big value to a QB in such a situation.
Tall receivers who run excellent disciplined routes. Sounds kind of like Amani Toomer. Doesn't it?
I'll add fuel to the fire:
The season that Amani led the team in TDs with something like 7, and with most or all of them coming off of play action: the QB was Kerry Collins. The RB on ALL of those play action TDs: you guessed it. Our favorite whipping boy: Ron Dayne.
I will always love Bill Parcells,
mudbear : 3/31/2008 11:47 pm
because he handed the ball to Ottis Anderson something like 13 times in a row to begin the second half of that 1990 Super Bowl -- the last time into the end zone. That's Giant's football, to me. Perfection! Passing game? Ah well, we'll let our QB throw a few, to massage his ego. But we don't need no stinkin' passin' game! Yee haw!
That is a sweet pic...
--
Why fatman would want to extrapolate "favorite giants memorey," "most vivid giants memory," etc. from that quote ...well, I'll let you guys decide.
Who's the greatest "play action" receiver of all time? Â
Tall receivers seem to do really well in play action. I hypothesized that this is because the idea is to get BEHIND the defense, running DOWNFIELD. It's easier for a QB to see, and to drop the pass down into the grasp of, a taller receiver in such a circumstance.
As stated above, the QB often doesn't have as much time to survey the field. So disciplined route runners will excel at play action.
These are just ideas off the top of my head. Like I said, this thread occured to me, because late at night, I had an idea that Amani has caught as many or TDs off the play action as any receiver I can recall. And, even if my memory isn't very good, I have watched Michael IRVIN and Art Monk and even Don Maynard (although when I was very very young). My earliest football memories are of Johnny Unitas fading back with that cool horseshoe on his helmet, winding up and hurling it WAY downfield to some receiver who had to make a spectacular grab just to catch it, and DID! Touchdown Colts! Johnny U. made me an NFL fan.
But specific memories don't particularly help anyone on this question, which so many of you think is a waste of time. Impressions, though, do.
Bavaro was an excellent "play action" receiver.
If any of you bothered to read the whole thing, I stated a number of times that the best "play action" receiver is the best receiver that played on a team with a great running back or running attack, and a playbook that was heavy on running between the tackles and taking advantage of their success with the play action.
But there might be something to this question beyond that. As stated, height and discipline favor a WR in this particular play.
PS: What do you all think of my assessment of Joe Willie as the "greatest play action QB" of all time? He obviously was good at it. And he had a lot of success. Who were his running backs? Did he create separation for his WRs just by his play action in and of itself? I watched him play, but I was just a kid. And who else can be said to have been as good as he in selling the handoff and fooling the entire defense, "irregardless" of the quality of the RB?
People scoffed and made joke threads about "best play action RG." But the fact is, that this is a deception play. The better an actor a player can be, the better the sell job. And this includes everyone in the entire offense, right down to the center.
As a unit, one offensive line that I can remember absolutely made a living off of deception, was Denver during it's brief Championship run. Play action was just one of a whole slew of misdirection plays and running plays that looked like passing plays and vice versa etc and so on.
Other than them, I hate to be a homer. But our OLs during Simms' tenure would form a wall on the play action, like a bunker behind which Phil could stand back there like during practice... And the rest is history.
I was there when Michael Westbrook returned the punt in the last minute to beat us, after Shockey punted the ball into the stands following his touchdown. I was there.
For someone to think I was fantasizing this memory, is hardly charitable. So what if it wasn't "96 yards?" It was close enough! Does anyone here remember the exact yardage off the top of their heads? Thought not.
because I attended a Giants game with my wife's brother... You guys will take ANYTHING I say, and turn it negative, won't you? Well, you won't shut me up. I'll start threads and muse on it until I'm bored, even if I never get a response. If I catch shit as on this thread, I'll still amuse myself by making you all twist yourselves into pretzels with hatred for my own little peculiar way of looking at things.
"Badger." I like it. It fits. "Mud Bear." "Badger." But do I badger you guys, or is it the other way around? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
But what do you think of my point about taller receivers who run disciplined routes and the play action?
Look at the names of other receivers aside from Amani Toomer who have been mentioned on this thread.
Michael Irvin. Art Monk. Don Maynard. Plaxico Burress. (OK. Plaxico doesn't always run the most disciplined routes in the world, but he makes up for it with his tallness...)
C'mon now. You've got to admit it. Some receivers are better at taking advantage of out-of-position defenders than others.
Yee haw!!!!!!!!!!!!
Looking back through this thread (I am a masochist, am't I?) Â
"1. He claims to remember it vividly, as if it happened yesterday. And describes it as a defining moment."
They were in reference to the "13 runs by Ottis Anderson" comment I made. I quoted the relevant comment in a post above. How do you get what you said from that quote? Am I missing something here?
It's true what you say. I've said it myself more than once on this thread. But just because they excel at dropback passes, doesn't mean that they don't excel at play action. The question was "who's the best receiver at play action." It's a contrary question, and novel, to be sure. But it has an actual answer. Because of the lack of statistics, it's impossible to say. But SOMEONE has caught more passes, or more TDs, or both, off of play action. We know this. Who is it? It could have been a lot more civil to try to talk about this. But it wouldn't have been any funner. Whatever. I'm tired of beating that dead horse. You could have said "the best play action receiver is the best all around receiver" and left it at that. I don't necessarily agree. But I'm damned sure not going to deny that you very well might be right!
the answer to the question you ask is inconsequential Â
Sure there is an answer. There is a receiver out there who has caught more play action passes for more yards than any other. But who that is is... WHO CARES?? He is just a receiver. No matter who he is he could have been replaced on that roster by any one of THOUSANDS of NFL receivers and THEY would have had the distinction... it's irrelevent.
If this was a battle, then "Phyrric" would be the way to describe ANY kind of "victory" to be had from it. No no no. It was not a battle. It was a pissing match. In such a match, even the "winner" has urine all over his leg. Ah well. Watcha gonna do?
The TV used to always run ads about the daytime soap operas. "Will Jeff fall for Hilda's wiles?" "Will Jennifer gain the self-confidence to ask Herbert for the promotion?" "Will Ed work out his inner demons before killing all his co-workers?"
And the cliche ending always was "...And what about Naomi?"
The Giant Mike & Mudbear show... or Mudbear & Giant Mike... whatever. We could work together, despite the fact we are polar opposites on nearly every concieveable topic. Hannity & Colmes do it...
Of course not. It's a figment of our imaginations. A homocentric methodology invented for the convenience of railroad stationmasters. As Janis Joplin learned on the plane: "Tomorrow never comes, man!"
Jack Lambert. That's the Steelers' "tall middle linebacker with the big mustache who was the heart and soul of the team whose name I forget at this late hour."
I think that Lynn Swann was the best football player on a team with Jack Lambert and Mean Joe Greene and Terry and Franco and John Stallworth and all the rest of them. And he was, too!
And reading through the whole thing, I've got only one more thing Â
think this pretty much sums up the thread and mudbear's fantasies:
Quote:
I'll add fuel to the fire:
The season that Amani led the team in TDs with something like 7, and with most or all of them coming off of play action: the QB was Kerry Collins. The RB on ALL of those play action TDs: you guessed it. Our favorite whipping boy: Ron Dayne.
Can you prove that even 1 TD came on play action to Dayne?? No. Instead, you say that ALL of them did.
This is the reason you are looked at as a brainless assclown. You make shit up, defend it to the death, and then post multiple times without replies to keep the "discussion" going.
As for the factual inaccuracies that others have pointed out - they are important. Whether or not you know the correct yardage on Westbrook's PR is academic. But when you choose to define it as being 97 yards rather than "80-something" or a general term shows that the intent is to illustrate an exactness. An exactness that is 100% incorrect.
If you and Giant Mike get a radio show, I hope the station carries some excellent mental health insurance.
I don't have to prove anything to you. If you can't remember play action to Dayne resulting in a Toomer TD, then that's not my problem. If you don't believe me, again that's not my problem. If you weren't an asshole, you wouldn't have stated your stupid meaningless drivel on this thread. Again, that's not my problem. Have a nice life!
if you are interested in figuring out how to catch less flak next time you want to start a football discussion consider this:
Avoid creating new football terms. A big part of your problem here is the term "play action" receiver. In all of the football you've ever watched, have you ever heard anyone ever use this term in a football discussion? This was the beginning of the problem.
Instead, try explaining yourself using commonly accepted terminology. Not only will people be more open to discussing your topics, but you won't come off like you've invented a new thought that no one else has ever had. It comes across to others as though you see yourself as a visionary, and almost like you are the great teacher and other readers are your students.
For example, if you'd started your thread this way, you might have done better:
I've noticed that some receivers have more of their success in play-action, and thought it might be discussion-worthy to debate who those receivers are, and why they succeed more often. For example, Amani Toomer...
I'd also recommend you do a bit of editing before you publish. I don't start many threads, and comment on only a few nowadays, but when I do, I try to check my facts first. Even though the opening drive of the second half of SB XXV was a favorite memory of mine, I would want to review that drive before making the claim that OJ ran the ball 13 times, even if my memory was certain that it went that way.
Depending too heavily on your memory leads to flawed analysis. Investigators will tell you that memories are very flawed, and not nearly as reliable as other types of evidence. Go back and read the play-by-play, or find the stats, etc.
You seem to be a passionate Giants fan. I wish you luck!
isn't it up to you to prove that all of toomer's TD were off of play action to Dayne? Or are you going to go off on a tirade because somebody asked for proof of your asinine assumption??
I can't prove that NONE of Toomer's TD's came off of play action to Dane, but I know of at least one that didn't - the TD against Jacksonville in the final regular season game. It was a fly pattern. And with that one play - your bullshit premise has once again turned into a flaming bag of shit.
and it's so stupid and pointless, but i keep seeing this thread pop up to the "Last Posted" top. almost 300 posts wasted on the most inane of topics? i just don't get it.
I appreciate the sentiment. But why should I "avoid creating new football terms?" It seems that what you want me to be able to do is get along with people. This would be important if this were a popularity contest. If I were trying to win people to my side or something. But I'm not. I could give a shit what any of youse numbnuts thinks about me or my notions or ideas. It would be nice to be able to have a civil conversation. But not at the expense of "creating new football terms." Since all I want to do is talk about football, and since it seems to take a lot of energy to do so, that's the way it has to be. But I'd rather ruffle every feather in this little non-gentleman's club than talk about boring shit.
As to your claim that I'd do better if I was less arrogant: I call bullshit. The arrogance of the more vehement objectors makes my formidable arrogance pale in comparison.
And as to "fact-checking," I couldn't be bothered. If I'm wrong about some detail, sure as shit I'll know about it from one of youse numbnuts.
One thing I'll say about football fans nowadays: they're too caught up in statistics. I blame Fantasy Football. A lot of people got upset with me, just because I asked them to think about something that can't be "fact-checked" in 7 minutes by a perusal of NFL.com. Whatever. I think those are more important discussions than arguments about YPC or YAC or whatever. There are only two statistics that matter: PPG, and OPPG. Points per game, and opponents' points per game. And ultimately, even these only matter because they translate into Ws and Ls.
In the meantime, anyone who thinks that the best "play action" receiver of all time is a scrub, is just plain out wrong. But that doesn't mean that I don't love you!
How many Giants' TDs in the last coupla decades have been to Amani Toomer on the play action. Lots. Big downfield plays? Plenty. First downs? Gobs.
If you think about it, Amani has been running play action passing plays at a very high level for a very long time. Who else can we say has been better at it?
Art Monk? Maybe. Michael Irving? Anyone from outside the NFC East? I don't know. Amani has got to be way up there, if not the greatest. And I say he's the greatest receiver ever in play action passes. What think you?
I understand that the NFL doesn't keep statistics on "number of play action passes." But we've all been watching the game over the years.
If you looked exclusively at play action passing plays, and ranked all the receivers according to their performance in those plays, then Amani'd be right up there all time, I think.
I also understand that if you took all the play action passing plays OUT of consideration, then just about all of Amani's top fifty best plays as a Giant would be taken off the table. Amani has thrived on play action. Why? Who knows? That's a subject for interesting discussion.
In the meantime, who would you say has done better? I'm thinking of all the great "play action" QBs and matching them to receivers. Don Maynard?
Who did Johnny Unitas throw to? You might have to go that far back, if you can indeed find any NFL receiver who has thrived on this particular play to a greater extent than our own Amani.
But you're not my buddy, guyyyyy
"Youre not by guy, friend"
"Youre not my friend, buddy"
Some teams run play action more than other teams. It's especially prevalant amongst Super Bowl winning NFC East teams, of which there have been many over the years.
Who can we say has ever done better off of play action than Amani? It's a judgement call, since the effort put forth to actually quantify the answer would be too enormous. (Identifying and seperating out play action passes from receivers' stats... If someone could use a computer to winnow out such an actual stat, then I'd be impressed.) But in the meantime, we've got our memories and impressions. Cris Carter was good at off of the play action, wasn't he?
I was just thinking about how Amani is the All Time Giants receiver, which isn't saying much, but he's also moving up all time amongst all receivers, especially in class and in quietly going about his business of helping his team hugely, as well as in statistical compilations...
And then it occured to me. No-one has done better in the history of the game than our very own Amani Toomer, in this particular situation in a game. Why? His size, his discipline, the precision of his routes. His ability to get open on NON-play action plays, which just throws something else into that split second when the CB is trying to determine "run or pass." First, they've got to defend against the slant. When they've decided that they don't have to worry about that, and that it's a running play... Well, it's too late. Think about it. One of the greatest receivers in the game has been playing for us for decades.
I gave him the team MVP in 2000.
But he played in the "Run n shoot." Play action wasn't as big a part of their success as it has been with teams like the Giants, Steelers, Redskins, Cowboys, Unitas' Colts, etc.
Jerry didn't NEED no play action to get open. That doesn't speak ill of him, obviously. But it precludes him, maybe, from being the best "play action" receiver of all time.
Although you could be right. Play action wasn't a big part of the Niners' scheme. But even a small percentage of 100+ TD passes just might be enough to put him over the top. Good call!
(It's all guesswork. Heck. They don't even keep stats on play action plays for QBs, much less WRs.)
Run and shoot? That sounds more like the Golden State Warriors than SF 49ers.
Better suggestion actually, read the clydez thread, reposted near the bottom of the "1st night of single life" thread. Entertainment galore!
The WCO works the short passes like we work the running plays. In the WCO, the short passes open up both the longer passes, and the running game itself, through screens and draws, etc.
I don't care for it. That's why I disdainfully call it the "run n shoot." You giving me shit for this proves that either you just want to give me shit, or you haven't a clue about Giants football.
We went through our "pass first" years. It ended in Buffalo late last season. That era of Giants football (which resulted in one NFC Championship and no Super Bowl wins) is now history. We have become a smashmouth team again. To great effect. Thank God!
Amani Toomer is the greatest play action receiver of all time.
As far as the run and shoot goes it is about pounding the ball and going over the top of the defense. How you run the offense depends on each coach. You remember the days when they would throw the crap out of the ball which pretty much led to the disappearance of the run and shoot.
What are you talking about by saying I don't know Giants football? What does knowing the difference between the WCO and the run and shoot have to do with us? Every offense uses play action. Do you have any information to back up your opinion of Toomer being the best "play action receiver" other than pure opinion?
Remember that feeling when Ahmad Bradshaw got the first down on fourth and one during the S.B. Winning drive? That's what I'm talking about. Remember when he busted it for something like 80 yards, breaking open the game against Buffalo? That's what I'm talking about. Once you all have had a good taste of that, then you'll no longer consider the differences between the WCO and the Run n shoot significant.
Wusses!
The run n shoot is when you take the TE and the FB out of the game pretty much permanently, and run four WR sets all game long.
The Bills ran a variation of the run n shoot, only they kept the TE, and sometimes, if I'm not mistaken, even put in a FB. The Houston Oilers with Warren Moon ran the offense better than any other team, and for longer.
It was just like the WCO, only more so.
So even if you could say that 74.8 percent of Amani's receptions were off of play action (is that a credit to him, or to the rest of the offense?), you still wouldn't know if anyone's better.
you're drowning in quicksand right now.
(And the run n shoot was a scheme that Buddy Ryan also used in Philly briefly, and which involved lots of 4 WR sets. Other coaches tried it over the years. The Houston Oilers with Warren Moon were the only team to run it successfully for entire games and seasons. Look it up.)
But you're all sounding like a bunch of orthodox old female chickens clucking over something that doesn't fit within your narrow confines of "appropriate subjects to sound off on." Taste my fartjuice, troll posse!
It's a very recent phenomenom, so it's easily missed. But after Buffalo, we discovered smashmouth. Eli didn't have to be the second coming of Elijah (I know -- he's Elisha). All he had to do was play the role of Phil Simms and Jeff Hostetler. And he was able to do that. And he will continue to be able to do that, to the severe detriment of the rest of the NFL. You'll see.
He didn't Coughlin did. But as funny as it sounds, the progenitor of the run n shoot did an EXCELLENT job calling SMASHMOUTH plays in the Buffalo game, and in the playoffs thereafter.
(Good point about the irony, though...)
The Redskins OWN the play action pass, more than maybe any other team, over the years. Art Monk is a good guess, too. I also remember both of these players catching TONS of play action passes, too. Was I off when I remembered Cris Carter this way?
Jerry Rice was the greatest, but play action wasn't his thing. It's like Michael Jordan being the greatest, but not the best at the finger roll (although he was great at that, too...)
But ultimately, I still come up with Amani Toomer. Don Maynard, maybe. Art Monk, possibly. They both excelled particularly in play action, as well as in total terms, just like Amani.
You just may have found the guy!
When there is no common ground for discourse to proceed, even trying to hold a conversation is useless. It is as if you were speaking English to a man who is only fluent in Japanese. (Let us suppose that universally recognizable facial and body gesticulations are excluded)
why is being a "great play action receiver" a good thing? that almost implies that the receivers best attribute is getting open when the defense is being lulled to sleep by the rest of the offense. am i wrong here? to say that amani toomer is a "great" play action receiver seems to say that he doesn't have the natural skills to be great, but instead has to rely on deception to be productive. i just don't get the point of what you're trying to say.
I think you all will see what I mean next year. Balance didn't work, until we had an RB who could take it to the house subbing for a 260 pounder who can cut and who can run like the wind.
but im tired and bored. so im going to sleep. hope you find your answer there mudbear.
There were a couple of years there (really bad ones, obviously) when I gave Feagles Team MVP.
As to FGs: All I've got to say is: "How important to us Giants fans was the longest postseason FG in Lambeau Field history?"
I don't give a damn about "numbers." If you haven't guessed by now.
Lynn Swann set the table. Without him, the drink would have been all uneven in the glass, and besides, what good is a mixed drink without a swizzle stick? Preferably on a beach with a little umbrella on the end of said swizzle stick. How can you argue with such logic?
I thought the initial question was pretty awesome in it's mudbearness but then this little beauty dropped...
...that's some pretty fucking good stuff right there.
Don't worry FatMan. This one is being archived. It will be remembered next year...
Mudbear - you are one different kind of BBIer...
This thread is also a joke, but for different reasons.
He's the only one that can grade a pulling tackle while he hair is flowing the opposite direction.
Anyone good at these things on your SATs?
I caught a lot of shit on this thread, but none of it is sticking. At least I understand what the hell I'm talking about. If most of you don't, that's not MY problem.
Simply put, you take shit because you are a moron of a large magnitude.
Good fucking times.
But hey, if you know what you're talking about, I suppose it doesn't matter if anyone else does. That's why you posted it, right, to show everyone else they don't know?
Maybe you should discuss it amongst youselves.
Don't worry if your thread gets no responses for the first hour or so... simply carry on the conversation with yourself.
Sprinkle in supposed vivid memories of events that, at best, happened NOTHING like you "remember", and at worst never actually happened. And presto! There you have a classic mudbear thread and the building blocks for one of the great BBIdiots of all time.
A different take - ( New Window )
Who's the best run blocking quarterback?
Unfortunately, OJ never carried the ball more than 3 plays in a row and had something like 25 yards in the drive mudbear had as one of his favorite "Giant memories".
That and his ability to run routes on punt returns.
mudbear : 4/1/2008 12:23 am
Your story reminds me of looking into my brother-in-law's eyes at the stadium right after Brian Westbrook returned the punt 97 yards to beat us a few years back.
Giant Mike : 4/11/2008 9:57 am
I don't think it's a memory issue at all. Looking over your entire body of work i'd say a perception of reality problem. You have none.
You reaffirm this assertion
1. Persistent mental disorder or derangement. No longer in scientific use.
2. Law
a. Unsoundness of mind sufficient in the judgment of a civil court to render a person unfit to maintain a contractual or other legal relationship or to warrant commitment to a mental health facility.
b. In most criminal jurisdictions, a degree of mental malfunctioning sufficient to relieve the accused of legal responsibility for the act committed.
3.
a. Extreme foolishness; folly.
b. Something that is extremely foolish.
Muddy has put a smile on my face more times than I care to count. That is gold to me, thank you muddy.
I think it might have been 80.
ALL YEAR BABY!!!
You're welcome.
The "run n shoot" is an offense whereby 4 wide receiver sets are used, taking out the TE and the FB. Anyone who says otherwise (especially if they say it twice after being corrected the first time) is a yutz.
Saying that a WR who is good at play action is "not a good wide receiver" is similar to saying that a hockey player who's good on the power play is "not a good hockey player." Maybe he isn't, but his coach won't treat him that way.
It's not a difficult concept. Which receiver has done the best off of play action? For you to all amuse yourselves by taking a negative slant on this novel notion is embarassing. I'm glad I'm not such an asshole as you all are. Especially you, Davisian. I would get some interesting diagnoses about your state of mind by a head shrink if I were to show him the hateful comments you've put up on this board about me. Why? Because you disagree with me? Because you think I'm crazy? That's reason to be such a fucking asshole? You're a piece of shit.
The rest of you are just like a bunch of children piling on in a schoolyard. Well, I'm a man amongst boys, and I laugh at how important it is for you all to feel superior to me. And then you're all so stuffed with your own self-importance that you think I should delete this thread 'cause it's embarassing to me! You guys are the ones who should feel shame. But that's one of the problems with you fumblenuts. You all don't even know what it's like to feel shame.
It's obvious that you all misunderstand me deliberately, just so that you can get a rise out of me. "Oh, it's mudbear. Ha ha! All I've got to do is twist his point just that little bit, pretend like I'm serious, and give him shit. That'll be amusing!
Pathetic! It's true that I'm pretty pathetic to play your stupid games. But my lameness is nothing compared to the lameness you all exhibit on every one of my threads.
You're welcome!
Yep, batshit crazy.
Anyway.. You amuse me. I ADORE your complete lack of self awareness.
I just hope that my new head shrink can do the play action..
And you're welcome if you get self-worth out of thinking that I'm batshit crazy. Someone's got to make you feel better about yourselves, I guess.
Where did I "change my premise" in this thread? Some people are clueless. They make shit up whole cloth in their head, and expect me to wring my hands because the BS they just created is thrown my way. Some people need to get a life.
Have a nice day, everyone! I love you all!
It sustains me..
Usually from the sideline but an absolute fucking beast no less.
Show everyone what stats actually help your case here ? Please provide a link from anywhere on the internet about stats being kept for "play action " receivers.
It is my favorite memory ever. I looked at my brother who had his Giants sweatshirt with an oblong mustard stain down the front of it that resembled the shape of New Jersey, and then I saw the tears in his eyes as Sheldon White deflected a pass in overtime that landed right in the arms of Mark collins, and how my sibling pumped his fist (covered in brand new sheepskin gloves he got at Christmastime) as Collins took the ball into the endzone for the winning score.
Good times. Good times.
And Michael "Irving" ?
Wow.
That way Dallas had nothing left but play action bomb.
That's why the few hardy souls (and I thank you all) who tried to actually have a conversation about this, picked Don Maynard and the best of the NFC East, since Joe Namath and the NFC East teams were and are particular aficianadoes of this play.
But there might be more to it than that. A "great" "play action" receiver, one who excels on this particular play MORE than other recievers, is one who is particularly effective at taking advantage of an out of position defender.
"But," many of you have said, "any WR can take advantage of an out of position defender." On one level this is so. But there are those WRs who take advantage MORE effectively than others. Why? It's an open question. I'd say that all the things that make good WRs, make them good "play action" WRs. But maybe taller ones do better. The idea of play action is to get the defense moving forward, and sending the WRs and TEs out in the hopes that they'll get open BEHIND the defender. A tall receiver is an easier target, in such a circumstance, for the QB. Also, discipline and precision in route-running, while again being an attribute that ALL good receivers need to have, could be something that gives a WR an edge in this particular play, as compared to one who's not so disciplined.
"Any" WR can get open more easily when the defenders are playing the run. Certain great ones can take advantage in a bigger way.
But now I'm just feeding the horrendous insanity of this thread - a topic that has no defined parameters - no means of supporting the shitty argument - and no way of supporting the ancillary comments.
You all need to lighten up, and you need to expand your imaginations. (Or not. Whatever.)
Now that I see where you're coming from, I still disagree, I think Wilt Chamberlain was definitely our best play-action receiver.
But then again, I'm talking to a bunch of PE majors here. Figures you can't handle it.
If you lay out an argument, shouldn't you define the BS that you are talking about?
Let me put it this way, you just can't make up a concept and then say someone is the best at said concept just because you named that person. You need to support it with facts. That is the rules of debate.
at least for sane people.
But then again, sane people wouldn't make an argument "over the course of one's career" and say that a guy like Toomer is better than anyone else ever on something that is unsupportable.
The reason I said "what are you talking about," is because I was wondering "who made up the rule that all threads have to be a "debate?"
Here is what you said in the second post of this thread:
Sorry, but in my experience with comprehension, that statement completely negates this one you just made:
mudbear : 9:50 am
this was a topic that deliberately DIDN'T have "parameters." Read my early posts. There's NO WAY anyone is ever going to be able to compile significant statistics on this subject.
But then again, nothing surprises me about a guy whose greatest Giants memory was a figment of imagination.
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v.intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.
v.tr.
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.
n.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete Conflict; strife.
Expand your mind. Throw away your latent hostility. See what it's like to have a conversation that is NOTHING like any other that you've had on this board. Or not. But if you don't, kindly just walk away. For the sake of your own souls. God is listening.
This is a thread about FOOTBALL. How can anyone be truly thought of as insane because he started a thread about a child's game the premise of which certain people don't like?
You prefer to use your imagination and you'll defend it to the death, which makes no sense to the rest of us. It makes you appear nutso.
You said it was watching OJ Anderson click off something like 13 straight runs for 80 yards when he actually never carried the ball more than twice in a row on a drive where he carried it 5 times for 30 yards or something like that.
It was YOUR memory - and I would assume your greatest memory would be one that was at least based in reality.
Perhaps it is just a microcosm of the batshit crazy dude you are.
I'd lump myself in that category.
It's funny Lieutenant Dan said that, 'cause right then, God showed up.
I try to start threads that will expand your minds. I'm not saying that they'll teach you anything about facts and statistics and reality. But they'll teach you that thinking can be non-parallel. It can be intuitive. It can be about subjects that no-one has ever thought of before.
You guys react like I'm asking you to plant a bomb in your brains. You can't handle it. That's not my problem. I will continue to blow your minds. Some of you may even learn from it. Most of you will just get a nice feeling in your brain from thinking that you're better than me at talking about a child's game. Whatever. You're welcome either way.
The rest of your rant is ... nutso.
As deep as any ocean
As sweet as any harmony
She blinded me with science
And failed me in geometry
--
The fact that I mistook Amani for Ike means that I'm a what?
--
You all feel perfectly comfortable acting like a bunch of schoolchildren and the reason is?
--
None of you have to answer these questions.
2. Not really paying much attention.
3. You have that rare mix of clulessness and arrogance. Even for the most mature among us, it is difficult to resist.
The purpose of the play action is to freeze safeties and LB’s to allow the WR’s and extra step or two to get behind them. The WR does very little, if anything, different on a play based on what the QB is doing with the ball. He is running his pattern. If the play action works effectively he may end up behind the safeties or in a zone vacated by a LB stepping up to the LOS. This has nothing to do with a particular skill-set of the WR.
If you were to break down every play of a season for every WR you would find that the best “play action WR” was the WR who played on the team that had the best play action QB and a RB who helped sell it. And a WR quick enough to make a safety pay for his indecision, which would include about 90% of NFL WR’s.
The most a WR can do to help play action is appear to be looking to block somebody at the start of the play, but he cannot actually engage anybody because he is running a pass pattern. You will occasionally see a TE engage a defender on a play action pass then break free to catch a dump screen. I do not think this was what you were referring to since I don’t think they have ever run this play to Toomer. The man you describe as the best “play action WR” of all time.
The above is obvious to most of us. Which is why, I suspect, nobody else has broke it down for you. Feel free to change your original premise now, and defend it like a badger. I’d expect no less. Cheers.
Sounds like somebody who either has a vivid imagination, or makes shit up.
BTW, I believe NFL game logs have tracked plays where play action has taken place for the last few years or so, if anyone wants to do a copius amount of research which still wouldn't prove anything.
A lot of you think that a thread about a question of which there is no way to get a statistical handle on it, is a waste of time, or an invalid question.
I don't think so. We managed, between the BS (from you all and from myself) to talk about Joe Namath and Don Maynard and Johnny Unitas and the NFC East and smashmouth and WCO and run n shoot and all kinds of stuff. Subtract the childishness (from myself as well as from you), and there was an interesting conversation going on here. That was all I wanted.
A receiver who runs precise routes will do better on play action, in general, because the QB has to go through the motion of the fake handoff, which can cut down on the time he has to survey the field. A WR who is always where he is supposed to be, is a big value to a QB in such a situation.
Tall receivers who run excellent disciplined routes. Sounds kind of like Amani Toomer. Doesn't it?
I'll add fuel to the fire:
The season that Amani led the team in TDs with something like 7, and with most or all of them coming off of play action: the QB was Kerry Collins. The RB on ALL of those play action TDs: you guessed it. Our favorite whipping boy: Ron Dayne.
mudbear : 3/31/2008 11:47 pm
because he handed the ball to Ottis Anderson something like 13 times in a row to begin the second half of that 1990 Super Bowl -- the last time into the end zone. That's Giant's football, to me. Perfection! Passing game? Ah well, we'll let our QB throw a few, to massage his ego. But we don't need no stinkin' passin' game! Yee haw!
That is a sweet pic...
--
Why fatman would want to extrapolate "favorite giants memorey," "most vivid giants memory," etc. from that quote ...well, I'll let you guys decide.
Could it have been that I already understood the premise that you guys spent endless worthless energy pointing out to me? Hmmmm?
You guys need to lighten up. Go Giants!
As stated above, the QB often doesn't have as much time to survey the field. So disciplined route runners will excel at play action.
These are just ideas off the top of my head. Like I said, this thread occured to me, because late at night, I had an idea that Amani has caught as many or TDs off the play action as any receiver I can recall. And, even if my memory isn't very good, I have watched Michael IRVIN and Art Monk and even Don Maynard (although when I was very very young). My earliest football memories are of Johnny Unitas fading back with that cool horseshoe on his helmet, winding up and hurling it WAY downfield to some receiver who had to make a spectacular grab just to catch it, and DID! Touchdown Colts! Johnny U. made me an NFL fan.
But specific memories don't particularly help anyone on this question, which so many of you think is a waste of time. Impressions, though, do.
Bavaro was an excellent "play action" receiver.
If any of you bothered to read the whole thing, I stated a number of times that the best "play action" receiver is the best receiver that played on a team with a great running back or running attack, and a playbook that was heavy on running between the tackles and taking advantage of their success with the play action.
But there might be something to this question beyond that. As stated, height and discipline favor a WR in this particular play.
PS: What do you all think of my assessment of Joe Willie as the "greatest play action QB" of all time? He obviously was good at it. And he had a lot of success. Who were his running backs? Did he create separation for his WRs just by his play action in and of itself? I watched him play, but I was just a kid. And who else can be said to have been as good as he in selling the handoff and fooling the entire defense, "irregardless" of the quality of the RB?
People scoffed and made joke threads about "best play action RG." But the fact is, that this is a deception play. The better an actor a player can be, the better the sell job. And this includes everyone in the entire offense, right down to the center.
As a unit, one offensive line that I can remember absolutely made a living off of deception, was Denver during it's brief Championship run. Play action was just one of a whole slew of misdirection plays and running plays that looked like passing plays and vice versa etc and so on.
Other than them, I hate to be a homer. But our OLs during Simms' tenure would form a wall on the play action, like a bunker behind which Phil could stand back there like during practice... And the rest is history.
For someone to think I was fantasizing this memory, is hardly charitable. So what if it wasn't "96 yards?" It was close enough! Does anyone here remember the exact yardage off the top of their heads? Thought not.
But what do you think of my point about taller receivers who run disciplined routes and the play action?
Look at the names of other receivers aside from Amani Toomer who have been mentioned on this thread.
Michael Irvin. Art Monk. Don Maynard. Plaxico Burress. (OK. Plaxico doesn't always run the most disciplined routes in the world, but he makes up for it with his tallness...)
C'mon now. You've got to admit it. Some receivers are better at taking advantage of out-of-position defenders than others.
Yee haw!!!!!!!!!!!!
"1. He claims to remember it vividly, as if it happened yesterday. And describes it as a defining moment."
They were in reference to the "13 runs by Ottis Anderson" comment I made. I quoted the relevant comment in a post above. How do you get what you said from that quote? Am I missing something here?
And what about Naomi?
And the cliche ending always was "...And what about Naomi?"
Of course not. It's a figment of our imaginations. A homocentric methodology invented for the convenience of railroad stationmasters. As Janis Joplin learned on the plane: "Tomorrow never comes, man!"
Giant Mike:
Jack Lambert. That's the Steelers' "tall middle linebacker with the big mustache who was the heart and soul of the team whose name I forget at this late hour."
I think that Lynn Swann was the best football player on a team with Jack Lambert and Mean Joe Greene and Terry and Franco and John Stallworth and all the rest of them. And he was, too!
"Fuck you, you piece of shit, Giant Mike!"
The season that Amani led the team in TDs with something like 7, and with most or all of them coming off of play action: the QB was Kerry Collins. The RB on ALL of those play action TDs: you guessed it. Our favorite whipping boy: Ron Dayne.
Can you prove that even 1 TD came on play action to Dayne?? No. Instead, you say that ALL of them did.
This is the reason you are looked at as a brainless assclown. You make shit up, defend it to the death, and then post multiple times without replies to keep the "discussion" going.
As for the factual inaccuracies that others have pointed out - they are important. Whether or not you know the correct yardage on Westbrook's PR is academic. But when you choose to define it as being 97 yards rather than "80-something" or a general term shows that the intent is to illustrate an exactness. An exactness that is 100% incorrect.
If you and Giant Mike get a radio show, I hope the station carries some excellent mental health insurance.
Avoid creating new football terms. A big part of your problem here is the term "play action" receiver. In all of the football you've ever watched, have you ever heard anyone ever use this term in a football discussion? This was the beginning of the problem.
Instead, try explaining yourself using commonly accepted terminology. Not only will people be more open to discussing your topics, but you won't come off like you've invented a new thought that no one else has ever had. It comes across to others as though you see yourself as a visionary, and almost like you are the great teacher and other readers are your students.
For example, if you'd started your thread this way, you might have done better:
I've noticed that some receivers have more of their success in play-action, and thought it might be discussion-worthy to debate who those receivers are, and why they succeed more often. For example, Amani Toomer...
I'd also recommend you do a bit of editing before you publish. I don't start many threads, and comment on only a few nowadays, but when I do, I try to check my facts first. Even though the opening drive of the second half of SB XXV was a favorite memory of mine, I would want to review that drive before making the claim that OJ ran the ball 13 times, even if my memory was certain that it went that way.
Depending too heavily on your memory leads to flawed analysis. Investigators will tell you that memories are very flawed, and not nearly as reliable as other types of evidence. Go back and read the play-by-play, or find the stats, etc.
You seem to be a passionate Giants fan. I wish you luck!
I can't prove that NONE of Toomer's TD's came off of play action to Dane, but I know of at least one that didn't - the TD against Jacksonville in the final regular season game. It was a fly pattern. And with that one play - your bullshit premise has once again turned into a flaming bag of shit.
You really are an aggressively clueless twat.
This is vintage, masterful, mudbear. It is to be admired.
As to your claim that I'd do better if I was less arrogant: I call bullshit. The arrogance of the more vehement objectors makes my formidable arrogance pale in comparison.
And as to "fact-checking," I couldn't be bothered. If I'm wrong about some detail, sure as shit I'll know about it from one of youse numbnuts.
One thing I'll say about football fans nowadays: they're too caught up in statistics. I blame Fantasy Football. A lot of people got upset with me, just because I asked them to think about something that can't be "fact-checked" in 7 minutes by a perusal of NFL.com. Whatever. I think those are more important discussions than arguments about YPC or YAC or whatever. There are only two statistics that matter: PPG, and OPPG. Points per game, and opponents' points per game. And ultimately, even these only matter because they translate into Ws and Ls.
In the meantime, anyone who thinks that the best "play action" receiver of all time is a scrub, is just plain out wrong. But that doesn't mean that I don't love you!
Good day to you!