Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Playing to Win v. Playing not to Lose


jtm

Recommended Posts

I think Rivera will balance being conservative in situations where it is warranted with going all out. I have an odd amount of faith in him and the rest of the coaching staff.

dont get it. It's the same thing lol if you "play to win" that's "playing not to lose" :out:

Exactly. You're playing not to lose to win so that you don't lose while winning at playing to not lose as winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dont get it. It's the same thing lol if you "play to win" that's "playing not to lose" :out:

In theory sure - but in practice it's very different. Playing not to lose involves a lot of boring play and trying not to make mistakes at the expense of doing anything to actively try to win the game. You rely on the other team to make mistakes and let you win rather than taking the risks needed to win without them fuging up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many times did Fox get a touchdown lead and start running dive plays trying to play ball control. It is real tough to do that now with all the high powered offenses. Also, once we got leads, we didn't blitz often and would never take any chances. Huge difference in philosophy. I can't see how people didn't see this huge difference.

If you look at the top teams like the Pats and Packers; once they get a lead they step on the gas. Seems we will have a similar philosophy this year v. having Fox that started burning the clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And JTM, you are right on the money... The whole presence of this team is different with Rivera. It's just hard nosed, all-out, punch you in the mouth, "whatever tough cliche you want to use", football.

Seriously, it's a huge difference and it shows in the way the players play and carry themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put it in:

The point is about aggression vs conservativism. I play a lot of games, and whenever you're faced with the question 'should I play it safe or go for it?' the answer is always 'it depends on your risk and reward'. What happens if you get it right? What happens if you get it wrong? Do the risks outweigh the rewards? Are you throwing to Revis Island when you're up by 2 scores and can just run it in, or are you down by 3 and think you can pull a double move on a rookie corner? The problem with Fox is that he'll just about always go for the conservative move, regardless of the risk/rewards. When he finally decides to take a risk, it's because it's late in the 4th quater and we're down mulitple scores. It's too late. I'm glad that kind of bad decision making has left Charlotte.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • With the contract money an OT first rounder makes you can ALWAYS get a new girlfriend.  And probably an upgrade at that.  You only got 2 parents.
    • Brother. You are wholly confusing comparing situations and applying actual standards like most other franchises do like simply getting into a playoff series and winning at least 1 or 2 series games with praising. Nobody is praising the Hawks. Nobody is praising the Magic. Nobody here likes those teams. But reality is reality. The Hawks like other franchises have traded players fired coaches etc but they can still win a couple playoff games. How is that not the bare floor for you or anyone else? What are we doing here if it isn't? We've seen eye to eye on many things over the years. But you are in the camp on the Hornets where you are emotionally attached to LaMelo where you feel the need to carry his water like he's got that juice. That's cool that you feel that way. It's your prerogative. But I differ from that viewpoint entirely. If he had that juice we would not have gotten wiped off the court in 2 play in games with 2 different coaching staffs and rosters. if people don't like hearing that well I'm sorry but how the hell is this team ever going to get better and ultimately go anywhere in the postseason if we just blindly pat them on the back for getting their asses whooped before they actually even get into the real playoffs? There seem to be some Bryce Young level standards being applied here. That's wild to me. But to each his own.
    • Proctor/Freeling were always the belles of the ball where we were picking. What those two *could* become at OT was far greater than what others could be at their respective positions and I’m glad our FO could see that. 
×
×
  • Create New...