Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 43
  1. #13

    Re: Dickson and Pitta: I was wrong.



    Dennis Pitta has already made a few plays that got me thinking of Heap.
    "When questioned, the Elders explained that they were in search of magical powers. However, they're actually searching for the whereabouts of a certain ring. This ring is a legendary treasure that long ago was known to exist"




  2. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    San Dimas, CA
    Posts
    5,122

    Re: Dickson and Pitta: I was wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by AirFlacco View Post
    It's been said Heap doesn't like taking medications and shots because
    of his religion. Not sure if that's true but it's been said.
    A lot of untrue things are said.

    I doubt it is true. Pitta is the same religion as Heap, by the way.




  3. #15

    Re: Dickson and Pitta: I was wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by BleedPurple92 View Post
    Man i want us to play Pitta and Dickson as much as possible, in the same formation. We just look much better when we do that.

    Just forget about a 3rd receiver for now... More Dickson, and Pitta.
    It's isn't the 3rd WR; it's Vontae Leach. On passing downs they often run those two out there, but this fetish you have for running the primary offense w two tight ends, pretty much relegates the best FB in the NFL to 3rd and short situations. That obviously isn't going to happen.




  4. #16

    Re: Dickson and Pitta: I was wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by pickles View Post
    It's isn't the 3rd WR; it's Vontae Leach. On passing downs they often run those two out there, but this fetish you have for running the primary offense w two tight ends, pretty much relegates the best FB in the NFL to 3rd and short situations. That obviously isn't going to happen.
    I know you have to disagree with everything i say, but i'll repeat it again...

    "PLAY PITTA AND DICKSON AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE" My "fetish" isn't to take Leach out of the game. Not sure where you heard me say that. I would rather have Pitta in the game than Evans is my point. Did you hear me say anything about leach?? Did i not say 3rd WR?

    Again? okay man..... I don't have a "Fetish", and i don't want the primary offense to be Pitta and Dickson, but i would rather have Pitta in there than Evans..... Do you want me to say it again? okay one last time pickles, in case you read in threes.

    Instead of Evans, i would rather have Pitta in on offense.

    Again? Too complicated? Okay i don't know how to simplify this anymore, but....PITTA>EVANS.

    Okay, you don't know what ">" means? Okay Pitta Over Evans.

    If you don't understand that, then well.... what are we really doing here then? really.
    Last edited by BleedPurple92; 01-10-2012 at 01:14 AM.
    Lardarius "The predator" Webb





  5. #17

    Re: Dickson and Pitta: I was wrong.

    Bleed, you said the same formation.
    "When questioned, the Elders explained that they were in search of magical powers. However, they're actually searching for the whereabouts of a certain ring. This ring is a legendary treasure that long ago was known to exist"




  6. #18

    Re: Dickson and Pitta: I was wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by BleedPurple92 View Post
    Man i want us to play Pitta and Dickson as much as possible, in the same formation. We just look much better when we do that. .
    This is what you said Bleed. You do it to yourself every time.
    "When questioned, the Elders explained that they were in search of magical powers. However, they're actually searching for the whereabouts of a certain ring. This ring is a legendary treasure that long ago was known to exist"




  7. #19

    Re: Dickson and Pitta: I was wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Excellector View Post
    This is what you said Bleed. You do it to yourself every time.
    Lmao... This really isn't hard.

    Pitta + Dickson = No evans. its not hard to figure out. Leach can come in whenever he wants.

    I just dont want to see Evans much. I honestly don't know how else to put it lol, it seems pretty clear to me.
    Lardarius "The predator" Webb





  8. #20

    Re: Dickson and Pitta: I was wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by BleedPurple92 View Post
    Man i want us to play Pitta and Dickson as much as possible, in the same formation. We just look much better when we do that.

    Just forget about a 3rd receiver for now... More Dickson, and Pitta.
    How is that hard to understand? That is what i said.

    Lemme put it a different way. In formations where Evans would normally be inserted, forget about him, and insert Pitta, more Dickson and Pitta less Evans would be nice.

    That's all i'm saying. I thought it was pretty clear.
    Lardarius "The predator" Webb





  9. #21

    Re: Dickson and Pitta: I was wrong.

    You can be a smart ass about it all you want but you just seem to lack a fundamental understanding of the offensive packages the Ravens run.

    There are 5 OL; there is a QB; there is RR; and there are 2 WR; that is a total of 9 players.

    IF you have the two tight ends in the game there is no Vontae Leach. It is that simple. They do often run 2 TE packages on third down passing plays when Leach isn't in the game. They do it all the time.

    Evans isn't getting a lot of snaps. We don't run a lot of 3 WR sets. You seem to be requesting something that they already do quite a bit of; that leads people to think you want to do it more, and we're pointing out to you that if you run the 2 TE sets more you HAVE to tack VL of the field.

    I don't know, maybe we mistaken to believe you understand football, or that you can count to eleven. Because something is amiss in your logic.




  10. #22

    Re: Dickson and Pitta: I was wrong.

    If it wasn't for your name, i would never take you seriously. Its genius.

    5 olineman. 1 QB 1RB 1FB 2 WR/1TE or 3WRs(The package evans comes in) What i'm saying is, No more Evans, Instea of 3 Wide recievers, pretty much make the 3rd Wide Out Pitta, Instead of Evans, insert Pitta. I feel much more comfortable with him playing at WR than Evans, he pretty much did it on Sunday. Which is my point.

    Either you refuse to understand me, or well you're as smart as your name. Its really not that hard to grasp. This has nothing to do with Leach, he will get his snaps. The only problem i can think of is when we go to a 3 wide 2 Te set, which i don't think I've seen us do all year, so what's your malfunction?

    Dont play Evans. Its simple, play Pitta where Evans is suppose to be. He pretty much started at WR in place on Anquan vs Cinci.. Did you not watch that game? If you did then why do you choose to make this difficult?
    Lardarius "The predator" Webb





  11. #23

    Re: Dickson and Pitta: I was wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by BleedPurple92 View Post
    If it wasn't for your name, i would never take you seriously. Its genius.
    Hahah. Thank you. And I assure you I feel much the same way towards you and your avatar.

    5 olineman. 1 QB 1RB 1FB 2 WR/1TE or 3WRs(The package evans comes in) What i'm saying is, No more Evans, Instea of 3 Wide recievers, pretty much make the 3rd Wide Out Pitta, Instead of Evans, insert Pitta. I feel much more comfortable with him playing at WR than Evans, he pretty much did it on Sunday. Which is my point.
    And that's fine. I feel the same way. HOWEVER, this team has run so few 3 WR sets this year it's a small, small thing. Seriously. I can't remember a time when the Ravens ran less 3 wide, so to request for more 2 TE sets, people are saying the more of those you run the less 2 WR/RB/FB/TE they are going to run, and they didn't bring VL in here to get away from that. Which is my point.

    Either you refuse to understand me, or well you're as smart as your name. Its really not that hard to grasp. This has nothing to do with Leach, he will get his snaps. The only problem i can think of is when we go to a 3 wide 2 Te set, which i don't think I've seen us do all year, so what's your malfunction?
    In passing downs I have no problem w the 2 TE sets. I'm with you that I'd rather have DP in there than Evans at this point. However, on 1-10 if we go 2 TE then that severely limits our ability to run the ball.

    Dont play Evans. Its simple, play Pitta where Evans is suppose to be. He pretty much started at WR in place on Anquan vs Cinci.. Did you not watch that game? If you did then why do you choose to make this difficult?
    I'm not sure what you're point is here. Could you be a little more clearer w your pronouns.

    If you're saying, never play Evans and run 2 TE sets in place of the 3 WR set, then mission accomplished, because that's pretty much what they do now. You're railing against nothing. They already pretty much DO what you're suggesting. Hell, in the Cinci game, they pretty much went 1 wide the whole game cause Boldin was out.

    But again, if you want to run any more 2 TE sets, you're doing it at the expense of PT for VL. That's all people are saying.




  12. #24

    Re: Dickson and Pitta: I was wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by pickles View Post
    Hahah. Thank you. And I assure you I feel much the same way towards you and your avatar.



    And that's fine. I feel the same way. HOWEVER, this team has run so few 3 WR sets this year it's a small, small thing. Seriously. I can't remember a time when the Ravens ran less 3 wide, so to request for more 2 TE sets, people are saying the more of those you run the less 2 WR/RB/FB/TE they are going to run, and they didn't bring VL in here to get away from that. Which is my point.



    In passing downs I have no problem w the 2 TE sets. I'm with you that I'd rather have DP in there than Evans at this point. However, on 1-10 if we go 2 TE then that severely limits our ability to run the ball.



    I'm not sure what you're point is here. Could you be a little more clearer w your pronouns.

    If you're saying, never play Evans and run 2 TE sets in place of the 3 WR set, then mission accomplished, because that's pretty much what they do now. You're railing against nothing. They already pretty much DO what you're suggesting. Hell, in the Cinci game, they pretty much went 1 wide the whole game cause Boldin was out.

    But again, if you want to run any more 2 TE sets, you're doing it at the expense of PT for VL. That's all people are saying.
    OMG This is the most pointless argument i've ever had on this Message board, and i feel like you wanted to make it difficult.

    Makes absolutely no sense, why this has even gone this far based on the Bold portion, if you really meant what you said in the bold portion.

    ANSWER ME THIS.

    • When did i ever say Leach shouldn't be on the field?



    • Why the fuck would we come out with Evans on 1st and 10?



    • Does it not go without saying, that wanting to have Pitta play wideout instead of Evans means on passing downs?



    • If Evans is on the field does it not mean Leach is on the sidelines either way?



    • Would you rather have Evans on the field and Leach on the sidelines? or Pitta on the Field, instead of Evans, on passing downs? (Anyone who's watched a Ravens game the last month would pick the latter)




    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by BleedPurple92 View Post
    Man i want us to play Pitta and Dickson as much as possible, in the same formation. We just look much better when we do that.

    Just forget about a 3rd receiver for now... More Dickson, and Pitta.
    Quote Originally Posted by BleedPurple92 View Post
    I know you have to disagree with everything i say, but i'll repeat it again...

    "PLAY PITTA AND DICKSON AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE" My "fetish" isn't to take Leach out of the game. Not sure where you heard me say that. I would rather have Pitta in the game than Evans is my point. Did you hear me say anything about leach?? Did i not say 3rd WR?

    Again? okay man..... I don't have a "Fetish", and i don't want the primary offense to be Pitta and Dickson, but i would rather have Pitta in there than Evans..... Do you want me to say it again? okay one last time pickles, in case you read in threes.

    Instead of Evans, i would rather have Pitta in on offense.

    Again? Too complicated? Okay i don't know how to simplify this anymore, but....PITTA>EVANS.

    Okay, you don't know what ">" means? Okay Pitta Over Evans.

    If you don't understand that, then well.... what are we really doing here then? really.
    Quote Originally Posted by BleedPurple92 View Post
    Lmao... This really isn't hard.

    Pitta + Dickson = No evans. its not hard to figure out. Leach can come in whenever he wants.

    I just dont want to see Evans much. I honestly don't know how else to put it lol, it seems pretty clear to me.


    IN all these fucking posts i was saying the same thing. I'd rather see Pitta take Evan's role, as the 3rd wideout, which would mean Dickson and Pitta on the field at the same time.

    I don't understand, are you competent? Why is this such a hard concept? ITS FUCKING SIMPLE. It goes without saying that Leach plays, I've said this a million times, read my posts, but leach doesn't play 1st, 2nd and 3rd downs. He goes out on passing downs, and we spread it out a bit more. THAT IS MY FUCKING PROBLEM INSTEAD OF EVER LETTING EVANS SEE THE FIELD, INSERT PITTA. I just dont like Evans, Its really simple dude. You're making it hard to take you seriously if you cant understand a simple fucking concept.

    I still see Evans on the field, even in our last game, which surprisingly he dropped the ball. I don't wanna see him on the field.
    Last edited by BleedPurple92; 01-10-2012 at 05:29 AM.
    Lardarius "The predator" Webb





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland