My Biggest Concerns with the Defense

[Mitch]

If you are an OC and you are scheming ways to beat the Cardinals' defense, what do you do?

Well, I think Greg Roman and the 49ers' offensive staff gave the Cardinals a blueprint last year of exactly where the defense is most vulnerable.

1. Exploit the OLBers with QB bootlegs and WR reverses.

In Bowles' defense the OLBers "hold down" the edge and often crash down the edge in order to defend the run. That's good when teams try to run between the tackles, but it is easily beatable when teams want to get the QB, RB or WR outside the box.

This is one of the reasons why the Cardinals' RBs are so bounce happy, because of the crashed edge, the traffic inside is thick, which makes the bounce to the outside available.

If you go back to game 16 last year, what did Greg Roman call on the first series? A succession of bootlegs and WR reverses that were easily executed because the Cardinals' OLBers Shaughnessy and Abraham do not play "contain".

So once the QB or WR turns the corner, the first player who has to make the tackle is the CB...but on bootlegs and WR reverse passes there is the threat of the pass which keeps the CB occupied with his man and reluctant to leave his man in order to come after the QB.

So what it often boils down to is whether the ILB to that side can make a one-on-one tackle with the QB or WR...and in the 49ers' case their QB and their WRs are very difficult to defend one-on-one.

It then becomes as issue of the FS coming up to make the tackle if the ILB misses and in open space that's not easy, especially versus such good athletes.

2. Passing to the TEs over the ILBs on play action.

It makes the ILBs less inclined to play the run...makes them more tentative and it forces the FS to cover the middle...which, in turn, makes it impossible for him to give deep help to the CB.

The Cardinals tend to sell out on the run on first and second downs, which makes play action in those situations easy to execute.

3. QB scrambles from the pocket.

The Cardinals' interior pass rushers are very aggressive---which is good, on the one hand, but not so good when they commit to a lane too early and leave their side open for QB scrambles.

We even saw this from the Texans this past week as the times they moved the ball were off easy scrambles.

The counter to this is to contain on the edges and to send another rusher (ILB) up the middle to hem the QB in the pocket and force him to make a quick throw.

This was the excellent strategy Todd Bowles used versus the Seahawks than enabled them to keep Russell Wilson hemmed in and to make him speed up his passes.

It was curious to see Bowles abandon this scheme the very next week at home versus the 49ers---as the 49ers made the Cardinals' defense look foolish on the edge---and when the Cardinals' defense gets fooled, they can go into a tentative funk for stretches.

So what's the answer?

I think that Bowles needs to have his OLBers play contain---the goal needs to be to funnel all the plays inside. The Cardinals actually have better run stuffers at ILB now with Minter, Foote and Demens. Dansby and Washington were excellent chasers and blitzers, but they weren't instinctive downhill run stuffers.

What Minter, Foote and Demens lack is range...but if everything gets funneled inside, it is made to order for them, where they can clean things up with a bang.

The second adjustment is for the the FS to cover for the play-side ILB on play action. The Cardinals' CBs are talented enough that they don't need a full diet of FS help.

So, what the means is that the play-side ILB can feel free to play the run (then pick up the RB on play action) knowing that the FS is picking up the void he leaves in the middle.

The plan versus Russell Wilson was brilliant and was executed to near perfection.

This year the Cardinals need to box in Kaepernick and every other QB they face....and they need to bottle up the middle and put a hurting on the QB and RB...which with the addition of thumping ILB Kevin Minter, SS Deone Bucannon and FSs Tyrann Mathieu and Rashad Johnson is all the more attainable.

Keep the contain on the edges and Patrick Peterson and Antonio Cromartie will feel free to throw blanket coverage on their men and not frequently be put in the pickle of having a QB loose to their side and caught in no man's land between covering the WR and having to make a play on the QB.

Finally,in the 4 man rush, Bowles needs to stress to the interior rushers to keep their lanes and be read to shed and tackle the QB who is getting funneled inside.

 

[Catfish]

Nice job Mitch. I have a lot of faith in Todd Bowles ability to develop a scheme based on what his roster CAN accomplish, (which plays to the strength of its players). Without having super ball-hawking ILBs like last year, but with better down hill tacklers at ILB than last year, I believe he will devote more play to contain than he did last year.

This roster is suited much better to play contain than last year's was. There are no egos like Dansby and D-Wash on this roster, (who are likely to go after the spectacular play over the smart one), and contain would look to be the ideal way to scheme for success against mobile QBs. The scheme last year could tend to rely on the speed of Dansby and D-Wash to cover for mistakes. This year we have the tackling bodies in the middle to allow the edge to play contain more so than before. I believe that is what we will see more, especially since that is what worked so well against Seattle.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Nice job Mitch. I have a lot of faith in Todd Bowles ability to develop a scheme based on what his roster CAN accomplish, (which plays to the strength of its players). Without having super ball-hawking ILBs like last year, but with better down hill tacklers at ILB than last year, I believe he will devote more play to contain than he did last year.

This roster is suited much better to play contain than last year's was. There are no egos like Dansby and D-Wash on this roster, (who are likely to go after the spectacular play over the smart one),

wha? come on. the above reads like you're trying to convince yourself of something because the reality is losing those guys were KILLERS for the D. The entire team wouldn't have voted Dansby captain (both times he was here) and lobbied hard for him to come back this year if he wasn't likely one of the smartest guys on the field. Just because he made spectacular plays, doesn't mean he was selfish. it just means he was that good.

 

[82CardsGrad]

Amazing how you could've typed those same concerns each year for the past 6-7 years...
Exploiting our OLB's...covering the TE's and QB scrambles have consistently been an issue for this team (as they are for many teams).
Hopefully, Bowles has the secret sauce ready to be poured out all of the opposition this year!

 

[Catfish]

I would also like to note a couple of other thoughts on this situation.

First, Todd Bowles is not about being number one in anything, even run defense. He is all about getting better than we were last year. So are his players.

Second, last year we did not have the depth and talent at defensive secondary that we have this year. This year, that secondary will be much more active in the run game, and the addition of Deone Buchannan will put one more big, but speedy hitter in the secondary. He may also be well suited to play the spy on QBs such as Wilson and Kaepernick. That was something we lacked when Wilson was not retained in '13.

 

[kerouac9]

I would also like to note a couple of other thoughts on this situation.

First, Todd Bowles is not about being number one in anything, even run defense. He is all about getting better than we were last year. So are his players.

Second, last year we did not have the depth and talent at defensive secondary that we have this year. This year, that secondary will be much more active in the run game, and the addition of Deone Buchannan will put one more big, but speedy hitter in the secondary. He may also be well suited to play the spy on QBs such as Wilson and Kaepernick. That was something we lacked when Wilson was not retained in '13.

Erm... I think Shane might have an Antonio Cromartie GIF that will respectfully disagree with you there.

 

[kerouac9]

wha? come on. the above reads like you're trying to convince yourself of something because the reality is losing those guys were KILLERS for the D. The entire team wouldn't have voted Dansby captain (both times he was here) and lobbied hard for him to come back this year if he wasn't likely one of the smartest guys on the field. Just because he made spectacular plays, doesn't mean he was selfish. it just means he was that good.

Just a point of order here. Dansby wasn't a captain last season. He acted like one, and he was a true leader of the defense, but not a captain.

 

[Russ Smith]

wha? come on. the above reads like you're trying to convince yourself of something because the reality is losing those guys were KILLERS for the D. The entire team wouldn't have voted Dansby captain (both times he was here) and lobbied hard for him to come back this year if he wasn't likely one of the smartest guys on the field. Just because he made spectacular plays, doesn't mean he was selfish. it just means he was that good.

Had the exact same reaction are you trying to convince me or trying to convince yourself that's true. Yes there's some advantages to having players who don't go for the home run play all the time, but Dansby and D Wash made so many big plays last year there's no way losing them is a plus.

 

[Darkside]

If you are an OC and you are scheming ways to beat the Cardinals' defense, what do you do?

Well, I think Greg Roman and the 49ers' offensive staff gave the Cardinals a blueprint last year of exactly where the defense is most vulnerable.

1. Exploit the OLBers with QB bootlegs and WR reverses.

In Bowles' defense the OLBers "hold down" the edge and often crash down the edge in order to defend the run. That's good when teams try to run between the tackles, but it is easily beatable when teams want to get the QB, RB or WR outside the box.

This is one of the reasons why the Cardinals' RBs are so bounce happy, because of the crashed edge, the traffic inside is thick, which makes the bounce to the outside available.

If you go back to game 16 last year, what did Greg Roman call on the first series? A succession of bootlegs and WR reverses that were easily executed because the Cardinals' OLBers Shaughnessy and Abraham do not play "contain".

So once the QB or WR turns the corner, the first player who has to make the tackle is the CB...but on bootlegs and WR reverse passes there is the threat of the pass which keeps the CB occupied with his man and reluctant to leave his man in order to come after the QB.

So what it often boils down to is whether the ILB to that side can make a one-on-one tackle with the QB or WR...and in the 49ers' case their QB and their WRs are very difficult to defend one-on-one.

It then becomes as issue of the FS coming up to make the tackle if the ILB misses and in open space that's not easy, especially versus such good athletes.

2. Passing to the TEs over the ILBs on play action.

It makes the ILBs less inclined to play the run...makes them more tentative and it forces the FS to cover the middle...which, in turn, makes it impossible for him to give deep help to the CB.

The Cardinals tend to sell out on the run on first and second downs, which makes play action in those situations easy to execute.

3. QB scrambles from the pocket.

The Cardinals' interior pass rushers are very aggressive---which is good, on the one hand, but not so good when they commit to a lane too early and leave their side open for QB scrambles.

We even saw this from the Texans this past week as the times they moved the ball were off easy scrambles.

The counter to this is to contain on the edges and to send another rusher (ILB) up the middle to hem the QB in the pocket and force him to make a quick throw.

This was the excellent strategy Todd Bowles used versus the Seahawks than enabled them to keep Russell Wilson hemmed in and to make him speed up his passes.

It was curious to see Bowles abandon this scheme the very next week at home versus the 49ers---as the 49ers made the Cardinals' defense look foolish on the edge---and when the Cardinals' defense gets fooled, they can go into a tentative funk for stretches.

So what's the answer?

I think that Bowles needs to have his OLBers play contain---the goal needs to be to funnel all the plays inside. The Cardinals actually have better run stuffers at ILB now with Minter, Foote and Demens. Dansby and Washington were excellent chasers and blitzers, but they weren't instinctive downhill run stuffers.

What Minter, Foote and Demens lack is range...but if everything gets funneled inside, it is made to order for them, where they can clean things up with a bang.

The second adjustment is for the the FS to cover for the play-side ILB on play action. The Cardinals' CBs are talented enough that they don't need a full diet of FS help.

So, what the means is that the play-side ILB can feel free to play the run (then pick up the RB on play action) knowing that the FS is picking up the void he leaves in the middle.

The plan versus Russell Wilson was brilliant and was executed to near perfection.

This year the Cardinals need to box in Kaepernick and every other QB they face....and they need to bottle up the middle and put a hurting on the QB and RB...which with the addition of thumping ILB Kevin Minter, SS Deone Bucannon and FSs Tyrann Mathieu and Rashad Johnson is all the more attainable.

Keep the contain on the edges and Patrick Peterson and Antonio Cromartie will feel free to throw blanket coverage on their men and not frequently be put in the pickle of having a QB loose to their side and caught in no man's land between covering the WR and having to make a play on the QB.

Finally,in the 4 man rush, Bowles needs to stress to the interior rushers to keep their lanes and be read to shed and tackle the QB who is getting funneled inside.

I enjoy your posts and the fact that you put thought into them, but this one bothers me for a myriad of reasons.

Our issue against the 49ers and Seahawks had nothing to do with QB runs or reverses except for a few plays. We shut both QB's down. It wasn't even our LB's that closed the edges, it was Dock and Campbell, who were split really wide when we played them. They shut the edges down because they didn't rush to sack, they merely controlled their area, by design, using outside leverage. However, we got gashed in the run game. Prime example is the 49er game, both times really.

I also totally disagree that our interior line is sack happy. If they were, both dudes (Campbell and Dock) would have made a pro bowl. They are designed to work within a scheme that let our LB's make plays. They rarely went after the QB, they controlled their area, sometimes gobbling up 2 or 3 dudes, and then once controlled, moved to their next man, the QB. Both players had personal bests, if I'm not mistaken, in tackles behind the line of scrimmage. But few sacks. Says a lot about what they're willing to sacrifice for the team.

And it really bothers me that you say our defense can go into a funk for stretches. First of all, don't take anything away from the 49ers or Seahawks, they are badass teams. Secondly, we had one of the best defenses in the NFL, and our red zone D was tight. You make it sound like they got worked up and down the field and that's not the case. This is the NFL, great teams make plays, and those are great teams. If the Seahawks hadn't won the SB, the 49ers would have.

Unfortunately, I don't even know about your supposed fixes, because the premise is so flawed to begin with. The primary things we lose with our LB situation is the middle of the field, passes to the flats, and out-routes. Rushing the edges and reverses and all that--Minter can snuff out a run behind Campbell and Dock, who aren't speed rushing as you suggest, but he can't cover to the flats or sidelines on an out-route the way Dwash or Dansby could. Those are the weaknesses. My suspicion is that the FS will cover the flats while the SS watches the middle, while leaving our corners (rarely both however) on an island. Never at the same time, however, someone has to cover the deep middle of the field and be able to cross over to either side.

I don't mean to sound confrontational, and I like your posts, but this one makes no sense to me at all. You should have also noted that our defense against the Seahawks and 49ers was unique in that we didn't use that D against anyone else unless they had a running QB. I thought we did fine controlling all the edge stuff, but we got gutted up the middle with runs.

 

[Skumbag]

Did we improve anywhere to be able to stop tight ends like VD and the Saints behemoth? I don't see Buchanon stepping up to the task just yet and our LBs have regressed. I think that was our one fatal flaw at defense that every team knew they could exploit.

What's your take?

 

[Mitch]

I enjoy your posts and the fact that you put thought into them, but this one bothers me for a myriad of reasons.

Our issue against the 49ers and Seahawks had nothing to do with QB runs or reverses except for a few plays. We shut both QB's down. It wasn't even our LB's that closed the edges, it was Dock and Campbell, who were split really wide when we played them. They shut the edges down because they didn't rush to sack, they merely controlled their area, by design, using outside leverage. However, we got gashed in the run game. Prime example is the 49er game, both times really.

I also totally disagree that our interior line is sack happy. If they were, both dudes (Campbell and Dock) would have made a pro bowl. They are designed to work within a scheme that let our LB's make plays. They rarely went after the QB, they controlled their area, sometimes gobbling up 2 or 3 dudes, and then once controlled, moved to their next man, the QB. Both players had personal bests, if I'm not mistaken, in tackles behind the line of scrimmage. But few sacks. Says a lot about what they're willing to sacrifice for the team.

And it really bothers me that you say our defense can go into a funk for stretches. First of all, don't take anything away from the 49ers or Seahawks, they are badass teams. Secondly, we had one of the best defenses in the NFL, and our red zone D was tight. You make it sound like they got worked up and down the field and that's not the case. This is the NFL, great teams make plays, and those are great teams. If the Seahawks hadn't won the SB, the 49ers would have.

Unfortunately, I don't even know about your supposed fixes, because the premise is so flawed to begin with. The primary things we lose with our LB situation is the middle of the field, passes to the flats, and out-routes. Rushing the edges and reverses and all that--Minter can snuff out a run behind Campbell and Dock, who aren't speed rushing as you suggest, but he can't cover to the flats or sidelines on an out-route the way Dwash or Dansby could. Those are the weaknesses. My suspicion is that the FS will cover the flats while the SS watches the middle, while leaving our corners (rarely both however) on an island. Never at the same time, however, someone has to cover the deep middle of the field and be able to cross over to either side.

I don't mean to sound confrontational, and I like your posts, but this one makes no sense to me at all. You should have also noted that our defense against the Seahawks and 49ers was unique in that we didn't use that D against anyone else unless they had a running QB. I thought we did fine controlling all the edge stuff, but we got gutted up the middle with runs.

The facts do not support your case or your prolonged arrogance in this post.

The 49ers did not gash us in the run game in Week 16, as they rushed for 83 yards. Kaepernick repeatedly got outside of the contain and threw for 310 yards. The Cardinals held Frank Gore to 14 yards on 13 carries, but gave up over 40 yards on reverses to Anquan Boldin and Quinton Patton...and another 24 yards to Kaepernick, The fact is: they beat us badly on the edges, and occasionally over the middle to Vernon Davis (3/45/1 TD after he had gone 8/180/2 TD the first time we played them)...two of the three points I am trying to address in this post, obviously to your disdain.

 

[Mitch]

Did we improve anywhere to be able to stop tight ends like VD and the Saints behemoth? I don't see Buchanon stepping up to the task just yet and our LBs have regressed. I think that was our one fatal flaw at defense that every team knew they could exploit.

What's your take?

Yes we have improved in this area because with the CB depth we now have on the roster, Bowles is going to put Peterson or Cromartie on Vernon Davis and the other top TEs. The hope is eventually that Bucannon will be able to matchup on Davis, et al. But for now there are stronger matchup options.

The Cardinals signed Cromartie with this particularly in mind...either to cover Davis himself or to cover Crabtree or Boldin if Peterson takes Davis. This year they are putting one of the big CBs on Davis when they feel it is necessary. They are not going to continue to let Davis tool them.

 

[MrYeahBut]

The facts do not support your case or your prolonged arrogance in this post.

The 49ers did not gash us in the run game in Week 16, as they rushed for 83 yards. Kaepernick repeatedly got outside of the contain and threw for 310 yards. The Cardinals held Frank Gore to 14 yards on 13 carries, but gave up over 40 yards on reverses to Anquan Boldin and Quinton Patton...and another 24 yards to Kaepernick, The fact is: they beat us badly on the edges, and occasionally over the middle to Vernon Davis (3/45/1 TD after he had gone 8/180/2 TD the first time we played them)...two of the three points I am trying to address in this post, obviously to your disdain.

I see you edited this post. Maybe you should go back and edit out the part where you called Darkside arrogant. Uncalled for IMO.


.

 

[Darkside]

I see you edited this post. Maybe you should go back and edit out the part where you called Darkside arrogant. Uncalled for IMO.


.

I'm only wounded that he called it "prolonged" arrogance, as if my post was tediously arrogant, when I only attempted occasional arrogance, or perhaps mild arrogance, or even douchy arrogance. To say it was long and hard to read for him arrogance really hurts my feelings. I don't normally drip arrogance the way he does for paragraphs upon paragraphs but apparently it was too much this time.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I see you edited this post. Maybe you should go back and edit out the part where you called Darkside arrogant. Uncalled for IMO.


.

seriously. God forbid someone disagrees with Mitch and eloquently says why!

 

[Cheesebeef]

I'm only wounded that he called it "prolonged" arrogance, as if my post was tediously arrogant, when I only attempted occasional arrogance, or perhaps mild arrogance, or even douchy arrogance. To say it was long and hard to read for him arrogance really hurts my feelings. I don't normally drip arrogance the way he does for paragraphs upon paragraphs but apparently it was too much this time.

lol. i thought your post was pretty well reasoned and part of a good discussion. Apparently mitch just prefers when posters thumb up everything he says and anything else is arrogance in the extreme.

 

[MrYeahBut]

I'm only wounded that he called it "prolonged" arrogance, as if my post was tediously arrogant, when I only attempted occasional arrogance, or perhaps mild arrogance, or even douchy arrogance. To say it was long and hard to read for him arrogance really hurts my feelings. I don't normally drip arrogance the way he does for paragraphs upon paragraphs but apparently it was too much this time.

Dude, all your posts are tedious, no need to twist the knife in your back over that..., in fact they are ripe with prolonged tediousness .... lmao



.

 

[Darkside]

The facts do not support your case or your prolonged arrogance in this post.

The 49ers did not gash us in the run game in Week 16, as they rushed for 83 yards. Kaepernick repeatedly got outside of the contain and threw for 310 yards. The Cardinals held Frank Gore to 14 yards on 13 carries, but gave up over 40 yards on reverses to Anquan Boldin and Quinton Patton...and another 24 yards to Kaepernick, The fact is: they beat us badly on the edges, and occasionally over the middle to Vernon Davis (3/45/1 TD after he had gone 8/180/2 TD the first time we played them)...two of the three points I am trying to address in this post, obviously to your disdain.

The facts absolutely justify my case. They didn't destroy us running to the edges, though I will concede that the game I thought they gashed us up the middle was the previous game we played them. However, they didn't kill us outside, it's not a pattern. Not at all. Kaep just had a huge day and Boldin had a gigantic day, with 9 catches for 149 yards for some payback. In no way does that justify your argument that the LB's contain the edges (false) or that the line is intent on sacking the QB (again false), or that the defense goes into a funk at times (hugely false). You take one game and use that to justify your talking points and it's ridiculous. We lost that game by 3 points. 3 points.

I don't believe your LB contain, QB running to the edges, misdirection, reverse philosophy is the reason we lost that game. And it's certainly not a pattern we need to worry about because it didn't repeat itself before or after. If all they did was what you said, we'd have been fine, the problem is Boldin caught 9 catches for 149 and a TD. Is it realistic to believe that will happen again? I don't think so.

Your philosophy outlined in your initial post is bunk. Huge bunk. All the stuff you outlined, all your LB contain, QB rushing, misdirection is a total farce when it comes to our defense. And I'll say again, that's against a great team, don't take anything away from them, they're going to make their plays. We lost by 3 points. It wasn't a design flaw, a flaw in the philosophy. You're just trying to make a point and you're misguided.

 

[Darkside]

Dude, all your posts are tedious, no need to twist the knife in your back over that..., in fact they are ripe with prolonged tediousness .... lmao



.

Well, I do love to type, not as much as Mitch though. LOL.

 

[Cheesebeef]

The facts absolutely justify my case. They didn't destroy us running to the edges, though I will concede that the game I thought they gashed us up the middle was the previous game we played them. However, they didn't kill us outside, it's not a pattern. Not at all. Kaep just had a huge day and Boldin had a gigantic day, with 9 catches for 149 yards for some payback. In no way does that justify your argument that the LB's contain the edges (false) or that the line is intent on sacking the QB (again false), or that the defense goes into a funk at times (hugely false). You take one game and use that to justify your talking points and it's ridiculous. We lost that game by 3 points. 3 points.

I don't believe your LB contain, QB running to the edges, misdirection, reverse philosophy is the reason we lost that game. And it's certainly not a pattern we need to worry about because it didn't repeat itself before or after. If all they did was what you said, we'd have been fine, the problem is Boldin caught 9 catches for 149 and a TD. Is it realistic to believe that will happen again? I don't think so.

Your philosophy outlined in your initial post is bunk. Huge bunk. All the stuff you outlined, all your LB contain, QB rushing, misdirection is a total farce when it comes to our defense. And I'll say again, that's against a great team, don't take anything away from them, they're going to make their plays. We lost by 3 points. It wasn't a design flaw, a flaw in the philosophy. You're just trying to make a point and you're misguided.

i feel like I'm watching myself argue with someone in this thread.

 

[Jetstream Green]

You can exploit the Cardinals with the TE, till I see evidence of the Cardinal defense stopping it. As far as running to the outside or the inside, you cannot do any with much success against this defense. Yes, you can run to the outside better against the Cardinals but your rushing will still suck... it will just not suck as bad lol

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Erm... I think Shane might have an Antonio Cromartie GIF that will respectfully disagree with you there.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Mitch]

lol. i thought your post was pretty well reasoned and part of a good discussion. Apparently mitch just prefers when posters thumb up everything he says and anything else is arrogance in the extreme.

Not true. I just ask for respectful responses.

In fact, recently I had a number of respectful disagreements with my speculation that the Cardinals had an arrangement with John Abraham that he could miss the first couple of weeks of camp.

Most of the posters believed he was in rehab. If the recent reports are true (which SK would not confirm yesterday), those posters were correct, and i was wrong---which I admitted in a post yesterday.

When I am wrong---I admit it. And obviously I am not afraid of going out on a limb, like I recently have with Ryan Lindley---knowing fully well that many posters were just going to scoff at the post.

When responses sound disrespectful, arrogant and/or condescending it gets my dander up. I do put a lot of time and thought into my posts---it doesn't mean I am always right or I am looking for thumbs ups and gold stars from everyone. My intent is to spark a respectful and meaningful conversation. I learn from others just as some learn from me. I am genuinely interested to read others' viewpoints (there are a lot of great and knowledgeable Cardinal fans on this board) and---and often I learn and grow from them.

When someone implies or has the arrogance to state directly that my thoughts are "bunk"---that really bothers me---

What i do now is put posters like that on ignore. It has kept me on the board and I should have done it long ago.

 

[Redneck Voodoo]

I'm only wounded that he called it "prolonged" arrogance, as if my post was tediously arrogant, when I only attempted occasional arrogance, or perhaps mild arrogance, or even douchy arrogance. To say it was long and hard to read for him arrogance really hurts my feelings. I don't normally [I]drip arrogance[/I] the way he does for paragraphs upon paragraphs but apparently it was too much
this time.

The underlying messages in this post are difficult to ignore.

 

[kerouac9]

I'm pretty sure that we lost the 49ers game at the end of the year because Carson Palmer threw an INT on the 16 yard line in our first possession following their opening field goal (converted to TD) and then missed a field goal on the following drive, after which the 49ers scored another TD.

Hard to win when you spot the opposition 17 points on (basically) your own mistakes. Not against that defense, and not when you fumble away your first possession of the 3rd quarter.