scary stat of the offseason --inaccurate stat--

[Hostile]

[quote=JDSmith]

Originally Posted by Hostile

A 41% winning percentage is check mate? Sorry, that just substantiates the argument that any QB will have pretty bad numbers against teams that win 11 or more games per season.

For someone who isn't condoning the stat you sure seem to be making an effort to boster it.

Once again, I didn't bring Troy into the equation. Someone else did. It turns out that is a foolish example because Troy actually plays much better against 10+ win teams than Bledsoe does.

Bledsoe's entire career can't equal Troy's 4 year run from 1992 to 1995.

So someone brought up Troy's record in bad team years. 4-6. I'll take that over 5 for a career any day of the week.

Why won't you?

[JDSmith]

Originally Posted by Hostile

You conveniently left out 1996 which was the 1st year given as an example.



4-6 with a poor team is pretty impressive to me.

In 96 we were 1 year removed from a Superbowl. We had Irvin, Emmitt and won 10 games with the number 3 scoring defense in the NFL (to go with our 25th ranked scoring offense). Your desire to argue for something that you supposedly don't condone is reaching ludicrous proportions.

[Hostile]

[quote=jay cee]

Originally Posted by Hostile

Uh, that's 4 wins and 7 losses. I've never considered myself to be a genius, but that is a losing record where I'm from.

My point was that even hall of famers will lose most of the time when they go against teams that are better than their team.

I didn't say it was a winning record. Show me where I said "winning record." Good luck. I said it was more impressive than 5 wins for a career.

[Hostile]

Originally Posted by JDSmith

In 96 we were 1 year removed from a Superbowl. We had Irvin, Emmitt and won 10 games with the number 3 scoring defense in the NFL (to go with our 25th ranked scoring offense). Your desire to argue for something that you supposedly don't condone is reaching ludicrous proportions.

Tell him. Those were his season's for the criteria, not mine.

[Hostile]

Originally Posted by Nors

Yes on 4 wins in that period.

I'd take his first 3 and last 3 seasons and could say he did win only 20% of those. But clearly he is a better QB than Bledsoe no matter how you unpeel this onion.

Thank you Nors. Agreed.

[dargonking999]

[quote=Hostile]

Originally Posted by JDSmith

Once again, I didn't bring Troy into the equation. Someone else did. It turns out that is a follish example because Troy actually plays much better against 10+ win teams than Bledsoe does.

Bledsoe's entire career can't equal Troy's 4 year run from 1992 to 1995.

So someone brought up Troy's record in bad team years. 4-6. I'll take that over 5 for a career any day of the week.

Why won't you?

anybody woudl take aikman over bledsoe, but you look at the teams, look at the player, Is bledsoe so bad because he has only 5 wins against 11+ teams, when his TEAM has only made it to the SB ONCE. Troy was on the best dynasty in the NFL, he should beat the 11+teams, but yet he only had a 41% winning, even great QB's fall,

take away 1996 and Troy was only 2-6. Was he bad or his team

[Hostile]

Originally Posted by dargonking999

but you siad troy coudl elevate his game when his team was no longer good, but yet when as you say the crucial pieces began to leave he could no longer hold the team together, is that his fault, when they startedto lose was it his fault?

Did I point a finger at him?

Did I bring him up at all?

No, when he was brought up I simply pointed out that it was a silly example because he clearly blows 5-29 or whatever it is out of the water.

Again, this isn't all that hard.

[Hostile]

[quote=dargonking999]

Originally Posted by Hostile

anybody woudl take aikman over bledsoe, but you look at the teams, look at the player, Is bledsoe so bad because he has only 5 wins against 11+ teams, when his TEAM has only made it to the SB ONCE. Troy was on the best dynasty in the NFL, he should beat the 11+teams, but yet he only had a 41% winning, even great QB's fall,

take away 1996 and Troy was only 2-6. Was he bad or his team

I love it how in order to give your argument any chance of looking somewhat intelligent you have to remove years from Troy's ledger.

Convenient.

[JDSmith]

Originally Posted by Hostile

Tell him. Those were his season's for the criteria, not mine.

Maybe he's not a football historian. Maybe he didn't know how well the Cowboys did in 96. That's not really the point. Down the stretch, with bad teams, Troy did pretty poorly against teams with 11 or more wins. That's not a shock. It's not a knock on Troy. It's just more proof that looking at how a guy did against 11 win teams is pretty stupid unless you know a LOT more about the scenario. If you don't know what kind of teams he was fielding you can't possibly begin to guess at how his team should have done. Bad teams don't often beat good teams, that's why one is good and one is bad. If you QB for teams that aren't as good you'll likely lose...

[jay cee]

Originally Posted by Hostile

I never said a QB wins over a team. That's your spin on what I did say and it is off base.

I'm not spinning anything you said. I brought up Aikman as an example of how even hall of fame qb's will have a losing record against good teams when they play on an average or worse team.

You brought up the super bowl years, when that was not even a part of the discussion. You then said it was silly to even mention Aikman.

Originally Posted by Hostile

Check Nors' post. It answers your question. He fared better than Bledsoe. The post doesn't even include the playoffs or Super Bowl and it still shows him as better.

I was never trying to say that Bledsoe was as good or better than Aikman. That's my point, if a hall of famer like Aikman will lose to the good teams, when his team sucks, why would anyone expect Bledsoe to perform better?

[dargonking999]

[quote=Hostile]

Originally Posted by dargonking999

I love it how in order to give your argument any chance of looking somewhat intelligent you have to remove years from Troy's ledger.

Convenient.

i dont have to do anything, i was just making a point, in 1997 he didnt ahve the supporting cast he had in 91-96,and he only had 2 wins, so was he a bad QB or did he just have a bad team, answer that question.

[jay cee]

Originally Posted by Nors

Yes on 4 wins in that period.

I'd take his first 3 and last 3 seasons and could say he did win only 20% of those. But clearly he is a better QB than Bledsoe no matter how you unpeel this onion.

Who exactly is saying that Bledsoe is better than Aikman?

[Hostile]

Originally Posted by JDSmith

Maybe he's not a football historian. Maybe he didn't know how well the Cowboys did in 96. That's not really the point. Down the stretch, with bad teams, Troy did pretty poorly against teams with 11 or more wins. That's not a shock. It's not a knock on Troy. It's just more proof that looking at how a guy did against 11 win teams is pretty stupid unless you know a LOT more about the scenario. If you don't know what kind of teams he was fielding you can't possibly begin to guess at how his team should have done. Bad teams don't often beat good teams, that's why one is good and one is bad. If you QB for teams that aren't as good you'll likely lose...

I never said bad teams beat good teams. I never said looking at how a guy did versus 11 win teams was an important stat.

Are we clear on that yet?

I saw the inclusion of Troy Aikman into the argument as evidence and found it humorous. If you can't see that it was a poor example to use I can't help you.

Let's recap. Using that ridiculous stat one of the two has 5 career wins.

Using the same ridiculous stat one guy has that many in the playoffs and Super Bowls alone. He has more wins in a 4 year period.

Using that same 2nd guy and forcing me to consider his injury wracked end of his career he still put up 4 wins to 6 losses which to me looks a hell of a lot better than 5 wins over a 12 year career using that ridiculous stat.

Capiche?

[Nors]

Originally Posted by JDSmith

Maybe he's not a football historian. Maybe he didn't know how well the Cowboys did in 96. That's not really the point. Down the stretch, with bad teams, Troy did pretty poorly against teams with 11 or more wins. That's not a shock. It's not a knock on Troy. It's just more proof that looking at how a guy did against 11 win teams is pretty stupid unless you know a LOT more about the scenario. If you don't know what kind of teams he was fielding you can't possibly begin to guess at how his team should have done. Bad teams don't often beat good teams, that's why one is good and one is bad. If you QB for teams that aren't as good you'll likely lose...

Also to note is strength of Division. If you can dominate division you beat down W/L of 40% of your opponents and vice versa - See Aikmas first 3 years he was what 1-9. Once you get the rebar, you lesson the 10+ teams. Aikman was 3-3 in 1992-1995......

He beat the stat amazingly 1996-1998 era still a good team and nucleus.....

[dargonking999]

Originally Posted by Hostile

I never said bad teams beat good teams. I never said looking at how a guy did versus 11 win teams was an important stat.

Are we clear on that yet?

I saw the inclusion of Troy Aikman into the argument as evidence and found it humorous. If you can't see that it was a poor example to use I can't help you.

Let's recap. Using that ridiculous stat one of the two has 5 career wins.

Using the same ridiculous stat one guy has that many in the playoffs and Super Bowls alone. He has more wins in a 4 year period.

Using that same 2nd guy and forcing me to consider his injury wracked end of his career he still put up 4 wins to 6 losses which to me looks a hell of a lot better than 5 wins over a 12 year career using that ridiculous stat.

Capiche?

no you keep missing the point, troy was brought up because of the team he had, and the team bledsoe had,compare the teams, instead of the QB's record