Are The Cowboys Super Bowl Contenders?

[superpunk]

Originally Posted by firehawk350

Holy one-man's opinion, batman. As if KC Joyner is the end-all be-all of statiscal evaluation. In what way, in 05, was Witten better? He had less catches, yards and TDs.

It's not "one man's" opinion, it is a statistical evaluation to measure value to your team, and how yardage translates to points. Turn off troll-mode for a second, read how they do their evaluations (hint - it starts with "st" and ends in "atistics") and then decide whether or not you like their system. It is generally a pretty good indicator of your value and worth as a player statistically.

It's also not KC Joyner.

Cooley's game in 2005 was basically screens and short outs. 21 of his receptions were behind the LOS, and anothre 35 from 1-10. He's succesful in the sytem - not because he's a phenomenal TE.

[firehawk350]

Originally Posted by Hostile

Talent wise Shockey is better. I can admit that.

Witten is a notch below and is a better blocker. Not part of a TE's stats BTW.

The best measure of a TE is in how many first downs they generate, because in obvious passing downs they can be receivers or blockers. Go back and look at those stats again and do the math.

I'm not saying it because he's a Cowboy. Jason Witten is one of the top 5 TEs in the NFL. Cooley isn't. I'm sorry, that isn't meant to offend. So if you are, oh well.

So, in first downs generated, you use how many they caught plus how many their teammates caught?

[stasheroo]

Originally Posted by firehawk350

Haha, I didn't say that was my only measuring stick. I said I would take the 12 more TDs over the 200 extra yards.
Anyways, Portis had 7 TDs in the very few games he had played in.

So what's your basis for the ridiculous claim that Cooley is "better" than Witten?

Must be TD's only. Because that's the only number where he was better.

And it's a bit different when your hero is the #2 option for the Redskins while Witten is the #3 option in Dallas.

I mean let's face it, the Redskins have Santana Moss, Cooley, and ........................................ nothing, absolutely nothing.

[firehawk350]

Originally Posted by superpunk

It's not "one man's" opinion, it is a statistical evaluation to measure value to your team, and how yardage translates to points. Turn off troll-mode for a second, read how they do their evaluations (hint - it starts with "st" and ends in "atistics") and then decide whether or not you like their system. It is generally a pretty good indicator of your value and worth as a player statistically.

It's also not KC Joyner.

Cooley's game in 2005 was basically screens and short outs. 21 of his receptions were behind the LOS, and anothre 35 from 1-10. He's succesful in the sytem - not because he's a phenomenal TE.

It's a statistical evaluation based on somebody's opinion of how much different stats matter in different situations. And anytime they rank a TE that has more catches, yards and TDs considerably lower, I am going to question it.
Cooley's game was short outs (no screens that I can remember) but he had the speed, balance and strength to separate and break tackles to turn a 5 yard catch into a 20 yard completion.

[firehawk350]

Originally Posted by stasheroo

So what's your basis for the ridiculous claim that Cooley is "better" than Witten?

Must be TD's only. Because that's the only number where he was better.

And it's a bit different when your hero is the #2 option for the Redskins while Witten is the #3 option in Dallas.

I mean let's face it, the Redskins have Santana Moss, Cooley, and ........................................ nothing, absolutely nothing.

Again, I say I conglomerated all the stats. I realize Witten has more yards, but my point is the difference in yards (about 200) is not enough to compensate for the difference in TDs (12).

[firehawk350]

Originally Posted by stasheroo

So what's your basis for the ridiculous claim that Cooley is "better" than Witten?

Must be TD's only. Because that's the only number where he was better.

And it's a bit different when your hero is the #2 option for the Redskins while Witten is the #3 option in Dallas.

I mean let's face it, the Redskins have Santana Moss, Cooley, and ........................................ nothing, absolutely nothing.

One person says that because Witten was the primary option, he isn't expected to be more productive. And the other says that because Cooley is the primary option, he should be more productive...

[stasheroo]

Originally Posted by firehawk350

Again, I say I conglomerated all the stats. I realize Witten has more yards, but my point is the difference in yards (about 200) is not enough to compensate for the difference in TDs (12).

The point is that you're trying to make a case off of one number while trying to downplay the others - and failing.

[superpunk]

Originally Posted by firehawk350

It's a statistical evaluation based on somebody's opinion of how much different stats matter in different situations. And anytime they rank a TE that has more catches, yards and TDs considerably lower, I am going to question it.
Cooley's game was short outs (no screens that I can remember) but he had the speed, balance and strength to separate and break tackles to turn a 5 yard catch into a 20 yard completion.

You question it because they rank your mancrush lower than a player who is more talented, not because you have discovered some inherent flaw in their system. They're taking into account the palyer's value to an offense, the yardage he got that translated to points (ie Michael Irvin continually getting to the 1 and having Emmitt punch it in) how many apsses he saw, etc.

Witten comes out better than Captain Chaos in an unbiased, in-depth statistical evaluation. I like Cooley, Witten's just plainbetter.

Stick around firehawk, you might learn something eventually.

[stasheroo]

Originally Posted by firehawk350

One person says that because Witten was the primary option, he isn't expected to be more productive. And the other says that because Cooley is the primary option, he should be more productive...

You tell me, when your rag-armed quarterback is throwing line-of scrimmage passes, who do you think he'll be throwing to?

The Redskins' offense was a joke.

And so is your "argument".

Cooley is a fine H-back but he is hardly a complete TE, despite your desparate claims to the contrary.

Be happy you have a nice player at that spot, but give up this pathetic argument already.

[firehawk350]

Originally Posted by stasheroo

The point is that you're trying to make a case off of one number while trying to downplay the others - and failing.

Okay, let's look at it this way, would you rather have a RB that runs 1200 yards and gets 5 TDs, or one that runs 1000 and gets 17? That's the difference we're talking about here.

[firehawk350]

Originally Posted by superpunk

You question it because they rank your mancrush lower than a player who is more talented, not because you have discovered some inherent flaw in their system. They're taking into account the palyer's value to an offense, the yardage he got that translated to points (ie Michael Irvin continually getting to the 1 and having Emmitt punch it in) how many apsses he saw, etc.

Witten comes out better than Captain Chaos in an unbiased, in-depth statistical evaluation. I like Cooley, Witten's just plainbetter.

Stick around firehawk, you might learn something eventually.

Yeah, apparently ACTUALLY scoring is worse then getting in a position to score... Hmmmm... Cooley is more of a threat on any given play.

[firehawk350]

Originally Posted by stasheroo

You tell me, when your rag-armed quarterback is throwing line-of scrimmage passes, who do you think he'll be throwing to?

The Redskins' offense was a joke.

And so is your "argument".

Cooley is a fine H-back but he is hardly a complete TE, despite your desparate claims to the contrary.

Be happy you have a nice player at that spot, but give up this pathetic argument already.

Our QB NOW has a good arm. And at the end of the year, Redskins O started to pick up a bit of steam. Anyways, that's an argument for another day.
H-back needs to be as good of a blocker, probably more so, then a TE.

[superpunk]

Originally Posted by firehawk350

Yeah, apparently ACTUALLY scoring is worse then getting in a position to score... Hmmmm... Cooley is more of a threat on any given play.

That is a pathetic response to a legitimate argument.

Actually scoring is not worse. Witten was just a bigger part of more scoring drives than Cooley. He had a higher catch percentage, even though he was getting far less balls thrown on bubble screens and passes behind the LOS. He is a more effective TE, all-round. You can't find a flaw in the system football outsiders uses, so you're just covering your ears and wailing "TDs!!!!!"

It's pretty pathetic. Address their system. It consistently rates Witten higher than Cooley. There's a reason for it - Witten is far more valuable a piece.

[REDVOLUTION]

Originally Posted by firehawk350

Okay, let's look at it this way, would you rather have a RB that runs 1200 yards and gets 5 TDs, or one that runs 1000 and gets 17? That's the difference we're talking about here.

Interesting way to look at it... but it means nothing... we had JJ who had 4 TD's and Owens had 13 TD's and Barber had 14 TD's. JJ had something to do with Owens getting 13 and Barber getting 14.

[stasheroo]

Originally Posted by firehawk350

Okay, let's look at it this way, would you rather have a RB that runs 1200 yards and gets 5 TDs, or one that runs 1000 and gets 17? That's the difference we're talking about here.

Fine.

The Barber is a better running back than both Portis and Betts.

As long as I see your 'logic' I can see where you're coming from.