Anyone but skin homers really think

[skinsngibbs4life]

Right, I understand what you are saying. I am here to tell you that at no point during the first 9 games of your season did ANY defense worry about Patten. I guarantee it! If he was such a threat to begin with, why did they go out and get, not one, but two recievers to take his place? I'm saying it had more to do with defenses realizing that Moss was the man to shut down, and their unfamiliarity with what the 'Skins were trying to do, than it did that Patten went down.

but with patten going down, it brought up more max protection situations. Which obviously, led to less recievers for the defense to have to worry about. If you only have 2 recievers going out into thier patterns, how many people do you think are going to cover moss?

 

[Gamebreaker]

Amazing spin in leaving out the other 2 starts Cartwright made that season. 41 and 43 yards, but hey let's talk about the 94 yds he had... And since you want to talk about 2003, as if it really pertains to 2006, what happened in Betts 14 yd outburst in that start? I'm assuming he got hurt because he didn't play the next 4 games, but still 1.4ypc speaks for itself. But lets leave all the bad games out and talk about the one or two good ones they've had in there 5 yr carrers....

How is that a spin? Hostile provided only one start of Barber's in his example, the better game might I add. I did the same for Betts and Rock, that is not a spin.

Trying to spin an argument to your opinion is completely ignoring this discussion was about depth, and you completely ignored the part of the post that talked about the Commanders having 3 quality runners to the Cowboy's 2. I wonder who that was?

Spin doctor, indeed.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Good lord, do any of you actually look up anything before you make a fool of yourselves? This is the second time I've had to type this, 74 catches 1100 yards and 10 touchdown in 2003. If that isn't a good season then you must not like Terry Glenn very much.

BIG DEAL!

would have been 7 TD's last year if not for 2 lucky hail mary's at end of 1 st game against us...

let him get 1000+ yards 2 years in a row and then get back to me... he as only ONE YEAR with double digit TD's and TWO years with yardage over a 1000+

TO has SIX years with over 1000+ yards(5 years in a row) and 5 years with double digit TD's(3 in a row)

Moss is nothing but a homerun hitter... its homerun or nothing

TO hits for average, turns a single into a triple of homerun

want more?

 

[cowboywho?]

First of all, I never said we wouldn't slow down if JJ goes down.

If someone else did then they could be part of the contingent that thinks Barber will win the job in TC anyway. He's more of a Parcells typical work horse RB who is a grinder. There are some who think he can be more effective controlling the clock. I'm not among them. JJ is our best RB, unless he gets hurt.

If he gets hurt I do think we're not in bad shape with Barber. Whereas I do think you are in bad shape if Portis goes down. Why do I say this? Easy, Portis is a better back than Jones at this point. So while the difference between Betts and Barbere may not be significant enough to worry about, I do think the difference between Portis and Jones is worth paying attention to.

In case that too went right over your head the gap between Jones and Barber is not as big as the gap between Portis and Betts.

Second of all, you didn't ask for stats to prove our backup is better than yours. You specifically asked for proof that he has "started and produced." I'm not blind, and I can read very clearly. That is what I gave you. If the answer hurts your feelings get a tissue.

You just restate what i said (see my previous posts) I was responding to the other guy not to you, when he said that your backup RB is better then ours. I asked him to state the stats in order to back that up. Hurt my feeling? please dont get emotional on me.

 

[1fisher]

I'm not going over this again. I've stated and re-stated the same point over and over again. Go back and re-read it if you want.






You see, this type of bias is likely the reason this is even being contested. Steve Smith has proven no more than Moss has one a season-to-season basis. To say if Moss turns out to be Smith, when Smith's career is eerily similar in that he had a very good season in 2003, injury-riddled one in 2004, and then a monster year in 2005. By your very logic, how is Smith any more proven than Moss?



I agree. This doesn't mean Owens is a much better reciever than Moss is, which is what I was in discussion about anyway.

does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? It's obvious that fans think their player is better than the competition. It makes no sense to me to continually go back and forth over the issue when niether side is going to budge...... and I know, this is a board for discussion but this thing has turned into a 7 page I'm right your wrong second grade argument!

 

[AmericasTeam31]

How is that a spin? Hostile provided only one start of Barber's in his example, the better game might I add. I did the same for Betts and Rock, that is not a spin.

Trying to spin an argument to your opinion is completely ignoring this discussion was about depth, and you completely ignored the part of the post that talked about the Commanders having 3 quality runners to the Cowboy's 2. I wonder who that was?

Spin doctor, indeed.

But the fact of the matter is that only the homerism that is Commanders fans, will ever consider Rock Cartwright a quality runner... I don't see a single Cowboys fan here saying that Rock is a quality runner... He's better as a reciever out of the backfield than anything else...

 

[Gamebreaker]

Right, I understand what you are saying. I am here to tell you that at no point during the first 9 games of your season did ANY defense worry about Patten. I guarantee it! If he was such a threat to begin with, why did they go out and get, not one, but two recievers to take his place? I'm saying it had more to do with defenses realizing that Moss was the man to shut down, and their unfamiliarity with what the 'Skins were trying to do, than it did that Patten went down.

David Patten has been productive in the past for Pats. My point was not that he was a very good reciever, it was the drop off from him to the rest of the recievers was steep.

I understand your stance that Moss may have tailed off due to defenses finding better ways to defend him, but using that as the sole reason ignores the other factors that affected that outcome.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Completely off-topic. Why bother? Really?

because you are in a cowboys forum and your are dumping your BIG playoff appearance dung in here... it stunk! LMAO


You were outclassed, outmatched and didnt belong. You benefited from our having no kicker.

 

[burmafrd]

It is fun to watch the mental gymnastics the skins fans do to try and prove their point. Twisted and bizarre are not the adequate words for it.
But then when you are trying to prove something that is not true that will happen.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Yards After the Catch (YAC): This one really comes down to which type of plays each player showcases this ability the best in. T.O. can take a quick slant and turn it into a 60 yrd. TD. Moss could take a WR screen and take it to the house, which he did 2-3 times last season. Even when the defense knew the screen was coming, Moss still managed to get the 10 yards needed for a first down. ADVANTAGE: MOSS

I don't see how Moss has a better YAC than Owens.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/3664/career;_ylt=AiDHYI7SAwsFeSfMYuXENcj.uLYF

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/5463/career;_ylt=AiDHYI7SAwsFeSfMYuXENcj.uLYF

Both have averaged the same YAC over their careers (5.8).

Moss has gotten 6.0+ YAC in a season in 2 out of his 5 years and Owens has done it 6 out of 10 seasons in the league.

Furthermore, Owens has averaged 5.04 catches per game whereas Moss has averaged 3.5 catches per game in their respective careers. The more catches a receiver makes, the more likely his YAC average will go down. If anything, YAC is at least even and more than likely in Owens' favor.

I doubt many people, regardless if they are a Cowboys fan or not would disagree with me on this one.

Rich.........

 

[Gamebreaker]

But the fact of the matter is that only the homerism that is Commanders fans, will ever consider Rock Cartwright a quality runner... I don't see a single Cowboys fan here saying that Rock is a quality runner... He's better as a reciever out of the backfield than anything else...

I'm not going to expect any cowboy fans to give a third string RB much credit, despite the fact their third stringer is who??? Tyson Thompson hasn't had any games close to Cartwright's, so what is your point again?

Again, you continue to ignore this discussion was on depth. Not how good Cartwright is. A team should be lucky to have a third string runner who's ever game in for injury and played well.

You're making this unnecessarily difficult. Skins backs, 3 productive players. Cowboys backs, 2 productive players.

 

[Hostile]

You just restate what i said (see my previous posts) I was responding to the other guy not to you, when he said that your backup RB is better then ours. I asked him to state the stats in order to back that up. Hurt my feeling? please dont get emotional on me.

Either you've got no attention span or you can't read. I already know you can't spell, but you'll have to help me with the rest of the diagnosis.

Here's what he said...

Started and produced

Here's what you said...

Mind setting up the stats?

So I responded with the stats to show that Barber HAS started, and HAS produced, backing up Dargon's claim.

There is nothing about which RB is better in this portion of the discussion. It was a point blank question by you asking for proof of a comment made by him. That Barber has "started and produced." A contention which your post expresses doubt about.

Doubt it no longer. I gave you the proof.

 

[Gamebreaker]

BIG DEAL!

Is that how you respond when you've been proven completely wrong?

would have been 7 TD's last year if not for 2 lucky hail mary's at end of 1 st game against us...

Lucky? Listen homer, it happened whether it was luck or not. Give credit where it's due and stop embarassing yourself.

let him get 1000+ yards 2 years in a row and then get back to me... he as only ONE YEAR with double digit TD's and TWO years with yardage over a 1000+

So has Steve Smith, your point? Oh yeah, you don't have one.

want more?

I should be asking you that question.

 

[AmericasTeam31]

I'm not going to expect any cowboy fans to give a third string RB much credit, despite the fact their third stringer is who??? Tyson Thompson hasn't had any games close to Cartwright's, so what is your point again?

Again, you continue to ignore this discussion was on depth. Not how good Cartwright is. A team should be lucky to have a third string runner who's ever game in for injury and played well.

You're making this unnecessarily difficult. Skins backs, 3 productive players. Cowboys backs, 2 productive players.

No one threw out Thompson's name in the discussion as a productive back. But you are basing Cartwright's "production" as a RB on one game, and one carry really. He had 52yds on one carry in that game. So on one carry he gained 1/4 of his yards for the SEASON. And for that matter Tyson had 75yds against the Eagles, before injuries and the TO fiasco.... Maybe we could call him productive, if we were blinded by homerism that is the Commanders. :starspin

 

[Gamebreaker]

and I know, this is a board for discussion but this thing has turned into a 7 page I'm right your wrong second grade argument!

Ok. Let me ask you this. If one team has had 3 backs who've started before and played well, and the other only has two, which team has better depth? It's really that simple.

It also hasn't gone unnoticed that no one replied to my Moss/Owens analysis back on page 7, especially burmafrd who was adamant about it.

 

[Gamebreaker]

No one threw out Thompson's name in the discussion as a productive back.

Get on the same page with me. This IS about depth? Right? If Thompson is your third RB than he IS a part of this discussion. You can't exclude him just because he doesn't help your argument.

But you are basing Cartwright's "production" as a RB on one game, and one carry really. He had 52yds on one carry in that game.

Anytime someone starts taking away a carry, or a catch, to try to make their point better, they've pretty much lost the argument. So should we ignore the 52 yard run? Why? Is it too good to be considered? This is ridiculous. Furthermore, as a backup he's played well with limited carries. How is he NOT a quality backup???

So on one carry he gained 1/4 of his yards for the SEASON. And for that matter Tyson had 75yds against the Eagles, before injuries and the TO fiasco.... Maybe we could call him productive, if we were blinded by homerism that is the Commanders. :starspin

No, you couldn't. Because Tyson's 75 yards still doesn't make him better than Rock, which I've PROVEN. THIS IS ABOUT DEPTH. GET WITH THE PROGRAM.

 

[burmafrd]

I did not bother to reply to the so called analysis since it was clearly biased against TO. You convienently, among other things, mentioned the huge difference in TD's between the two WR. Owens scores a lot more and that is the name of the game.

 

[burmafrd]

Thompson is every bit as valid a backup as Rock is. SO you lose overall.

 

[Gamebreaker]

I did not bother to reply to the so called analysis since it was clearly biased against TO. You convienently, among other things, mentioned the huge difference in TD's between the two WR. Owens scores a lot more and that is the name of the game.

TRANSLATION: I had no idea how to reply.

Nice backpedaling there, buddy. I brought statistics to the argument, you've brought nothing but your biased, homeristic opinion. Try again.

 

[burmafrd]

Biased- you claim I am biased? take a look in the mirror.