Anyone but skin homers really think

[Gamebreaker]

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

Prove it.....that should shut you up.

 

[burmafrd]

Asa I said in the opening: only skin homers claim that moss is close to TO.
Moss has had two top seasons- owens has had 6 at least.
Moss has scored 28 tds in his career; To has 101.
Moss has scored 10 TDs ONCE in his career; TO has done more then 10 5 times.

 

[AmericasTeam31]

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.



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???



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.

First, we are on the same page. I was merely pointing out the fact that no one else on the baord threw Thompson's name out and tried to call him "productive", as you are with Rock.

Second, I didn't say that his carry wasn't legit. I was simply stating that if 1/4 of your yards in a season come on one carry, it's hard to be considered productive by most standards...

Third, Rock rushed for 199 yds in 2005, and had 23 recieving yds. Thompson had 182 rushing yds, and 16 recieving yards. Now while I don't consider either of them all that productive, I will concede that both have come through when asked... the difference is 17 rudhing yards, and 7 recieving. Is that enough to call one productive and one not? If so, let me throw out the 1,400 return yards Thompson had on kickoffs, 4 of which were 40+ yds. What else does Rock do?

Finally, If I was gonna throw someone's name in a discussion and claim he wasn't as procuctive as someone else, I'd make sure the difference was a little more than 24 total yards... At least it would hide your complete ignorance and homerism....

 

[burmafrd]

Prove rock is better then Thompson.

 

[Gamebreaker]

It's also quite humorous that you've been reading this whole discussion and not saying a single word for like, the last 5 pages. As soon as I mention you, you reply. Classic.

You would've replied if you had half an argument to hang your hat on. Instead, you shut up when someone asked you actually prove you know anything about football. If backpedaling was an Olympic event you would bring the gold home, hands down.

 

[burmafrd]

game, sort of sounds like you know you have been owned.

 

[burmafrd]

So the STATS indicate that rock and TT are a wash. Stats indicate that at Best Betts is a wash with Barber. Portis is better then JJ. So any edge you have at RB overall is not big. While we have a SOLID edge at WR/TE.

 

[AmericasTeam31]

Take your time.... We'll be here waiting for the spin....

 

[burmafrd]

come on game- we have given you almost 10 minutes.

 

[Gamebreaker]

First, we are on the same page. I was merely pointing out the fact that no one else on the baord threw Thompson's name out and tried to call him "productive", as you are with Rock.

Rock has proven more at this point than Thompson. Thompson has never rushed for more than 100 yards, Rock has. Thompson hasn't had any significant carries in a game and averaged more than even 4.0 a carry, Rock has. He's a better back, period.

Second, I didn't say that his carry wasn't legit. I was simply stating that if 1/4 of your yards in a season come on one carry, it's hard to be considered productive by most standards...

You tried to dismiss making a 52 yard run. You said "take away" his 52 yard run? Furthermore, that one run was not a quarter of his yards that season. Do the math.

Third, Rock rushed for 199 yds in 2005, and had 23 recieving yds. Thompson had 182 rushing yds, and 16 recieving yards. Now while I don't consider either of them all that productive, I will concede that both have come through when asked... the difference is 17 rudhing yards, and 7 recieving. Is that enough to call one productive and one not?

Rock never had a game where he had 20 carries and he still had more yards. He's just a more productive back. Doesn't mean I want him to start on a full-time basis? I'm not even saying he's a solid starter. But with what he's done in his career, he's a better third string RB than most in this league and definitely yours.

If so, let me throw out the 1,400 return yards Thompson had on kickoffs, 4 of which were 40+ yds. What else does Rock do?

Why? What does this have to with the rushing game?

Finally, If I was gonna throw someone's name in a discussion and claim he wasn't as procuctive as someone else, I'd make sure the difference was a little more than 24 total yards... At least it would hide your complete ignorance and homerism....

Listen hypocrite, when you intentionally try to use a poor comparison to boost your boy, try not to do so when the guy you're downplaying had 19 less carries and STILL more yards and touchdowns. Now THAT is homerism at it's finest. Rock's stats in 2003, the only season where he saw more than a 100 carries, is comparable to that of Marion Barber's, your second string RB.

I'm waiting, Spin Doctor.

 

[Gamebreaker]

game, sort of sounds like you know you have been owned.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Especially from you.

 

[Gamebreaker]

So the STATS indicate that rock and TT are a wash. Stats indicate that at Best Betts is a wash with Barber. Portis is better then JJ. So any edge you have at RB overall is not big. While we have a SOLID edge at WR/TE.

My god, even though you're wrong about Rock/TT my WHOLE POINT was we had better depth than you. :bang2: Now how can you claim I got owned when you just admitted I was right? Geez.

You also haven't proven anything about WR/TE, but I'm not going to hold my breath on you actually bringing anything worth reading.

 

[burmafrd]

Looking at the stats it is clear that Betts, Barber, Thompson and Cartwright are all about the same value. Not a whole lot of difference in the bunch.

 

[burmafrd]

Game, since you refuse to use all the stats, and keep picking and choosing, then there is no point in trying to have a debate with you.

 

[Gamebreaker]

Game, since you refuse to use all the stats, and keep picking and choosing, then there is no point in trying to have a debate with you.

I love the way you backpedal.

 

[1fisher]

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.

Don't drag me into this little squabble.... it's kinda funny watching you and otherw get all jacked up when in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter who's bigger faster stronger.... It reminds me of when I was in GRADE school when little kids on the play ground would say things like my daddy is bigger than your daddy and my daddy can beat-up your daddy..... keep this thing going gamebreaker.... the comic relief is much needed today!

 

[Gamebreaker]

Don't drag me into this little squabble....

Be honest, I know the real reason you don't want to get involved. You've got enough common sense not to back up these two simpletons. I understand, team loyalty and that stuff.

 

[SultanOfSix]

I love how Gamebreaker argues a point about using career stats as not satisfactory on describing the better player (in the case of Moss and TO), but can't get enough of it with respect to describing the better depth when it comes to running backs.

And he wonders why I question his logic and homerism.

 

[AtlCB]

My god, even though you're wrong about Rock/TT my WHOLE POINT was we had better depth than you. :bang2: Now how can you claim I got owned when you just admitted I was right? Geez.

You also haven't proven anything about WR/TE, but I'm not going to hold my breath on you actually bringing anything worth reading.

I don't see how you can argue that a back with less than 200 yards rushing in the past two years combined has proven himself to be better than anybody.

 

[austintodallas]

Pretty good analysis of Cowboys vs. Skins receivers just posted on Vela's blog (actual analysis by Villaronga)...

http://theboysblog.com/