Brian Waters

[Stash]

I just wonder why it does any good crying about something that is said and done and cannot be changed?

Why?

It's a waste of time IMO. But, somewhere a mother loves them.

If you're so uninterested, why are you here posting?

Seems a blatant contradiction to me.

 

[kmd24]

Whatever makes you feel better.

Reality shows me that they ranked number 1 in rushing yards with him and suck without him.

I'm not trying to "feel better." I'm trying to be objective.

 

[Stash]

Funny, I once had a pig named Arnold. And when he became a hog, he would climb over fences instead of rooting under as most other pigs. And a pig becomes a hog at 125 pounds by weight. That didn't keep me from getting a call from neighbors to come get that pig from rooting in their yard.

Anyone else hearing the theme from 'Deliverance' here?

 

[CCBoy]

I'm not trying to "feel better." I'm trying to be objective.

: Me, I just gave it up for Lent...:starspin

 

[CCBoy]

Anyone else hearing the theme from 'Deliverance' here?

Cattle paid the bills, but hogs paid off the ranch.

Ask someone to explain it to you...

 

[Stash]

I'm not trying to "feel better." I'm trying to be objective.

How is it 'objective' to try to claim that Waters did a poor job of run blocking and the Chiefs somehow led the league in rushing?

How is it 'objective' to try to ignore the fact that the Chiefs now cannot run without him? And that was before Charles' injury!

And how is it 'objective' to try to minimize the fact that the guy has been a godsend for the Patriots and they couldn't be happier?

 

[Stash]

For the record, I would like to thank everyone who responded on this topic as I have very much enjoyed the conversations, even those who vehemently disagree with me.

(Yes, even you Deliverance!)

Kudos to you all for helping me pass the day!

 

[JIGGYFLY]

How is it 'objective' to try to claim that Waters did a poor job of run blocking and the Chiefs somehow led the league in rushing?

How is it 'objective' to try to ignore the fact that the Chiefs now cannot run without him? And that was before Charles' injury!

And how is it 'objective' to try to minimize the fact that the guy has been a godsend for the Patriots and they couldn't be happier?

It's really pretty simple to claim Waters did a poor job of run blocking last year.

The fact that Kansas City cut him and the fact that he is currently playing for less than 2 million a year and did not get signed until right before the season.

Is that objective enough for you.

 

[Stash]

It's really pretty simple to claim Waters did a poor job of run blocking last year.

Yeah, 'simple', uninformed, and inaccurate.

The fact that Kansas City cut him and the fact that he is currently playing for less than 2 million a year and did not get signed until right before the season.

How much are we still paying for Leonard Davis? Or Gurode? Or Colombo?

I wouldn't consider price as the end-all, be-all to value, would you?

How is that $800,000 investment in Dockery looking?

Or the $500,000 in bonus money they gave to Montrae Holland?

Feeling good about any of those?

Is that objective enough for you.

It might if the decisions that Kansas City was making were good ones.

Do you feel that is the case?

 

[JIGGYFLY]

Yeah, 'simple', uninformed, and inaccurate.



How much are we still paying for Leonard Davis? Or Gurode? Or Colombo?

I wouldn't consider price as the end-all, be-all to value, would you?

How is that $800,000 investment in Dockery looking?

Or the $500,000 in bonus money they gave to Montrae Holland?

Feeling good about any of those?



It might if the decisions that Kansas City was making were good ones.

Do you feel that is the case?

Simple question,why did he last so long on the open market and then sign for such little money if he was still playing at such a high level?

Andre Gurode got more money than he did on the open market.

Please stay on your original topic of why thinking Waters play had fallen off could be seen as objective, this has nothing to do with Holland or Dockery.

I would have wanted Waters over both but to think his play had fallen off is entirely reasonable.

 

[Stash]

Simple question,why did he last so long on the open market and then sign for such little money if he was still playing at such a high level?

Because, like the Cowboys, plenty of teams incorrectly assumed that his skills were eroding due to age. And, like the Cowboys, they were wrong too and now have to watch as the Patriots reap the benefits of their collective mistake.

Andre Gurode got more money than he did on the open market.

And he's doing a nice job filling-in for the Ravens.

Please stay on your original topic of why thinking Waters play had fallen off could be seen as objective, this has nothing to do with Holland or Dockery.

I think it does. This team made the mistake of messing aroiund with thos players insteading of going after a good one. I think it has plenty to do with it.

I would have wanted Waters over both but to think his play had fallen off is entirely reasonable.

And yet his current high level of play shows that to not be true.

As I said, plenty of teams mistakenly thought that way - Cowboys included.

But I don't care too much about those other teams, just my favorite.

 

[kmd24]

How is it 'objective' to try to claim that Waters did a poor job of run blocking and the Chiefs somehow led the league in rushing?

Was Waters the only guy on the line? Did you watch all the games and grade his performance? What about the other guys I mentioned? Got any idea how they performed?

How is it 'objective' to try to ignore the fact that the Chiefs now cannot run without him? And that was before Charles' injury!

How is attributing the failure to other players (including the one who replaced Waters) ignoring the fact that they cannot run the ball? Two important guys are playing much worse than they did last year, and Waters' replacement hasn't been very good either.

OTOH, Waters is vastly outperforming his play from 2010.

There are actually internet sites that try to grade individual player performance, and I happen to subscribe to them.

What are you basing your opinion on besides your own agenda?

 

[Stash]

Was Waters the only guy on the line? Did you watch all the games and grade his performance? What about the other guys I mentioned? Got any idea how they performed?

From the results - both then and now - he was an asset to the team and not the liability you suggest.

How is attributing the failure to other players (including the one who replaced Waters) ignoring the fact that they cannot run the ball? Two important guys are playing much worse than they did last year, and Waters' replacement hasn't been very good either.

While Waters has been very good in New England, excellant in fact.

OTOH, Waters is vastly outperforming his play from 2010.

Hey! We agree on something, I knew we had to eventually!

There are actually internet sites that try to grade individual player performance, and I happen to subscribe to them.

What are you basing your opinion on besides your own agenda?

What my lyin' eyes, and supporting statistics in terms of team success and failure, tell me.

I find it completely flawed that you can tell me that Waters was the weak link on the league's #1 running team and then turn around and try to explain away how they're worse without him.

I just can't get my head around the Great-Great-Great-Has-Been Bum-Great description of Waters' last few years.

 

[JIGGYFLY]

Because, like the Cowboys, plenty of teams incorrectly assumed that his skills were eroding due to age. And, like the Cowboys, they were wrong too and now have to watch as the Patriots reap the benefits of their collective mistake.



And he's doing a nice job filling-in for the Ravens.



I think it does. This team made the mistake of messing aroiund with thos players insteading of going after a good one. I think it has plenty to do with it.



And yet his current high level of play shows that to not be true.

As I said, plenty of teams mistakenly thought that way - Cowboys included.

But I don't care too much about those other teams, just my favorite.

So we agree that the thinking he had fallen of was objective and the Cowboys were not crazy for not running out and signing him.

Your whole argument is based on how you think Waters is performing, his coach saying he is playing well is hardly proof that he is playing at a pro bowl level or that he is playing that great, especially considering we are only 5 games into the season.

The point is that this OUTRAGE is totally unnecessary maybe the Cowboys did underrate his abilities but they were hardly alone and that does not even factor in the possibility that Waters wanted to go to a team that had a better chance of making a superbowl run.

 

[kmd24]

From the results - both then and now - he was an asset to the team and not the liability you suggest.

How do you know this? In fact, he was *by far* the lowest graded run blocker on the KC line in 2010 according to profootballfocus.com

While Waters has been very good in New England, excellant in fact.

Yes, and it is quite the surprise based on his 2010 performance.

Hey! We agree on something, I knew we had to eventually!

The fact that you agree with that statement is a strong indictment of your position that Dallas should have known that Waters would be a good signing. I'm surprised you don't realize that.

I find it completely flawed that you can tell me that Waters was the weak link on the league's #1 running team and then turn around and try to explain away how they're worse without him.

Seriously? If 2/5 of an OL is playing dramatically worse than the prior year, you think that Waters, who was replaced by a player performing only slightly worse, is the key to the downfall? What kind of logic is that? I think you are confusing correlation with causation.

 

[Stash]

So we agree that the thinking he had fallen of was objective and the Cowboys were not crazy for not running out and signing him.

Mistaken yes, but 'crazy', no. They had plenty of company in being wrong.

Your whole argument is based on how you think Waters is performing, his coach saying he is playing well is hardly proof that he is playing at a pro bowl level or that he is playing that great, especially considering we are only 5 games into the season.

Look it up for yourself and you be the judge. Even at a glance, that offense is the best in the league, and it's doubtful they'd be doing that with a 'washed-up bum' in front of Tom Brady.

The point is that this OUTRAGE is totally unnecessary maybe the Cowboys did underrate his abilities but they were hardly alone and that does not even factor in the possibility that Waters wanted to go to a team that had a better chance of making a superbowl run.

Again, that's pure speculation. Speculation posted in an attempt to minimize their error. I think there's more validity to actual reports that he wanted to come home to play than there is about anything to do with a Super Bowl run.

That's merely being thrown around in an effort to make the mistake look better. There is no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

 

[JIGGYFLY]

Mistaken yes, but 'crazy', no. They had plenty of company in being wrong.



Look it up for yourself and you be the judge. Even at a glance, that offense is the best in the league, and it's doubtful they'd be doing that with a 'washed-up bum' in front of Tom Brady.



Again, that's pure speculation. Speculation posted in an attempt to minimize their error. I think there's more validity to actual reports that he wanted to come home to play than there is about anything to do with a Super Bowl run.

That's merely being thrown around in an effort to make the mistake look better. There is no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

There are no actual reports of this just a blurb from a reporter speculating such.

I get it, you want to make this out to be a huge mistake on the part of the Cowboys and refuse to acknowledge any other variables.

I am done with the topic neither of us has any real insight to what actually happened but you have a real agenda to push so have at it.

 

[Stash]

How do you know this? In fact, he was the lowest graded run blocker on the KC line in 2010 according to profootballfocus.com

I'd say that's more a condemnation of profootballfocus.com than anything else.

Yes, and it is quite the surprise based on his 2010 performance.

I'd say that's it's an improvement but not some revelation.

The fact that you agree with that statement is a strong indictment of your position that Dallas should have known that Waters would be a good signing. I'm surprised you don't realize that.

Compared to what we have and did have at the position? I hardly think so. I was trumpeting for signing Waters when this team was cutting Davis and continuing to waste time with Montrae Holland. Compared to them, Waters with one hand behind his back was an improvement! At least he cared.

Seriously? If 2/5 of an OL is playing dramatically worse than the prior year, you think that Waters, who was replaced by a player performing slightly worse, is the key to the downfall? What kind of logic is that? I think you are confusing correlation with causation.

And I think you're trying to disregard Waters' loss in an effort to minimze the Cowboys' error in not signing him.

 

[Stash]

There are no actual reports of this just a blurb from a reporter speculating such.

And where is there anything about him wanting a Super Bowl run? Anything? There is less than nothing in that regard - none.

I get it, you want to make this out to be a huge mistake on the part of the Cowboys and refuse to acknowledge any other variables.

'Variables'? More like people throwing stufff out there blindly in an attempt to make it look slightly less bad than it really is. Fans defending their Cowboys in everything they do, good or bad, as if it's somehow their job to do so.

I am done with the topic neither of us has any real insight to what actually happened but you have a real agenda to push so have at it.

I only have what's out there, what's been reported, and how well Waters is playing for the Patriots and how happy they are to have him. Anyone who knows what Google is can verify that info for themselves. While the rest seem to have some 'maybe's' offered up as a possible excuse.

And again, though we disagree here, I am appreciative of the conversation.

 

[kmd24]

I'd say that's more a condemnation of profootballfocus.com than anything else.

Why? Do you think they have some personal vendetta against Brian Waters? He was the only KC starter with a cumulative negative rating as a run blocker for 2010. On the other hand, he was rated the best pass blocker and was rated positive overall.

That's pretty much in agreement with what most observers were saying. You're the only dissenting voice, so it's not surprising that you would throw an actual source of data rather than speculation under the bus.

I'd say that's it's an improvement but not some revelation.

He certainly had good games in 2010. What's a revelation is the consistency so far.

And I think you're trying to disregard Waters' loss in an effort to minimze the Cowboys' error in not signing him.

I'm just telling you what a third party - whose business depends on their data - observed. I welcome you to find some alternate data to support your stance.