Vintage;1289083 said:Merriman probably will win a DPOY before its said and done....and may even set a new sack record.
Can't wait to see this place when either happens.
sigh.abersonc;1289080 said:I didn't say that was the case. What I said was the we don't and won't know. There is no real evidence, only speculation. Now if you can definitively prove that he was never tested before that first positive test, then you've got some support.
Again, as I've said - I personally believe he used steroids coming out of college and likely used more than once during his NFL career. But I've got no evidence of that - and I finding highly prejudicial to punish folks for what we think they might have done -- rather than what we can prove they've done.
Derinyar;1289100 said:sigh.
abersonc;1289075 said:I said based entirely on his numbers at 12 games. You compare the players - if Merriman does nothing over those 4 other games (but played all 16) he would very likely have won.
Merriman had more sacks (17 to 13.5) -- he created fewer turnovers than Taylor. But the real kicker is this. Merriman led a defense on a team that had the best record in the NFL. Despite Taylor's work, his team went 6-10.
If you look historically, the DPOY usually comes from a successful team. If fact over the last 10 years, a player from a losing team only won the award once (Urlacher 11-5; Reed 9-7; Lewis 10-6; Brooks 12-4; Strahan 7-9; Lewis 12-4; Sapp 11-5; White 11-5; Stubblefield 13-3; Smith 10-6). That player, Mike Strahan, broke the NFL single season sack record that year.
So I'm prett comfortable saying that even if he didn't make a single play -- or hell, if he was injured and missed 4 games, that Merriman would have won the award.
abersonc;1289050 said:Next year will tell us something -- as I understand it Merriman is now tested weekly. The benefits of past steroid use are reduced each week he doesn't take them. I'm not positive on how long you get a benefit -- but it would seem reasonable that next season he's going to have been off for long enough to be back to "natural"
superpunk;1289104 said:Taylor led a better defense. Impacted more games. Truth is, on the Chargers, despite the hype, Merriman's really just another guy. Taylor IS the Dolphins.
superpunk;1289104 said:Taylor led a better defense. Impacted more games. Truth is, on the Chargers, despite the hype, Merriman's really just another guy. Taylor IS the Dolphins.
Vintage;1289113 said:They definetly have more talent around Merriman...
But Merriman isn't JAG on the Chargers.
Give Merriman his credit. He is a great pass rusher and anything but JAG. That doesn't take anything away from Ware.
Either way, it's speculation. Merriman played the whole season either on roids, or under suspicion of roids. It's not unreasonable to think that without them, he wouldn't have had the same numbers. I'm aware that the voters go ga-ga for sacks, but Taylor had sacks, fumbles, TDs, blocks, as the only player on a pretty nondescript defense. I have a feeling the voting would still go his way against a non-roided up Merriman.abersonc;1289112 said:But that doesn't appear to be how the voters usually roll.
Vintage;1289113 said:They definetly have more talent around Merriman...
But Merriman isn't JAG on the Chargers.
Give Merriman his credit. He is a great pass rusher and anything but JAG. That doesn't take anything away from Ware.
superpunk;1289120 said:Either way, it's speculation. Merriman played the whole season either on roids, or under suspicion of roids. It's not unreasonable to think that without them, he wouldn't have had the same numbers. I'm aware that the voters go ga-ga for sacks, but Taylor had sacks, fumbles, TDs, blocks, as the only player on a pretty nondescript defense. I have a feeling the voting would still go his way against a non-roided up Merriman.
abersonc;1289152 said:Didn't I say "Merriman doesn't get suspended...."
superpunk;1289165 said:Which ignores WHY he got suspended, and the effects that might have had on your theoretical situation. This isn't rocket science.
I have a feeling the voting would still go his way against a non-roided up Merriman.
abersonc;1289170 said:You are chasing your tail -- you said:
I argued that wasn't the case. But now you switch back to the "he got suspended" angle. Just get your 10,000th post and lets call this horse beaten and dead.
superpunk;1289165 said:Which ignores WHY he got suspended, and the effects that might have had on your theoretical situation. This isn't rocket science.
Arch Stanton;1289184 said:Isnt a player suspended coz he was caught a second time?
Sounds like he has an addiction.
aikemirv;1289177 said:You are the on chasing your tail because the fact is, the reason he got suspended, is directly related to production on the field.
So you can't make a statement that had he not gotten suspended he would have won the award without taking into account the reason he was suspended.