LocimusPrime
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 34,091
- Reaction score
- 92,903
He’s gone and I’m not pro or anti Dez, just saw this and posting for discussion and entertainment.
Also does not take into account receivers running the wrong route, or the wrong depth on a route, or reading the coverage differently on an option route which leads to uncatchable balls.It would help if they defined what "catchable" is. I believe their definition is the number of receptions + number of drops. I think they consider anything else as not catchable.
Fresh spin.
If you look hard enough you can always find something to help your argument.
Fresh spin.
If you look hard enough you can always find something to help your argument.
And this is why people scoff at PFF. You should be ashamed of yourself @LocimusPrime !Also does not take into account receivers running the wrong route, or the wrong depth on a route, or reading the coverage differently on an option route which leads to uncatchable balls.
Also does not take into account receivers running the wrong route, or the wrong depth on a route, or reading the coverage differently on an option route which leads to uncatchable balls.
I do it all the time! It's fantastic!And if you try hard enough you can dismiss any bit of factual information that doesn't comport with your agenda.
Fresh spin.
If you look hard enough you can always find something to help your argument.
#irony indeed.And if you try hard enough you can dismiss any bit of factual information that doesn't comport with your agenda.
Also does not take into account receivers running the wrong route, or the wrong depth on a route, or reading the coverage differently on an option route which leads to uncatchable balls.
Shame shame shameAnd this is why people scoff at PFF. You should be ashamed of yourself @LocimusPrime !
Lol!Shame shame shame
Shame shame shame