Thanks Ken!

[dbair1967]

Yeah, thanks for the all the plays you didnt make and all the tackles you missed.

Hope he ends up on one of our opponents rosters next year. Would love it if he went to Philly to be with his buttbuddy Stewart.

 

[Future]

Ken Hamlin was always decent in coverage...every safety bites or gets there late.

but he was a pansy

 

[dcfanatic]

Yeah, thanks for the all the plays you didnt make and all the tackles you missed.

Hope he ends up on one of our opponents rosters next year. Would love it if he went to Philly to be with his buttbuddy Stewart.

He's not in Philly any more...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4857876

 

[ThreeSportStar80]

Wow... Those clips still put a nasty taste in my mouth!

 

[dbair1967]

He's not in Philly any more...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4857876

Thats too bad. I liked him there. He had a dramatic impact on their secondary play. I wish they'd have doubled his pay to keep him.

 

[Apollo Creed]

Outside of his 07 campaign filled with gift interceptions and the '13-3' mantra in full force. His pro bowl was a fluke he made a handful (and thats being generous) of plays that made you go 'whoa' and he was getting paid like he was one of the best safeties in the game.

 

[21Savage]

So somehow we had this great, giant liability at Safety, who was apparently only a loafer and a thief, and we managed to finished 2nd in scoring D and play better when he came back in the lineup? Okay!

Guess people forget what teams did to us when we had actual liabilities at safety. Even when they continually targeted Roy at SS in 07.

I believe we can replace Hamlin with younger talent and that is production doesn't match his pay, but let's not go overboard with this.

 

[Hoofbite]

So somehow we had this great, giant liability at Safety, who was apparently only a loafer and a thief, and we managed to finished 2nd in scoring D and play better when he came back in the lineup? Okay!

Guess people forget what teams did to us when we had actual liabilities at safety. Even when they continually targeted Roy at SS in 07.

I believe we can replace Hamlin with younger talent and that is production doesn't match his pay, but let's not go overboard with this.

This **** again?

I think its funny that people will completely neglect 8 games before being hurt and point to 3 games after coming back from injury. Where was that Hamlin in the 1st 8 games of the season?

Hamlin "coming back" was completely coincidental with Dallas getting on a run and a massive rush opposite DeMarcus Ware.

 

[theogt]

This **** again?

I think its funny that people will completely neglect 8 games before being hurt and point to 3 games after coming back from injury. Where was that Hamlin in the 1st 8 games of the season?

Hamlin "coming back" was completely coincidental with Dallas getting on a run and a massive rush opposite DeMarcus Ware.

Actually you can look at the games both before and after he was out. There was a stark difference in the level of defensive play in his absence. Yet, we played worse offenses during his absence.

That may just be coincidence. But I don't see the logic in just assuming it was coincidence. That's the kind of thing where you just want something to be true, so you assume it is.

 

[TheCount]

Actually you can look at the games both before and after he was out. There was a stark difference in the level of defensive play in his absence. Yet, we played worse offenses during his absence.

That may just be coincidence. But I don't see the logic in just assuming it was coincidence. That's the kind of thing where you just want something to be true, so you assume it is.

Works both ways.

 

[theogt]

Works both ways.

No, that's not true. If the defense plays significantly better before and after his absence, then that is direct evidence of his impact on the defense. It may not be conclusive, but it is most certainly evidence. To just conclusively assume it's coincidental is illogical.

 

[Hoofbite]

Actually you can look at the games both before and after he was out. There was a stark difference in the level of defensive play in his absence. Yet, we played worse offenses during his absence.

That may just be coincidence. But I don't see the logic in just assuming it was coincidence. That's the kind of thing where you just want something to be true, so you assume it is.

Dazzle me.

 

[theogt]

Dazzle me.

You can dig into it using the search functions if you care that much. I'm not going to go through the exercise just to try and convince you of something that is completely irrelevant now.

 

[Clove]

If I were Jerry Jones, I'd go out and sign all pro bowlers, God knows the Joe Fan cannot except anything less.

Good luck Ken.

 

[TheCount]

If I were Jerry Jones, I'd go out and sign all pro bowlers, God knows the Joe Fan cannot except anything less.

Good luck Ken.

So you'd sign Ken Hamlin?

No, that's not true. If the defense plays significantly better before and after his absence, then that is direct evidence of his impact on the defense. It may not be conclusive, but it is most certainly evidence. To just conclusively assume it's coincidental is illogical.

I disagree. To assume one way or the other is completely speculative. Context is what's important.

 

[Hoofbite]

You can dig into it using the search functions if you care that much. I'm not going to go through the exercise just to try and convince you of something that is completely irrelevant now.

Didn't look up any old posts but I did a quick stat lookup.

1st 9 Games Averages:

Yards: 330
Points: 18.7
1st Downs: 19.3



4 Games Without Hamlin:

Yards: 326.75
Points: 16
1st Downs: 16

 

[theogt]

I disagree. To assume one way or the other is completely speculative. Context is what's important.

I don't think you get it. There is no assumption being made when someone points to the difference in defensive production as evidence of Ken Hamlin's impact. It is evidence of his impact, even if it is not conclusive. There may be other evidence that outweighs this evidence, but there is no assumption to be made that it is evidence. It is, however, evidence of his impact by definition.

 

[TheCount]

I don't think you get it. There is no assumption being made when someone points to the difference in defensive production as evidence of Ken Hamlin's impact. It is evidence of his impact, even if it is not conclusive. There may be other evidence that outweighs this evidence, but there is no assumption to be made that it is evidence. It is, however, evidence of his impact by definition.

I guess so. If you could be considered a murder suspect because you were from Florida, but while you were visiting New York SOMEONE was killed, then sure, it's evidence.

It's also possible you were a suspect for a murder in Florida at the same time because as soon as you left, SOMEONE died there too.

As a matter of fact, when you traveled from Florida to New York, someone in Minnesota that had lived their whole life perfectly healthy until you got on that plane met a suspicious end as well, so that's three crimes you are now suspected of.

 

[theogt]

Didn't look up any old posts but I did a quick stat lookup.

1st 9 Games Averages:

Yards: 330
Points: 18.7
1st Downs: 19.3



4 Games Without Hamlin:

Yards: 326.75
Points: 16
1st Downs: 16

Of the final 11 games of the season, Hamlin played in 7 and didn't in 4.

Games played:
Yards passing per game - 226
Points per game - 12.6
Opponent QB rating - 76.5
Average rank of offense (passing) - 10.7

Games not played:
Yards passing per game - 242
Points per game - 16.3
Opponent QB rating - 81.8
Average rank of offense (passing) - 15.3

So, yes, when you look at the games immediately before and after his absence, it is clear that the team played better with him than without him, despite playing worse offenses.

 

[theogt]

I guess so. If you could be considered a murder suspect because you were from Florida, but while you were visiting New York SOMEONE was killed, then sure, it's evidence.

It's also possible you were a suspect for a murder in Florida at the same time because as soon as you left, SOMEONE died there too.

As a matter of fact, when you traveled from Florida to New York, someone in Minnesota that had lived their whole life perfectly healthy until you got on that plane met a suspicious end as well, so that's three crimes you are now suspected of.

What a clever analogy. It's totally the same thing!