Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints
Shop Horizontal

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; So .. according to you, WhoDat ... Tory Holt is the BEST receiver in the NFL. Gee, thanks for that wonderful information. And look folks .. Amani Toomer is the 9th best receiver in the NFL. Are you drunk? High? ...

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-18-2005, 11:03 AM   #21
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
Should receivers get paid by thier stats?

So .. according to you, WhoDat ... Tory Holt is the BEST receiver in the NFL. Gee, thanks for that wonderful information.

And look folks .. Amani Toomer is the 9th best receiver in the NFL. Are you drunk? High? Or just confused? Or all of the above?

You need to give it up, WhoDat. I don\'t give a flip what the STATS say.

Amani Toomer is not in my top 10. And Joe Horn isn\'t in my top 5. And Joe Horn certainly doesn\'t rank one spot behind Randy Moss.

Please stop it.



[Edited on 18/3/2005 by GumboBC]
GumboBC is offline  
Old 03-18-2005, 11:15 AM   #22
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,631
Should receivers get paid by thier stats?

So .. according to you, WhoDat ... Tory Holt is the BEST receiver in the NFL.
Torry Holt is certainly the MOST PRODUCTIVE. What matters more than results Billy? Loyalty? LOL... oh wait, no, talent. Yeah, that\'s proven to be a great recipe for success.

Amani Toomer is the 9th best receiver in the NFL. Are you drunk?
Can you read? I said...

\"Here are the stats for all the WRs mentioned in this thread. \"


Sure Billy - I\'m the crazy one. A 4 time Pro Bowler in 5 years is top 5 = crazy to Billy. One of the most inconsistent QBs in the league with ZERO Pro Bowls in the past 5 years - now that\'s top 5 to Billy. And you question B&B when he says no one takes you seriously....

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\"
he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"
WhoDat is offline  
Old 03-18-2005, 11:19 AM   #23
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
Should receivers get paid by thier stats?

WhoDat --

The thing about stats for WRs is that it doesn\'t take into account what offensive system they are in. Tory Holt is in a pass happy offense and his stats COULD be inflated.

Marvin Harrison\'s stats are down, but they had 2 receivers in INDY that really stepped it up this past year. Does that mean Marvin isn\'t the same receiver? He looked mighty good to me.

So, you can keep throwing \"career\" stats out, or any stats for that matter, and I\'ll keep on thinking Joe Horn is a very good receiver that is in the same company as about 10 or 15 other receivers in the NFL.

[Edited on 18/3/2005 by GumboBC]
GumboBC is offline  
Old 03-18-2005, 11:58 AM   #24
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,631
Should receivers get paid by thier stats?

The thing about stats for WRs is that it doesn\'t take into account what offensive system they are in. Tory Holt is in a pass happy offense and his stats COULD be inflated.

Marvin Harrison\'s stats are down, but they had 2 receivers in INDY that really stepped it up this past year. Does that mean Marvin isn\'t the same receiver? He looked mighty good to me.
You\'re damn right.

Holt - has been in a better offense than Horn the last 5 years.
Harrison - has been in a better offense than Horn the last 5 years.
Moss - has been in a better offense than Horn the last 5 years.

Make you think Horn\'s numbers are even more impressive...
WhoDat is offline  
Old 03-18-2005, 12:39 PM   #25
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
Should receivers get paid by thier stats?

Holt - has been in a better offense than Horn the last 5 years.
Maybe when they were going to Superbowls. Since Bulger has started, and they have let their line deteriorate, and Faulk has gotten older, our offense has been better. Roughly since 2002-2003.

Harrison - has been in a better offense than Horn the last 5 years.
Definitely, except when Edge blew out his knee, and before Stokley and Wayne decided to jump off the page. As a matter of fact, while Edge was getting better, we had a better offense. Much more balance before lastyear with out running and passing.

Moss - has been in a better offense than Horn the last 5 years.
That\'s debatable too. Our running game was pretty damn good before last year. As a matter of fact, the only difference the past 5 years(not just last year) between us and these teams is pretty much the play of the QB. Now if we say Joe\'s numbers are impressive cause he has AB throwing him the ball, I won\'t dispute that.
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 03-18-2005, 02:23 PM   #26
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,631
Should receivers get paid by thier stats?

OFFENSIVE RANK (Total Offense as compiled by NFL.com)
--------------
2004
2. Indy
4. Minnesota
6. St. Louis
15. New Orleans


http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NF...r?sort_col_1=4

2003
1. Minnesota
3. Indy
9. St Louis
11. New Orleans

http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NF...r?sort_col_1=4


2002
2. Minnesota
9. Indy
13. St. Louis
19. New Orleans

http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NF...r?sort_col_1=4

2001
1. St Louis
2. Indy
10. New Orleans
12. Minnesota

http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NF...r?sort_col_1=4

That\'s as far back as NFL.com reports.


Hey Whodi, there\'s fact, and there\'s fiction. You said that the Saints offense has been better than Indy\'s, Minnesota\'s, and St. Louis\' over the last 5 years. Would you call that fact or fiction?

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\"
he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"
WhoDat is offline  
Old 03-18-2005, 02:34 PM   #27
500th Post
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 690
Should receivers get paid by thier stats?

I am going to start off with a question -- how many receivers who had great seasons as the number 2 receiver go to a new team to become the go to guy and then falter. (If you need some examples just look at the guys the Eagles used to pick up from the Redskins). In any case they fail because while putting up huge stats as second receiver when they become the prime guy they get double teamed -- the best defender gets placed on them etc. Face it -- lots of receivers out there with great stats -- how many carry the receiving load. Horn does that in New Orleans -- he usually is the one getting the double teams etc. He puts up fantastic numbers. I will not dispute his value to the team -- his skills as a receiver etc. Does he deserve a rich payday -- yes -- But one must be paid on his value to the team over the length of the new contract. Therefore asking for a 12 million signing bonus (and I am making this up) is something the team should proabably not do because we cannot be saddled with the cap figures past the life of his skills. And I say that in 3 years Joe will be good but will probably become the number 2 receiver on a team. The solution -- give him a large annual salary for a shorter term and get away with the huge guaranteed bonus. Anyway -- thats my all I have to say about that.

\"I have a photographic memory -- I just don\'t have any film.\"
4saintspirit is offline  
Old 03-18-2005, 02:53 PM   #28
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
Should receivers get paid by thier stats?

Hey Whodi, there\'s fact, and there\'s fiction. You said that the Saints offense has been better than Indy\'s, Minnesota\'s, and St. Louis\' over the last 5 years. Would you call that fact or fiction?
Hmm, okay. 2004 Rushing offense. Indy 15 Minny 18 STL 26 NO 27. Passing Indy 1 Minny 2 STL 5 NO 12. But I did say this
Our running game was pretty damn good before last year.
Not looking good for me though.

2003 Rushing offense Minny 4 NO 11 Indy 19 and STL 30. Passing Indy 1 STL 3 Minny 4 NO 8. See? We can make stats look however we want. We CRUSHED St. Louis in rushign offense, but their passing game put up more yards than ours. Now I don\'t know about you, but I would call a team 11 in rushing offense and 8 in passing offense better than a team 30 in rushing but 3 in passing. Same with a team 19 in rushing but 1 in passing. Seems like we had more balance than Indy too doesn\'t it? There\'s no knocking Minny.

2002 Minny 1 in rushing NO 17 Indy 26 STL 30 again. Passing STL 2 Indy 4 Minny 9 NO 16. Once again outside of Minny, we have balance where the other two are lop-sided to the point of absurdity. Sorry, but I consider a balanced offense better than one that is one dimensional. We may just disagree on that one.

So you call one dimensional offenses(outside Minny) better if you want. As a matter of fact, that impresses me more about Holt and Harrison that their teams could be so one dimensional, and they still dominate. I wonder how much better they are if they are balanced. Oh, Indy showed us that this year. My bad.
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 03-18-2005, 03:01 PM   #29
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 517
Should receivers get paid by thier stats?

Ask yourself this...

Do you pay Horn a big 1 year contract, possibly even having to do it again next year, or should you sign him on a more cap friendly, incentive based, 3 year or more contract?

It\'s a no brainer...

He has earned it..He is our best player on either side of the ball, and without him, we will lose...

shadowdrinker is offline  
Old 03-18-2005, 03:04 PM   #30
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
Should receivers get paid by thier stats?

and without him, we will lose...
As opposed to what? Winning? We don\'t do that WITH him.
saintswhodi is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:38 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts