The Definitive 'It' Article

FrenzyFan · 10-13-2004, 02:27 PM

Definitive \"It\", I like it.

1. leadership-6
2. poise-5 (when sandlot play works when your trailing in the 4th, it is not poise)
3. judgement-6
4. competitiveness-7
5. knowledge of game-3
6. work ethic-9 (he makes all the meetings and he takes care of himself)
7. decision making-4
8. ability to read coverages-2
9. touch-3
10. accuracy-4 (he is always in the area, but rarely right on target)

saintfan · 10-13-2004, 03:37 PM

And so far, the average versus Whodat for each ranking is: [Drum Roll]

AVERAGE____ Whodat
1.) 5.3 ______ 1.) 4
2.) 4.8 ______ 2.) 3
3.) 5.8 ______ 3.) 3
4.) 7.0 ______ 4.) 3
5.) 4.6 ______ 5.) 1
6.) 7.6 ______ 6.) 3
7.) 5.3 ______ 7.) 2
8.) 3.5 ______ 8.) 2
9.) 3.0 ______ 9.) 0
10.) 5.8 ______ 10.) 4

And so -- so far -- my theory holds true. Whodat judges Aaron Brooks more harshly than not only me, but generaly everybody.

Thanks Whodat, for the little poll. In this case it appears the numbers (and me) don\'t lie. LMAO

:soleil:

[Edited on 13/10/2004 by saintfan]

[Edited on 13/10/2004 by saintfan]

[Edited on 13/10/2004 by saintfan]

[Edited on 13/10/2004 by saintfan]

BrooksMustGo · 10-13-2004, 03:51 PM

And so -- so far -- my theory holds true. Whodat judges Aaron Brooks more harshly than not only me, but generaly everybody.

Thanks Whodat, for the little poll. In this case it appears the numbers (and me) don\'t lie. LMAO

:icon_bs:
Uh, Saintfan. I hate to point out that the emporer has no clothes but you didn\'t give a score lower than a 7. I\'m not sure that your scores absolve you of showing any unreasonable pro Erin Brooks bias. It also seems that your numbers hardly put you in the mainstream of opinion on Brooks. If anything, your numbers and WhoDat\'s numbers both work to skew the results.

saintfan · 10-13-2004, 04:08 PM

Uh, Saintfan. I hate to point out that the emporer has no clothes but you didn\'t give a score lower than a 7. I\'m not sure that your scores absolve you of showing any unreasonable pro Erin Brooks bias. It also seems that your numbers hardly put you in the mainstream of opinion on Brooks. If anything, your numbers and WhoDat\'s numbers both work to skew the results.

This is hardly the point. I\'m accused of favoring Brooks to the Nth degree. Whodat attempt here (whethre he denies it or not) was to discredit my opinion. My argument has always been that he is a harsh -- dare I say too harsh -- critic of Brooks. The numbers for his little poll show that don\'t they?

xan · 10-13-2004, 04:14 PM

I think the issue is whether this player can adjust and adapt when not getting adequate direction from the coordinators. The best in the league co-craft strategies with the coaching staff, and have ample room and charter to improvise. The preparation for an opponent is reflected in the observed patience and purposeful adaptation to that opponent. This discussion thread hinges on the marriage of the player and the system. If neither are engaged to their fullest, we see the abject horror of losing to the equivalent of mediocre college teams (az & tb).

1. leadership - 2 - How many first quarter drives end up in scores?
2. poise - 3 - Deteriorating pocket usually results in ball on carpet
3. judgment - 4 - Should run more to open up underneath routes and crosses
4. competitiveness - 6 - He has a lot of comebacks, but is this trip necessary?
5. knowledge of game - 2 - what kind of help is he getting from the coordinators?
6. work ethic - 7 - He tries hard
7. decision-making - 4 - How is this different from judgment?
8. ability to read coverages - 5 - No better or worse given his protection
9. touch - 3 - I think it\'s impossible for him to run a screen play
10. accuracy - 4 - hits a still receiver with the best, almost always forces our receivers to reach behind their routes

BrooksMustGo · 10-13-2004, 04:41 PM

This is hardly the point. I\'m accused of favoring Brooks to the Nth degree. Whodat attempt here (whethre he denies it or not) was to discredit my opinion. My argument has always been that he is a harsh -- dare I say too harsh -- critic of Brooks. The numbers for his little poll show that don\'t they?

Ummm, so the point is to attack WhoDat?

saintfan · 10-13-2004, 04:44 PM

Look BMG, you can defend Whodat \'til it hurts, but it\'s CLEAR you haven\'t done your homework. Whodat brought Brooks into this thread, not me, or hadn\'t you noticed? He claimes he\'s fair in his assesment of Brooks. I disagree. The little \"poll\" was his idea, and it backfired. If you see pointing that out as an \"attack\" then I guess I\'m just not quite sure what it is you\'re lookin at.

BrooksMustGo · 10-13-2004, 04:50 PM

Look BMG, you can defend Whodat \'til it hurts, but it\'s CLEAR you haven\'t done your homework. Whodat brought Brooks into this thread, not me, or hadn\'t you noticed? He claimes he\'s fair in his assesment of Brooks. I disagree. The little \"poll\" was his idea, and it backfired. If you see pointing that out as an \"attack\" then I guess I\'m just not quite sure what it is you\'re lookin at.

I don\'t think I\'m defending WhoDat. (nice use of CLEAR by the way :rockon:. Contrary to what people say you can be really funny). I think what the little poll shows is that you and WhoDat are on opposite sides of the spectrum. (Interestingly enough I\'m somewhere in the middle, closer to the WhoDat side, but definately in the middle). I\'m not sure it shows an agenda, just polar opposite takes.

saintfan · 10-13-2004, 04:57 PM

Oh, we\'re on opposite sides for sure, and I\'m fine with that, but I\'m not trying to draw a line in the sand and polarize the board. I\'m simply saying he\'s harder on Brooks than most. He denies this. He says he\'s fair. He\'s entitled to his opinion, but then so am I and so are you. I think his little \"poll\" shows he\'s harder than most. He picked the categories and the 1-10 ranking system. I just averaged up the scores and made a comparison. This isn\'t an \"attack\" on Whodat. If JOESAM had done the averaging would it have been an attack then?

JOESAM2002 · 10-13-2004, 06:58 PM

I like you both but ya\'ll ain\'t getting me into this. :sulkoff:

10-13-2004, 02:27 PM	#11
FrenzyFan 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 406	The Definitive 'It' Article Definitive \"It\", I like it. 1. leadership-6 2. poise-5 (when sandlot play works when your trailing in the 4th, it is not poise) 3. judgement-6 4. competitiveness-7 5. knowledge of game-3 6. work ethic-9 (he makes all the meetings and he takes care of himself) 7. decision making-4 8. ability to read coverages-2 9. touch-3 10. accuracy-4 (he is always in the area, but rarely right on target)
FrenzyFan 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 406

10-13-2004, 03:37 PM	#12
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	The Definitive 'It' Article And so far, the average versus Whodat for each ranking is: [Drum Roll] AVERAGE____ Whodat 1.) 5.3 ______ 1.) 4 2.) 4.8 ______ 2.) 3 3.) 5.8 ______ 3.) 3 4.) 7.0 ______ 4.) 3 5.) 4.6 ______ 5.) 1 6.) 7.6 ______ 6.) 3 7.) 5.3 ______ 7.) 2 8.) 3.5 ______ 8.) 2 9.) 3.0 ______ 9.) 0 10.) 5.8 ______ 10.) 4 And so -- so far -- my theory holds true. Whodat judges Aaron Brooks more harshly than not only me, but generaly everybody. Thanks Whodat, for the little poll. In this case it appears the numbers (and me) don\'t lie. LMAO :soleil: [Edited on 13/10/2004 by saintfan] [Edited on 13/10/2004 by saintfan] [Edited on 13/10/2004 by saintfan] [Edited on 13/10/2004 by saintfan]
	C'mon Man...

10-13-2004, 03:51 PM	#13
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	The Definitive 'It' Article And so -- so far -- my theory holds true. Whodat judges Aaron Brooks more harshly than not only me, but generaly everybody. Thanks Whodat, for the little poll. In this case it appears the numbers (and me) don\'t lie. LMAO :icon_bs: Uh, Saintfan. I hate to point out that the emporer has no clothes but you didn\'t give a score lower than a 7. I\'m not sure that your scores absolve you of showing any unreasonable pro Erin Brooks bias. It also seems that your numbers hardly put you in the mainstream of opinion on Brooks. If anything, your numbers and WhoDat\'s numbers both work to skew the results.

10-13-2004, 04:08 PM	#14
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	The Definitive 'It' Article Uh, Saintfan. I hate to point out that the emporer has no clothes but you didn\'t give a score lower than a 7. I\'m not sure that your scores absolve you of showing any unreasonable pro Erin Brooks bias. It also seems that your numbers hardly put you in the mainstream of opinion on Brooks. If anything, your numbers and WhoDat\'s numbers both work to skew the results. This is hardly the point. I\'m accused of favoring Brooks to the Nth degree. Whodat attempt here (whethre he denies it or not) was to discredit my opinion. My argument has always been that he is a harsh -- dare I say too harsh -- critic of Brooks. The numbers for his little poll show that don\'t they?

10-13-2004, 04:14 PM	#15
xan Professor Crab and Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Princeton Posts: 3,369 Blog Entries: 34	The Definitive 'It' Article I think the issue is whether this player can adjust and adapt when not getting adequate direction from the coordinators. The best in the league co-craft strategies with the coaching staff, and have ample room and charter to improvise. The preparation for an opponent is reflected in the observed patience and purposeful adaptation to that opponent. This discussion thread hinges on the marriage of the player and the system. If neither are engaged to their fullest, we see the abject horror of losing to the equivalent of mediocre college teams (az & tb). 1. leadership - 2 - How many first quarter drives end up in scores? 2. poise - 3 - Deteriorating pocket usually results in ball on carpet 3. judgment - 4 - Should run more to open up underneath routes and crosses 4. competitiveness - 6 - He has a lot of comebacks, but is this trip necessary? 5. knowledge of game - 2 - what kind of help is he getting from the coordinators? 6. work ethic - 7 - He tries hard 7. decision-making - 4 - How is this different from judgment? 8. ability to read coverages - 5 - No better or worse given his protection 9. touch - 3 - I think it\'s impossible for him to run a screen play 10. accuracy - 4 - hits a still receiver with the best, almost always forces our receivers to reach behind their routes
	Calvin: "I wish I was a Tiger." Hobbes: "Common lament."

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

10-13-2004, 04:41 PM	#16
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	The Definitive 'It' Article This is hardly the point. I\'m accused of favoring Brooks to the Nth degree. Whodat attempt here (whethre he denies it or not) was to discredit my opinion. My argument has always been that he is a harsh -- dare I say too harsh -- critic of Brooks. The numbers for his little poll show that don\'t they? Ummm, so the point is to attack WhoDat?

10-13-2004, 04:44 PM	#17
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	The Definitive 'It' Article Look BMG, you can defend Whodat \'til it hurts, but it\'s CLEAR you haven\'t done your homework. Whodat brought Brooks into this thread, not me, or hadn\'t you noticed? He claimes he\'s fair in his assesment of Brooks. I disagree. The little \"poll\" was his idea, and it backfired. If you see pointing that out as an \"attack\" then I guess I\'m just not quite sure what it is you\'re lookin at.

10-13-2004, 04:50 PM	#18
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	The Definitive 'It' Article Look BMG, you can defend Whodat \'til it hurts, but it\'s CLEAR you haven\'t done your homework. Whodat brought Brooks into this thread, not me, or hadn\'t you noticed? He claimes he\'s fair in his assesment of Brooks. I disagree. The little \"poll\" was his idea, and it backfired. If you see pointing that out as an \"attack\" then I guess I\'m just not quite sure what it is you\'re lookin at. I don\'t think I\'m defending WhoDat. (nice use of CLEAR by the way :rockon:. Contrary to what people say you can be really funny). I think what the little poll shows is that you and WhoDat are on opposite sides of the spectrum. (Interestingly enough I\'m somewhere in the middle, closer to the WhoDat side, but definately in the middle). I\'m not sure it shows an agenda, just polar opposite takes.

10-13-2004, 04:57 PM	#19
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	The Definitive 'It' Article Oh, we\'re on opposite sides for sure, and I\'m fine with that, but I\'m not trying to draw a line in the sand and polarize the board. I\'m simply saying he\'s harder on Brooks than most. He denies this. He says he\'s fair. He\'s entitled to his opinion, but then so am I and so are you. I think his little \"poll\" shows he\'s harder than most. He picked the categories and the 1-10 ranking system. I just averaged up the scores and made a comparison. This isn\'t an \"attack\" on Whodat. If JOESAM had done the averaging would it have been an attack then?
	C'mon Man...

10-13-2004, 06:58 PM	#20
JOESAM2002 1000 Posts + Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: CRYSTAL BEACH TEXAS Posts: 4,100	The Definitive 'It' Article I like you both but ya\'ll ain\'t getting me into this. :sulkoff: