saintswhodi

Favored trick by the bashers? Hell is that supposed to mean? I answer what I am asked, and provide examples. Don\'t know how that\'s a \"trick.\" I use facts my man, I don\'t know who you are indicating with that statement.

Kool, here are some LB salaries from 2003 that I could find. Hartwell and Bell will be in the Derrick Brooks are higher range because they will be highly sout after. Also, a lot of the numbers are not first year since they have no bonus attached, which we will have to pay.

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/footb...ion.aspx?pos=9

Here\'s some for O-linemen. Egads,. They are even higher.

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/footb...ion.aspx?pos=8

saintswhodi

I also like how when someone generally agrees with you Scotty, their arguments are strong. Nice. I guess that would indicate the arguments to the contrary aren\'t strong. Okay. No disrespect to you Kool, cause you bring it more often than not.

ScottyRo

Just poking you with a stick, Whodi

saintswhodi

Oh yeah, well here\'s my stick poking you.

Scotty Ro :bigun2:

JKool

Nice stuff.

(1) Whodi, my apologies on the 3 Amigos\' stats. I must have somehow misread you. The thing is, I respect that group. They were fun to watch. I think it may be a bit of a \"different era\" concept, but I\'ll grant you your point. That said, quit bashing those guys - they didn\'t suck.

(2) Good work on finding the stats of guys who put up what you were claiming; were those guys you note drafted between 12 and 20, because that is where we will be drafting? I will now concede the point that it is possible. However, given our good analyses, I think it is a wash. It is possible a guy drafted is a bust - period. However, it is possible a guy drafted will put up the numbers you think he will. It is also possible that he will put up the numbers I think he will. Finally, I\'m not sure why you would think it would go one way or another; it is underdetermined by several great examples on both our parts and by the data in general. I concede you\'ve convinced me that my position isn\'t obviously right, but now I believe that neither of us could know one way or the other. Furthermore, you haven\'t convinced me that any of those guys would have done as well in their first two years as AB will do in the next two. I do concede though that this may be a difficult argument to make.

(3) I will not grant your point that AB is just incompetent. There is sufficient evidence on both sides now. It is NOT as though if it is not ints it is fumbles. One year there were fumbles. His INTs are in line with other QBs that start in this league. Furthermore, I provided evidence that AB does win some games - see my point on the Niners game this year - that point stands.

(4) As far as the defense goes, we agree then that it does affect the offense, just as the offense affects the defense. Stop trying to make it seem as though it only goes one way - it doesn\'t. I wasn\'t putting it all on them. You asked me how it could possibly affect the QB, and I told you how it could - as per your request.

(5) I was talking about McNabb\'s stats. You seem to think that the team\'s record is important - I don\'t. See my earlier argument on this. McNabb is a good QB, maybe a great QB, but his stats are roughly in line with ABs. If stats are the means of evaluation then McNabb roughly equals AB. If it is more than stats that matter, we need to give up on the statistical arguments. I haven\'t decided what I think about this, but I\'m starting to think that passer ratings aren\'t a great way to evaluate QBs.

(6) Great work on finding the salaries. I perused them, admitedly pretty quickly, but they seem to be in line with what I said - between 2 and 4.5 mil. or less. Why didn\'t you agree with me then?

(7) I\'m pretty sure you didn\'t mean to be demeaning in the way you stated your point; however, I suggest you go back and read it again. It sure as heck sounded to me demeaning in the way you phrased it. I was asking why it should matter that someone (other than someone who responds to the game the way you do) should remember some guy\'s name from over a decade ago. You said, roughly, because you are a fan. That implies there is something wrong with people who don\'t think of it the way you do (in that they lack some good quality you have) AND it doesn\'t answer my question. I really hope you won\'t take this the wrong way. I really think you have a lot to offer, and I really like you, but sometimes you put things in a way that makes people feel defensive - rather than helpful.

(8) Good work. I feel back down to earth on my view.

[Edited on 1/2/2005 by JKool]

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

JKool

I\'ve gone and checked now:

(1) Bulger did not start in his first year as a QB, so he isn\'t in the group we\'re talking about (guys who came in an started).

(2) Culpepper didn\'t start his first year either.

(3) Brady didn\'t start his first year either.

Thus, I don\'t think you\'ve made your point. You said we could get a rookie who could get 60% and 1-1. None of these guys is evidence for that, and none of them is an example of that claim either. In fact, these guys didn\'t start as rookies, and some of them didn\'t even play as rookies.

If you think a rookie can get it done, only Roethlisberger is an example of the kind you have in mind (of the guys you listed) and the Steelers have a better Oline and a better defense than us.

Even if I grant the Roethlisberger claim, I don\'t see how you could think that one guy among the many is good evidence that a rookie could get it done? I\'m merely asking for an argument as to why you think that; I\'m not saying I think it is impossible. Why won\'t you grant that the people who disagree with you on this have a point, even if you don\'t agree? You certainly don\'t think my view is nuts, do you?

(4) Given your knowledge of the game, you\'ll know that Brees is the model of inconsistency - up down up down goes his passer rating. Aside from this year, his TD-INT ratio is 29-31. Hardly a paradigm of success

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

johnnythesaint

Whodi,

From earlier in the thread i need a clarification. It seems as though the 3 amigos were dismissed with impunity. Their 1750 yards were \"garbage\" yet paradoxically Elway got them to the superbowl. Can you see the conundrum? I know that Elway was not a major threat to run, although admittedly much more mobile than Marino!!
How can a team with a garbage receiving corps, and pocket passer reach the superbowl on the shoulders of the QB ?

It is not to be adversarial (actually it is ) but there does seem to be some flawed logic. Can you explain, without using the \'it\' example, exactly why I should credit only Elway with the Broncos first superbowl appearance. Please try to make a coherent example, and avoid the imminent deluge of stats, I am looking for a solid line of thinking. This may end up furthering the discussion on Brooks (you remember the guy this thread was about) Thanks.

Flying in from Canada to see the Dolphins game

Will it be a Carnival or a Circus?

saintswhodi

JTS, I don\'t know how it can be any clearer. Gumbo used Elway as a prop for HIS stats as compared to AB for the 1st 3 years. My argument was and is AB had has better weapons, and Elways made the Superbowl in his third year with much worse receivers. HE brought in the 3 amigos. I pointed out their STATS COMBINED were hardly any better than Joe Horn\'s ALONE, thus clarifying the equality or neutralization of Elway\'s and Brooks\' stats. It\'s easy to see, at least to me. THERE ARE INDIVIDUAL RECEIVERS these days that put up better numbers than the 3 amigos together. And Denver\'s running game was straight for crap. SO to say AB had similar stats to a hall of famer who CARRIED his team to 3 SUPERBOWLS before Terrell Davis actually provided the help to get them over the hump as laughable to me. Others, such as Kool, decided to pick up that argument and further fuled my disbelief. I am not questioning anyone\'s football knowledge, but if you watched Elway from early you know he was Denver. Some receivers alone during thatera were putting up better numbers than those three. Rice, Fryar, Monk, Givens, Slaughter, Mervin Fernandez, hell you can go back to Largent, Swann, Stallworth. Individual receivers puttign up numbers as good as THOSE THREE together. Maybe they had better years after that, but for the year that was presented to me as part of an argument for AB, they were hardly worth a Joe Horn alone.

And JTS, not to question you, but ELWAY was not a major threat to run? ELWAY? He was one of the original running QBs. He wasn\'t Mike Vick, but he was at least Steve Young. Dude, you have to watch some old Elway film if you haven\'t seen any, and I am not saying you haven\'t. But for his day, Elway was as much a threat to run as anyone.

So sorry to say JTS, I can\'t see why you find this to be such a conundrum. Elway was the Broncos. Until they got him help through a running game, he couldn\'t carrythem that extra step, but he took them to 3 Superbowls. Again, Elways WAS DEFINITELY not a pocker passer. I don\'t know who you are thinking of, but it isn\'t Elway.

[Edited on 1/2/2005 by saintswhodi]

saintswhodi

Kool, I am sorry if you feel my tone was demeaning. could it be you just took it that way? Just because there is a way I view the NFL and knowing about its past and past players, does not mean if someone doesn\'t they know less than me. I never feel that way. sorry if you took it that way. Because I am a fan of the NFL is what I said, and not just a fan of the black and gold. That does not knock anyone else, at least I don\'t think so. That just quantifies where I say I draw my knowledge from. That does by no means knock anyone else. Again, for the second time, I apologize if you took it that way, but that was not the intention.

On the the QBs. I simply pointed out Brees is at least over 60% for his career completion on worse teams than AB. I don\'t know how pointing out he was up and down ON WORSE TEAMS makes your point, my point being he at least completes 60% of his passes and AB does not nor has he ever. If that is incorrect, I will withdraw it.

On the other QB issue, you are right. I took first year starters and not rookies. So the issue is first year starters can do better than AB, but I have only found one rookie who has done so, that is true. But let\'s go back to the fact not all rookies QBs start their first year, so it is hard to find an accurate gauge of a rookie who has accomplished that task. Also, like I previously stated, drafted rookie QBs usually don\'t come into the league with a Joe Horn and a Deuce and a Stallworth to work with. So while I will concede I have not found a rookie who has done it, I will also push into evidence my previous statements about bad teams getting to draft rookie QBs high and what some guys did their first year as starters. Also, AB has not completed 60% of his passes, why would we demand it from a rookie? Seems kinda unfair to me.

I appreciate you pointing out AB and the Niners game, but where are the Niners drafting again? So your point would be if we could get AB to play teams who pick first in the draft more often, he will get to shine. As an opposite view to the Niners game, I give you the Dallas game, so we may be at an impass here. I\'ll also throw in the Atlanta game with their starters resting for free. Just terrible performances in wins.

I\'ll say as I said before, either you are just looking to argue or you are not reading what I am saying. The Salary figures I posted to you were from 2003,and I made it a point to mention the fact that for the LBs, most were not in their first year of the contract so no bonus money was included, WHICH IS WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO PAY IF WE SIGN A GUY AS A FREE AGENT. Most of those were just base salaries cause they weren\'t free agent deals. So even some of the most mediocre made at least 2 mil, without bonuses. Now as I said, the guys who we are after will be pursued by numerous teams, so that figure WILL BE HIGHER. Also, the Ts were well above the range you set. So I ask, why didn\'t you just agree with me?

So on McNabb and AB if you feel McNabb is not a better QB, and we want to throw out stas, wins losses and passer rating, how the hell do we evaluate a QB after that? Flip a coin? What criteria do we use? Does it factor in that the first season that McNabb got a pro bowl caliber receiver as AB has had in Joe Horn, he destroyed any stats AB could ever hope of posting? Does that factor in at all? Simple question, would you trade AB for McNabb straight up? I would, and don\'t know many who wouldn\'t. So what now will be the criteria for judging QBs if not stats, win/losses, or passer rating?

So you don\'t see AB as incompetent. I do. We will have to disagree. I don\'t see how you can say he cut his INTs last year, but not see the fumbles. And other than that, he throws enough INTs that his ratio is not 2-1 in any other season than last year, but again we will have to ignore the fumbles. This was stated before but I guess it was lost, AB fumbled just as much this year as he did last year, the difference, we recovered more. That\'s it. So if people say Deuce has a fumbling problem, I am sure AB leads the team. To me, that is incompetent. It may not be to you, and that\'s fine. He also led the league in red zone turnovers. That is another sign of incompetence to me. If it isn\'t to you, that is fine also. But I am damn certain we can get a rookie to do THAT.

I never said the offense-defense thing goes one way, the point you made DID. Go back and read it if you don\'t believe me. You placed all the blame for AB on a poor defense and that simply isn\'t true and I countered it. You never said there was a give and take and it was both sides. So maybe you should stop trying to make it seem as if it was one way. Of course the point I counter with will be the opposite. That\'s simple debate. But had you initially stated it was both ways, I would have had no argument with that.

I don\'t know if I missed anything else.

johnnythesaint

What I was trying to get you to realize, or at least acknowledge was the following. It was a team effort that got the Broncos to their first superbowl. Elway was only a part of a larger framework that allowed them to get that far. Granted he had icewater in his veins at crunch time, but overall even he was not an island.

How does this relate to your favorite goat ?

Brooks has shown flashes of grit in the closing stages of close games, in fact I would go so far as to say that when the defence has stepped up and given him a chance, he has shown some excellent decision making.

Now, it is my contention that if the Saints can field a defence with teeth, that allow games to remain close, we will be able to guage his true value. This season was a bust, however in a handful of games that went down to the wire..........

HE STEPPED UP
HE LED SCORING DRIVES
HE WAS A LEADER

i\'m referring to the 49ers,Rams,and Bucs (away)

In fact it was only in our loss at home to the Bucs that I would say he missed an oppurtunity in the closing stages.
You would probably want to include the Falcons game but he did enough to win it. The play calling when they were trying to run out the clock was abonimable!!!!

I guess I just wanted to point out that \'situational\' football is reliant on the team putting you in situations to win games. This year a combination of factors, sometimes including Brooks, put games out of reach.

The saints can make it to the dance with him at the helm, they just need a total team effort, I have faith they will prevail if EVERYBODY executes their responsibilities correctly. He is no Elway that\'s for sure, but he can lead a fourth quarter drive,and that to me is the litmus test.

now if we can just get him to stop talking!!!!!!!

Flying in from Canada to see the Dolphins game

Will it be a Carnival or a Circus?