We're talking a decade apart. (1960 and 1970)
Actually in 1960, I was a little young for diving. In 1970, I was breaking records.
Regarding Browns' texting violation:
1. I recently read that texting from front office personnel to coaches during a game is a violation of NFL rules. Why? How can texting create an unfair advantage?
2. Are team employees allowed to watch a broadcast/surf during a game (e.g. in the suites, parking lot, sideline)? Can they relay the info (extent of injuries, etc) to coaches (except through electronic devices)?
.
To NFL newbies: Please perform your own analysis. Confirm any stats presented. Draw your own conclusions.
Handicapping is EXTREMELY hard! All statistical evidence (and game insights) may indicate strongly a specific outcome, winner, or continuing trend; but a turn-over, a missed field goal, an erroneous call, a key injury, etc. can easily change the outcome, the margins, and/or the totals. Division rivalry games and games with playoff implications are highly unpredictable.
.
The fuck I am. YOU, T3, are the stat guy, basing all arguments on "box score" statistics and ignoring the "finer" statistics of the game that don't show up there. Furthermore, in terms of arguments' sake, you've been known to continuously ignore "fact" for "stat" repeatedly. Like your assertion that Baltimore was losing games because they abandoned the run, where I eviscerated your post, showing that the reason they lost the game was in large part due to an ineffective running game, and constantly facing passing downs rather than rushing downs, all the while keeping nearly identical first/second half rushing numbers.
I am NOWHERE near being a "stat guy" in our arguments, more of a historian, realist, or someone who actually pays attention long enough to figure out the depth of the situation, like the Baltimore losses you pissed and moaned about. Also, salt and pepper some experience and time into it (because I actually played the game) and I'm about as far away from a "stat" guy as possible.
Its hilarious when the very "stat guy" of the forum, tries to reverse a claim and argument on this forum, so that he can switch positions. It just doesn't work like that T3. I speak from experience and historical perspective, you speak from box score statistics, lets at least try to be honest with ourselves when we have arguments, alright? lol
Brother, are you defensive! It seems like you two have mastered the art of pushing each other's buttons. Your audience may not be as unsophisticated as you obviously fear. Believe it or not, I think most readers here can sift yours and his posts and and separate the wheat from the chaff, from their own personal perspectives, of course. No one sees all facets on all issues, not even Billy Walters. Attacking each other may do more to muddy the waters than allow the facts to stand out and speak for themselves. You guys should host a sports show together. But no poisoned arrows, please.
Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 - 8/23/10... “Life’s most urgent question is: what are you doing for others?” — Martin Luther King, Jr.
I can't even stomach that name with how biased he is commentating for the Chargers on CBS.
Here's how the sports show would go. I'd talk about shit that matters, he'd talk about the box scores, then argue with me basing his argument from the box scores, while I go to the teleprompter and draw him arrows and circles showing him why those box scores are the way they are, and why his "conclusion" about the box score was wrong, having had to show him the actual plays of the game.
1. I'm not a "stat" guy. A "stat" guy is someone who looks at the box score statistics (you) and derives all arguments from arbitrary stat lines (you again) to make a foolish attempt at a point not validated in any way shape or form, from those statistics (you again). Like your argument that Baltimore abandoned the running game in their losses this year, and thus lost the game. In reality, as I've already pointed out half a dozen times, they didn't lose the game because they ran it 2 or 3 times less in the second half than in the first half for the same or better yards per carry. They ended up having to pass the ball more frequently because they were running into "passing downs" more frequently due to an ineffective running game and/or penalties.
2. You've brought up nothing relevant about the QB's we've talked about, in the way they play. You have, however, told us how Joe Montana had an "arm" and could hit receivers "in stride" a mile down the field, while ever single NFL analyst has and will disagree with you, and they already have decades prior to your comment, and a few of them might be rolling over in their grave having you said such a bogus comment, again.
3. You said Brady couldn't play in "joe's era" because he was a "dink and dunk" QB, but were completely ignorant of the fact that Joe was a "dink and dunk" QB in the ORIGINAL "Dink and dunk" offense, under the ORIGINAL "dink and dunk" coach, and then later played out his final years in...........you guessed it......A DINK AND DUNK OFFENSE.
Literally, this is my biggest issue with you here in the debate of QB's. Quite simply put, you're arguing with me while being either completely oblivious to the fact of how wrong you are about Brady and Montana, or you're trolling your heart out 24/7 to get a response. Do yourself a favor, understand the fact that Joe Montana was coached and played in the original dink and dunk offense by the original dink and dunk coach, in the original dink and dunk scheme, and then later Brady would play in essentially the same dink and dunk offense in the same dink and dunk scheme decades later. This doesn't separate them by "era" as they basically played under the same rule sets, in the same types of offenses, and put up, for the most part, the same "efficiency" lines as far as statistics go. Brady just won more in less time and produced more. That's it, that's the end of the argument there. Does that make Brady the best? Not necessarily, but having seen Brady and Montana play before my very eyes at one of the most Iconic and Stoic stadiums the NFL has ever seen, its safe to say that my opinion of the discussion can't be so easily tossed aside as "just a stat guy" commentary, from the stat KING himself.
Yes, and I wish he would retire. His biased announcing anytime the Chargers play on TV is literally the most annoying thing in the world. All he ever talks about are Phillip Rivers, the Chargers, and the Chargers when he used to play for them. Coupled with peroidic highlight reels of Fouts tossing the rock to his legendary tight end for a touchdown.
He is literally the most annoying announcer on TV aside from Joe Buck, and I wish they would both lose their voices or retire because I have to fight the urge to turn off the television or change the channel when either of them are announcing a game.
Bookmarks