Sharky's NFL play of the week

[Exoter175]

Well not much of a debate. They are both great QBs. Ex is a stat guy so he bases his position on the stats and not the skill set of the QBs.

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

[Aslan]

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.