Alk Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Graham isn't an upgrade from Baker. Just because a player was on NE doesn't mean he's great. You're right, he's not an upgrade because he is from NE, he's an upgrade because HE IS better than Baker and it's not even close. He's easily AS GOOD a receiver as Baker and as far as blocking, there is no comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share Posted February 19, 2007 You're right, he's not an upgrade because he is from NE, he's an upgrade because HE IS better than Baker and it's not even close. He's easily AS GOOD a receiver as Baker and as far as blocking, there is no comparison. He's not as good as baker. Especially in the last 2 years. Baker is getting better and Graham has zero upside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alk Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 He's not as good as baker. Especially in the last 2 years. Baker is getting better and Graham has zero upside. You're obviously just looking at stats so we're done here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share Posted February 19, 2007 You're obviously just looking at stats so we're done here... No I'm not. I've seen both of them play and Graham is a complete JAG while Baker has shown that he has room to improve and is getting better every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 2006 stats Chris Baker: 16 games, 45 looks, 31 catches, 300 yards, 68.9 reception% Ben Watson: 13 games, 91 looks, 49 catches, 645 yards, 53.8 reception% Baker on the Pats last year would have produced something like 60 catches/750 yards. Case closed. Anyway, on to the real discussion. Jeter would be probably still be a first ballot HOF player on a bad team, but he wouldn't have the same standing as he has now. He wouldn't have been mentioned as an MVP candidate last season, and he might not still be a lock for 3000 hits. Has anyone else had as many PA as him in the last 10 years? He probably wouldn't have won those gold gloves either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share Posted February 19, 2007 2006 stats Chris Baker: 16 games, 45 looks, 31 catches, 300 yards, 68.9 reception% Ben Watson: 13 games, 91 looks, 49 catches, 645 yards, 53.8 reception% Case closed. Anyway, on to the real discussion. Jeter would be probably still be a first ballot HOF player on a bad team, but he wouldn't have the same standing as he has now. He wouldn't have been mentioned as an MVP candidate last season, and he might not still be a lock for 3000 hits. Has anyone else had as many PA as him in the last 10 years? He probably wouldn't have won those gold gloves either. You don't think those 15 points of reception% mean anything? Baker had less chances obviously but he was better on his chances then watson was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSJ Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Graham is surely an upgrade as a blocker. As a receiver Baker prolly gets the slight nod - but it is very close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 You don't think those 15 points of reception% mean anything? Baker had less chances obviously but he was better on his chances then watson was. I edited to make it more clear, but you read me wrong. I agree, Baker > Watson, Baker >> Graham. At least when it comes to recieving. Baker just hasn't been used like he should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share Posted February 19, 2007 I edited to make it more clear, but you read me wrong. I agree, Baker > Watson, Baker >> Graham. At least when it comes to recieving. Baker just hasn't been used like he should be. agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 2006 stats Chris Baker: 16 games, 45 looks, 31 catches, 300 yards, 68.9 reception% Ben Watson: 13 games, 91 looks, 49 catches, 645 yards, 53.8 reception% Baker on the Pats last year would have produced something like 60 catches/750 yards. Case closed. Can you please quote your source for the above stats and define what a "look" is in relation to those stats. I await your answer. BTW: I hope you realize that madmike is your only supporter in this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share Posted February 19, 2007 Can you please quote your source for the above stats and define what a "look" is in relation to those stats. I await your answer. BTW: I hope you realize that madmike is your only supporter in this debate. What a shock. It MUST be the stat thats wrong because there is no way a Jet player could ever be better then a Patsy one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 A "look" is when a reciever is the intended target on a thrown ball. I don't believe it includes throw aways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 A "look" is when a reciever is the intended target on a thrown ball. I don't believe it includes throw aways. Where did you get the look stats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share Posted February 19, 2007 Where did you get the look stats? You're too much dude. You just can't accept facts you have to attack the messenger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 http://fantasysports.yahoo.com/analysis/news?slug=mb-looks-2006&prov=yhoo&type=lgns&league=fantasy/nfl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 What a shock. It MUST be the stat thats wrong because there is no way a Jet player could ever be better then a Patsy one... I have praised many Jets players before and would gladly have some of them on the Pats. I'm sure a lot of posters here can back me up on that. I feel Graham is better than Baker. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share Posted February 19, 2007 http://fantasysports.yahoo.com/analysis/news?slug=mb-looks-2006&prov=yhoo&type=lgns&league=fantasy/nflWow the Jet homer circlejerk that is yahoo.com LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Wow the Jet homer circlejerk that is yahoo.com LOL Can you and Sharrow do better than a fantasy football site? I would love to know how Yahoo! Sports knows who the intended receiver is on every pass Tom Brady throws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 Can you and Sharrow do better than a fantasy football site? I would love to know how Yahoo! Sports knows who the intended receiver is on every pass Tom Brady throws. Any site we show you you'll find a way to attack the messenger not the message... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Can you and Sharrow do better than a fantasy football site? I would love to know how Yahoo! Sports knows who the intended receiver is on every pass Tom Brady throws. I will go through the NFL.com play-by-play game logs and double check the guy, I guess. I have a lot of free time, its no problem. Maybe he has some kind of agenda purposefully skewing his data. I suppose he might want to sneak in drafting Ben Watson a round or two later in next years draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 I post links from footballoutsiders all the time but no link i post can convince somone with an agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 I will go through the NFL.com play-by-play game logs and double check the guy, I guess. I have a lot of free time, its no problem. Maybe he has some kind of agenda purposefully skewing his data. I suppose he might want to sneak in drafting Ben Watson a round or two later in next years draft. Matt Buser Matt Buser is a Yahoo! Sports fantasy expert. Send him a question or comment for potential use in a future column or webcast. http://sports.yahoo.com/top/expertsarchive?author=Matt+Buser So your argument solely rests on a fantasy football "expert?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Blocking: Graham > Baker Receiving: Baker > Graham Graham would be a great sign to keep in blocking on passing situations but especially in running situations. Graham is also a very good redzone target so signing him would be a huge upgrade to the Offensive Line, Tight End position and the offense as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 So your argument solely rests on a fantasy football "expert?" Footballoutsiders has the exact same Look and Catch% numbers but you'll find a way to bash that messenger too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 So your argument solely rests on a fantasy football "expert?" Because we all know that the fact that Baker catches a higher % of balls thrown to him is that guys opinion. But I'm through 7 of the pats games, so I'm almost half way there. It doesn't look good btw. For Graham and Watson, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 So your argument solely rests on a fantasy football "expert?"IF the stat were true (forget if you believe that guy or not) wouldn't you admit that a TE who catches 65% of balls thrown to him is a better player then a TE who catches 53%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Thats kind of Ironic. The only perspective where Watson is a better reciever than Baker is from the fantasy perspective, because he does get a lot more looks. And he is putting down the argument because the source that the stats came from was a fantasty writer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 I really think that Baker is UNDERRATED and underappreciated VASTLY among jet fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Thats kind of Ironic. The only perspective where Watson is a better reciever than Baker is from the fantasy perspective, because he does get a lot more looks. And he is putting down the argument because the source that the stats came from was a fantasty writer. Can you please find an NFL stat. A stat that says how many times Baker/Graham were thrown the ball and how many times they caught it? BTW: I don't think Baker had a TE on his team that had 49 catches and 3 TD's this season like Graham did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Ok, here are the results I got for the two Pats TE, looking throught the game logs myself, including the playoffs. Watson - 91 looks, 49 receptions, 53.8% (Regular Season) Graham - 35 looks, 21 receptions, 60% (Regular Season) Watson - 21 looks, 10 receptions, 47.6% (Playoffs) Graham - 8 looks, 4 receptions, 50% (Playoffs) After looking throught the games, maybe we should take a look at Graham, he might be better than Watson too. I'm not going through them to get Bakers, they would come out the same as the guy from Yahoo got, and Prison Break is on in less than 20 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 BTW: I don't think Baker had a TE on his team that had 49 catches and 3 TD's this season like Graham did.Baker is better then that TE too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 And if we sign Graham, he should continue to get the lower half of the looks/receptions/TD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 And if we sign Graham, he should continue to get the lower half of the looks/receptions/TD. We can get a TE in the 5th round who can do the same job. We have no need whatsoever for Graham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Ok, here are the results I got for the two Pats TE, looking throught the game logs myself, including the playoffs. Watson - 91 looks, 49 receptions, 53.8% (Regular Season) Graham - 35 looks, 21 receptions, 60% (Regular Season) Watson - 21 looks, 10 receptions, 47.6% (Playoffs) Graham - 8 looks, 4 receptions, 50% (Playoffs) After looking throught the games, maybe we should take a look at Graham, he might be better than Watson too. I'm not going through them to get Bakers, they would come out the same as the guy from Yahoo got, and Prison Break is on in less than 20 minutes. "Looks" are a fantasy football invention. You are a knowledgeable bloke. Why are you quoting "looks?" Consider this scenario: Brady looks at Graham to fake out the safety and then throws to Brown for the 1st down. Does that go against Grahams "looks" stats on fantasy football sites all over the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 "Looks" are a fantasy football invention. You are a knowledgeable bloke. Why are you quoting "looks?" Consider this scenario: Brady looks at Graham to fake out the safety and then throws to Brown for the 1st down. Does that go against Grahams "looks" stats on fantasy football sites all over the world? No, "looks" is just a term used to means the ball was thrown to the guy, it doesn't literally mean that brady just looked at him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.