Gainzo Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 I've got that, give me a sec. Please quote the NFL for those stats or you are making my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Pats week 1, play-by-play: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20060910_BUF@NE week 2: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20060917_NE@NYJ week 3: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20060924_DEN@NE week 4: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20061001_NE@CIN week 5: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20061008_MIA@NE week 6: Bye week 7: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20061022_NE@BUF week 8: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20061030_NE@MIN week 9: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20061105_IND@NE week 10: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20061112_NYJ@NE week 11: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20061119_NE@GB week 12: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20061126_CHI@NE[url=http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/recap/NFL_20061126_CHI@NE] week 13: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20061203_DET@NE week 14: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20061210_NE@MIA week 15: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20061217_HOU@NE week 16: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20061224_NE@JAC[url=http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/recap/NFL_20061224_NE@JAC] week 17: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20061231_NE@TEN I'll update it during the commercials. But in each there are "T.Brady pass short middle to <reciever> for <result>" or "T.Brady pass incomplete to <reciever>", etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Pats week 1, play-by-play: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20060910_BUF@NE week 2: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20060917_NE@NYJ week 3: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20060924_DEN@NE week 4: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20061001_NE@CIN week 5: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20061008_MIA@NE week 6: Bye week 7: week 8: week 9: week 10: week 11: week 12: week 13: week 14: week 15: week 16: week 17: I'll update it during the commercials. But in each there are "T.Brady pass short middle to <reciever> for <result>" or "T.Brady pass incomplete to <reciever>", etc. That's all well and good but it doesn't mean much. Does it say that Brady tried to force a pass under pressure or that he threw it away but Graham was in the general area? Or that the pass hit the ground 2 yards in front of him? Those stats don't mean crap. Please give me a definition of "looks" from the NFL. Did Watson take away catches from Graham? Yes. Did the other TE take away catches from Baker? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 That's all well and good but it doesn't mean much. Does it say that Brady tried to force a pass under pressure or that he threw it away but Graham was in the general area or the pass hit the ground 2 yards in front of him? Those stats don't mean crap. Pleas give me a definition of "looks" from the NFL. Did Watson take away catches from Graham? Yes Sharrow just leave it alone no matter what you show him he's obviously still going to be a delusional patsy homer and refuse to see reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Sharrow just leave it alone no matter what you show him he's obviously still going to be a delusional patsy homer and refuse to see reality. Chris Baker is OK. Daniel Graham is a proven performer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 Chris Baker is OK. Daniel Graham is a proven performer. Graham has proven that he's mediocre and not NEARLY worth the first round pick your "great" franchise waisted on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Sharrow just leave it alone no matter what you show him he's obviously still going to be a delusional patsy homer and refuse to see reality. You're probably right, but I'll make one more attempt. Name: Passes thrown to them/Passes caught/Percentage caught Gates: 120/71/59.2% Winslow: 119/89/74.8% Heap: 115/73/63.5% Colston: 115/70/60.9% Shockey: 115/59/57.4% Gonzalez: 103/73/70.9% Crumpler: 103/56/54.4% McMichael: 96/62/64.6% Cooley: 95/57/60% Witten: 92/64/69.6% Watson: 91/49/53.8% Smith: 80/50/62.5% Desmond Clark: 80/45/56.3% Wiggins: 67/46/68.7% Dallas Clark: 58/30/51.7% Scaife: 56/29/51.8% Miller: 55/34/61.8% Utecht: 53/37/69.8% Franks: 53/25/47.2% Johnson: 49/34/69.4% Stevens: 48/22/45.8% Baker: 45/31/68.9% Graham: 35/21/60% Those are all the TE who had more balls thrown to them than Baker, and then I added Graham to the bottom even though he had less. The average of those 23 tight ends is catching 61% of the balls thrown to them. Both Graham and especially Watson are below average when it comes to catching balls that are thrown to them. Baker had the 6th best %, Watson had the 5th worst. Graham is just average. That said, an average recieving, above average blocking TE is worth having if the money is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StraightCash Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 You're probably right, but I'll make one more attempt. Name: Passes thrown to them/Passes caught/Percentage caught Gates: 120/71/59.2% Winslow: 119/89/74.8% Heap: 115/73/63.5% Colston: 115/70/60.9% Shockey: 115/59/57.4% Gonzalez: 103/73/70.9% Crumpler: 103/56/54.4% McMichael: 96/62/64.6% Cooley: 95/57/60% Witten: 92/64/69.6% Watson: 91/49/53.8% Smith: 80/50/62.5% Desmond Clark: 80/45/56.3% Wiggins: 67/46/68.7% Dallas Clark: 58/30/51.7% Scaife: 56/29/51.8% Miller: 55/34/61.8% Utecht: 53/37/69.8% Franks: 53/25/47.2% Johnson: 49/34/69.4% Stevens: 48/22/45.8% Baker: 45/31/68.9% Graham: 35/21/60% Those are all the TE who had more balls thrown to them than Baker, and then I added Graham to the bottom even though he had less. The average of those 23 tight ends is catching 61% of the balls thrown to them. Both Graham and especially Watson are below average when it comes to catching balls that are thrown to them. Baker had the 6th best %, Watson had the 5th worst. Graham is just average. That said, an average recieving, above average blocking TE is worth having if the money is right. Jesus christ, its like when Sharrow comes out of the arcade he turns into Sperm Sharrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 You're probably right, but I'll make one more attempt. Name: Passes thrown to them/Passes caught/Percentage caught Gates: 120/71/59.2% Winslow: 119/89/74.8% Heap: 115/73/63.5% Colston: 115/70/60.9% Shockey: 115/59/57.4% Gonzalez: 103/73/70.9% Crumpler: 103/56/54.4% McMichael: 96/62/64.6% Cooley: 95/57/60% Witten: 92/64/69.6% Watson: 91/49/53.8% Smith: 80/50/62.5% Desmond Clark: 80/45/56.3% Wiggins: 67/46/68.7% Dallas Clark: 58/30/51.7% Scaife: 56/29/51.8% Miller: 55/34/61.8% Utecht: 53/37/69.8% Franks: 53/25/47.2% Johnson: 49/34/69.4% Stevens: 48/22/45.8% Baker: 45/31/68.9% Graham: 35/21/60% Those are all the TE who had more balls thrown to them than Baker, and then I added Graham to the bottom even though he had less. The average of those 23 tight ends is catching 61% of the balls thrown to them. Both Graham and especially Watson are below average when it comes to catching balls that are thrown to them. Baker had the 6th best %, Watson had the 5th worst. Graham is just average. That said, an average recieving, above average blocking TE is worth having if the money is right. Where are those stats from? You and madmike have not given me a legit answer on where the "looks" stat comes from. Receptions: Watson>Graham>Baker. Blocking: Graham.................................>Watson>Baker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 Where are those stats from? You and madmike have not given me a legit answer on where the "looks" stat comes from. Receptions: Watson>Graham>Baker. Blocking: Graham.................................>Watson>Baker I f you're still using number of rec's in this argument you clearly don't get what we've been trying to tell you all night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 I f you're still using number of rec's in this argument you clearly don't get what we've been trying to tell you all night. The argument that Ben Watson is a better receiver than Baker or the argument that Daniel Graham is a better blocker than Baker? Or the argument that both of them have outperformed Baker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 The argument that Ben Watson is a better receiver than Baker or the argument that Daniel Graham is a better blocker than Baker? Or the argument that both of them have outperformed Baker? The argument that me and Sharrow have shown that Baker is a better player then both them and that if he was on the patsies with the same number of chances as watson he would probably make the pro bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 The argument that me and Sharrow have shown that Baker is a better player then both them and that if he was on the patsies with the same number of chances as watson he would probably make the pro bowl. That's your argument not Sharrow's. Sharrow is level headed. You are not. You are a Homer. I'm not saying Baker is bad I'm saying that the Watson/Graham combo does more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 That's your argument not Sharrow's. Sharrow is level headed. You are not. You are a Homer. I'm not saying Baker is bad I'm saying that the Watson/Graham combo does more. So me and Sharrow are basically saying the exact same thing but you kiss his ass and call me a homer LMAO NICE. I might be a homer but i'm right about this and you're delusional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 So me and Sharrow are basically saying the exact same thing but you kiss his ass and call me a homer LMAO NICE. I might be a homer but you're delusional. Your ass stinks though, mine is like freshly picked flowers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 Your ass stinks though, mine is like freshly picked flowers. heh thats probably a good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 So me and Sharrow are basically saying the exact same thing but you kiss his ass and call me a homer LMAO NICE. I might be a homer but you're delusional. Sharrow doesn't make personal attacks like you do. Look at the real stats. Passing: Watson>Graham>Baker. Running: Graham>Watson.............Was Baker every asked to run block? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 Sharrow doesn't make personal attacks like you do. Look at the real stats. Passing: Watson>Graham>Baker. Running: Graham>Watson.............Was Baker every asked to run block? I just called you a homer which you've called me over and over again since i started posting here. If i insult you it's only because i'm giving back what i take from you and others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Sharrow doesn't make personal attacks like you do. Look at the real stats. Passing: Watson>Graham>Baker. Running: Graham>Watson.............Was Baker every asked to run block? More like, Production: Watson>Graham>Baker. (Over their careers, last year would be Watson>Baker>Graham) The problem is that the reason for the increased production isn't skill, its opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetlag Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Gainzo I need another recap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Gainzo I need another recap. Madmike was saying that Chris Baker was a better TE than Daniel Graham. Once I posted stats that said otherwise madmike said that Baker was better than Ben Watson. I then posted stats that said Ben Watson was better than Chris Baker. Jetlag: If you could pick a Tight End who would you take......... Ben Watson Daniel Graham Chris Baker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Madmike was saying that Chris Baker was a better TE than Daniel Graham. Once I posted stats that said otherwise madmike said that Baker was better than Ben Watson. I then posted stats that said Ben Watson was better than Chris Baker. Jetlag: If you could pick a Tight End who would you take......... Ben Watson Daniel Graham Chris Baker #1 Watson #2 Baker = Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 #1 Watson #2 Baker = Graham madmike is not going to like that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 madmike is not going to like that! lol its true, Baker showed he could be better after the 06' season but has yet to prove it, and Graham has done enough for his team in thr past and present to deserve being = with him for now. If Baker gets the ball thrown his way more and helps the running game a bit more he will be better. Right now they are =... **** am I blowing my chances at #1 homer in 07'??? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 **** am I blowing my chances at #1 homer in 07'??? LOL Yep! madmike is out of his mind right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Yep! madmike is out of his mind right now. LOL Ill get it before its all said and done... maybe I should get the "smartest homer" award or the "least pyscho homer" award... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 lol its true, Baker showed he could be better after the 06' season but has yet to prove it, and Graham has done enough for his team in thr past and present to deserve being = with him for now. If Baker gets the ball thrown his way more and helps the running game a bit more he will be better. Right now they are =... **** am I blowing my chances at #1 homer in 07'??? LOL You've already blown your chance. There's a difference between being a homer (BZ) and acting like one (You). You're just a chad homer. Anyway, all the stats that have been shown by everyone have all pointed towards the same conclusion. That conclusion being that even though both Watson and Graham have been more productive over their careers than Baker, its only because they've had much more of an opportunity to produce. I can't say that Baker is as good of a blocker as either of them, but he's a better reciever and he should be given a much bigger role in the offense than he has been. He could easily be getting 60+ catches and 600+ yards each season if the offense allowed him to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 You've already blown your chance. There's a difference between being a homer (BZ) and acting like one (You). You're just a chad homer. Are you kidding? Just Chad??? I have starter 110 threads this year and only 6 yes, 6 are about Chad. I have stated that I think Barlow will be a good RB for us next year, I think Miller can be a starting corner if given the right chance. Your saying Im a "chad" homer, even though I have stated find me a better QB and I will galdly sell my #10 jersey and buy the new QB's... right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Admitting that you're a homer is like admitting that you're overvaluing the players on the team. A real homer wouldn't admit that, he would say that he's just being rational or realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Admitting that you're a homer is like admitting that you're overvaluing the players on the team. A real homer wouldn't admit that, he would say that he's just being rational. I am rational, Barlow is a top 10 RB when healthy its a fact. Miller is so fast it doesnt matter if he doesnt look for the ball he can learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 The FACT is that Baker is more PRODUCTICE in the chances hs gets then EITHER Watson or Graham. Thats a FACT and is really not up for argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Anyway, all the stats that have been shown by everyone have all pointed towards the same conclusion. That conclusion being that even though both Watson and Graham have been more productive over their careers than Baker Thanks mate. You just made my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Anyway, all the stats that have been shown by everyone have all pointed towards the same conclusion. That conclusion being that even though both Watson and Graham have been more productive over their careers than Baker Thanks mate. You just made my point. I thought your point was that they were better recieving tight ends than Baker? If we knew you were just arguing that they've been more productive over their careers, we could have saved a lot of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.