I've seen enough

More "significant"? By what measure?

 

Same as I've said every time since, because it's not a finite number. It was also specifically beside the point, which was that we took a specific change to how we were running and started running inside a good deal more. You weren't concerned about that, which was the point, you were concerned with trying to trap me in some sort of "mistake" so you could claim victory. Victory > truth.

Just as I said before, and just as with anyone you've ever had the "facts v/s opinion" argument with. Not agreeing with what you say doesn't mean lying, being unable to admit mistakes, or being uncomfortable with myself.

See, that's the thing. I never put myself out as something that was extra-special. I ran with an opportunity to write on the internet many years ago and that was fun, but I don't go around saying I'm owed something more because I have some idea of what I'm talking about.

I don't keep score. I don't go around harboring ill will about arguments from years' past or telling people that I"m right about this or that. That doesn't matter to anyone else in any argument.
And yes, I said you end up looking like a douchebag, because you do. If you're even remotely honest with yourself you'll know that I don't dish out one insult for every ten you put out.

Well, that's healthy and well-adjusted. You keep on telling people you're just in it for the truth.

I'm not saying that getting into a heated argument is some awful thing. I'm saying that you intentionally make a ton of things personal and you take away from all discussion by doing so.

I don't like the jump from "3rd down distance didn't change, so therefore Jake = third down." I don't see the work in that instance, so it's either agree or disagree. Plus, it's not my theory. It's worth questioning. I've yet to see any worthwhile responses to my questions about a ton of variables, just some dismissiveness and anger that I don't fall in line.

I still don't have a source for QB Pressures by game, or by situation. Didn't then, either. And remember that you used "v/s our own defense's pressures". You don't quantify whether that's reasonable v/s average, or whether 3rd down distance was reasonable v/s average. You explain away a critical problem on the 2006 offense - the loss of two key starters on the OL - as if it wasn't an issue at all. You apparently believe it wouldn't change our playcalling at all, since you stated playcalling was, somehow, exactly the same. You have yet, far as I know, to actually address the blitz situation. sorry, but that doesn't equal Jake. The blitz is something he needs to beat. Just as with Carr/Davidson, both parts of that have to come into play. Adjustments and better play in that situation. Which isn't "just Jake".

I like how you conveniently ignore that Ricky Proehl was gone, and was a significant 3rd down target for 2003, 2004, 2005. He had matching stats to the guy who started the year and played most of the snaps as the #2. You replace him with two guys who can't play the slot effectively at all, neither of which could steal time from each other.
If Keyshawn was supposed to replace Proehl's role on 3rd down, I don't see evidence of such happening to success, and they're not playing the same role. That would also change our personnel, playcalling, and our overall ideals about how we approach 3rd down. But sure, completely insignificant.
You conveniently ignore that Deshaun Foster's load grew overall from 05 to 06, but was still used on 3rd down, and that his yards/catch halved. You just happen to forget that Steve Smith was out for two games, and took time to get up to speed. And certainly, losing your left tackle and center wouldn't matter for anything to a team that had trouble beating the blitz.

Dealing with you without your general pissiness isn't "fun", much less when you're like this. It's simply untrue.

Or at all. Look at our arguments and you'll notice you're the one who specifically has problems with something I've said, and feel like making something of it.

Being angry isn't rational. And no, it's not your job to decide what's stupid and then punish people for it. Besides the obvious convenience of you deciding what criteria goes into stupidity, winning, lying, and everything else you use in argument to your 'advantage'.

As I said, 2005's rush scoring hid a problem. That doesn't mean the problem wasn't there. And as I noted, and you failed to respond, we had been in the top 15 in scoring since 2003 - 15, 13, 8. And then significantly dropped to 27th.

Many aspects are and were going to be similar. You disagreed that a different playbook, blocking scheme, having actual audibles, and using the TE were much of a change, but I believe they are. There's a lot that we can and should be doing better from a playcalling standpoint. Saw things in preseason or in scripted plays I haven't seen since, and our failure in the screen game is shameful considering Davidson came in talking big about how great that was going to be.

Yes, static. Remember the "handful" argument? I stand behind our philosophy change in suddenly running up the gut and suddenly getting a boost in the running game. Hoover was getting significant carries when we started it out. And then we kept running that same type stuff overall inside, until Weinke came in and we had to go single wing. Remember how we used Muhsin in 2004, and then we started chucking the ball deep to him the rest of the year? It was troubling, to me, that we seemed to have the same gameplans over and over.

Don't remember. Would like to see it if so. Like I said, it's convenient that in that case, it's 100% Jake, without an actual reason why (and you've not really bothered to consider most of the things I brought up, or gave a dismissive answer), but other situations a dropoff in statistic is explained away not by a dropoff in the player, but a dropoff in surrounding talent/playcalling/support.
Regardless, I don't care if you believe Jake was 100% to blame for 2006 or for 3rd down. I'd rather know why, and I don't see the reasoning.

Speaking of which, he's doing just fine.

And yet it's still just not good enough. Explanations don't win or lose football games. The fact Moore can complete two quick passes and then toss an INT, and still look like a solid option, is concerning. Whether you just outright expected Carr to be ineffective, most of us were hoping for more.

 

happiness is a dugout

 

Happiness is a warm Beagle - even Charles Schultz said so.

I know he said warm puppy literally but the picture was a BEAGLE.

 

You refused to even give a range because you knew that you were wrong and that if you elaborated at all, it would be that much more embarrassing for you in your refusal to admit it. Your only recourse was either to pretend that by "handful" you meant 25+ or else not explain at all.

If that were true, I wouldn't admit when I'm wrong and you're right, but I do. You're the one who can't.

Oh come on. No one is buying the ridiculously false humility. If you could bottle your own farts and smell them later, you would. You're every bit as narcissistic as I am, just completely dishonest about it. When you pretend to be humble, it just looks absurd because everyone else believes you to be arrogant.

Again with the dishonesty. Before I even got here you'd bring up arguments we had at Charlotte.com. It makes you look ridiculous to pretend that you don't have hard feelings about prior confrontations with me. Of course you do, just as I harbor ill will towards you.

That's not the jump. The jump is, Jake had the worst QB rating on third downs in the entire NFL last year by far, therefore Jake = third down. Or if you prefer, Jake's third down rating last year was so bad that it was actually worse than Carr's or Testaverde's this year, therefore Jake = third down. Or I'm not fucking blind or hopelessly biased and therefore I can use my own eyes to see that Jake sucked ass on third downs for some odd reason last year.

Questioning is fine. It was fine for you to wonder if additional pressure played a role, but then I did the research and proved that there wasn't additional pressure. It was fine for others to wonder if we were in longer third down situations than previous years, but then I did the research and proved that we weren't. Every single excuse you could think up, I did the research and proved it wrong. At this point your doubts are roughly as reasonable as Dave Chappelle's about O.J.

NFL gamebooks, genius. I already gave you the numbers for those in '06 as compared to previous seasons, both in sum and broken down by pressures per attempt.

Keary Colbert started for us in 2005. Keyshawn Johnson did in '06. You're telling me that the downgrade from Proehl to Carter was more important than the upgrade from Colbert to Keyshawn? You can actually say that with a straight face? Jesus Christ, man. You have absolutely no integrity whatsoever.

Of course it is. It's every rational human being's responsibility to speak up against irrationality. And obviously I don't just randomly insult people. I always prove why I say something is stupid.

2005's rushing touchdowns were a complete fluke, as I've stated about a billion times. It's ridiculous that you'd pretend I hadn't.

Because we sucked absolute ass on third downs, Einstein. Jake's performance on first and second downs was largely similar to previous seasons, and the running game was similarly spotty. The statistical difference offensively is that Delhomme was unbelievably bad on third downs last year. How does it not register when I point out that even Carr and Testaverde have better 3rd down QB ratings this year than Jake did last year? Doesn't that vividly illustrate just how bad that was for us last season?
[quiote]Don't remember. Would like to see it if so. Like I said, it's convenient that in that case, it's 100% Jake, without an actual reason why (and you've not really bothered to consider most of the things I brought up, or gave a dismissive answer)[/quote]
How you can even say that and mean it is just beyond me. Obviously you must have severe mental problems involving a disassociation with reality. It's a sandman-type level of obliviousness, given that I've spent entire threads giving you reasons and proving wrong one excuse of yours after another. How can you say I "never really bothered to consider most the things you brought up" when I was the one who dug up the stats and proved them wrong? Jesus Christ. This is why you make me incredibly angry, because you're unbelievably irrational and dishonest.

 

i stand by everything i said in this thread. carr is more worthless than a kelly tripuka jersey.

and, collin, i'm throwing this out here. i don't care enough to do any research, and i'm not saying you're wrong, but do you think it's possible that carr's 3rd down stats (as opposed to jake's last year) are a little inflated because carr pretty much was throwing dumpoffs all year. i mean, the guy is averaging 4.7 yards per completion. i've got to think his yards per attempt is even worse.

i don't remember jake dumping off every third down.

please don't call me a moron, your opinion of my posting abilities means so much to me.

 

Is it OK if I call you a moron?

 

yay Collin finally responding after a month! Luckily we've had about ten of this argument since then, making reading the above fairly useless.

 

yeah, it doesn't hurt from you in the football forum. now if we were in an algebra forum, i'd probably cry.