Morgan Extends!!!

Steve Reed is the one that said they ere 11-1 in 2003. I don't care about that. Some people just bitch about the team every time they do something. Some people are just disagreeable about everything they do.

I don't care about the stats, I just read them, I didn't make them up.

 

you should check out the teams W/L record from last year, with and without Dan. it mite make your change your mind.

 

Defensive stats vary based on sources, mine is cbs sportsline.com. Barrow had 312 tackles playing in 61 games his 1st 4 years for an average of 5.1 per game so my math was in error and Barrow's numbers are lower than I originally stated. Morgan is listed with 287 tackles and 42 games played for an average of 6.8 per game. This comparrison uses the same source for both players. Over Barrow's career he is listed with 1133 tackles and 171 games for an average of 6.6.

Imo Barrow's best season was in 2001, his second with the Giants. He had 8.3 tackles per game, 6 sacks, 0 interceptions, 6 PD's and 4 forced fumbles. His second best was probably 2003 when he averaged 9.3 tackles per game, 2 sacks, 0 interceptions, 4 PD's and 3 forced fumbles. Last season, in 12 games Morgan averaged 8.4 tackles per game, 2 sacks, 2 interceptions, 4 PD's and 1 forced fumble. So again, you statement that Barrow went on to show himself to be even better than Morgan has shown himself does not seem to match the statistics. Morgan's best season out of 4 total actually compares rather well with Barrow's best 2 seasons after a 12-year career.

 

I hate facts...

 

collin, we all find out who is right eventually. the thing is it usually takes a while, sometimes years, unlike the davis to slb issue which was actually solved much sooner than anyone expected. i actually expected that to take years to find out. no one is looking for acceptance, its just most of us have the ability to see that people's opinions concerning the team, players, and the movement of players usually take a few years to determine who, if anyone, had it correct. you're just a dick who wants other people to think you're right and respect you, and who it takes a page of bullshit to try and convince them that's not so. i realize it eats at you that people don't take their opinions from you, but they don't take them from anyone on tv either. people gather information and form their own opinion. like, i think you're a dick with a social disorder, and i think you're a smart fellow and like reading your opinion.

 

I was using Yahoo. Let's compromise and go with NFL.com, which I suppose has to be considered the most definitive source. Yahoo didn't list any tackles at all for Barrow's rookie season, and while I knew he wasn't a starter then, I should have known that was out of whack. By the same token, it isn't really sporting of you to use per game statistics from a season where a guy wasn't the starter, thus artificially making it look like he was worse than he was.

So the first four years in which he was a starter ('94-'97), Barrow had 379 tackles in 61 games for an average of 6.2. Then Morgan has had 287 in 42 starts for an average of 6.8 per game. That's pretty close to what Yahoo had for both. And as mentioned, Morgan had more interceptions while Barrow had a lot more sacks and PDs.

As for their best seasons, Morgan averaged 8.4 tackles per game last season, along with two interceptions and two sacks. Meanwhile Barrow had as many as 9.8 as recently as 2003, with two sacks and no interceptions. In 2001, he had 8.3 tackles per game to go along with 6 sacks. Both of those seasons were better than Morgan's best season, and depending on how you value sacks versus tackles, Barrow had several others that were either equal or superior (some in a Carolina uniform). Overall in his career, Barrow has averaged 7.1 tackles, along with 42 sacks in 155 games as a starter. Meanwhile Morgan has averaged the aforementioned 6.8 tackles, along with just 4 sacks in 42 games as a starter.

 

No, actually most things can be sorted out pretty quickly. "We can't know right now" is an excuse people hide behind when they don't want to admit that their need for acceptance keeps them from judging anything. The things that take a while are the "will young player X be any good?" or "is player Y going to be a hall of famer?" Whether or not Davis has weak upper body strength is answerable right now. Whether or not Morgan has been a difference-maker is answerable right now. Whether or not he is overpaid in this contract is answerable right now. I assume you noticed how no Morgan supporter has even bothered to address the fact that the Falcons got a better middle linebacker for more years over less money than we are spending on Morgan. That's because people recognize that it proves something right now, something those people don't want to acknowledge.

You have got to be joking.

Dude, if I worried about whether or not other people thought I was right, I'd never get any sleep. I worry about whether or not I actually am right, and I perhaps naively assume that they'll see that I am far more often than I'm not over the long run. For instance, look at the Freddie Jones thing. While people were hyping him up, what did I say? I said he looked old and slow and that I'd be very surprised if he was with the team come opening day. Now Fox was diplomatic in what he said about Jones' departure, but if he was honestly keeping up with things and looking good, there's no way he quits.

Honestly I don't worry about that either. What really, really bothers me is when anyone believes anything stupid. That bugs the pure-T living shit out of me. I wish I had better control over that, but I don't, and all things considered I don't think that actually being bothered by dumb statements is the worst flaw someone could have. And as I keep pointing out, disagreeing with me isn't the sole qualification for what makes something stupid. I'm fine with people saying that Morgan will be a breakout player and become a difference maker, because there's enough gray area that I can't say otherwise with certainty. But what I can do is speak definitively about how he has played so far, and whether or not he is grossly overpaid in this contract according to league standards. Believe it or not, but there was a time when people kissed my ass and agreed with things I said just because I was a big personality. I despise those sycophants perhaps more than anyone else, because agreeing with me for stupid reasons is just as bad as disagreeing with me for stupid reasons. Meanwhile disagreeing with me intelligently is not only fine, it's one of the main ways I learn anything new and refine the opinions I already have.

 

Going with the Panther mindset that stats are for losers, I will base my happiness with Morgan staying on a more important factor. The haircut he has is mean. I look at him and I no longer see one of the Rugrats. I see Zack Thomas or Junior Seau in those eyes. I saw him lay out a teammate during fanfest like former Bronco Bill Romonowski vs. anyone from the Raider backfield.

I say Morgan stays healthy in 2005, goes to the Probowl with honors and this thread becomes fun fodder to look back on next year...

 

Since stats are meaningless, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if Rod Rutherford were our starting quarterback, we would go undefeated on the way to a Super Bowl victory.

 

>> if Rod Rutherford were our starting quarterback, we would go undefeated on the way to a Super Bowl victory.

i think you're wrong again