DCUDoomsday
Brand New Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2015
- Messages
- 229
I understand anything that isn't all-out Dez worship is taken with a dim view. I don't worship him.
If you wanted to make at least a semi coherent point you would have showed TDs per target. Or at least a statistic like that would be semi meaningful. TDs per catch is the most meaningless stat ever. It basically discredits a guy for making the 15 yard catch for a first down.That's the whole point of the word IF being different that "would." I didn't say "would" without the IF. Clarke, Hayes and Rentzel's TD seasons were far more amazing, especially considering the era they played in.
I could only use what Sturm calls "amazing" and it didn't include targets. The percentage of actual catches which resulted in touchdowns is what's measured in the OP, if you do the math that is.If you wanted to make at least a semi coherent point you would have showed TDs per target. Or at least a statistic like that would be semi meaningful. TDs per catch is the most meaningless stat ever. It basically discredits a guy for making the 15 yard catch for a first down.
Wait, is this one those romantic things where a talented player is less talented when he doesn't do something team friendly?I understand anything that isn't all-out Dez worship is taken with a dim view. I don't worship him.
Not at all. I simply don't worship at the Dez altar. What's more fascinating, to me at least, is how the worshipers do react when you're not one of them.Wait, is this one those romantic things where a talented player is less talented when he doesn't do something team friendly?
But, none of them actually got 88 receptions, so who the fuck cares? And why the fuck does it matter? Oh wait, the stupid "it's a passing league now" argument.Here's what's amazing - Clarke if he had gotten 88 receptions would have had 26 TDs based on the averages, Hayes would have had 22 twice, Rentzel would have had 24... And so on.
You mean, the fact that it is.Oh wait, the stupid "it's a passing league now" argument.
Someone said it did?And why the fuck does it matter?
No, what's interesting is your idiocy that every receiver can do what Dez does. Or that our offense would basically be the same without him. That's interesting... except on a "different" level.Not at all. I simply don't worship at the Dez altar. What's more fascinating, to me at least, is how the worshipers do react when you're not one of them.
No doubt he is going to get his money, whether it's from Dallas or not is the question.
I said none of that at all. In fact, I said it would be a completely new offense which opponents wouldn't have any film on, or any tendencies on.No, what's interesting is your idiocy that every receiver can do what Dez does. Or that our offense would basically be the same without him. That's interesting... except on a "different" level.
The passing rate has only increased 9% since 1970, numbers boy.You mean, the fact that it is.
I'm not bringing across posts from another board to further corrupt this one than you have already done with your presence, but "Receivers are still gonna catch the ball" rings a bell.I said none of that at all. In fact, I said it would be a completely new offense which opponents wouldn't have any film on, or any tendencies on.
That may be the dumbest and most useless statistic I've ever heard.
Hey everybody, Escobar had 4 TDs on 9 catches last year. If he had 88 catches his TD totals would be out of this world!
Give the old guys today's rules. You don't find it weird that in their era, they managed to have a far better and more amazing TD per catch average than Dez does?The passing rate has only increased 9% since 1970, numbers boy.
Riiiiight... Without Dez Tony would be soooo confused, and by the time he found some other receiver they wouldn't catch the ball for fear of devaluing Dez!I'm not bringing across posts from another board to further corrupt this one than you have already done with your presence, but "Receivers are still gonna catch the ball" rings a bell.
See?Riiiiight... Without Dez Tony would be soooo confused, and by the time he found some other receiver they wouldn't catch the ball for fear of devaluing Dez!
Still on this stupid stat.Give the old guys today's rules. You don't find it weird that in their era, they managed to have a far better and more amazing TD per catch average than Dez does?
Who said anything about rolling over? But I think we go from 12-4 to 9-7 without him, yes.You guys REALLY think that without Dez, this team just rolls over?
I think you're missing the point that TD's per catch is a totally meaningless statistic. The fact that Dez has more catches then those guys goes to show how much better he is. It isn't somehow a negative.Give the old guys today's rules. You don't find it weird that in their era, they managed to have a far better and more amazing TD per catch average than Dez does?Riiiiight... Without Dez Tony would be soooo confused, and by the time he found some other receiver they wouldn't catch the ball for fear of devaluing Dez!
I didn't say it was a negative at all. And the occurrence of catches that turn out to be TDs IS a meaningful stat.I think you're missing the point that TD's per catch is a totally meaningless statistic. The fact that Dez has more catches then those guys goes to show how much better he is. It isn't somehow a negative.
This isn't rocket science. You're just using numbers incorrectly.
I think it's 8-8 or 9-7 with or without him. But, that's another topic entirely.Who said anything about rolling over? But I think we go from 12-4 to 9-7 without him, yes.