YAC per game, or YAC per catch?though a small sample size of 17 catches last year, Harris' YAC per game average was 6.4
It didn't specify so I assumed game, but catch makes more sense.YAC per game, or YAC per catch?
By the way put me in the category that thinks Dez is excellent with the ball in his hands and at getting YAC. That's why he was a bad ass punt returner here as well.
Yes, it is many times.You're the one who said it. MANY TIMES.
I don't know how many times is many.So I ask, how many?
And it's also my words that I don't have an exact number, it's just a bunch.Out of 23 catches, was he on 15 screens? 10? 5? Less? More? And of the ones he was on, how many of those did he excel on? You're words, Schmitty.
I'm not talking out of my ass.Admit you were talking out your ass, or show me numbers. How many, and the yards gained on them.
I know, you're just being a dick even though you know my point has merit that Harris has shown that he can be good doing that role enough to warrant more looks instead of Bryant.I tend to agree that he'd be a great weapon on those routes. But I'm not claiming to have seen him excel many times at them.
I agree. Special packages become predictable. But if Harris had been the slot guy all season like he should have been, we could mix some solid downfield routes for him along with a screen or two per game. Make Beasley that 4th guy to help move the chains and we'd be solid.Also I don't like the idea of bringing a WR into the game only to run short curls and WR screens. It is too predictable and defenders will jump the short routes. Part of what makes those routes successful is a defenders fear of the big play.
Harris can do more than run curls and screens, no one said only use him as that.Also I don't like the idea of bringing a WR into the game only to run short curls and WR screens. It is too predictable and defenders will jump the short routes. Part of what makes those routes successful is a defenders fear of the big play.
When he's only been in the game for such limited amounts of time, 5-6 is many, relative to the opportunities he gets.No, what's lame is he's probably been on a small handful of screens. Of which maybe a couple/few went for decent yards.
Yet you claim he's excelled on the route many times.
I'm not talking out of my ass. I'm on a board full of Cowboys fans who have watched the vast majority of snaps taken since Harris has been on this team. I'm not trying to fool anyone by saying "many." I know (and I know everyone else knows) that the guy has less than 30 catches for his entire career.Tell us again how you're not talking out of your ass.
I've been pretty thrilled with what I have seen from the combination of Williams, Bryant, and Beasley. So I'm not going to sit here and say I want to see Harris in place of one of those three at this point. However if someone gets hurt I have faith that Harris can step in and be productive.I agree. Special packages become predictable. But if Harris had been the slot guy all season like he should have been, we could mix some solid downfield routes for him along with a screen or two per game. Make Beasley that 4th guy to help move the chains and we'd be solid.
But apparently we don't want to use him at all on offense.
Sure it could. The word "many" is contextual.A bunch and many times does not equal "a handful".
Except on screens and hitches.But, he isn't close to Dez in YAC ability.
That's cause he sucks at actually making catches or staying on the field anymore.Ironically, nobody on the roster was better at YAC on the hitch route than Austin and we all want him gone.
There was no subtlety to pick up on. You know it. I know it. And anybody who's read this thread knows it. It was you speaking in absolutes, without thinking. Again. And when called on it, you do what you always do. Argue incessantly, spinning away from what is said, until you can move the goal posts. Like you've done in this post. Took you longer than usual this time, tho.When he's only been in the game for such limited amounts of time, 5-6 is many, relative to the opportunities he gets.
I'm not talking out of my ass. I'm on a board full of Cowboys fans who have watched the vast majority of snaps taken since Harris has been on this team. I'm not trying to fool anyone by saying "many." I know (and I know everyone else knows) that the guy has less than 30 catches for his entire career.
Obviously, if I say "many times" -- for a guy with 23 career catches -- that word should probably be taken a little different, contextually, than if I said I had seen Jerry Rice do it "many times" with his 1,500+ receptions.
I would apologize for you not being able to pick up on that subtlety, but I know you're just being a dick and you actually know very well what I'm trying to say and you're just trying to nail me to a wall.
I'm going to play. You meant majority then, not many. If you say the majority of his passes have been on screen plays that he broke then fine. But, not many times he breaks away on screen passes. #smittydoublespeakSure it could. The word "many" is contextual.
You could say "many years ago" and mean a thousand years ago, or 20.
Depends on what you are talking about.
Again, you and I both knew that Harris only has a handful of career receptions. It should have been obvious to all parties who weren't trying to be dicks that many didn't equal like 50.
It's many, relative to his number of opportunities.
I'm not moving the goal posts. I maintain that Dwayne Harris has shown many times that he's excelled on screens.There was no subtlety to pick up on. You know it. I know it. And anybody who's read this thread knows it. It was you speaking in absolutes, without thinking. Again. And when called on it, you do what you always do. Argue incessantly, spinning away from what is said, until you can move the goal posts. Like you've done in this post. Took you longer than usual this time, tho.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.