Who would you rather face?

L.T. Fan · Jan 6, 2017

Iamtdg said:
Next time he does it, use this gif.

He will have no need for this because what he is saying has not happened.

L.T. Fan · Jan 6, 2017

townsend said:
Says the guy who was trying to throw shade because of a slight dip in Dez Bryant's production over half a season. You're perfectly happy to try and bring out stats when you think they agree with you. It's just stats, also known as quantifiable data, doesn't agree with you. So they must be bad.

Also if someone is comparing QBs of two different eras by stats it's not the same as comparing two contemporary QBs. It's like comparing a college QB's production to a professional's, it's a completely different game.

Not necessarily because in this case the criteria is the same.

Genghis Khan · Jan 6, 2017

Just as I thought.

Some of you aren't being honest.

Genghis Khan · Jan 6, 2017

townsend said:
Says the guy who was trying to throw shade because of a slight dip in Dez Bryant's production over half a season. You're perfectly happy to try and bring out stats when you think they agree with you. It's just stats, also known as quantifiable data, doesn't agree with you. So they must be bad.

Also if someone is comparing QBs of two different eras by stats it's not the same as comparing two contemporary QBs. It's like comparing a college QB's production to a professional's, it's a completely different game.

If you don't see there's been a chemistry issue between Dez and Dak for a lot of the season, you simply either aren't being honest or you don't know what you are looking at.

Show me where I've been inconsistent or for that matter used stats in support of Romo or even further, spoken either for or against stats.

My position is stats are very useful but don't always tell the whole story.

And yes, there are stats specifically designed to compare players across eras, so you absolutely can do it.

Aikman's best argument against volume passers like Brees is that Aikman could put up gaudy numbers if he needed to (94 NFC championship for instance), but mostly didn't need to. So Aikman is best judged on efficiency stats and was mostly fantastic in that regard. Dak, funny enough, is a lot like that. And you could make a very strong argument that this is what gives you the best chance to win.

Smitty · Jan 6, 2017

Genghis Khan said:
Just as I thought.

Some of you aren't being honest.

This place isn't always big on intellectual honesty.

Jiggyfly · Jan 6, 2017

L.T. Fan said:
He will have no need for this because what he is saying has not happened.

Oh Really?

Here are the "Stats" CRock used in his argument

QB A has a career QB rating of 97.1, completed 65.3 percent of his passes and averaged 7.89 yards per attempt.

QB B has a career QB rating of 104.9, completed 67.8 percent of his passes and averaged 7.99 yards per attempt.

____________________________________

Which QB is the more well rounded QB? For those concerned about "cherry picking" games, this takes all of that out of it. These are both guys pure career numbers.

And these are your replies.

Get real. Do you think Dak will maintain those numbers over a 10 year span. Check back then

.

But yet the "Stats" now say Dak is a better passer than Aikman.

And here you are doubling down.

Quote Originally Posted by L.T. Fan View Post
His only Year happens to be his best year so parity would be Romo's best year. To average Romo's years would not produce parity in this circumstance.

For actual parity pull out Romo's best year and compare. Who knows what the future holds for Prescott.

There are few occasions where a rookie can be as rounded as a 10 year pro but Que Sara.

So I ask again why is 1 year not enough to compare against Romo but it is enough for Aikman?

Genghis Khan · Jan 6, 2017

mschmidt64 said:
This place isn't always big on intellectual honesty.

I don't know if I'd put it that way. In a lot of ways it's the nature of digging in on your position.

townsend · Jan 6, 2017

Genghis Khan said:
If you don't see there's been a chemistry issue between Dez and Dak for a lot of the season, you simply either aren't being honest or you don't know what you are looking at.

Show me where I've been inconsistent or for that matter used stats in support of Romo or even further, spoken either for or against stats.

My position is stats are very useful but don't always tell the whole story.

And yes, there are stats specifically designed to compare players across eras, so you absolutely can do it.

Aikman's best argument against volume passers like Brees is that Aikman could put up gaudy numbers if he needed to (94 NFC championship for instance), but mostly didn't need to. So Aikman is best judged on efficiency stats and was mostly fantastic in that regard. Dak, funny enough, is a lot like that. And you could make a very strong argument that this is what gives you the best chance to win.

Or you're making irrational arguments based on a gut feeling. Chemistry is one of those fudge phrases to throw away facts with show me how little chemistry Dak had with Dez when he dropped a pass in exactly the right spot for a 50 yard TD while being chased, with pressure in his face.

Go back and look at the Ravens game.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o4ibKrj1h8s

I see no problem with "Chemistry" just a QB that was in sync with his receivers.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FJmEiGoBVsw
How about here? (5:03ish and 7:30ish) Against Detroit Dak consistently put the ball where only Dez could get it. They're clicking fine, and you just have to full on fucking fabricate problems with Dak because no real criticism holds up to scrutiny.

There's only one statistic that matters to you, and that's the number of cum stains on your Romo jersey.

L.T. Fan · Jan 6, 2017

Jiggyfly said:
Oh Really?

Here are the "Stats" CRock used in his argument

And these are your replies.

.

But yet the "Stats" now say Dak is a better passer than Aikman.

And here you are doubling down.

So I ask again why is 1 year not enough to compare against Romo but it is enough for Aikman?

And if you had read all the way through you would have seen that stats were brought up by Crock and my position wasn't about who had the best stats but that Dak only had one year therefore he had nothing to average. I wasn't debating who had the best . Try again and by all means skew things.

Jiggyfly · Jan 6, 2017

L.T. Fan said:
And if you had read all the way through you would have seen that stats were brought up by Crock and my position wasn't about who had the best stats but that Dak only had one year therefore he had nothing to average. I wasn't debating who had the best . Try again and by all means skew things.

I did read all the way through and I posted what was relevant in your own words.

I can't skew anything when I used your exact post.

Why can't you just admit you were poo pooing Daks 1 year stats in one thread and then parading them out as proof of something in another.

L.T. Fan · Jan 6, 2017

Jiggyfly said:
I did read all the way through and I posted what was relevant in your own words.

I can't skew anything when I used your exact post.

Why can't you just admit you were poo pooing Daks 1 year stats in one thread and then parading them out as proof of something in another.

The only discussion concerning the stats of Romo and Dak between CRock and myself was whether Daks one year of stats was equitable to use as against a IO year record since one year wasn't enough to establish an average for parity.
That was was the sum and substance of our conversation concerning stats. The actual topic was Romo was more rounded because of 10 years of experience and CRock was saying Daks 1 Year stats was sufficient enough to off set that.

Nice try though.

Genghis Khan · Jan 6, 2017

townsend said:
Or you're making irrational arguments based on a gut feeling. Chemistry is one of those fudge phrases to throw away facts with show me how little chemistry Dak had with Dez when he dropped a pass in exactly the right spot for a 50 yard TD while being chased, with pressure in his face.

Go back and look at the Ravens game.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o4ibKrj1h8s

I see no problem with "Chemistry" just a QB that was in sync with his receivers.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FJmEiGoBVsw
How about here? (5:03ish and 7:30ish) Against Detroit Dak consistently put the ball where only Dez could get it. They're clicking fine, and you just have to full on fucking fabricate problems with Dak because no real criticism holds up to scrutiny.

There's only one statistic that matters to you, and that's the number of cum stains on your Romo jersey.

Uncalled for. We're done here. Funny how you are clearly offended by the contrary opinion but I'm the one cumming on a QB's jersey somehow.

Go fuck yourself douchebag.

Jiggyfly · Jan 6, 2017

L.T. Fan said:
The only discussion concerning the stats of Romo and Dak between CRock and myself was whether Daks one year of stats was equitable to use as against a IO year record since one year wasn't enough to establish an average for parity.
That was was the sum and substance of our conversation concerning stats. The actual topic was Romo was more rounded because of 10 years of experience and CRock was saying Daks 1 Year stats was sufficient enough to off set that.

Nice try though.

But yet 1 year of Dak stats are enough to argue he is a better passer than Aikman.

No matter how you try and spin this its still you trying to have it both ways......... as usual.

L.T. Fan · Jan 6, 2017

Jiggyfly said:
But yet 1 year of Dak stats are enough to argue he is a better passer than Aikman.

No matter how you try and spin this its still you trying to have it both ways......... as usual.

Statistically yes. Aikman never came close to those numbers in any of his seasons. There is no argument. It is a published fact.

You can't seem to understand they are separate topics. Trying to combine them is just another skew job.

I will help you. One is about rounded quarterbacks the other is about passing stats.

ravidubey · Jan 6, 2017

Aikman was a better passer in many ways, just not in looking off safeties.

He might try a pump fake, but using his eyes to change the coverage wasn't his thing.

Deception or manipulation of any kind wasn't his thing.

Aikman was a straight up baller. He gunned the 20 yard out to where only the X WR could get it. You might know it's coming but you can't really stop it.

L.T. Fan · Jan 6, 2017

ravidubey said:
Aikman was a better passer in many ways, just not in looking off safeties.

He might try a pump fake, but using his eyes to change the coverage wasn't his thing.

Deception or manipulation of any kind wasn't his thing.

Aikman was a straight up baller. He gunned the 20 yard out to where only the X WR could get it. You might know it's coming but you can't really stop it.

No argument there.

UncleMilti · Jan 6, 2017

If I have to win one game, and everything else is equal...and the qb's I have a choice of putting in this game are Aikman, Romo, Brees, or Prescott?

I'm taking Aikman every time, and its not even close.

Aikman just had it....much like Brady does. The motherfucker could just will his team to win.

Looking off safeties, 12 tDs, blah blah..who fucking cares. Just count the rings. The guy was a baller, and dissected much more aggressive pass D's then what Romo, Brees, or Dak will ever have to contend with. CB's practically hung all over the WR's in the 90's...Aikman was so precise with his passes it was sick.

Cotton · Jan 7, 2017

UncleMilti said:
If I have to win one game, and everything else is equal...and the qb's I have a choice of putting in this game are Aikman, Romo, Brees, or Prescott?

I'm taking Aikman every time, and its not even close.

Aikman just had it....much like Brady does. The motherfucker could just will his team to win.

Looking off safeties, 12 tDs, blah blah..who fucking cares. Just count the rings. The guy was a baller, and dissected much more aggressive pass D's then what Romo, Brees, or Dak will ever have to contend with. CB's practically hung all over the WR's in the 90's...Aikman was so precise with his passes it was sick.

Pretty much. Stats be damned.

Genghis Khan · Jan 7, 2017

I always felt the same way about aikman. I'd have taken him above just about anyone in that era. The volume stats didn't matter. They simply didn't play that style. But the efficiency stats were great.

Dak reminds me of that. He could put up the big stats if he had to, but that's secondary to winning.

townsend · Jan 7, 2017

Hey gaiz, did you know Jay Cutler is definitely a better quarterback than Johnny Unitas, because his numbers are bigger!

Who would you rather face?

Who would you rather face?

Lions, then Giants, then Packers

Lions, then Packers, then Giants

Giants, then Lions, then Packers

Giants, then Packers, then Lions

Packers, then Lions, then Giants

Packers, then Giants, then Lions

I'm Easy If You Are

I'm Easy If You Are

The worst version of myself

The worst version of myself

DCC 4Life

Banned

The worst version of myself

Banned

I'm Easy If You Are

Banned

I'm Easy If You Are

The worst version of myself

Banned

I'm Easy If You Are

DCC 4Life

I'm Easy If You Are

This seemed like a good idea at the time.

One-armed Knife Sharpener

The worst version of myself

Banned