Sturm: The Amazing TD Season of Dez Bryant

I understand anything that isn't all-out Dez worship is taken with a dim view. I don't worship him.
 
DCUDoomsday said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
DCUDoomsday said:
I understand anything that isn't all-out Dez worship is taken with a dim view. I don't worship him.
Click to expand...

Wait, is this one those romantic things where a talented player is less talented when he doesn't do something team friendly?

This is a fascinating thing to see.

Bryant was getting his crank gobbled for a while, then he takes a hard line, right or wrong, then things change.

Honestly at this stage, it doesn't matter anymore.

I will just wait and see how this plays out. :art
 
boozeman said:
Wait, is this one those romantic things where a talented player is less talented when he doesn't do something team friendly?
Click to expand...
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.
 
DCUDoomsday said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DCUDoomsday said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Iamtdg said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
DCUDoomsday said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Iamtdg said:
The passing rate has only increased 9% since 1970, numbers boy.
Click to expand...
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?
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
DCUDoomsday said:
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!
Click to expand...

See?

Wow.
 
DCUDoomsday said:
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?
Click to expand...

Still on this stupid stat.
 
DCUDoomsday said:
You guys REALLY think that without Dez, this team just rolls over?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about rolling over? But I think we go from 12-4 to 9-7 without him, yes.
 
DCUDoomsday said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Iamtdg said:
Who said anything about rolling over? But I think we go from 12-4 to 9-7 without him, yes.
Click to expand...
I think it's 8-8 or 9-7 with or without him. But, that's another topic entirely.

Not like we haven't been 8-8 before, with him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom