Sturm: The Amazing TD Season of Dez Bryant

DCUDoomsday said:
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.
Click to expand...

And with a much worse OL.

If we are 9-7 with him, we are at Redskins level without him.
 
DCUDoomsday said:
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.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. TD's is a meaningful stat. Catches are a meaningful stat. The TD to catch ratio that you bring up is not. Your stat turns catches into a negative. Which they clearly are not. Which is why this ratio is purely retarded to throw out there.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
No it isn't. TD's is a meaningful stat. Catches are a meaningful stat. The TD to catch ratio that you bring up is not. Your stat turns catches into a negative. Which they clearly are not. Which is why this ratio is purely retarded to throw out there.
Click to expand...
If the ratio of TDs to touches for a RB is relevant, it should be also for WRs, TEs - hell, TDs per pass attempt and per completion is a important stat for QBs too. It's a productivity stat. How often does your possessing the ball result in the touchdown.
 
DCUDoomsday said:
If the ratio of TDs to touches for a RB is relevant, it should be also for WRs, TEs - hell, TDs per pass attempt and per completion is a important stat for QBs too. It's a productivity stat. How often does your possessing the ball result in the touchdown.
Click to expand...

:picard Jesus, you really don't get it. A touch for a RB is not the same as a catch is for a WR, which is not the same as a pass attempt for a QB. In order for a WR to make a catch he has to do something positive first. He has to get open and he has to catch the ball. Therefore the catch itself is a positive for a WR. On the other hand a RB does nothing inherently positive to get a carry and a QB does nothing inherently positive to get a pass attempt.

By the way TDs per touch isn't relevant at all for a RB either. Their TD totals are widely dependent on where they get their carries on the field. Sort of why Trent Richardson was a turd even while having 11 rushing TDs in a season.
 
Last edited:
Cowboysrock55 said:
:picard Jesus, you really don't get it. A touch for a RB is not the same as a catch is for a WR, which is not the same as a pass attempt for a QB. In order for a WR to make a catch he has to do something positive first. He has to get open and he has to catch the ball. Therefore the catch itself is a positive for a WR. On the other hand a RB does nothing inherently positive to get a carry and a QB does nothing inherently positive to get a pass attempt.

By the way TDs per touch isn't relevant at all for a RB either. Their TD totals are widely dependent on where they get their carries on the field. Sort of why Trent Richardson was a turd even while having 11 rushing TDs in a season.
Click to expand...
Re: The bolded. Not my fault that TDs per attempt is a relevant stat.

All I am saying is, I see more "amazing" in Clarke, Hayes and Rentzel's listed seasons than I do in any of the Dez or Owens seasons Strum lists. It's a personal opinion. I don't require anyone to agree with it.

Clarke has only 2 fewer TDs on more than 40 fewer catches. Hayes only 3 less, Rentzel only 4 less. Both also, with 40+ fewer catches.
 
Last edited:
Let me put this another way: Dez winds up with 26 TDs on his 88 grabs, if he has Clarke's average. That's 10 more TDs. Does it matter? No and I didn't say it did. But it illustrates more "amazing," at least to me.
 
DCUDoomsday said:
Let me put this another way: Dez winds up with 26 TDs on his 88 grabs, if he has Clarke's average. That's 10 more TDs. Does it matter? No and I didn't say it did. But it illustrates more "amazing," at least to me.
Click to expand...

If less catches and less yards are positives for a WR then you're right back to my point about Escobar. You must be really impressed with him from last year. He would have had 39 TDs if he had 88 catches.

Well except for the fact that it really isn't how the whole thing works, but sure be impressed by a meaningless stat.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
:picard Jesus, you really don't get it. A touch for a RB is not the same as a catch is for a WR, which is not the same as a pass attempt for a QB. In order for a WR to make a catch he has to do something positive first. He has to get open and he has to catch the ball. Therefore the catch itself is a positive for a WR. On the other hand a RB does nothing inherently positive to get a carry and a QB does nothing inherently positive to get a pass attempt.

By the way TDs per touch isn't relevant at all for a RB either. Their TD totals are widely dependent on where they get their carries on the field. Sort of why Trent Richardson was a turd even while having 11 rushing TDs in a season.
Click to expand...

:lol

You've been sucked.
 
You've entered into the Doomsday merry go round. Get out while you can. Guy said...
That's 10 more TDs. Does it matter? No and I didn't say it did.
Click to expand...
...and...
But it illustrates more "amazing," at least to me.
Click to expand...
... in back to back sentences.

It doesn't matter, but it matters to him.
 
Last edited:
Cowboysrock55 said:
If less catches and less yards are positives for a WR then you're right back to my point about Escobar. You must be really impressed with him from last year. He would have had 39 TDs if he had 88 catches.

Well except for the fact that it really isn't how the whole thing works, but sure be impressed by a meaningless stat.
Click to expand...
The fact is, we don't know what Escobar can do. But then again, he is not a WR like the people on Strum's list are.

Shoot, does number of games matter? Clarke, Hayes and Rentzel had what, 12 games, or 14 to do what they did?
 
peplaw06 said:
You've entered into the Doomsday merry go round. Get out while you can. Guy said... ...and... ... in back to back sentences.

It doesn't matter, but it matters to him.
Click to expand...
Does amazing matter?

See how this works? Refuse to worship Dez, get ragged on. Would be much simpler to just suspend all rational thought and go oooooh, he's sooooo great!

Like children do.
 
DCUDoomsday said:
Does amazing matter?
Click to expand...
I don't know... you said 10 more TDs didn't matter. Then you said it meant it was more amazing, which sounds like you think it matters.

Would be much simpler to just suspend all rational thought
Click to expand...
Actually, quite the opposite. I'd prefer you to begin rational thought.
 
peplaw06 said:
I don't know... you said 10 more TDs didn't matter. Then you said it meant it was more amazing, which sounds like you think it matters.
Click to expand...
What I said was, there is more "amazing" in the seasons Clarke, Hayes and Rentzel had especially for their era, than any of Dez's or Owens's seasons Strum lists. I also said it doesn't matter. Strum's article was straight-up Dez worship anyway. Catnip for the devotees.

Actually, quite the opposite. I'd prefer you to begin rational thought.
Click to expand...
As soon as you begin reading above fourth grade level, you'll see reasoning.
 
DCUDoomsday said:
What I said was, there is more "amazing" in the seasons Clarke, Hayes and Rentzel had especially for their era, than any of Dez's or Owens's seasons Strum lists. I also said it doesn't matter. Strum's article was straight-up Dez worship anyway. Catnip for the devotees.
Click to expand...
So which is it? Is it more amazing... or does it not matter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom