Allstarjim Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Fine. Let me spell it out for you because you're a complete idiot who is pulling things out his ass with no facts. Manningham- 57 receptions 822 yards 5 tds Berrian- 53 receptions 568 yards 4 tds Hakeem Nick- 46 receptions 795 yards 6 tds Percy Harvin- 53 receptions 731 6 tds Kevin Boss - 42 receptions 567 yards 5 tds Visanthe Shiancoe- 49 receptions 472 yards 10 tds -4, +7, +7. That's ten receptions, Rice MIGHT have caught had Favre not thrown to the guys you named, and each of those guys nearly mirror each other statistically, anyway. You have NO idea what you're talking about. I've given you facts over and over. I've spelled it out for you. HERE IT IS, ONE MORE TIME.... NUMBER OF CATCHES ARE JUST AS MEANINGFUL AS NUMBER OF CARRIES FOR A RB. THEY ARE MEANINGFUL, BUT BY THEMSELVES THEY ARE NOT AS IMPORTANT AS YARDAGE OR TD'S... IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT YOU DID WITH THOSE CATCHES OR CARRIES. You would prefer Moss, correct, asshole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 I've given you facts over and over. I've spelled it out for you. HERE IT IS, ONE MORE TIME.... NUMBER OF CATCHES ARE JUST AS MEANINGFUL AS NUMBER OF CARRIES FOR A RB. THEY ARE MEANINGFUL, BUT BY THEMSELVES THEY ARE NOT AS IMPORTANT AS YARDAGE OR TD'S... IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT YOU DID WITH THOSE CATCHES OR CARRIES. You would prefer Moss, correct, asshole? You're the one saying that Favre had other options to throw it to, while Eli had the same, if not better, targets to throw to and Smith STILL produced more than Sydney Rice, who didn't get open those 20 times to receive your hypothetical passes. You've given me "facts" that are contradicted by RESULTS, lmao. What don't you understand? Your example ISN'T EVEN IN THE PRO BOWL, dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Welker MADE the Pro Bowl, Moss DIDN'T. Your argument is unsound. You claim big play players go to the Pro Bowl over production players. Obviously, that's not true. That is not my argument and you know it. My argument is this, stat boy: Player A: 3 catches, 120 yards, 2 TD's. Player B: 7 catches, 80 yards, 1 TD. Because player B had more catches, by your logic, he had more "production". He is a "big production player" as you say. My argument is that player A, not only had more yards, but affected the scoreboard more, and helped his team to the playoffs, which player B did not do, therefore Player A is the truly more "productive" player, BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF CATCHES ISN'T AS IMPORTANT! Why can't you see that, it's so simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Face it dude, 1 more touchdown and 1 less fumble trumps the 37 yards---not even half a football field---that Rice has outgained Smith with. And he didn't get open 20 more times to match Smith. Didn't anyone ever tell you that you can't argue hypotheticals? Because that's in agreement with your argument, anyway, that yards and touchdowns count more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 That is not my argument and you know it. My argument is this, stat boy: Player A: 3 catches, 120 yards, 2 TD's. Player B: 7 catches, 80 yards, 1 TD. Because player B had more catches, by your logic, he had more "production". He is a "big production player" as you say. My argument is that player A, not only had more yards, but affected the scoreboard more, and helped his team to the playoffs, which player B did not do, therefore Player A is the truly more "productive" player, BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF CATCHES ISN'T AS IMPORTANT! Why can't you see that, it's so simple. Okay, then quit bringing in completely irrelevant details, because obviously, Moss had more touchdowns and big plays than Wes Welker. Moss is not in the Pro Bowl. Welker is. This is totally laughable. I'm laughing at you, man. It's like arguing with a retard, even when you prove them wrong, they'll change their story. Steve Smith obviously effected the score board more, didn't he? You're a fucking toolbag, dude. You know that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boohyah Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 You're nuts. That's a brilliant answer Storm. That there no doubt strengthens your strange quest to beat Jack in being the biggest gasbag on the board. If I'm nuts, then explain why I'm nuts, and try not talking shit this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 What you're saying is that since, hypothetically, Sydney Rice could have had a lot more yards and touchdowns than Smith, but didn't, he should be in the Pro Bowl over Smith. That's fucking retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 You're the one saying that Favre had other options to throw it to, while Eli had the same, if not better, targets to throw to and Smith STILL produced more than Sydney Rice, who didn't get open those 20 times to receive your hypothetical passes. You've given me "facts" that are contradicted by RESULTS, lmao. What don't you understand? Your example ISN'T EVEN IN THE PRO BOWL, dude. The bolded phrase is not the point. Randy Moss is a hall of fame player. When his career is done he will be talked about as one of the top 5 wide receivers of all time, in all likelihood. Whether or not he is in the Pro Bowl THIS YEAR is not relevant. He has more than a few Pro Bowls to his credit already, and he should, and likely WILL BE, in the Pro Bowl this year anyway. Eli DID NOT have better targets to throw to. How you can make that argument is crazy. Shiancoe scored 10 TD's. That is real production... AGAIN, more important than number of receptions (like you are comparing to Boss). If Eli had Nicks all season, and a Nicks who was starting all year and part of the game plan, I would give you Nicks. In the handful of games that Nicks did the bulk of his damage, I would agree, he was close to and maybe as good as Harvin. But the collective group of Rice, Harvin, Berrian, Shiancoe, and Adrian Peterson are a better group of weapons at Farve's disposal than Smith, Nicks, Manningham, Boss, and Jacobs/Bradshaw. Only a complete idiot would argue the opposite. All of THAT, though, is not the point, either. The point, as stated, over and over, is that Steve Smith does not deserve a Pro Bowl over guys just because he had more catches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 That's a brilliant answer Storm. That there no doubt strengthens your strange quest to beat Jack in being the biggest gasbag on the board. If I'm nuts, then explain why I'm nuts, and try not talking shit this time. Try reading the last 319238519825897 response, bright one, I'm not going to argue with you while I'm arguing with AllstarTard over the same exact thing, dumbass. You weren't even here, I'd be talking to myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 The bolded phrase is not the point. Randy Moss is a hall of fame player. When his career is done he will be talked about as one of the top 5 wide receivers of all time, in all likelihood. Whether or not he is in the Pro Bowl THIS YEAR is not relevant. He has more than a few Pro Bowls to his credit already, and he should, and likely WILL BE, in the Pro Bowl this year anyway. Eli DID NOT have better targets to throw to. How you can make that argument is crazy. Shiancoe scored 10 TD's. That is real production... AGAIN, more important than number of receptions (like you are comparing to Boss). If Eli had Nicks all season, and a Nicks who was starting all year and part of the game plan, I would give you Nicks. In the handful of games that Nicks did the bulk of his damage, I would agree, he was close to and maybe as good as Harvin. But the collective group of Rice, Harvin, Berrian, Shiancoe, and Adrian Peterson are a better group of weapons at Farve's disposal than Smith, Nicks, Manningham, Boss, and Jacobs/Bradshaw. Only a complete idiot would argue the opposite. All of THAT, though, is not the point, either. The point, as stated, over and over, is that Steve Smith does not deserve a Pro Bowl over guys just because he had more catches. LMFAO. Next time, I'll bring in completely irrelevant details that contradict my story, THEN, when someone points this out, claim that it wasn't my point, and then claim victory. And now your claiming that Nicks had less production than Harvin when Nicks had LESS catches, MORE yards, and the same number of touchdowns. You're a complete and utter moron. I know what your point was. That it isn't how much production you have but what you do with the ball when you have it. You like hypotheticals, I like actualities. Smith put up similar yardage numbers, one more TD, and holds on to the ball, better. Not to mention he extends countless drives by making excellent catches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 You're all over the place, lmao. Good try. Smith was snubbed for Rice. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boohyah Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Try reading the last 319238519825897 response, bright one, I'm not going to argue with you while I'm arguing with AllstarTard over the same exact thing, dumbass. You weren't even here, I'd be talking to myself. You got to love a guy who insults you by calling you bright and dumbass in the same response. Steve Smith deserves to be in over Miles Austin, simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 What you're saying is that since, hypothetically, Sydney Rice could have had a lot more yards and touchdowns than Smith, but didn't, he should be in the Pro Bowl over Smith. That's fucking retarded. 1 TD and 1 fumble is not significant. What is significant is that Rice did MORE with his catches than Smith with less opportunities. And you call me the idiot when you are claiming that Smith "got open" 20 more times than Rice? That is a dumb statement. It should be obvious to anyone that the Vikings have spread the ball around more due to the aforementioned better surrounding cast that Farve has than Eli. It has zero to do with getting open. What you said doesn't even make sense. You and Jack need to start your own board. Give me the player that has 15.6 yard/rec, is the better redzone target, and has more yards overall than a possession receiver that gets a lot of balls thrown his way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 LMFAO. Next time, I'll bring in completely irrelevant details that contradict my story, THEN, when someone points this out, claim that it wasn't my point, and then claim victory. And now your claiming that Nicks had less production than Harvin when Nicks had LESS catches, MORE yards, and the same number of touchdowns. You're a complete and utter moron. I know what your point was. That it isn't how much production you have but what you do with the ball when you have it. You like hypotheticals, I like actualities. Smith put up similar yardage numbers, one more TD, and holds on to the ball, better. Not to mention he extends countless drives by making excellent catches. Very good, you would be the idiot GM that takes Welker over Moss. I get your point. Wes Welker is a better player than Randy Moss. That is essentially the same thing you are saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 1 TD and 1 fumble is not significant. What is significant is that Rice did MORE with his catches than Smith with less opportunities. And you call me the idiot when you are claiming that Smith "got open" 20 more times than Rice? That is a dumb statement. It should be obvious to anyone that the Vikings have spread the ball around more due to the aforementioned better surrounding cast that Farve has than Eli. It has zero to do with getting open. What you said doesn't even make sense. You and Jack need to start your own board. Give me the player that has 15.6 yard/rec, is the better redzone target, and has more yards overall than a possession receiver that gets a lot of balls thrown his way. Dude, I'm done with you, I've shown you the stats. Player by player, they're very similar (which wasn't your "point" anyway, remember?) I'm not sure you understand your point because you're making yourself look like a moron. And you JUST said that you prefer the player that puts more points on the scoreboard. Smith did. Now a TD is insignificant. LOLOL. Peace AllstarTard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Very good, you would be the idiot GM that takes Welker over Moss. I get your point. Wes Welker is a better player than Randy Moss. That is essentially the same thing you are saying. No, I wasn't even talking about Moss or Welker, that was all you broski. You brought up a completely random comparison that, in this case, went against your "point"....so I pointed out to you how much of a crapshoot your "point" (not to mention, the Pro Bowl) can be. Players get snubbed because they aren't on winning teams all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Again, keep to your hypothetical "what if Visanthe Shiancoe had dropped 8 of those 10 TD passes!?!!?!?" which was "not your point" anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 You got to love a guy who insults you by calling you bright and dumbass in the same response. Steve Smith deserves to be in over Miles Austin, simple. You know what, I could even roll with Boohyah's point here, that Smith is more deserving over Austin. Sure, if we are talking aggregate numbers, Austin is more deserving. But Austin went ignored by his offense the first 4 weeks of the season and really only had 8 good games. Smith has done it on nearly a week to week basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 You know what, I could even roll with Boohyah's point here, that Smith is more deserving over Austin. Sure, if we are talking aggregate numbers, Austin is more deserving. But Austin went ignored by his offense the first 4 weeks of the season and really only had 8 good games. Smith has done it on nearly a week to week basis. Oh, but WHAT IF, Austin had caught 10-15 passes in those 4 games. LMAO. He WOULD HAVE done way more with the ball than Smith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 No, I wasn't even talking about Moss or Welker, that was all you broski. You brought up a completely random comparison that, in this case, went against your "point"....so I pointed out to you how much of a crapshoot your "point" (not to mention, the Pro Bowl) can be. Players get snubbed because they aren't on winning teams all the time. LMAO... the fact that they are on winning teams is RIGHTFULLY part of the equation! You continue to not get it. Seriously... you and Jack are two peas in a pod, and I'm starting to feel like I'm wrongly insulting Jack here. Sorry Jack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Ok stat boy, I have a long drive in the morning. I don't have any more time to try and teach you how a playmaker is more valuable than a possession receiver anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 LMAO... the fact that they are on winning teams is RIGHTFULLY part of the equation! You continue to not get it. Seriously... you and Jack are two peas in a pod, and I'm starting to feel like I'm wrongly insulting Jack here. Sorry Jack. Yah because that has EVERYTHING to do with their production on the field and what would hypothetically happen if they caught the same number of passes as Smith. Yah, defense and special teams and other intangibles have zero to do with which teams are playoff teams and which aren't. The Giants aren't a playoff team, but it has nothing to do with Steve Smith's better season than Sydney Rice, nor the Giants offense. Keep on track and keep up, holmes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 You're the one arguing that a receiver with 37 less yards, more touchdowns, more catches, and less fumbles doesn't deserve to be in the Pro Bowl. So to sum it up Moss the playmaker is out, Welker in--- against your argument The Vikings had better options than Eli and the Giants---also disproved, aside from running back. First touchdowns and yards matter, but having more touchdowns than another player is insignificant Sydney Rice is somehow a "better red zone target" yet has less touchdowns and gets most of his TDs from farther out (which is your original argument), anyway. Tard likes hypothetical "what if" Sydney Rice had caught 20 more passes? Wouldn't he have more TDs and yards than Smith? Sorry, but the stat sheet doesn't account for what ifs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. P Posted December 30, 2009 Author Share Posted December 30, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 You're the one arguing that a receiver with 37 less yards, more touchdowns, more catches, and less fumbles doesn't deserve to be in the Pro Bowl. Rice has almost equal production to Smith yet he plays in an offense that spreads the ball around more, and his team is a playoff team. Playoff teams are always rewarded moreso than non-playoff teams when picking the Pro Bowl. Therefore, being that they have nearly identical production numbers, (and that, in reality land, Rice is a better PLAYMAKER than Smith), Rice deserves the nod. If you're going to decide that 20 more catches matter and that one TD more and 1 fewer fumble are important stats to consider than I am going to throw out that 37 yards also important as well as a 15.6 yds/rec average and 265 YAC compared to a pitiful 202 YAC for Smith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now