murra

Do you realize how insane you sound when you take opinions and play them off as facts? You did this in the Ellison thread too. Pretty soon it's going to come back at you. Maybe not with Hardy, but you've made a lot of ridiculous statements so far, and it's going to be real fun watching you respond when you eventually get called out.

Like we don't know what that's like

Great Article, thanks for posting.

Nope, the QB hasn't been discussed anywhere else.

I knew this was coming. To give you an idea of how meaningless this stat is, the two players behind him I've never heard of, and they play for Oakland and Tampa Bay.

But in reality, you're both inaccurate. Clearly judging a sport that plays only 16 games, each play holds significance, but it's difficult to overlook that the relatively small sample size we have with each will allow us to skew the stats whichever way we desire.

Yeah, I think it's because he compared him to the third anti-Christ... anti-semetic, being that he is a jew. I don't know, it seems like something I would say in a very joking tone with that person present. It sounds like he just didn't deliver the joke well enough. Anyways, I was on the fence with Collins before this, and this hasn't really swayed my opinion either way, however I can understand totally the offense taken.

I agree.

You see, I can't tell if that's it or not. That's been on my mind a lot, but honestly, the fact that we can't keep teams honest might not be the reason to our inept run department. At least not the main reason. I think a lot has to do with Van Pelt. I don't think he's been able to effectively figure out how to use Lynch and Jackson. There have been many questionable calls, decisions, etc. Why run a stretch handoff in your end zone. I realize the criticism that it was Jackson and not Lynch, but that doesn't change the fact that he calls a running play TOWARDS Julius Peppers, and one that notoriously takes a while to setup (Running back needs to change position, move to outside, off tackle). As I'm progressively becoming more aware about football related things, I'm progressively more and more confused with our rushing strategy. If I play against the Bills it would be too easy. If we incomplete a pass on first down, we ALWAYS run on second down. There are many things like this that are becoming predictable, and so even more than our poor passing attack, I believe you're right in that our opponents are just totally in our huddle. They have us completely figured out on the ground.

Exactly, can't be compared. You just proved why they can't be compared, learn to read. (and for the record, he literally dropped a TD his rookie year at the 1 yd line, so for all intensive purposes, he had 3 recieving)

1. Polamalu has been hurt, Reed is having an off year, and Sanders I think just played his first game. IF byrd continues this unlikely streak of WINNING GAMES SINGLE-HANDEDLY, he deserves the spot. 2. Ngata and Stroud don't play the same position. 3. Wood has no chance 4. Schobel needs more than 10 sacks to make it, and I would give him about a 10% chance.

Very nice post. I thoroughly enjoyed your analysis, since you were able to express the two most important aspects of the discussion: 2-0 on the road vs. 1-4. and Fitzpatrick has been able to show us something different (mostly positive) than we can deem Trent capable of. In addition, I think an argument can be made, that several factors transcend statistics. For example, I think the overall atmosphere of the offense changed with the change in quarterbacks. Clearly Lee Evans executed all of his chances in the second half on Sunday. He seemed more upbeat because the possibility of a ball coming his way had increased. While the change in quarterbacking has possibly proven to be a advantageous for the team's momentum, there are certainly factors that prove the offense still isn't ticking, and hasn't been for a while: You can't overlook the run support differences. In the first two weeks, (Trent's top two games) the running game provided an able medium for gaining yards. This support gave Trent fewer third and longs, and made first downs easier to convert. Coincidentally (I believe, anyways) on Marshawn's arrival, the run game slowed for some reason, the threat evaporated, and our first downs decreased dramatically. Trent found almost no hope, and a dump-off for 6 yards that worked effectively when it was 3rd and short, no longer converted the longer downs. Because of the surprisingly hampered rushing attack, it's been more difficult to move the chains. Fitzpatrick has not converted many, and his real success so far has come on shortened field. The only reason Fitzpatrick remains a more intelligent option, is due to the fact that on third downs, your chances of a dump-off going down decrease. In my honest opinion, I can say that if our running attack improves (whether it is the unsure backs on these stretch plays, or the offensive line) we should most certainly make the transfer back to Edwards.

You're math sucks, and I think you like to jump to conclusions. How's that?

Cleveland has only thrown for over 100 yards once since his departure. That game they threw for 106. Maybe the Jets don't get the stimulated offensive attack they had wish, but the Browns are definitely losers in this trade. Edit: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cle/2009.htm Quick math tells me that they went from 173yds/game to 69 yrds/game in the air. In other-words, Edwards' presence alone contributed in more than doubling their offensive production.

No it doesn't.

How is that ironic? Isn't that a coincidence?

You're probably right. I'm not really sure if we'll address the center position like you seem to think. That might be the right move, but if I'm predicting based on drafting habits, and our same guys are running this next draft, we'll look towards a TO replacement even though it will likely be a wasted late-round pick. As far as center goes, we're set at guard, and Hangartner isn't that old, so I could see us adding depth maybe in the later picks, but our need seems blaring only at the tackle positions.

Roscoe Parrish.

P1=DT, OT P2=OLB, DE P3=QB P4=WR P9=CB, OG, OC, TE, FB, S.

I'm going to bookmark that one just in case.

What a fun problem to have.

7-9