FireChan

Cassel is here. The more things change, the more back-up journeymen QB's stay the same.

!@#$! I was trying to think of something to put after "anything." Oh well. At least I didn't write that abortion of post earlier. Thanks 3rd.

DId you know that "cutting things in half," while a great tool in trying to sound like a pompus know-it-all, isn't a scientific way to determine anything? Hilarious how someone with such self-righteousness could write something that long, and not step back to realize they're an idiot.

I've seen it. So you didn't have an overarching point? You just wanted to point out that Orton was scoreless in the 3rd and 4th Q against scrubs? What am I rendering unclear, by the way?

It's quite simple. You said KO couldn't muster any points against the Pats backups. I pointed out that Kyle Orton played well, against their defensive first stringers, as evidenced by our 17 points in the first half. You said that that 17 points doesn't matter, because Gronk didn't play. You also said you had no idea how well Kyle Orton played, because they rested starters. I pointed to a game where Kyle Orton played well, against the Patriots, and we lost. Then, you said that the NE/BUF game earlier is obfuscating. I don't know why, when it's, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the best indicator for how Orton played against NE defensive starters (and what happens when their offense is full). Then I asked you a bunch of questions. You didn't answer any of them. Besides aptly pointing out that we lost the first Pats game. Which is irrelevant. Especially when you throw out the win in the second. We can either talk W/L or player performance. Not both.

What do the Patriots' offensive players have to do with Kyle Orton? Does he play DT or QB? Didn't you just argue that he played against third stringers on defense and couldn't score? Well, I have a game and half of evidence for what he can do against their first stringers on defense. Those are the guys on the field when he is. Brady could put up 100 with Gronk, and it wouldn't affect KO in the slightest, besides having to press a bit. What was your point again?

Don't worry, I can show you what happens when Orton plays the Pats' "full compliment of starters." http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=400554259 6 minutes left, down 8, the defense lets up a 3 minute TD drive. To lose.

People know they aren't in total control, but they also knows things aren't going to go poorly for lack of trying.

How did he do against their first string? I don't think WEO is defending Orton here, just pointing out that you were incorrect.

There have been claims otherwise.

The claim was that he was shackled in 14. First line in the OP. Thanks for playing.

Reading many, many posts on how EJ is "gonna use his legs more," and "EJ was coached up not to run in 2014," I decided to do a little digging. Not to exonerate Marrone, but to just see if these claims were accurate. On the surface, they appear to be. 2013 - 5.3 RAPG 2014 - 4 RAPG (The Jets game was not included, due to EJ handing it off 3 times to close out the game.) But let's dig a little deeper. Besides the Houston game, EJ in 2014 would've average 5 RAPG. Houston appears to be one outlier game where he rushed 1 time, probably because of JJ Watt chasing him down. Looking at 2013, he also had an outlier game of only 1 rush, against Cleveland. So, it's not unlike EJ 2013, or 2014 version, to only have one rush in a game. Throwing out both low outliers. 2013 - 5.8 RAPG 2014 - 5 RAPG Significant? You be the judge.

Of course, that's a "sucky" stat line, but EJ played pretty good against Chicago.

Talk about an exaggeration.

"Whether he's the starter or not." Sammy is hedging his bets.

That's what I thought.

Whose fault was the JJ Watt INT?

Apparently, twisting words isn't obfuscating.

No I'm not. Getting close to the playoffs is better than not. Every time.

All parts of the team had some failures in those games.

Still not all of it. How about that they are getting closer to achieving their goals than ever? You can't make the playoffs without winning games and you can't win the Super Bowl without making the playoffs.

That's not all.

And I'm certain having the first winning season of his career meant something.

After a decade of 6-10? Maybe. But ask Kyle Williams how it felt to have the first winning season of his career. I doubt it meant nothing. And that's irrelevant.

First winning season in a decade is a pretty good consolation prize.