Pats pick up Andre' Davis

[AKC]

The article mentions "deep balls," which are obviously balls that travel far through the air.

 

416155[/snapback]

 

Wrong again! Pass stats in the NFL are based upon where the tackle is made, not where the ball is thrown. You've tied yourself to a losing argument and you're now trying to bail out. Sorry but 'm disinclined to allow that. You represented- in fact based your whole "Long Ball Brady" premise on some stats you promised to come later- when they came they directly contradicited your premise. It's hardly surprising the Pat's fans have run you off and you're now trapped in the Troll existence- the inability to tell the truth often leads to vagrancy.

[Hollywood Donahoe]

Wrong again! Pass stats in the NFL are based upon where the tackle is made, not where the ball is thrown.

Who said the article is based on pass stats? It's fairly obvious to anyone with an ounce of logical reasoning and reading comprehension ability that the relevant portion of the article in question is based on the distance a pass travels through the air, not the distance between the LOS and the eventual end of the play.

 

You can't be serious about all of this. Look at this passage:

 

"The disparity of short and vertical passes clearly illustrates the Patriots passing game philosophy. When the Pats pass short, they are going to be certain they don't make mistakes on it. They are more willing to make mistakes on vertical passes."

 

Notice the author's word use - "short and vertical passes," not "short passes that are stopped immediately and short passes that go for big gains." It's obvious that by "deep balls" or "vertical passes," the author is referring to passes that are thrown from one point and are caught much further down the field.

 

Am I speaking simply enough? I'm not sure how much more plainly I can put it so that you can be made to understand this fairly simple concept.

[OJ's Glove]

Wrong again! Pass stats in the NFL are based upon where the tackle is made, not where the ball is thrown. You've tied yourself to a losing argument and you're now trying to bail out. Sorry but 'm disinclined to allow that. You represented- in fact based your whole "Long Ball Brady" premise on some stats you promised to come later- when they came they directly contradicited your premise. It's hardly surprising the Pat's fans have run you off and you're now trapped in the Troll existence- the inability to tell the truth often leads to vagrancy.

416249[/snapback]

 

 

Anyone with two eyes can see that Brady throws deep much more often than when he first became a starter. It's blatantly obvious, and HD's stats are correct. Watch the most recent AFCCG against Pittsburgh, and watch how often they went deep. That was a consisent part of their gameplan in 2004, not a departure from what they usually do. Obvious if you actually watch the games, I mean.

 

It's pretty laughable for someone to criticize others about a "troll-existence", when they are seemingly trapped in a "Brady-hating existence" of their own. So much so that they would rather look foolish and dig the hole deeper than admit a mistake.

 

Why should anyone expect you to understand statistics? Especially someone who has a completely misleading, biased and completely meaningless "statistic" in their own signature.

[Hollywood Donahoe]

I can't decide if AKC is someone who:

 

a) holds beliefs and opinions that are indefensible, thus forcing him to resort to unfathomable semantic-specific tactics to somehow convince himself that he's correct.

 

or:

 

b) has great difficulty understanding simple concepts, and truly can't see why his logic and arguments are so flawed and inaccurate.

 

I'm leaning towards "a" at the moment, for his snideness does not fit the profile of "b."

 

A fascinating psychological subject, though.

[OJ's Glove]

OR:

 

c.) Knows he's wrong in this case, but can't admit or cede a point of any importance to Patriots fans because it would kill him. Better to simply yell louder, pretend he's right outwardly, and hope the argument goes away.

 

I'd ask him to pay attention to dave mcbride, but that would require actually taking someone else's advice.

[Hollywood Donahoe]

OR:

 

c.) Knows he's wrong in this case, but can't admit or cede a point of any importance to Patriots fans because it would kill him. Better to simply yell louder, pretend he's right outwardly, and hope the argument goes away.

Keep in mind, this isn't a one-time thing. He once argued fervently that Drew Bledsoe is among the most productive QBs in NFL history, based solely on his career passing yards.

[OJ's Glove]

Keep in mind, this isn't a one-time thing.  He once argued fervently that Drew Bledsoe is among the most productive QBs in NFL history, based solely on his career passing yards.

416264[/snapback]

 

Sheesh. I guess it's true if "throwing for a lot of yards" is your one and only definition of "productive".

[AKC]

Am I speaking simply enough? 

416251[/snapback]

 

 

The clock is ticking-

 

Produce even a single piece of evidence that the story you referenced is based upon anything other than the official NFL pass stats (which have ALWAYS included RAC)- if you are unable to you are either incoherent or simply a liar.

[Simon]

I can't decide if AKC is someone who:

 

How about d.)

A guy who enjoys entertaining the rest of us by torturing opposing teams' fans in the process of weeding out the idiots, an endeavour in which he's been succesful thus far.

You're doing pretty fair work there Hollywood, keep it up.

You just better hope he doesn't notice this quote(which takes a familiar soudning position that somebody has taken somewhere in this thread) from teh article you posted to support your point: "The synergy of Brady's skills and the Patriots skill maximization philosophy has simply made each of them better than they should be."

Did I type that out loud?

Ooooopsies.......

[Hollywood Donahoe]

The clock is ticking-

 

Produce even a single piece of evidence that the story you referenced is based upon anything other than the official NFL pass stats.

The use of the phrase "deep balls" - which you yourself have used multiple times in this thread to describe a pass that travels many yards through the air - is not enough for you?

 

I am not responsible for your lack of reading comprehension ability. I posted the facts, and I cannot help you if you are unable to understand them.

[taterhill]

The use of the phrase "deep balls"

416806[/snapback]

whoaaaa...this is a family board

[Hollywood Donahoe]

whoaaaa...this is a family board

 

I do feel kind of creepy having to type that so many times.

[stuckincincy]

 

I do feel kind of creepy having to type that so many times.

416922[/snapback]

 

Why?...got something against the Kennedys?

[AKC]

I posted the facts, and I cannot help you if you are unable to understand them.

416806[/snapback]

 

You boasted that you would offer evidence supported by stats compiled that included "ball in the air", further qualified by you as pass stats that WOULD NOT INCLUDE RAC yardage. The evidence you offered includes RAC yardage, hence your boast was absolute BS.

 

You could simply admit that you made an error, maybe say you meant some OTHER story that you now can't locate, or I will continue to point out that you're full of sh-- for lying about something you can't produce.

[AKC]

i think brady is hands down the best qb in the league, my guess is that the success will continue. i hope not, of course.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?playerId=2330

 

ne's offense has gone from 19 (01) to 22 (02) to 18 (03) to 7 (04). some of it's corey dillon, but more of it is tom brady.

416215[/snapback]

 

I always begin with the presumption that QB is easily the most overrated, surely the most overwatched, position on a football team. It's amazing to me that fans of the game would assume that an efficient QB like Drew Bress, who threw half as many INTs as Brady last year in similar attempts, wouldn't walk right into NE and be as effective as Brady. I also find it puzzling that some would assume that a complete NFL QB like Peyton Manning wouldn't suceed there. The toughest thing to listen to though is the comparison to the historic greats. What an insult to complete QBs in our own time like John Elway or great system QBs who didn't crumble like Brady when facing pressure like Joe Montana. What I see when I see Brady is another Rich Gannon or Kurt Warner clone, a guy who got into a system that fits him well but who couldn't start at a lot of NFL addresses. If you do buy the Brady hype you'd have to believe he would start in Minnesota or Arizona, and for that matter be succesful if he did, and I don't buy it. He does some things very well on a team that has done an awesome job protecting him enought to allow his own good instincts to limit the little pressure he has seen. But when team's have beaten the Pat's front line Brady has looked more like Bob Avellini than Joe Montana.

 

Will I get a chance to see Brady play on a declining Pat's team to measure my assumptions? I'm betting I will, and sooner rather than later. At the same time it's possible Belichick has become a much better coach over the course of the NE years and if he doesn't get dinged up too much from the OC and DC losses I may have to eat crow and watch Brady break records. I just have a gut feeling that his career might end up looking a lot more Kurt Warner than John Elway or Joe Montana.

[smokinandjokin]

The fact is there is a tremendous chasm between being "barely good enough by your kicker's foot" and the huge leap from there to being an actual "Dynasty".

 

AKC, I appreciate what you're doing here, and I think it's great when someone ruffles the Pats fans a bit, but I would edit the above line from your signature. It's a very easy target for "Barely not good enough by your kicker's foot." I can think of one occasion where I wish Norwide was barely good enough....

[AKC]

"The synergy of Brady's skills and the Patriots skill maximization philosophy has simply made each of them better than they should be."

 

416650[/snapback]

 

I could hardly get through the whole article- thanks for taking the time. Now find your own troll to piss on, this one's mine ;-)

[AKC]

AKC, I appreciate what you're doing here, and I think it's great when someone ruffles the Pats fans a bit, but I would edit the above line from your signature.  It's a very easy target for "Barely not good enough by your kicker's foot."  I can think of one occasion where I wish Norwide was barely good enough....

416947[/snapback]

 

I think that exemplifies exactly how tenuous their success to date has been. We were as close as they were to the big win but, unlike the Pats, the best player in a Bill's uniform in the big game wasn't our kicker.

[Hollywood Donahoe]

You boasted that you would offer evidence supported by stats compiled that included "ball in the air", further qualified by you as pass stats that WOULD NOT INCLUDE RAC yardage.

"DEEP BALLS" ARE BALL THAT TRAVEL A LONG DISTANCE "IN THE AIR." YOU YOURSELF USED THE TERM IN THIS MANNER.

 

How you cannot understand this is beyond me.

 

The evidence you offered includes RAC yardage.

It simply does not. The article references "deep balls" and "vertical passes," which very obviously refer to passes that travel a great distance "in the air," and not short passes with RAC added on.

 

You were made to look foolish by your false claim that Brady rarely throws vertical passes, an you're trying to save face. It's understandable, but a twisted semantical game akin to debating the definition of "is" is not the way to go about it. Admit you were wrong, and gain back a little respect from the rest of the board.

[AKC]

The article references "deep balls" and "vertical passes," which very obviously refer to passes that travel a great distance "in the air," and not short passes with RAC added on.

 

416979[/snapback]

 

I simply won't allow you to make these complete fabrications of the facts- you said the stats YOU would provide would be for "balls in the air", yet you can't show a single reference in the article that mentions this as their tool of analysis. Where does it talk about the methodology of your fantasy set of stats- stats they would have had to research exclusively for this article? If your premise was in any way believable, and if, after developing a set of statistics other than the league stats, in fact a set of stats that supported their asseritons in the article, you would have us believe that they would make NO REFERENCE AT ALL TO THOSE STATS OR THE NUMBERS THEY CAME UP WITH!

 

If you believe what you are saying you are a fool. If you don't believe what you are saying (as I suspect) you are a liar.