btw, major - one last point: you've been dismissive of claims that tennessee was "lucky" and i've always used to term fortuituous, but, whatever. point is: teams that win get lucky. the '86 giants were a worthy champion, but did they get "lucky" when norwood missed a makable game-winner? how about the 94 rockets? weren't they a tad lucky that denver knocked seattle out of the playoffs? does it minimize their accomplishments? no. luck is a key ingredient to winning, though. always has been, always will be. tennessee just seemed to get more than its share of breaks in 06, and logic would dictate that'll even out this year. it's really hard to go 8-3 when you're outscored by your opponents, and tennessee did it - how? how??
To say Whitlock has an intense bias toward everything from the state of Texas would be a dramatic understatement. I've met him. He's looney tunes when it comes to how he views this state. Anyway, it's a shame professional sportswriters can get to that point being so uneducated. Both of those sacks were fabulous plays. A defensive end has more responsibility than to pin his ears back and rush the passer. There are intricacies to the position. In particular, on the second one, his job was to have a strong initial burst and occupy multiple blockers, allowing someone else around the edge. In that case, Williams made the play, the other rusher flushed him higher in the pocket and Williams was waiting for the sack. Of course, to understand that, you have to actually research the game and have an open mind, instead of being an arrogant, biased hack who talks out of his ass to meet his biases. As for standing in the right place, right time -- I'd say 90 percent of defensive touchdowns are accumulated the same way! It's either the quarterback making a mistake and throwing where there's a defender, or a fumble taking a perfect bounce. Very, very rarely is the person who scores a defensive touchdown responsible for making the play. Yet, you never hear about it in a negative sense... except when it's Mario Williams. I feel so, so bad for the guy. I've never seen an athlete put up with the absolute media bull**** that he does, when he brought none of it on himself. I've watched football for nearly 20 years... I've never seen a defender discredited for scoring a touchdown based on the "right place, right time" logic (because to an extent, the entire game is based around that). But with Mario, new rules all over the place. **** you, Whitlock. What a hack.
I'll go ahead and derail a little bit...there's a guy that sits next to you in your Newspaper Management class that frequents another message board I visit. He'll probably be saying something to you soon.
Where did anyone say they were disappointed by a guy with 1300 yards and 21 TDs? Did you read what you quoted? I'll requote for emphasis: and the beginning of his junior year During the first 6 games of his junior year, he had the following rushing totals: 40, 27, 130, 86, 54, and 21 - 7 TDs. In the final 6 games, he had 140, 174, 180, 142, 283, and 83 - 14 TDs. Do you notice a difference? People were thrilled with his freshman year. Did you notice the multiple posts about good players getting BETTER when playing with Vince? It doesn't matter if it went from 2 ypc to 4 ypc or 9 ypc to 11 ypc. If there's an noticable difference for every single running back that plays with Vince in his pre and post numbers, there's probably a correlation there. Because he was good? And then he was better with Vince. Higher yards per carry. More yards per game. See how that works? You take what he was and improve on it. Except you'd suggest that they win many games because of Henry and despite Vince. I'd argue that part of Henry's success is there because Vince is on the field. And the statistical evidence over the last 3+ years of Vince's career bears that out. As do the coaches and teammates' comments. Except when I clearly stated they were good players. But yeah, if that's saying that he's a bum, you got me. No, I'm saying he was a better player when he played alongside Vince. And his stats over those 1.5 years clearly and definitively bear that out. His numbers were substantially better in that period. Except according to all the people that played with him and coached him over his high school, college, and pro career thus far. But we'd know better from our couches who's leading the team. You believe Vince is primarily a product of his circumstance - just like Carr was. I disagree. I believe they are big parts of the circumstances they are in.
Nick? haha, that's hilarious. Yeah, I noticed he was looking the other day when I was browsing the BBS during class.
They did it by improving over the course of the season. Early in the season, they got blown out a lot. During the last half of the season, they improved and kept all their games close and made big plays in the 4th quarter. They were outscored badly the first half of the season. They outscored their opponents the last half. I agree that luck played a part in it, especially where turnovers are concerned since the other team has to give you the opportunity to force them. But you're starting from an 8-8 standpoint. The team that ended the season was better than an 8-8 team. So if they regress, they'd get closer to going back to an 8-8 team.
Definitely not. Off-topic, but my boss has a bobblehead of Jason Whitlock in his office. I'm not sure who the hell made that, but it's there. If it's possible for anything in the world to have negative value, that might be it...
Again, everything you mentioned was there prior to VY getting behind center, when the Titans were sucking...correct or incorrect? No, I don't think Vy made pro football players not suck. But I do think there is this huge intangible thing called leadership that is very important at the QB role, and some guys play harder for certain guys than they do for others. I think VY has that ability (called "it). Other QB's, such as Carr, don't. You are completely dismissing that and the other nonstatistical aspects that he brings to the table (i.e. making the defense spy on him running, which makes it easier for the RB's that just so happened to go from subpar to damn good while he was on the field). To the other poster, I mentioned Carr because Ric keeps bringing up stats. Obviously stats don't tell the whole story or we would not have a new QB in Houston. Carr was removed for all the non-statiscal things that he didn't bring to the table (ability to inspire others, connect with teammates, be a leader, handle pressure in the pocket, etc).
It's funny how he writes off Mario's sacks because of other linemen setting him up when he probably would never give Mario credit for doing the same thing when someone else gets a sack.
For once, I want to see the logic that explains why Vince Young is a better quarterback than Rex Grossman.
Exactly. There were several examples of the scenario you're describing last season, yet they were overlooked and we were told to look at the numbers. Now that Mario has the numbers... the media is switching back to the other logic. It's sad and pathetic.
and therein lies the issue: he was better with vince. never mindthe longhorns sent how many players to the nfl the past 2-3 years? it was: vince. i've posted this repeatedly; they were outscored over the course of their 16-game schedule; they were outscored in baby vince's 13 starts; and they were outscored during their 8-3 finish. in the 11 starts, i believe (from memory), the final tally was... like, 244-245. that would indicate a break-even team over the course of a full season. realistically, 7 to 9 wins. they set a 12-win pace in those final 11 games. 12-4! you're telling me there's NOTHING fishy about a team being anywhere from 3 to 5 games better than a telling stat like points scored/allowed would inidicate?
cat, bless you. i'm writing an article that pretty much says the same thing, only my ire is focused at that fat **** peter king and his "we poked fun at him" comment from this past monday.
or why did chris brown not rush for more than 60 yards in any game last year? and how did he post an 1,000 season in just 11 games in '04 with baby vince in austin?
I have another example of something to add to the "stats are a little deceiving" argument. There was one 3rd and long play last week where the defensive linemen had VY dead to rights, but he eludes the tackle, then eludes a couple more, and the net effect was +16 yards compared to if he had been sacked. In the scoresheet however, it's only a modest rushing gain of maybe half that, but it was enough for the first down. This is an example of why stats don't tell everything. This happens probably a couple times a game. Teams with other QB's would have had to take the sack, so each time it happens it's like a mini-turnover in your favor that an outstanding running QB gives you. And because it's a first down, it thereby affords a few more running plays to wear down the defense, thereby padding the rushing stats of Brown, White, etc., and it's conventional wisdom that the more you pound the defense running the ball, the easier it gets, further helping their stats. Yes, VY is not throwing the ball so great, but for a mainly running offense like Tenn, it could work.
