Originally posted by skyrook52
However, by your logic, you say that since my guy is on a bad team, he is not any good.
No, that's not the argument at all. My point is that a good numbers on a bad team is not, in itself, sufficient to claim that a player is good. I'm not saying that being on a bad team disqualifies him, just that it doesn't automatically qualify him.
I wasn't challenging the assertion that your guy is good, I challenged the way you proved it. Instead, make the case about his numbers and put up some links of him beating a good CB. But saying that he's the best player on a bad team isn't enough.
Originally posted by skyrook52
I apologize for Kletian Drowa outperforming your WR and thus twisting your panties in a knot, but if you watch the games, he's routinely running right by CB's and taking long completions for scores. Yes, he was thrown to a lot, but A) you have to be thrown to a lot if you're going to get 131 catches and B) which of the top receivers in this league were not thrown to a lot? He averaged nearly 16 yards per catch... and again watching the game film you can see that he's just producing. Your argument is baseless and obviously just defensive, seeing as your receiver was the #3 vote getter. But do what you got to do.
And I wouldn't say your guy outperformed mine. Your other target is a lvl 23 WR (with a 26, and then guys in the teens). My team has a lvl 31 WR (with another 31 and 30's). As a result, your guy had a lot more attempts than mine (matta had 186 attempts vs. 262 for Kletian). So with 100 fewer passing attempts, matta only had 400 fewer yards (or put another way, matta had 20% more yards per reception).
If you extrapolate matta's numbers so that the two guys have the same number of attempts, matta would have had 2500 yards.
But that goes with my old argument -- if you throw to a guy 17 times a game, he's going to get a lot of catches, no matter how bad he is.
However, by your logic, you say that since my guy is on a bad team, he is not any good.
No, that's not the argument at all. My point is that a good numbers on a bad team is not, in itself, sufficient to claim that a player is good. I'm not saying that being on a bad team disqualifies him, just that it doesn't automatically qualify him.
I wasn't challenging the assertion that your guy is good, I challenged the way you proved it. Instead, make the case about his numbers and put up some links of him beating a good CB. But saying that he's the best player on a bad team isn't enough.
Originally posted by skyrook52
I apologize for Kletian Drowa outperforming your WR and thus twisting your panties in a knot, but if you watch the games, he's routinely running right by CB's and taking long completions for scores. Yes, he was thrown to a lot, but A) you have to be thrown to a lot if you're going to get 131 catches and B) which of the top receivers in this league were not thrown to a lot? He averaged nearly 16 yards per catch... and again watching the game film you can see that he's just producing. Your argument is baseless and obviously just defensive, seeing as your receiver was the #3 vote getter. But do what you got to do.
And I wouldn't say your guy outperformed mine. Your other target is a lvl 23 WR (with a 26, and then guys in the teens). My team has a lvl 31 WR (with another 31 and 30's). As a result, your guy had a lot more attempts than mine (matta had 186 attempts vs. 262 for Kletian). So with 100 fewer passing attempts, matta only had 400 fewer yards (or put another way, matta had 20% more yards per reception).
If you extrapolate matta's numbers so that the two guys have the same number of attempts, matta would have had 2500 yards.
But that goes with my old argument -- if you throw to a guy 17 times a game, he's going to get a lot of catches, no matter how bad he is.
Last edited Nov 5, 2008 18:37:53
. Way too many missed tackles and not enough plays in space for my tastes! But I'm willing to bet his build matures more this season and that changes up. 
