NFL whos looking good so far

[ChadTower]

Anyone been to their local stadium or any other stadium?  (it's hard getting tickets for me, so I figure it's the same for others)

The only CURRENT stadium I've been to is Gillette.  Also went to Foxboro Stadium, Joe Robbie, and the Big Sombrero in Tampa.

It's a PIA in New England.  I refuse to pay $35 to park 5 miles from my house.

[tommy]

I havent been to a game since marino was playing, its not worth it to me to go threw the hassle of parking and sitting in a bucket for a few hours to see  teams im not rooting for, then again i would like to attend an nfl game again.

[tommy]

Any superbowl predictions yet.

[DrewKaree]

Arizona Cardinals to take it all























Seriously,  tho...

Vikings vs Colts

Colts Win.

[ChadTower]

Vikings vs Colts

Colts Win.

Won't happen because the Colts can't beat the Pats.  Dungy is a terrible big game coach.  I watched it in Tampa for years.

[tommy]

Arizona should be getting Travis Henry form buffalo, there shaping up decent now.


Browns vs Panthers   superbowl   

[tommy]

I think Toomer is under rated ,him and now plexico are as good as those rams recievers.

[DrewKaree]

2003
Bruce 69 for 981
Toomer 63 for 1057

2002
Bruce 79 for 1075
Toomer 82 for 1343

2001
Bruce 64 for 1106
Toomer 72 for 1054

So you're telling us the Giants PRIMARY receiver is posting comparable numbers to the Rams SECONDARY receiver?  Looking at their CAREER instead of picking the best years you can point to paints a more accurate picture, and Bruce has him by over 1200 yards and 90 receptions - a full CAREER season for Toomer to catch up!  Heck, Torry Holt has better numbers than Toomer, and he's been in the league 2 years less than Toomer....oh, and Bruce had better numbers in '01 than Toomer, so you may want to narrow down the years you compare again

The numbers just don't add up to anything other than Chad's opinion being borne out as actual fact, and me having nothing better to do with my time.  Heck, looking at FAULK'S numbers paint him as a reciever on a par with Toomer, and when his recieving stats are down, his rushing stats are WAY up, as if to demonstrate that if he focused solely on recieving, he would be BETTER than Toomer (and prolly Bruce).  I can twist Bruce's numbers to demonstrate the sheer dominance he would exert over Toomer if I wanted to as well, but there's no reason to.  Bruce is simply as good (and in some cases BETTER) than most team's #1 receiver, in fact, I'd bet he WOULD be most team's #1 receiver if he were traded, INCLUDING the Giants.

[tommy]

We can go over numbers till were blue in the face ,but the fact is

[DrewKaree]

We can go over numbers till were blue in the face ,but the fact is  he CAN compare  thats the point here , im sure hes your friend and is why you posting on his behalf..., you said 01 ..thats what 50 yards, please. 

Come ON, man.  You can't bring up numbers to prove your point and when you're proven wrong give the "it's only x amount, gimme a break" excuse!   If you don't want to argue numbers, don't bring them up!

I can demonstrate for you how Bruce IS their secondary reciever, regardless of "what some people would argue" (which only serves to prove my point that he'd prolly be the primary receiver on most other teams!), and I demonstrated how comparing Toomer over his entire time in the league is a career year (meaning his BEST numbers posted would have to be achieved) behind Bruce!

Toomer is an OK receiver, if that makes you happy, but trailing a guy by a career year DOES NOT compare.  You're trying to prove a point to Chad that simply doesn't exist, EXCEPT for two years you gave, and you were proven wrong in the other year YOU TOLD US TO USE!  Chad's factual point can be demonstrated, whereas your opinion can be proven only in a limited time span that is anything BUT indicitave of his average.  Did you happen to notice that there's also 8 less receptions by Bruce in getting "only 50 more yards"?  Did you happen to notice he trails Bruce by "only 1200+ yards over his career"? 

That's like saying Mark McGwire is better than Sammy Sosa because he hit "like, what, a couple more homers?"  Shoot, that's not even a good example.  The reason it's not a good example is that YOU brought up the numbers, I spewed out a better comparison which if I took it further, would demonstrate a stability in Bruce's numbers that doesn't exist with Toomer, and now you want to blow off SOME numbers as inconsequential?

I'll take your bet.  History has been on my side for the past 7 years, my odds are almost a LOCK

I can't believe you're so worked up to say Bruce is my friend, and you don't even see that tag more easily applied to you and Toomer.  I've liked Torry Holt, actually, as a reciever since seeing him play in college long ago.  I'm simply pointing out your numbers argument doesn't hold up.  I didn't realize I'd be the one to break it to you....I figured if you wanted to use numbers in a debate, you'd have at least checked to make sure you were right first.

It's funny, this conversation reminds me of a book by Michael Lewis called "Moneyball".  It relates to the Patriots, in a way.  They pay for performance, but they don't OVERPAY for it.  Toomer would fit in that scenario, because he'd be cheaper for the Pats to obtain than Bruce, Holt, or Owens yet wouldn't produce decent enough numbers for them to chase after him with that "touch above mediocre salary numbers" they need to stay under the cap while remaining competitive.

The Packers are learning that Mike Sherman hasn't a clue about this theory!

[tommy]

I didnt mean you were posting for bruce.

[ChadTower]

I say, and analysis would bear it out but I don't have time to find proof, that any of Holt, Bruce, or Faulk is better than all of those listed.

Faulk is the only close one and that's because he's so close to the end of his career.

[tommy]

I challenge you to a NFL recieving yards bet on the above topic, who is man enough to take me up on this?

If you pretend like you dont see this post and dont respond, you know who you two are, i will be forced to laugh and feel superior in my NFL knowledge. 

[DrewKaree]

Nah, I saw it yesterday. 

Now that I see how you work when facts are introduced, I'm working on something that'll just leave you looking like a crying little schoolgirl

As for the bet, I simply offer the gentleman's bet....the opportunity to rag on me until you make me cry, and on a public forum to boot.  And it takes a lot to make me cry....like, you'd have to call me a commie liber...sniff....sniff....al 

I will STICK with Bruce and Holt.  Faulk/whoever's-interchangeable-to-the-Mad-Scientist needs to be contemplated, whether or not I want to go with the Rams third reciever, wide receiver, or whoever I need to throw away to even the bet out for you.

[tommy]

Ok then commie, so you have a surprise for me soon you say, no problem.

How i work when facts are introduced, baaaaaa...... 

[DrewKaree]

Ok then commie,

You forgot liberal