Brunell vs. Bledsoe

Huddle,

1st: Santana Moss was injured in 2004. He missed two games completely and was hindered in many others. So his ability did actually change.......this fact is reflected in his statistics. So if Moss stayed in NY, I'd expect him to post numbers more in line with his 2003 numbers and/or his 2005 numbers, assuming he has a healthy QB and stays healthy himself.

2nd: I'm not playing this game where you pick small excerpts of my post and try to argue each individually. The point of my post was to show that this thread is pointless because the entire professional sports world disagrees with you. We debate sports (specifically football) on this site. We all use statistics to support our arguments, and when we want to argue the statistics we qualify them by pointing out facts that we all know (like Santana Moss being injured in 2004 and the fact that his QB couldn't throw the ball over 20 yards downfield). You're one example doesn't make statistics an innappropriate measuring stick in every single argument. In the case of Bledsoe and Brunell, the statistics are still solid basis on which to form an argument for or against each player.

3rd: Burden of proof shifts from claimant to respondent once a prima facie case is made. Therefore, Aaron Brooks is the best QB in the NFL because he is the most accurate QB, makes the best decisions, has the strongest arm, and has made the most of having the least in terms of supporting cast around him. Now the burden shifts to you: prove me wrong.

Let me save everyone some time here......you can't prove me wrong because you've paralyzed yourself with your own argument. What can you offer me to make the case that Aaron Brooks is not the best QB in the NFL?

I find it amusing that you would make this statement twice and then spend so much time, as you obviously did, in writing your lengthy and well-articulated post.

he did so because you continue this pointless diatribe without a leg to stand on.



I'm going to assume that you are a fan like myself, with no inside information on the game. If that's the case, you're guessing about the influence of statistics on the game just as I would be.

And, once again, my position has nothing to do with the statistical data gathered and used by professional teams...since most of your post has to do with the pointlessness of trying to change the reality of the sports world, it isn't relevant here.

here's the thing, the sports world revolves around stats and uses them to plan offseason moves, contract values, and player honors and awards. That, by definition, makes them useful. And its not guessing, because many many of these "insiders" give interviews and become analysts. that's just a pointless and VERY flawed attempt to discredit a perfectly legitimate point.



The burden of proof is on the claimant. The Aaron Brooks claim is yours to prove. When you try to do it with statistics, I'll simply argue that your stats are worthless and give you reasons.

without stats, you're just argueing opinions, and in that case there is no proof and no one can be wrong. Wins and Losses are stats, scores are stats. without them there is no game.

you keep saying your giving evidence, but without facts, such as stats, its nothing more than opinions and speculations.

Its a fact that bledsoe got sacked 49 times. thats also a stat, and if you're the cowboys, it'd be a good idea to address either the QB or OL to reduce that number in the future. Since it lets the cowboys know of a weakness, they can plan FA visists around that and they've hired OL guys already to try and fix it. since that one stat helped them in their long term planning, it is, by definition, useful, and consequently, not worthless, or even almost worthless.

Does anyone know how much we can save by releasing Brunell??

Does anyone know how much we can save by releasing Brunell??It all depends on the stats. If you like I could start a thread and we could discuss.

I just read through the last few pages of this thread. Normally, I have a blast debating meaningless academia - as, inately, I am a meaningless academic.

This thread, however, is far too academic and meaningless even for me.

Well, maybe not. Huddle - simple question and follow-up:
Do you believe there are ANY criteria that provide a basis for objective comparison of two players playing the same position but for different teams? If so, what are they?

PSUSkinsFan21

The point of my post was to show that this thread is pointless because the entire professional sports world disagrees with you.
If I had said that the statistics used by pro teams are worthless, you'd be right. Since that isn't my position, you have made an irrelevant point as I said before.

In the case of Bledsoe and Brunell, the statistics are still solid basis on which to form an argument for or against each player.
I know your opinion and disagree.

Burden of proof shifts from claimant to respondent once a prima facie case is made. Therefore, Aaron Brooks is the best QB in the NFL because he is the most accurate QB, makes the best decisions, has the strongest arm, and has made the most of having the least in terms of supporting cast around him. Now the burden shifts to you: prove me wrong.

Nice try ...but you have only added further claims to the original. You've proven nothing.

Huddle - simple question and follow-up: Do you believe there are ANY criteria that provide a basis for objective comparison of two players playing the same position but for different teams? If so, what are they?

I'll assume you are talking about from a fan's perspective and not by the professionals.

Observation. Watching them play. But when we see the player infrequently, there's not much to go on.

PSUSkinsFan21
Nice try ...but you have only added further claims to the original. You've proven nothing.

I've proven that you have no way of arguing the merits of any player in the NFL. I've made assertions regarding a certain player. Those assertions must be taken as admitted by you since you have nothing to counter my argument.

See if you want to argue "proof", you've really picked the wrong guy to argue with. You've mentioned "burden of proof", which I will take as a legal term of art. In our legal system, when one party makes a factual averment to another party, and that second party does not dispute the factual averment made by the first, then that factual averment is taken as admitted by the second. So you see, I've made my assertions. You've offered nothing to counter those assertions. In our system of jurisprudence my assertions would be deemed admitted and my assertions would be taken as established, thereby constituting the requisite level of "proof" to win my case. So by refusing to dispute my claims, you have essentially admitted that Aaron Brooks is the best QB in the NFL. Congratulations.

See, you keep trying to skirt the real issue here. You have backed yourself into a corner that you can't get out of. If statistics can't be used to argue a point regarding players in the NFL, then you can offer nothing to me to dispute my assertions. If we were to accept your views on statistics and their propriety in professional sports discussions, then all of us would be left making unsupported claims about players that simply could not be refuted. Hence the reason you cannot offer any argument against my statement. Statistics make the difference between bald, unsupported assertions and reasonable arguments regarding players.

hey offiss,how the hell are you?did you wish your boy ramsey good luck?


Well he's moving to my neighborhood now, unfortunatly I really have no idea on how this new Jet's coaching staff is going to pan out, I was hoping he would winde up in a better situation than the Jets.

;)

btw, how's portis's roid binge going?

No different than Bonds, Sheffield, and Giambi, as well as the rest of the NFL.