Brunell vs. Bledsoe

and while you hawk over this thread, you have yet to produce one single FACT that provides any evidence that stats are worthless. NOT ONE.

you're argueing to argue, but have yet to actually prove anything. good job. since you're alone on this whole "stats are worthless" tear, lets see you carry the onus to prove you're right. Its fun repeating "that's just an opinion" but according to you that's the defense for everything, so no one can be right.

Please, show me one reason why you're right, that withstands the "that' just an opinion" garbage you're using on everyone else.

this isn't a debate, its a waste of time.

So when it comes down to it, I don't think your precious confounding variables are very confounding at all. The 23 TD passes are comparable stats. And given Brunell's abilities in game management, I'll take him over Bledsoe any time.

As I said earlier, I didn't see Bledsoe enough to get a good read on his game. What I saw wasn't impressive.

I saw Brunell's game. He looked great for a time in the first half of the season but faded badly after the San Francisco blowout.

Please, show me one reason why you're right, that withstands the "that' just an opinion" garbage you're using on everyone else.

this isn't a debate, its a waste of time.

I gave you the only logical argument that applies here. I gave it more than once.

Since you haven't commented on it, I can't tell if you don't understand the argument or you simply choose to ignore it.

I gave you evidence which you tried unsucessfully to undermine.

Now, the only point you're offering is a common logical fallacy...that I'm outnumbered here therefore I'm wrong.

I gave you the only logical argument that applies here. I gave it more than once.

Since you haven't commented on it, I can't tell if you don't understand the argument or you simply choose to ignore it.

I gave you evidence which you tried unsucessfully to undermine.

Now, the only point you're offering is a common logical fallacy...that I'm outnumbered here therefore I'm wrong.

um, you said "other factors" so i'll say thats "just an opinion"

meanwhile i'm still waiting on facts.

(btw, this is exactly what you've been doing, see how it doesn't work).

I did refute it in the post above. apparently you choose to ignore that though.

I'd also like you to point out the logical fallacy you're alluding to, AND to show why YOUR ideas count as evidence and EVERYONE ELSE's ideas count as opinions. its a REALLY convenient way of argueing and never being wrong.

meanwhile i'm still waiting on you to show me why you're right besides baseless opinions.

That Guy

this whole thread went stupid. you claim any dissenting view is strictly opinion, yet whatever your opinion happens to be is fact. Its worthless argueing cause you're being an f/ing brick wall and logic is on the other side.

You have a tough time staying civil when people don't agree with you...don't you?

when you have multiple variables, you make multiple equations and you CAN find out A, B, C or D individually from them. that's basic math.

Right, basic math with a false analogy. What we're talking about here is more like trying to solve an equation where there are no givens. We can think of five or six factors which can influence the statistic and we can't isolate and accurately measure any of them.

portis in washington still put up monsster numbers. its not like his stats got cut in half. situation does play a role, but like i said, the individual player plays a much bigger role on his own statline.

Probably but if you offered a percentage on how much to give the player's performance, you'd have to reach behind you to find it.

portis went from 1500 to 1300, and next year i bet he goes back up. Fact is, he stayed above 1300 every season. some backs can't break 800 yards, some back never get 1000. denver switched backs, but kept the system (and got better QB play), and yet the replacements weren't as good...

Tatum Bell had fewer carries but a much higher YPC. does that stat prove he was better?

that must mean that portis is better, and, OMGWTFLOLZ!!!! the STATS bear that out.

Why stop there? You can prove Clinton's better than Jim Brown if you choose your stats carefully.

I think the main problem with both QB's is that they were VERY inconsistent throughout the year. Luckily, for us, Bledsoe became more incosistent towards the end of the season, and that is what cost the Cowboys a playoff spot, which Brunell kicked it up a notch towards the end of the regular season. The point being, on any givening weekend both are as likely to throw 4 TDS and 0 INTs as they are to throw 1 TD and 3 INTS...

I'd also like you to point out the logical fallacy you're alluding to,

I'm too lazy to look it up for you. Google "logical fallacies." You'll find several lists of common logical fallacies. This one goes by "Appeal to Popularity" and several other names.

I'm too lazy to look it up for you. Google "logical fallacies." You'll find several lists of common logical fallacies. This one goes by "Appeal to Popularity" and several other names.

great, point out the one i actually made instead of stupid baseless claims that you're unwilling to stand by.

you'll throw out accusations and then refuse to defend them.

I'm still waiting on this evidence of yours by the way. I notice you're quick to get sidetracked playing with technicalities to actually make a case, but maybe you should try. I have yet to see any of this "evidence" you're providing or any reason that'd give ANY credibility to whatever point it is you think you're making.

Quote:
when you have multiple variables, you make multiple equations and you CAN find out A, B, C or D individually from them. that's basic math.

Right, basic math with a false analogy. What we're talking about here is more like trying to solve an equation where there are no givens. We can think of five or six factors which can influence the statistic and we can't isolate and accurately measure any of them.

you can accurately measure all of it. the speeds, the times, the tackles, the fumbles, the knee bend, EVERYTHING. So your retort here is clearly wrong

Quote:
portis in washington still put up monsster numbers. its not like his stats got cut in half. situation does play a role, but like i said, the individual player plays a much bigger role on his own statline.

Probably but if you offered a percentage on how much to give the player's performance, you'd have to reach behind you to find it.

Well then, you've just admitted that stats aren't worthless right there. so why are you still going at it so hard?