If you want to self proclaim yourself to be an idiot, then so be it. I'd suggest you better stick to watching SpongeBob Squarepants as a 3yr old than trying to figure out football.
Okay, let's review......
I started by snarking a bit on Ochmed for his claim about the Pats pass rushers being "among the worst in football" with a response pointing out that the Pats as a team in 2010 did not rank "among the worst in football" in terms of sacks. Admittedly, I didn't directly address his point about the Pats
pass rushers, which is entirely valid since, individually, none of them seem even close to being elite. OTOH, subsequent posts more or less supported my point about the Pats
team pass rush.
You then responded to my post by pompously declaring, "
Sacks are the most useless statistic to judge a defense," which, of course, I was NOT doing. I was discussing only the pass rush.
You follow that up by explaining to me, rather impatiently, that....
Its about bringing pressure. Negative plays are result of pressure ! And sack is one type of negative play resulting from pressure, as are forced int, incompletions, QB strips/fumble etc.
... as if I had no understanding of the concept. I found your approach somewhat irritating. Nevertheless, I responded by explaining my reason for using sacks as an admittedly crude measure of pressure and further pointed out that the Pats had done fairly well in 2010 by the other pressure measures you mentioned. Perhaps I was a bit snippy?
Your comeback:
Really ? So, by _that theory_ Vrabel's 12.5 sacks in 2007 would've meant he's was bringing same "pressure" as Mario Williams (13) or Osi U (13), Demarcus Ware (14), or Jared Allen league leading 15.5.
What "theory"? Yours? You seemed to be the one with a "theory" about what constitutes pressure from a defense. I had merely pointed out the Pats 2010 stats that fit
your apparent theory. So, you're criticizing me for something that had nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote. I don't really much care for that, but, y'know, that's a pretty common debate tactic on message boards (and I'm no innocent), so I let it slide.
---------------
Then, you stated your opinion (not invalid by any means, BTW),
I don't see more than 5-6 players BB will bring onto _this team_ from the draft.
Since you didn't specify "53-man roster", I responded, rather civilly, I thought...
Not sure why this would be true. We're allowed to have 80 players on the off-season roster and I can see us easily being 9-12 guys below that number by draft day....
You responded to this by completely dismissing my point about the 80-man roster and by pompously declaring (seems to be a trait of yours)....
:
53 is your roster, not 80.
...... and then demanding an explanation about vacancies on the 53-man roster. Obviously, that pissed me off and this was certainly reflected in the tone/language of my explanation of why I think the 80-man offseason roster (what I was originally discussing) and the likely vacancies on it are important wrt the draft and how many picks might be reasonably made.
Your response:
I'd suggest you better stick to watching SpongeBob Squarepants as a 3yr old than trying to figure out football.
Followed by a reiteration (IN ALL CAPS!!!!!!) of your demand that I respond to your question about the 53-man roster, as if somehow
I had originally been making some wild claim about the 53-man roster without justifying it.
Now, I
could do just that, but I see that subsequent posters have already pretty much made the same points that I would and, quite frankly, I'm weary of dealing with your attitude. In the past, you've posted some very good factual info and some interesting observations and I will continue to read your posts for those things, but I won't be responding anymore. I really have a low tolerance for being anyone's personal punching bag. You, of course, remain free to comment on anything that I post, just don't expect me to be getting back to you with any particular urgency.
