Defense - SD vs NE

[Brownfan80]

as stated before, v. young played in the 2nd game of the season, against the chargers.. do some research before you post. welcome to my sig!

Vince young, in his first action, is not a quality win. The score was already out of hand when he came in. And he's a rookie. He started playing well once he was put in there as a starter some weeks later, but obviously that win was not against a quality team at the time that you played them. Stop grasping at straws on that one.

 

[abyzmul]

If you care to play that game:

Junior Seau, Starting ILB : IR (during Bears game)

Rodney Harrison, Starting Safety: Missed significant time due to shoudler blade injury, will likely be out next game.

Eugene Wilson, Starting Safety: IR (missed majority of season)

Vince Wilfork, Starting NT: Missed significant time.

Ellis Hobbs, Starting CB: Missed time.

Chad Scott, CB, Missed time

Seymour, DE: Missed time

you're missing the point. the chargers team that your friends here love to produce stats about isn't the same team that's showing up on sunday. the chargers were plagued with injuries and still managed to be 14-2 (almost undefeated, lost 2 games by 6 points combined).

now come sunday, the only person still who is injured is a backup D-lineman. THAT's why your stats are meaningless, and the inability to understand this simple concept is one of the shortcomings amongst patriot fans on this forum.

fortunately for you, i can guarantee you that BB agrees with me. as much as you want to pound your chest like a gorilla, you're wrong.

 

[BelichickFan]

as stated before, v. young played in the 2nd game of the season, against the chargers.. do some research before you post.

If you look at his game log, my friend, you'll notice that it wasn't until Week 12 that Young started playing well consistently - until the Patriots' game, of course.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=7752

and he totally sucked until Week 6.

welcome to my sig!

I have sigs turned off for good reason.

 

[abyzmul]

Vince young, in his first action, is not a quality win. The score was already out of hand when he came in. And he's a rookie. He started playing well once he was put in there as a starter some weeks later, but obviously that win was not against a quality team at the time that you played them. Stop grasping at straws on that one.

he came in when it was 17-0. that's hardly out of hand. nice try though. welcome to my sig!

 

[Brownfan80]

he came in when it was 17-0. that's hardly out of hand. nice try though. welcome to my sig!

A 17 point defecit isn't out of hand for a Rookie QB's first snaps on a team that was already playing horribly? Obviously you have absolutely zero understanding of football.

 

[mgcolby]

the injury argument isn't weak, seeing as how the chargers are at full strength for the game on sunday. get a clue?

If we were to use SD's injuries to handicap the results then we would also have to take into account the other team's offensive injuries.

But why stop their. Why not have the NFL adopt the BCS formula that way when a team loses its starters the losses don't count as much and therefore maybe we can get an injury riddled 7-9 team in the playoffs over a 10-6 team that remained healthy. That way everything is fair.

Again you have an idiotic argument.

 

[maxhagen]

Dont you guys understand that he wont loose any arguments.. he/she has an excuse for everything...

Youre just a lousy troll... and will do a houdini after Sunday, so why bother wasting time with him/her...

 

[abyzmul]

If you look at his game log, my friend, you'll notice that it wasn't until Week 12 that Young started playing well consistently - until the Patriots' game, of course.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=7752

and he totally sucked until Week 6.

Swing and a miss! strike 2. you're trying to spin the data to fit your needs again. why can't you just admit when you're wrong?

 

[Brownfan80]

Swing and a miss! strike 2. you're trying to spin the data to fit your needs again. why can't you just admit when you're wrong?

Yeah, raw data is completely useless when making a valid argument. We should all just be like you and state completely false claims based on nothing but the air between our ears and then add people that disagree using facts to a list on our signatures.

Get a life, trollboy.

 

[abyzmul]

Dont you guys understand that he wont loose any arguments.. he/she has an excuse for everything...

Youre just a lousy troll... and will do a houdini after Sunday, so why bother wasting time with him/her...

so because i am able to backup my statements with factual data you get frustrated and call me a troll? very mature... if you can't win a debate revert to name calling right?

 

[abyzmul]

Yeah, raw data is completely useless when making a valid argument. We should all just be like you and state completely false claims based on nothing but the air between our ears and then add people that disagree using facts to a list on our signatures.

Get a life, trollboy.

please specify the false claims. i don't think you'll find one..

nice name calling! ZINGER! there's a reason why you're on the list of people who lost debates against me.

 

[BelichickFan]

Swing and a miss! strike 2. you're trying to spin the data to fit your needs again. why can't you just admit when you're wrong?

QB rating is a good way to look at a combination of overall play.

Week 1 QB Rating : 53.1
Week 2 QB Rating : 70.0 (against SD)
Week 3 didn't play
Week 4 QB Rating : 47.3
Week 5 QB Rating : 34.4

*** What part of that don't you understand ? His only decent game until Week 6 was agaisnt SD.

Then Week 12 - Week 16 his lowest QB rating was 70.1 (with two over 100) until he dumped a 39.9 against the Patriots.

OK, then.

 

[Brownfan80]

so because i am able to backup my statements with factual data you get frustrated and call me a troll? very mature... if you can't win a debate revert to name calling right?

Factual data? The data supplied contradicts your claims and you ignore the data. What data supports your claim that your win over Tenn was a quality win? That's rediculous. All the facts of that win over the Titans supports that it was a win over a weak (at the time) team that was in disarray. You're the one denying that fact.

 

[abyzmul]

Sure it's weak because he was comparing it to our defensive stats and we also have had injuries which are mostly recovered from now. Sure, Seau is gone and, more than likely, Harrison. But we played 3+ games without Wilfork. He's back now but the defensive stats presented for us were without him for 3 games. And the same applies to others.

so if you can understand that you have players returning from injury... why would you try to use contaminated data as the sole basis for your argument?

it simply doesn't make logical sense. if you're going to be evaluating the two teams with statistical data shouldn't you use statistical data from the two teams that will be playing on sunday? if merriman and ladanian weren't playing on sunday would it be fair to use the chargers' statistics as a basis for how the game will unfold? i didn't think so...

 

[maxhagen]

so because i am able to backup my statements with factual data you get frustrated and call me a troll? very mature... if you can't win a debate revert to name calling right?

Factual data???? you are a joke... the only data you give are ifs and buts...
1. WE ARE BETTER BECAUSE EVEN THOU YOUR STATS ARE BETTER THAN OURS NOW OUR TEAM IS HEALTHY...

2. VINCE YOUNG PLAYED BAD AGAINST US WHEN THEY PUT HIM TO PLAY ON HIS FIRST PROFESSIONAL GAME DOWN ON A CLOSE 17-0 GAME...

3. WE ARE BETTER BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE SACKS THAN YOU, EVEN THOU WE ALLOW MORE POINTS PER GAME THAN YOU GUYS...

Did I miss something?

TROLLL

 

[boltssbbound]

The difference is that the Chargers are completely healthy on D for the first time since week 5. In games where we have been at or near full strength on Defense (week 1, 2, 4, 5, 14 and 15), the Chargers D has given up 10 points a game. Even if you exclude the first two opponents--the awful Oak and TN--the Chargers only allowed 14 PPG in four games against two playoff teams three winning teams, and the Steelers.

For the season, those four teams averaged 21.2 ppg. The Bolts held those opponents 7.2 PPG below their average.

I know injuries are a part of the game. But the thing is we're healthy now. It's reasonable to expect the Chargers D to play like they did when they were healthy, not when they were banged up.

In our last four games, the Chargers have allowed an average of 16.5 PPG to teams that averaged 20.2 PPG. We held them 3.7 PPG below their average. In their last four games, the Chargers played three winning teams and two playoff teams.

In its last four games the Pats allowed an average of 18 PPG to four teams that average 19 PPG for the season. In their last four games the Pats played 0 playoff teams and 0 winning teams. :bricks:

So what about the offenses?

In their last four games the Chargers scored 28.8 PPG against defense that averaged giving up 21.1 PPG (+7.7).

In that same time, NE scored 26 PPG against teams that averaged giving up 20.5 PPG (+5.5).

And just to reiterate, the winning % of the Chargers last four opponents was .500, a group that included two playoff teams and three teams with winning records. The Pats last four opponents had a winning % of .437, and none of them made the playoffs or had a winning record.

So the Chargers scored more points and allowed fewer against better teams, and the Pats are "peaking" while the Bolts are "fading"? :singing:

 

[Brownfan80]

please specify the false claims. i don't think you'll find one..

The Titans win was not a quality win. That is your false claim.

nice name calling! ZINGER! there's a reason why you're on the list of people who lost debates against me.

Hang the plaque on your wall, at least you'll have something to be proud of in your life.

You're just one of those annoying children that come onto an opposing teams board talking unrealistic trash.

You might as well call that the "The people that I said "I'm right, you're wrong, neener neener' to List."

Your actions are very immature.

 

[Oswlek]

A 17 point defecit isn't out of hand for a Rookie QB's first snaps on a team that was already playing horribly? Obviously you have absolutely zero understanding of football.

{Singing}

Ignore, Ignoooorrre, IGGGGnnnor, IGNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEE!!!!

 

[abyzmul]

QB rating is a good way to look at a combination of overall play.

Week 1 QB Rating : 53.1
Week 2 QB Rating : 70.0 (against SD)
Week 3 didn't play
Week 4 QB Rating : 47.3
Week 5 QB Rating : 34.4

*** What part of that don't you understand ? His only decent game until Week 6 was agaisnt SD.

Then Week 12 - Week 16 his lowest QB rating was 70.1 (with two over 100) until he dumped a 39.9 against the Patriots.

OK, then.

vince young's QB rating is an inaccurate depiction of his play. if you watched the game you would understand that his QB rating was inflated due to his TD pass to the left corner of the endzone against the chargers' second string defense.

vince young was 7/19 for 106 yards and an 18 yd TD to drew bennett.

a prime example would be philip rivers' performance against seattle in the first half of the game a few weeks ago. he was 1/10 with a TD pass to vincent jackson and had a higher QB rating than hasselbeck who was doing substantially better. philip's QB rating was in the 70's simply because he had a touchdown.

 

[BelichickFan]

vince young's QB rating is an inaccurate depiction of his play. if you watched the game you would understand that his QB rating was inflated due to his TD pass to the left corner of the endzone against the chargers' second string defense.

vince young was 7/19 for 106 yards and an 18 yd TD to drew bennett.

I wasn't trying to say he did well against SD, just that he was a sucky QB back in the first part of the season.