- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 76,883
- Reaction score
- 66,866
And no one would expect the team to be better with backups playing.
But the record is relevant. First because if his play didn't cost us games, what is the relevance of the dropoff, and second because winning matters more than points scored.
The running game was almost exactly the same. The pass proection was almost exactly the same. You are hung up on a magic # of more than 21 being good and 20 or 21 being bad. Thats silly, and thats 2/3 of your point argument. I will accept that Connlly could be the difference between 22 and 20 or 21 points, as I already indicated we socred about a FG less.
The other 1/3 of your argument was the Buffalo game in the blizzard when we ran 34 times and passed 23 completing 11. That is an anomoly.
Ease f comparison is not the same as accuracy.
I agree your way is easier, I wouldnt have to go look and see if he actually played 1 play or 80.
My way is more accurate in depicting his play.
I wasn't debating which stats were easier to accumulate, I was debating which stats were more representative of his play.
And I consider when the backup RG is in, and we win 4 of 5, the running game is identically productive, the pass blocking is identically productive, and we score 3 points less per game, to be a fine result for having my backuip on the field.
Hell, we were 6-5 in the game he didnt play the majority of the snaps.
Exactly what is it that suffered?
Instead of pretending to have a point other than "I think he played better than you think he did", why not just post that and be done with it? Your attempts to massage the data failed miserably, so leave it at that.
You accuse me of being difficult, yet you were the one playing games with the rushing game, for crying out loud. Neal's the best run blocker on the team, you went for the running game as your argument, and you think you're making anything approaching a sensible argument?
Sheesh!