Kirwan's Analysis

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

         Hey Babe...why don't you ask The Dog(ggggg) why he's chosen a nine year period to examine, from 2002-11, rather than a complete decade, from 2001-11? Could it be that doing so would compromise his agenda, and undermine his argument?

         I know that his excuse will be that realignment took place in 2002. But, if you're discussing "the Brady Years", to be accurate, isn't it a must to include the 2001 season? That year, the Pats, Dolphins and Jets all made the play-offs. But, no team currently in the AFC South did:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_NFL_season.

         Isn't it interesting that weak teams like the (6-10) Colts, the (6-10) Jags, the (7-9) Titans, and the first year expansion team, the Houston Texans, were all placed in one division? Could it be that the NFL wanted to create a division in which their pin-up boy Peyton could flourish, and dominate?

         Talk about cherry picking facts and parsing words...no poster uses these tactics more than UD6, a/k/a The Dog(ggggg), a/k/a Pinocchio. 

         LOL!!!!   

     



    Why don't you ask Texas Pat?  Well you did. 

     

    And here is the answer which of course you could have obtained if you simply read a little bit, but why do that, right? 

    The time frames were not set by me but by King Parsing Spinner Babe, himself.  He makes it easy for the rest of us.  He gathers up the dog poop, lays it on the ground himself, and steps right in all by his little old self. 

    But you bring up 2001 and then answer your own question.  Very Babe-like.  I've often wondered if you and Babe were one and the same.  Still not sure you are not. 

    As for your suggestion that the NFL put the colts in the South to prop up Manning, both you and I know that's not the case, but why not bring it up anyway, right?  Manning played more games outside the division than in yet still was spectacular.  That disproves that point. 

    But the reason for the teams put in the division vs. others was pretty simple.  All others (other than the Ravens/Browns) had solid rivalries already in place and did not or were not moved. 

    Jags - new franchise

    Texans - new franchise replacing oilers

    Titans - former oilers moved

    Colts - former colts moved. 

    Three of these teams had no former NFL base (indy, nashville, jax) and the Texans were a new franchise. 

    The only other team that could have been considered for this, imo, was the ravens.  Geographically, however, they fit with the other teams in the North, and if no other changes were to be made to the East (the west really couldn't be considered), then effectively the only change that could have been made was the Ravens and the Colts.  But that's just my 2 cents. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to UD6's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to UD6's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to UD6's comment:

     



    Not really.  When you look at teams in th AFC E during the Brady years you will find that aside from the AFC W, it sent fewer teams to the playoffs than the other divsions.  It was weak. 


     

     



    Brilliant logic troll. And the ability of the other teams in the division was not affected by having to play the winningest team of the past decade twice a season, right?

    no, not really.  Your post is generally for 9 years from 02-10.  The pats have exactly 1 more Reg season win over 144 games (.7% better).  I don't think anyone would call that statistically significant yet more AFC South teams went to the playoffs than afc east teams. 

    Since 2002 (realignment), over 9 seasons, BOTH the AFCE minus the Pats and the AFCS minus the Colts sent 6 teams to the playoffs.

    Parsing are we my friend?  in the 9 seasons you mention (MINUS NO TEAMS) - the afc south sent 15 teams to the playoffs while the afc east sent 13.  The fact that the colts made the playoffs every year during that period while the pats missed 2 the playoffs two of those years actually hurts your argument. 

    Therefore, your assessment that the AFCE "was weak" is solely based on the Texans making the playoffs the last two years and nobody in the AFCE doing so.

    The 9 years you mention is 02 thru 10.  Houston did not make the playoffs until 11.  Wrong again. 

    And even at that the comparison is mitigated by the Colts being the worst team in 2011 and not making the playoffs thus allowing another to win that division while the Pats were winning theirs.

    You said 9 years since realignment.  That's 02 thru 10.  Wrong again.  Heck lets include 2011.  Houston went and the pats went.  That's 16 AFCS to 14 AFCE.  You're still wrong.  Shall we include 2012 too (Heck Manning's gone yet the AFCS still sent 2 teams to one by the AFCE).  That's 18 AFCS to 15 AFCE. 

    Weak division. 

    Troll exposed again as a spinner and liar.

    No need to spin or lie.  I'll use your criteria against you to make you look silly. 

     

     

     

     


    I call out your spin, showing that the last two years are the basis for your grandiose statement that the AFCE is weak and you call that parsing troll. This is why you are a disingenuous joke here. You are much more the parse artist in this than I since your conclusion regarding the division over a decade or so rests entirely on the Texans making the playoffs twice in the last two seasons.

    Wrong twice in the first sentence alone.  One - I didn't mention the last 2 years.  You did.  Further, you defined your years and then parsed my criteria by removing both the colts and pats from the equation.  They are each a part of their division so they cannot be removed from the statement.  The AFC S sent 2 more teams than your AFC E from 2002-2010 or 2002-2011 and 3 more 2002-2012.  Slice it anyway you like Babe, as long as you don't slice out teams in the division, the AFC S sent more teams to the playoffs than your AFC E.  And from 02-10 (your criteria) the Pats had only one more Reg season win than the colts.  Not a statistical significance.  

    Troll owned again.  Yes you were.  So easy. 


    Typical delusional thinking from the troll. If you're going to claim the division the Pats played in is weak as a contributing factor to the Pats' success, then you have to compare the records of the OTHER teams in the division not including the Pats. Yet you try to inject the playoff appearances of the Colts/Pats into the equation.

    The parsing king.  I never said the pats division was weak as a contributing factor to the pats success.  I said the pats division was weak compared to the other divisions.  Stop spinning Babe - You're only tying yourself up in knots. 

    Troll owned again.  Yes you were.  Too easy. 

    Your entire premise is a joke anyway, as if counting playoff teams is the measure of the strength of a division. The overall record of the division is the measure troll, not who made the playoffs.

    LOL, of course its a joke if you can't effectively dispute it, which you can't.  But I'll bite on your own measure - total division record - 02-10 AFCS has more total wins than AFCE.  LOL!!!   Now what Babe?  Time to parse or spin some more?  LOL!!

    Troll owned again.  Again you were. 

     

    But this is not nearly enough troll smashing. Let's do more.

     

    We'll take 2002 through 20012 and look at the division records and trash your pathetic and cherry picked standard of counting playoff teams. Lets look at the W/L of the two divisions.

    From 2002 through 2012......

    Oh heck, I just hadn't read down far enough.  I was too busy owning you above when in fact you were doing exactly what I said you would do - just later in the same post.  So now you are spinning a different time frame because your initial timeframe failed you miserably. 

    In those 11 seasons the AFCE won more game than the AFCS SIX times compared to the AFCS THREE times (two ties).

    So now you are spinning, both a different period of time (because your initial time period failed you) and counting years not total record (because that failed you also).  Babe, its a shame that you so publicly and obviously demonstrate your how pathetic you are.    

    Troll owned again.

    Over those 11 seasons the AFCE lost 335 games, the AFCS 335 games.

    Troll owned again.

     

    I will always own you troll, because you are a liar and are incapable of objectivity because of your sick "sex assaulter" hero worship.  Babe the only thing you own is a pathetic mind that will spin and parse even after public humiliation just to hopefully save a little face.  I feel sorry for you.   

     



    Don't fret for me troll. You're the one who said the AFC East was weak. And were proven wrong yet again.

     

    I just showed you:

    Over those 11 seasons the AFCE lost 335 games, the AFCS 335 games.

    Troll owned again.

     

    You had no devious answer for that one did you trollboy? Once you can't hide behind your shell game of what teams, years and what criteria, your stupid point gets destroyed and you have no answer. LMAO@ an OWNED troll.

     

    Nobody is publicly humiliated here but you troll. Take a poll and find out.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from teegee. Show teegee's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Has anyone considered that if BB had gone into "salary cap hell", let's say in an extremely close year like 2011, that the extra jolt of talent might have brought us the Lombardi?

    Is it such a crazy strategy to spike the team significantly for a year and pay a price the next if that boost significantly improves your prospects to win it all?                                                                                                                                                                   

    Tremendous question(s). I think the closest BB may have been as far as going all in may be moving up in the last draft for Jones and Hightower. Their financial discipline doesn't seem to allow for the spiking you mentioned. I wonder if there is a certain satisfaction with 3 SB and now it's just a matter of tearing up the records book?
     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to UD6's comment:

     

    The time frames were not set by me but by King Parsing Spinner Babe, himself.  He makes it easy for the rest of us.  He gathers up the dog poop, lays it on the ground himself, and steps right in all by his little old self. 




    First, the bold is a lie. I have never gathered you up.

    Second, you set the time frame. "The Brady years". I simply elaborated in the first case by subtracting the 2001 "Brady year" because the AFCE contained the Colts. I then pointed out the Pats vs Colts comparison for those years were equal excepting the last two years and pointed out that any playoff appearance disparity for the rest of the teams occurred in just those last two years. It was a very straightforward point. Later I pointed out that your spin using the playoff appearances was simply more of your cherry picking and did not speak to the real assessment of the comparative performances of the AFC divisions.

    Once confronted with the W/L aspects of the two divisions you stuck your tail between your legs and ignored it like a good little troll. Owned, over and over and over.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to teegee's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Has anyone considered that if BB had gone into "salary cap hell", let's say in an extremely close year like 2011, that the extra jolt of talent might have brought us the Lombardi?

    Is it such a crazy strategy to spike the team significantly for a year and pay a price the next if that boost significantly improves your prospects to win it all?                                                                                                                                                                   

    Tremendous question(s). I think the closest BB may have been as far as going all in may be moving up in the last draft for Jones and Hightower. Their financial discipline doesn't seem to allow for the spiking you mentioned. I wonder if there is a certain satisfaction with 3 SB and now it's just a matter of tearing up the records book?
     




    I wouldn't be satisfied if I were them with the memory of spygate haunting those accomplishments (justified or not).

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to UD6's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to UD6's comment:

     



    Not really.  When you look at teams in th AFC E during the Brady years you will find that aside from the AFC W, it sent fewer teams to the playoffs than the other divsions.  It was weak. 


     

     



    Brilliant logic troll. And the ability of the other teams in the division was not affected by having to play the winningest team of the past decade twice a season, right?

    no, not really.  Your post is generally for 9 years from 02-10.  The pats have exactly 1 more Reg season win over 144 games (.7% better).  I don't think anyone would call that statistically significant yet more AFC South teams went to the playoffs than afc east teams. 

    Since 2002 (realignment), over 9 seasons, BOTH the AFCE minus the Pats and the AFCS minus the Colts sent 6 teams to the playoffs.

    Parsing are we my friend?  in the 9 seasons you mention (MINUS NO TEAMS) - the afc south sent 15 teams to the playoffs while the afc east sent 13.  The fact that the colts made the playoffs every year during that period while the pats missed 2 the playoffs two of those years actually hurts your argument. 

    Therefore, your assessment that the AFCE "was weak" is solely based on the Texans making the playoffs the last two years and nobody in the AFCE doing so.

    The 9 years you mention is 02 thru 10.  Houston did not make the playoffs until 11.  Wrong again. 

    And even at that the comparison is mitigated by the Colts being the worst team in 2011 and not making the playoffs thus allowing another to win that division while the Pats were winning theirs.

    You said 9 years since realignment.  That's 02 thru 10.  Wrong again.  Heck lets include 2011.  Houston went and the pats went.  That's 16 AFCS to 14 AFCE.  You're still wrong.  Shall we include 2012 too (Heck Manning's gone yet the AFCS still sent 2 teams to one by the AFCE).  That's 18 AFCS to 15 AFCE. 

    Weak division. 

    Troll exposed again as a spinner and liar.

    No need to spin or lie.  I'll use your criteria against you to make you look silly. 

     

     

     

     


    I call out your spin, showing that the last two years are the basis for your grandiose statement that the AFCE is weak and you call that parsing troll. This is why you are a disingenuous joke here. You are much more the parse artist in this than I since your conclusion regarding the division over a decade or so rests entirely on the Texans making the playoffs twice in the last two seasons.

    Wrong twice in the first sentence alone.  One - I didn't mention the last 2 years.  You did.  Further, you defined your years and then parsed my criteria by removing both the colts and pats from the equation.  They are each a part of their division so they cannot be removed from the statement.  The AFC S sent 2 more teams than your AFC E from 2002-2010 or 2002-2011 and 3 more 2002-2012.  Slice it anyway you like Babe, as long as you don't slice out teams in the division, the AFC S sent more teams to the playoffs than your AFC E.  And from 02-10 (your criteria) the Pats had only one more Reg season win than the colts.  Not a statistical significance.  

    Troll owned again.  Yes you were.  So easy. 


    Typical delusional thinking from the troll. If you're going to claim the division the Pats played in is weak as a contributing factor to the Pats' success, then you have to compare the records of the OTHER teams in the division not including the Pats. Yet you try to inject the playoff appearances of the Colts/Pats into the equation.

    The parsing king.  I never said the pats division was weak as a contributing factor to the pats success.  I said the pats division was weak compared to the other divisions.  Stop spinning Babe - You're only tying yourself up in knots. 

    Troll owned again.  Yes you were.  Too easy. 

    Your entire premise is a joke anyway, as if counting playoff teams is the measure of the strength of a division. The overall record of the division is the measure troll, not who made the playoffs.

    LOL, of course its a joke if you can't effectively dispute it, which you can't.  But I'll bite on your own measure - total division record - 02-10 AFCS has more total wins than AFCE.  LOL!!!   Now what Babe?  Time to parse or spin some more?  LOL!!

    Troll owned again.  Again you were. 

     

    But this is not nearly enough troll smashing. Let's do more.

     

    We'll take 2002 through 20012 and look at the division records and trash your pathetic and cherry picked standard of counting playoff teams. Lets look at the W/L of the two divisions.

    From 2002 through 2012......

    Oh heck, I just hadn't read down far enough.  I was too busy owning you above when in fact you were doing exactly what I said you would do - just later in the same post.  So now you are spinning a different time frame because your initial timeframe failed you miserably. 

    In those 11 seasons the AFCE won more game than the AFCS SIX times compared to the AFCS THREE times (two ties).

    So now you are spinning, both a different period of time (because your initial time period failed you) and counting years not total record (because that failed you also).  Babe, its a shame that you so publicly and obviously demonstrate your how pathetic you are.    

    Troll owned again.

    Over those 11 seasons the AFCE lost 335 games, the AFCS 335 games.

    Troll owned again.

     

    I will always own you troll, because you are a liar and are incapable of objectivity because of your sick "sex assaulter" hero worship.  Babe the only thing you own is a pathetic mind that will spin and parse even after public humiliation just to hopefully save a little face.  I feel sorry for you.   

     

     



    Don't fret for me troll. You're the one who said the AFC East was weak. And were proven wrongyet again.

    only in the warped minds of those who see the world through patriots colored glasses, but if that's what keeps you going, continue on my ostrich friend. 

     

    I just showed you:

    Over those 11 seasons the AFCE lost 335 games, the AFCS 335 games.

    except that you had to restate your original time frame in order to make the numbers work for you right Babe?  If at first you don't suceed, try, try again.  Isn't that how the saying goes Babe?  You kind of remind me of the little girl in Miracle on 34th Street when she can't seem to convince herself yet still says:  "I believe, I believe, I know its silly, but I believe."

    Troll owned again.

     

    You had no devious answer for that one did you trollboy? Once you can't hide behind your shell game of what teams, years and what criteria, your stupid point gets destroyed and you have no answer. LMAO@ an OWNED troll.

     Its your shell game my friend.  You just don't play it all that well. 

    Nobody is publicly humiliated here but you troll. Take a poll and find out.

    There's that Babe spin.  I'll call out my brethren because I can't stand on my own.  Pathetic and sad.  I'll slump my shoulder a little for you Babe.  Have a beer.  The day is over.  Good luck tomorrow.  Its a new day!




     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to UD6's comment:

     

    I just showed you:

    Over those 11 seasons the AFCE lost 335 games, the AFCS 335 games.

    except that you had to restate your original time frame in order to make the numbers work for you right Babe?  If at first you don't suceed, try, try again.  Isn't that how the saying goes Babe?  You kind of remind me of the little girl in Miracle on 34th Street when she can't seem to convince herself yet still says:  "I believe, I believe, I know its silly, but I believe."



    Troll still has no answer to the facts presented. OWNED.

     

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to UD6's comment:

     

    Nobody is publicly humiliated here but you troll. Take a poll and find out.

    There's that Babe spin.  I'll call out my brethren because I can't stand on my own.  Pathetic and sad.  

     



    You're the one that brought up public humiliation troll, not me. I simply suggested you ask the public you claim is seeing humiliation, then you twist that into me "calling out my bretheren".

    Same old lying troll with... every...   single...   post... That's the only pathetic and sad thing going on in this.

     

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to UD6's comment:



    Don't fret for me troll. You're the one who said the AFC East was weak. And were proven wrongyet again.

    only in the warped minds of those who see the world through patriots colored glasses, but if that's what keeps you going, continue on my ostrich friend. 

     

      One has to wear "Patriots colored glasses" and have a "warped mind" to see that 335 losses for both the AFCE and AFCS over the "Brady years" does not show the AFCE to be a "weak division", troll?

    This is proof positive for the world to see that the only thing you ever offer is troll BS.

    Troll OWNED, all the doo dah day.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    Babes favorite movie line:

    I believe, I believe, I know its silly but I believe. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    I'm still trying to wrap my head around this brilliant article by Kirwan...so basically if you have a franchise QB in place, have a head coach and coordinators retained from the previous year, did well the season before in terms of record, have draft picks, have starters with under five years of experience, have cap space, have starters with over five years experience, are not losing key starters that are in their prime...you are in good shape? Wow, what a brilliant assessment!

    If only he had added...free agents signed need to be in their prime or heading towards it, must not make a joke of the second round, must understand to spend to the cap when the Super Bowl is within your grasp rather than saving 7 million on the cap two years in a row while you don't have a pass rusher, corner, safety, or more than one defensive tackle that can push a pile, must have a linebacker that doesn't need a compass in coverage, the team could not of handed a 40 million dollar contract to a guard, the team must not take flyer after flyer on troubled veterans because they are cheap, years of a franchise QB's career cannot be wasted to save a few bucks and when talent is there in the draft, team cannot trade back...back..back...back...back..back, in hopes that we can acquire a corner fifteen years from now. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to UD6's comment:

     

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

         Hey Babe...why don't you ask The Dog(ggggg) why he's chosen a nine year period to examine, from 2002-11, rather than a complete decade, from 2001-11? Could it be that doing so would compromise his agenda, and undermine his argument?

         I know that his excuse will be that realignment took place in 2002. But, if you're discussing "the Brady Years", to be accurate, isn't it a must to include the 2001 season? That year, the Pats, Dolphins and Jets all made the play-offs. But, no team currently in the AFC South did:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_NFL_season.

         Isn't it interesting that weak teams like the (6-10) Colts, the (6-10) Jags, the (7-9) Titans, and the first year expansion team, the Houston Texans, were all placed in one division? Could it be that the NFL wanted to create a division in which their pin-up boy Peyton could flourish, and dominate?

         Talk about cherry picking facts and parsing words...no poster uses these tactics more than UD6, a/k/a The Dog(ggggg), a/k/a Pinocchio. 

         LOL!!!!   

     



    Why don't you ask Texas Pat?  Well you did. 

     

    And here is the answer which of course you could have obtained if you simply read a little bit, but why do that, right?

    RESPONSE: Read your silly posts? They are long winded, illogical, chuck full of misrepresentations and lies...and are down right boring. You use excess verbage and target certain periods to buttress your bogus points. You can always tell when someone is full of cow-poop by the excess verbage they use to make their points.   

    The time frames were not set by me but by King Parsing Spinner Babe, himself.  He makes it easy for the rest of us.  He gathers up the dog poop, lays it on the ground himself, and steps right in all by his little old self. 

    RESPONSE: Adding 2001 hurts your prenmise...wouldn't you agree, Dog(ggggg)?

    But you bring up 2001 and then answer your own question.  Very Babe-like.  I've often wondered if you and Babe were one and the same.  Still not sure you are not.

    RESPONSE: Now you sound like Rusty...or worse...Mighty Pats' fan. He still maintains that you and I are the some poster...LOL!!  

    As for your suggestion that the NFL put the colts in the South to prop up Manning, both you and I know that's not the case, but why not bring it up anyway, right?

    RESPONSE: Wrongo!! I strongly believe that the NFL made up a weak division to prop up their pin-up boy, Peyton. Why bring it up? Because we both know how playing in the Charmin soft AFC South benefitted the Colts...and allowed Peyton to pad his regular season stats.

     Manning played more games outside the division than in yet still was spectacular.  That disproves that point.

    RESPONSE: More smoke and mirrors! EVERY team, regardless of division, plays more games outside of the division. But, if a team plays in a weak division, as Peyton Manning did for years, it spots his team 6 easy wins per season...and aids in padding his stats. If his team merely wins 6 of their other 10 games played outside of their division every year, they finish with 12 wins...and have a great shot at home-field advantage throughout the play-offs. A huge advantage. 

    But the reason for the teams put in the division vs. others was pretty simple.  All others (other than the Ravens/Browns) had solid rivalries already in place and did not or were not moved. 

    Jags - new franchise

    Texans - new franchise replacing oilers

    Titans - former oilers moved

    Colts - former colts moved. 

    Three of these teams had no former NFL base (indy, nashville, jax) and the Texans were a new franchise. 

    The only other team that could have been considered for this, imo, was the ravens.  Geographically, however, they fit with the other teams in the North, and if no other changes were to be made to the East (the west really couldn't be considered), then effectively the only change that could have been made was the Ravens and the Colts.  But that's just my 2 cents. 

    RESPONSE: How much different would things have been if the Colts had to face a quality, physical team like the Ravens twice per year...every year? It would have made great sense to do that. You had a potential great rivalry of Baltimore vs. Indianapolis...the city that stole Baltimore's beloved Colts. Tennessee could have played in the AFC North. When the Titans were the Oilers, they had a great rivalry with the Steelers. Or...Tennessee or Indy moving to the AFC North (with Baltimore in AFC South) against Pittsburgh, Cincinati, and Cleveland, made more sense geographically, than the Colts being in the South, playing against three southern teams. Study your geography, son. Baltimore is far closer to Jacksonville and Tennessee than Indy.   

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to teegee's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Has anyone considered that if BB had gone into "salary cap hell", let's say in an extremely close year like 2011, that the extra jolt of talent might have brought us the Lombardi?

    Is it such a crazy strategy to spike the team significantly for a year and pay a price the next if that boost significantly improves your prospects to win it all?                                                                                                                                                                   

    Tremendous question(s). I think the closest BB may have been as far as going all in may be moving up in the last draft for Jones and Hightower. Their financial discipline doesn't seem to allow for the spiking you mentioned. I wonder if there is a certain satisfaction with 3 SB and now it's just a matter of tearing up the records book?
     

     




    I wouldn't be satisfied if I were them with the memory of spygate haunting those accomplishments (justified or not).

     



    I know you are not remotely dillusional enough to believe that winning one post spygate will actually shut anyone up about that.

    They will still just be childish and say cheaters, found a new way to cheat. Previous three superbowls have asterisks etc etc.

    It won't change a thing.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    TP - the point wasn't about the colts facing the Ravens every year, but rather those two teams swapping divisions.  All other teams were basically set in place.  These were either new franchises or new locations:

    Balt, Indy, Jax, Hou, Ten, Clev. 

    Cleveland with their old name had an established rivalry with Cin and Pit and fit staying in a division with them. 

    Jax, Hou, Ten were either new or a new location and all located in the south so they were geographically matched. 

    That left figuring out Indy and Baltimore.  Could have gone either way, but one was going in the North and the other in the South.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

          Which brings us to the G-men. True, they have plenty of holes to fill...with their greatest needs being on their defensive and offensive lines. That's where they should seek help in the draft. Though WR Victor Cruz is a very good slot receiver and a fan favorite...he's not worth upsetting the teams' salary structure to pay him the kind of money that he's seeking. Nor is Hakeem Nicks worthy of breaking the bank on. He's too injury prone. Eli Manning can and will make due with lesser receivers, so long as he's adequately protected.      

    done next year? of course not!! thats queenie talking his bs again

    hell at 8-5 they were primed then it fell off so time to regroup...i know they are in a real division in a superior conference but i fully expect a nice bounce back, especially this coming season where their schedule downgrades from ridiculous to normal  :  )

     



         The Giants need to decide on how they handle WRs Nicks, and Cruz. What do you think that they should do? Both guys want huge money. At least one will not get it. Might they not be better off going with Randle, in place of Nicks...and bringing in a far less expensive slot receiver than Cruz? Next season, if Victor's mind is on his contract and not fully into his play, the results could be disasterous. Look what happened with DeSean Jackson and Mike Wallace, when they appeared to be more concerned about protecting themselves from injury, than for going all out on the field. The Giants should scrap these glamour boys...and go full bore towards rebuilding their OL and DL.

     

     




    well Tex first off I don;t consider either Nicks or Cruz "glamour boys"-not sure how or why you do but the Giants are like the Pats in that they really don't have many players u would call glamour

     

    as for Cruz calling him a "slot" reciever is a misnomer because of his size mostly-he is just a reciever who lines up in the slot but unlike WW and others he will go outside or long (witness the 75 yard game winner vs Redskins last year) ...and it amazes me how that term "slot  receiver" has become this snide disparaging label when people use it that way...Pats fans not wanting to pay WW because he is a "slot receiver" is absolutely head shaking and hilarious to outside fans like me-the guy goes 120/1500 6 yrs in a row basically but he's a SLOT receiver...

    Dunno what they will do but they cleared some nice space to resign both Cruz and Nicks but of the two yes I agree keep Cruz-he is harder to displace than Nicks- tho i do believe Nicks is a heck of a receiver and had a wonderful SB46 for us

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

          Which brings us to the G-men. True, they have plenty of holes to fill...with their greatest needs being on their defensive and offensive lines. That's where they should seek help in the draft. Though WR Victor Cruz is a very good slot receiver and a fan favorite...he's not worth upsetting the teams' salary structure to pay him the kind of money that he's seeking. Nor is Hakeem Nicks worthy of breaking the bank on. He's too injury prone. Eli Manning can and will make due with lesser receivers, so long as he's adequately protected.      

    done next year? of course not!! thats queenie talking his bs again

    hell at 8-5 they were primed then it fell off so time to regroup...i know they are in a real division in a superior conference but i fully expect a nice bounce back, especially this coming season where their schedule downgrades from ridiculous to normal  :  )

     



         The Giants need to decide on how they handle WRs Nicks, and Cruz. What do you think that they should do? Both guys want huge money. At least one will not get it. Might they not be better off going with Randle, in place of Nicks...and bringing in a far less expensive slot receiver than Cruz? Next season, if Victor's mind is on his contract and not fully into his play, the results could be disasterous. Look what happened with DeSean Jackson and Mike Wallace, when they appeared to be more concerned about protecting themselves from injury, than for going all out on the field. The Giants should scrap these glamour boys...and go full bore towards rebuilding their OL and DL.

     

     




    well Tex first off I don;t consider either Nicks or Cruz "glamour boys"-not sure how or why you do but the Giants are like the Pats in that they really don't have many players u would call glamour

    RESPONSE: Here are a series of excellent articles dealing with how overrated WRs are to an offense. I think you'll find these articles illuminating: http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/moss-another-shiny-hood-ornament-wide-receiver/7510/; http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/draft-primer-those-shiny-wide-receivers/2454/; and  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/kerry_byrne/01/10/julio.jones.trade/index.html

         Furthermore, I'll remind you of the 2006 Patriots, who let starting WRs Deion Branch and David Givens go, in order to spare the team from tying up huge money at the WR position. The Pats still came within an eyelash of winning another SB in 2006...while  Branch and Givens did nothing for their new teams, in Tennessee and Seattle. I agree with the "Shiny Hood Orniment" theory discussed in the articles above. NFL games are won or lost primarily by OL/DL play, and QB play. A good QB makes a WR...not the other way around. Cruz and Nicks would be average players if they weren't playing with a quality QB like Eli.  

    as for Cruz calling him a "slot" reciever is a misnomer because of his size mostly-he is just a reciever who lines up in the slot but unlike WW and others he will go outside or long (witness the 75 yard game winner vs Redskins last year) ...and it amazes me how that term "slot  receiver" has become this snide disparaging label when people use it that way...Pats fans not wanting to pay WW because he is a "slot receiver" is absolutely head shaking and hilarious to outside fans like me-the guy goes 120/1500 6 yrs in a row basically but he's a SLOT receiver...

    RESPONSE: Surely you jest. Welker is a 5'9", 185 lb., 32 year old slot receiver. He's certainly made the most of his abilities in N.E....and is a quality receiver. But, are you seriously going to argue that the Pats should franchise him again, and pay him $11.4 mil. in 2013?? Sure...his play is deserving of a big money contract. But, the salary cap restricts what teams can do. What the Pats are paying Brady, Mankins, and Wilfolk eats up 35% of their cap space. The Pats place more value on certain positions...and WRs are not as valued in New England as elsewhere. Don't forget that RT Sebastien Vollmer and CB Aqib Talib are UFAs, too. Who do the Pats need more, a very good 32 year old WR, a top notch OT in his prime (bad back notwithstanding), or a very good, physical CB? Under cap restrictions, it's apparent to me that the Pats would be foolish to strap themselves to a lucrative, 2-3 year contract for a 32 year old WR. As for the Giants, are you suggesting that they saddle themselves to Nicks and/or Cruz for $10mil. per season, or more? That's what Cruz is seeking, and he's in his prime. Look what happened to DeSean Jackson, after contract issues clouded his play.     

    Dunno what they will do but they cleared some nice space to resign both Cruz and Nicks but of the two yes I agree keep Cruz-he is harder to displace than Nicks- tho i do believe Nicks is a heck of a receiver and had a wonderful SB46 for us

    RESPONSE: Both Cruz and Nicks are good players. But, what's more necessary to the future success of the Giants...strong line play, or good receivers? Job one in NY is protecting Eli. Job two in NY is getting to the opposing QB. Due to cap restrictions, a team can't have everything. The Giants would be wise to sink their resources in their OL and DL...rather than tie up their assets at the WR position. The greatest WRs in the world are worthless, if Eli is consistently getting flattened...and eventually gets hurt. 

      

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

          Which brings us to the G-men. True, they have plenty of holes to fill...with their greatest needs being on their defensive and offensive lines. That's where they should seek help in the draft. Though WR Victor Cruz is a very good slot receiver and a fan favorite...he's not worth upsetting the teams' salary structure to pay him the kind of money that he's seeking. Nor is Hakeem Nicks worthy of breaking the bank on. He's too injury prone. Eli Manning can and will make due with lesser receivers, so long as he's adequately protected.      

    done next year? of course not!! thats queenie talking his bs again

    hell at 8-5 they were primed then it fell off so time to regroup...i know they are in a real division in a superior conference but i fully expect a nice bounce back, especially this coming season where their schedule downgrades from ridiculous to normal  :  )

     



         The Giants need to decide on how they handle WRs Nicks, and Cruz. What do you think that they should do? Both guys want huge money. At least one will not get it. Might they not be better off going with Randle, in place of Nicks...and bringing in a far less expensive slot receiver than Cruz? Next season, if Victor's mind is on his contract and not fully into his play, the results could be disasterous. Look what happened with DeSean Jackson and Mike Wallace, when they appeared to be more concerned about protecting themselves from injury, than for going all out on the field. The Giants should scrap these glamour boys...and go full bore towards rebuilding their OL and DL.

     

     




    well Tex first off I don;t consider either Nicks or Cruz "glamour boys"-not sure how or why you do but the Giants are like the Pats in that they really don't have many players u would call glamour

    RESPONSE: Here are a series of excellent articles dealing with how overrated WRs are to an offense. I think you'll find these articles illuminating: http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/moss-another-shiny-hood-ornament-wide-receiver/7510/; http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/draft-primer-those-shiny-wide-receivers/2454/; and  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/kerry_byrne/01/10/julio.jones.trade/index.html

         Furthermore, I'll remind you of the 2006 Patriots, who let starting WRs Deion Branch and David Givens go, in order to spare the team from tying up huge money at the WR position. The Pats still came within an eyelash of winning another SB in 2006...while  Branch and Givens did nothing for their new teams, in Tennessee and Seattle. I agree with the "Shiny Hood Orniment" theory discussed in the articles above. NFL games are won or lost primarily by OL/DL play, and QB play. A good QB makes a WR...not the other way around. Cruz and Nicks would be average players if they weren't playing with a quality QB like Eli.  

    as for Cruz calling him a "slot" reciever is a misnomer because of his size mostly-he is just a reciever who lines up in the slot but unlike WW and others he will go outside or long (witness the 75 yard game winner vs Redskins last year) ...and it amazes me how that term "slot  receiver" has become this snide disparaging label when people use it that way...Pats fans not wanting to pay WW because he is a "slot receiver" is absolutely head shaking and hilarious to outside fans like me-the guy goes 120/1500 6 yrs in a row basically but he's a SLOT receiver...

    RESPONSE: Surely you jest. Welker is a 5'9", 185 lb., 32 year old slot receiver. He's certainly made the most of his abilities in N.E....and is a quality receiver. But, are you seriously going to argue that the Pats should franchise him again, and pay him $11.4 mil. in 2013?? Sure...his play is deserving of a big money contract. But, the salary cap restricts what teams can do. What the Pats are paying Brady, Mankins, and Wilfolk eats up 35% of their cap space. The Pats place more value on certain positions...and WRs are not as valued in New England as elsewhere. Don't forget that RT Sebastien Vollmer and CB Aqib Talib are UFAs, too. Who do the Pats need more, a very good 32 year old WR, a top notch OT in his prime (bad back notwithstanding), or a very good, physical CB? Under cap restrictions, it's apparent to me that the Pats would be foolish to strap themselves to a lucrative, 2-3 year contract for a 32 year old WR. As for the Giants, are you suggesting that they saddle themselves to Nicks and/or Cruz for $10mil. per season, or more? That's what Cruz is seeking, and he's in his prime. Look what happened to DeSean Jackson, after contract issues clouded his play.     

    Dunno what they will do but they cleared some nice space to resign both Cruz and Nicks but of the two yes I agree keep Cruz-he is harder to displace than Nicks- tho i do believe Nicks is a heck of a receiver and had a wonderful SB46 for us

    RESPONSE: Both Cruz and Nicks are good players. But, what's more necessary to the future success of the Giants...strong line play, or good receivers? Job one in NY is protecting Eli. Job two in NY is getting to the opposing QB. Due to cap restrictions, a team can't have everything. The Giants would be wise to sink their resources in their OL and DL...rather than tie up their assets at the WR position. The greatest WRs in the world are worthless, if Eli is consistently getting flattened...and eventually gets hurt. 

      




    well i take the above u posted about receivers with a grain of salt to be honest...that is typical of the computer generation that now has all this time on their hands to think and think and come up with 100 different ways to reduce everything in sports to numbers and mathematical formulas...kind of like the billy beane's of the world who think players are robots and cogs instead of people-the main reason his team has sucess to a point but no bananas...i take that and then filter it thru the eye test, what's inside a player, how he plays when, etc..so again all that "cold hard" data is taken with a more than a grain of salt by me

    second saying Cruz and Nicks would be average is an underestimation of their abilities and it's been proven in the biggest crunch time on the biggest stage too-see i dont neceassarily believe in separating the wrs from their qb in most situations-it doesn't matter if eli makes them or they make him or a combination...if they are all here and it all works thats the bottom line

    I wouldn't bring in the average receivers the Pats had back when b/c Tom Brady is the main ingredient and Giants don't have him nor that D and adam Vinitieri, nor play in the afc east and all the other things that figure in-if ur point is cruz and nicks are so easily replaced and u justify that view by comparing them to givens and branch  u are off base there

    not sure why u seem to be minimizing Cruz and Nicks so much

    as for WW i did not bring in up his salary demands nor said the pats have to resign him-i was making the point that the "only a slot receiver " claim as the reason not to pay him/resign him is both overstated and silly-especially based on his prodcution...those who think he will be so easily replaced (kind of like ur cruz/nicks opines) may well be unpleasantly surprised

    ur more aggressive than normal here Tex...I am NOT Rusty after all!!! :  )

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

          Which brings us to the G-men. True, they have plenty of holes to fill...with their greatest needs being on their defensive and offensive lines. That's where they should seek help in the draft. Though WR Victor Cruz is a very good slot receiver and a fan favorite...he's not worth upsetting the teams' salary structure to pay him the kind of money that he's seeking. Nor is Hakeem Nicks worthy of breaking the bank on. He's too injury prone. Eli Manning can and will make due with lesser receivers, so long as he's adequately protected.      

    done next year? of course not!! thats queenie talking his bs again

    hell at 8-5 they were primed then it fell off so time to regroup...i know they are in a real division in a superior conference but i fully expect a nice bounce back, especially this coming season where their schedule downgrades from ridiculous to normal  :  )

     



         The Giants need to decide on how they handle WRs Nicks, and Cruz. What do you think that they should do? Both guys want huge money. At least one will not get it. Might they not be better off going with Randle, in place of Nicks...and bringing in a far less expensive slot receiver than Cruz? Next season, if Victor's mind is on his contract and not fully into his play, the results could be disasterous. Look what happened with DeSean Jackson and Mike Wallace, when they appeared to be more concerned about protecting themselves from injury, than for going all out on the field. The Giants should scrap these glamour boys...and go full bore towards rebuilding their OL and DL.

     

     




    well Tex first off I don;t consider either Nicks or Cruz "glamour boys"-not sure how or why you do but the Giants are like the Pats in that they really don't have many players u would call glamour

    RESPONSE: Here are a series of excellent articles dealing with how overrated WRs are to an offense. I think you'll find these articles illuminating: http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/moss-another-shiny-hood-ornament-wide-receiver/7510/; http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/draft-primer-those-shiny-wide-receivers/2454/; and  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/kerry_byrne/01/10/julio.jones.trade/index.html

         Furthermore, I'll remind you of the 2006 Patriots, who let starting WRs Deion Branch and David Givens go, in order to spare the team from tying up huge money at the WR position. The Pats still came within an eyelash of winning another SB in 2006...while  Branch and Givens did nothing for their new teams, in Tennessee and Seattle. I agree with the "Shiny Hood Orniment" theory discussed in the articles above. NFL games are won or lost primarily by OL/DL play, and QB play. A good QB makes a WR...not the other way around. Cruz and Nicks would be average players if they weren't playing with a quality QB like Eli.  

    as for Cruz calling him a "slot" reciever is a misnomer because of his size mostly-he is just a reciever who lines up in the slot but unlike WW and others he will go outside or long (witness the 75 yard game winner vs Redskins last year) ...and it amazes me how that term "slot  receiver" has become this snide disparaging label when people use it that way...Pats fans not wanting to pay WW because he is a "slot receiver" is absolutely head shaking and hilarious to outside fans like me-the guy goes 120/1500 6 yrs in a row basically but he's a SLOT receiver...

    RESPONSE: Surely you jest. Welker is a 5'9", 185 lb., 32 year old slot receiver. He's certainly made the most of his abilities in N.E....and is a quality receiver. But, are you seriously going to argue that the Pats should franchise him again, and pay him $11.4 mil. in 2013?? Sure...his play is deserving of a big money contract. But, the salary cap restricts what teams can do. What the Pats are paying Brady, Mankins, and Wilfolk eats up 35% of their cap space. The Pats place more value on certain positions...and WRs are not as valued in New England as elsewhere. Don't forget that RT Sebastien Vollmer and CB Aqib Talib are UFAs, too. Who do the Pats need more, a very good 32 year old WR, a top notch OT in his prime (bad back notwithstanding), or a very good, physical CB? Under cap restrictions, it's apparent to me that the Pats would be foolish to strap themselves to a lucrative, 2-3 year contract for a 32 year old WR. As for the Giants, are you suggesting that they saddle themselves to Nicks and/or Cruz for $10mil. per season, or more? That's what Cruz is seeking, and he's in his prime. Look what happened to DeSean Jackson, after contract issues clouded his play.     

    Dunno what they will do but they cleared some nice space to resign both Cruz and Nicks but of the two yes I agree keep Cruz-he is harder to displace than Nicks- tho i do believe Nicks is a heck of a receiver and had a wonderful SB46 for us

    RESPONSE: Both Cruz and Nicks are good players. But, what's more necessary to the future success of the Giants...strong line play, or good receivers? Job one in NY is protecting Eli. Job two in NY is getting to the opposing QB. Due to cap restrictions, a team can't have everything. The Giants would be wise to sink their resources in their OL and DL...rather than tie up their assets at the WR position. The greatest WRs in the world are worthless, if Eli is consistently getting flattened...and eventually gets hurt. 

      

     




    well i take the above u posted about receivers with a grain of salt to be honest...that is typical of the computer generation that now has all this time on their hands to think and think and come up with 100 different ways to reduce everything in sports to numbers and mathematical formulas...kind of like the billy beane's of the world who think players are robots and cogs instead of people-the main reason his team has sucess to a point but no bananas...i take that and then filter it thru the eye test, what's inside a player, how he plays when, etc..so again all that "cold hard" data is taken with a more than a grain of salt by me

    RESPONSE: What are you talking about?? Billy Beane was and is a successful GM, though he's operating every year with a shoe-string budget. He has his Moneyball formula, and, it works! I suggest you read the book, "Moneyball"...not watch the movie. Lots of good stuff in that book. BB also follows a set formula for rating and evaluating players. It too works. Dispite those two razor thin SB losses to the Giants, is there any doubt that the Patriots have been the most successful NFL team over the past decade? Sorry...but what those guys are talking about in those articles that I posted above make sense to me, and are backed up by facts.  

    second saying Cruz and Nicks would be average is an underestimation of their abilities and it's been proven in the biggest crunch time on the biggest stage too-see i dont neceassarily believe in separating the wrs from their qb in most situations-it doesn't matter if eli makes them or they make him or a combination...if they are all here and it all works thats the bottom line

    RESPONSE: Where did I state that they are "average" players? I credited them as being good receivers. But, much of the credit for their success lies in the fact that they're playing with one of the top QBs in the game. How good would they be if they played in Arizona with Kevin Kolb? How effective was arguably the games' best receiver, Larry Fitzgerald, with Kolb as his QB?    

    I wouldn't bring in the average receivers the Pats had back when b/c Tom Brady is the main ingredient and Giants don't have him nor that D and adam Vinitieri, nor play in the afc east and all the other things that figure in-if ur point is cruz and nicks are so easily replaced and u justify that view by comparing them to givens and branch  u are off base there

    RESPONSE: Stop the nonsense about playing in the AFC East. The NFC East has been no better...maybe worse. Until last year, the Washington Redskins were the Washington Generals for the past decade. The Eagles are awful, and the Dallas Cowboys have withered under the stewardship of GM Jerry Jones. The truth about the G-men is that their defense is all about getting to the opposing QB. When they can't do that, their mediocre at best LBs and secondary gets exposed. If the Giants are to regain their status as legitimate SB contenders, they must rebuild their pass rush, and must do a better job of protecting Eli.   

    not sure why u seem to be minimizing Cruz and Nicks so much

    RESPONSE: Did you bother to read the articles I posted? That will explain it...along with what I've seen with the Patriots over the years. Again I repeat...the Patriots nearly won a SB with a bunch of bargain basement WRs. But, when their defense stopped applying pressure to the opposing QBs, they had problems stopping anybody. 

    as for WW i did not bring in up his salary demands nor said the pats have to resign him-i was making the point that the "only a slot receiver " claim as the reason not to pay him/resign him is both overstated and silly-especially based on his prodcution...those who think he will be so easily replaced (kind of like ur cruz/nicks opines) may well be unpleasantly surprised

    RESPONSE: Wes is outstanding in the Patriots' system. But, imagine how much better the Pats would be if they could switch out Welker for, say, Larry Fitzgerald? Wes simply isn't in the same class as Fitz, Megatron, and budding star Torrey Smith.  At age 32, he's not worth an $8-10mil. per year deal. Neither is Cruz or Nicks. That money could be better spent on the OL and DL.

    ur more aggressive than normal here Tex...I am NOT Rusty after all!!! :  )

    RESPONSE: Agressive? Just stating my opinions on the Giants and Welker...and listing the reasons for my opinions. 

     




     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

          Which brings us to the G-men. True, they have plenty of holes to fill...with their greatest needs being on their defensive and offensive lines. That's where they should seek help in the draft. Though WR Victor Cruz is a very good slot receiver and a fan favorite...he's not worth upsetting the teams' salary structure to pay him the kind of money that he's seeking. Nor is Hakeem Nicks worthy of breaking the bank on. He's too injury prone. Eli Manning can and will make due with lesser receivers, so long as he's adequately protected.      

    done next year? of course not!! thats queenie talking his bs again

    hell at 8-5 they were primed then it fell off so time to regroup...i know they are in a real division in a superior conference but i fully expect a nice bounce back, especially this coming season where their schedule downgrades from ridiculous to normal  :  )

     



         The Giants need to decide on how they handle WRs Nicks, and Cruz. What do you think that they should do? Both guys want huge money. At least one will not get it. Might they not be better off going with Randle, in place of Nicks...and bringing in a far less expensive slot receiver than Cruz? Next season, if Victor's mind is on his contract and not fully into his play, the results could be disasterous. Look what happened with DeSean Jackson and Mike Wallace, when they appeared to be more concerned about protecting themselves from injury, than for going all out on the field. The Giants should scrap these glamour boys...and go full bore towards rebuilding their OL and DL.

     

     




    well Tex first off I don;t consider either Nicks or Cruz "glamour boys"-not sure how or why you do but the Giants are like the Pats in that they really don't have many players u would call glamour

    RESPONSE: Here are a series of excellent articles dealing with how overrated WRs are to an offense. I think you'll find these articles illuminating: http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/moss-another-shiny-hood-ornament-wide-receiver/7510/; http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/draft-primer-those-shiny-wide-receivers/2454/; and  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/kerry_byrne/01/10/julio.jones.trade/index.html

         Furthermore, I'll remind you of the 2006 Patriots, who let starting WRs Deion Branch and David Givens go, in order to spare the team from tying up huge money at the WR position. The Pats still came within an eyelash of winning another SB in 2006...while  Branch and Givens did nothing for their new teams, in Tennessee and Seattle. I agree with the "Shiny Hood Orniment" theory discussed in the articles above. NFL games are won or lost primarily by OL/DL play, and QB play. A good QB makes a WR...not the other way around. Cruz and Nicks would be average players if they weren't playing with a quality QB like Eli.  

    as for Cruz calling him a "slot" reciever is a misnomer because of his size mostly-he is just a reciever who lines up in the slot but unlike WW and others he will go outside or long (witness the 75 yard game winner vs Redskins last year) ...and it amazes me how that term "slot  receiver" has become this snide disparaging label when people use it that way...Pats fans not wanting to pay WW because he is a "slot receiver" is absolutely head shaking and hilarious to outside fans like me-the guy goes 120/1500 6 yrs in a row basically but he's a SLOT receiver...

    RESPONSE: Surely you jest. Welker is a 5'9", 185 lb., 32 year old slot receiver. He's certainly made the most of his abilities in N.E....and is a quality receiver. But, are you seriously going to argue that the Pats should franchise him again, and pay him $11.4 mil. in 2013?? Sure...his play is deserving of a big money contract. But, the salary cap restricts what teams can do. What the Pats are paying Brady, Mankins, and Wilfolk eats up 35% of their cap space. The Pats place more value on certain positions...and WRs are not as valued in New England as elsewhere. Don't forget that RT Sebastien Vollmer and CB Aqib Talib are UFAs, too. Who do the Pats need more, a very good 32 year old WR, a top notch OT in his prime (bad back notwithstanding), or a very good, physical CB? Under cap restrictions, it's apparent to me that the Pats would be foolish to strap themselves to a lucrative, 2-3 year contract for a 32 year old WR. As for the Giants, are you suggesting that they saddle themselves to Nicks and/or Cruz for $10mil. per season, or more? That's what Cruz is seeking, and he's in his prime. Look what happened to DeSean Jackson, after contract issues clouded his play.     

    Dunno what they will do but they cleared some nice space to resign both Cruz and Nicks but of the two yes I agree keep Cruz-he is harder to displace than Nicks- tho i do believe Nicks is a heck of a receiver and had a wonderful SB46 for us

    RESPONSE: Both Cruz and Nicks are good players. But, what's more necessary to the future success of the Giants...strong line play, or good receivers? Job one in NY is protecting Eli. Job two in NY is getting to the opposing QB. Due to cap restrictions, a team can't have everything. The Giants would be wise to sink their resources in their OL and DL...rather than tie up their assets at the WR position. The greatest WRs in the world are worthless, if Eli is consistently getting flattened...and eventually gets hurt. 

      

     




    well i take the above u posted about receivers with a grain of salt to be honest...that is typical of the computer generation that now has all this time on their hands to think and think and come up with 100 different ways to reduce everything in sports to numbers and mathematical formulas...kind of like the billy beane's of the world who think players are robots and cogs instead of people-the main reason his team has sucess to a point but no bananas...i take that and then filter it thru the eye test, what's inside a player, how he plays when, etc..so again all that "cold hard" data is taken with a more than a grain of salt by me

    RESPONSE: What are you talking about?? Billy Beane was and is a successful GM, though he's operating every year with a shoe-string budget. He has his Moneyball formula, and, it works! I suggest you read the book, "Moneyball"...not watch the movie. Lots of good stuff in that book. BB also follows a set formula for rating and evaluating players. It too works. Dispite those two razor thin SB losses to the Giants, is there any doubt that the Patriots have been the most successful NFL team over the past decade? Sorry...but what those guys are talking about in those articles that I posted above make sense to me, and are backed up by facts.  

    second saying Cruz and Nicks would be average is an underestimation of their abilities and it's been proven in the biggest crunch time on the biggest stage too-see i dont neceassarily believe in separating the wrs from their qb in most situations-it doesn't matter if eli makes them or they make him or a combination...if they are all here and it all works thats the bottom line

    RESPONSE: Where did I state that they are "average" players? I credited them as being good receivers. But, much of the credit for their success lies in the fact that they're playing with one of the top QBs in the game. How good would they be if they played in Arizona with Kevin Kolb? How effective was arguably the games' best receiver, Larry Fitzgerald, with Kolb as his QB?    

    I wouldn't bring in the average receivers the Pats had back when b/c Tom Brady is the main ingredient and Giants don't have him nor that D and adam Vinitieri, nor play in the afc east and all the other things that figure in-if ur point is cruz and nicks are so easily replaced and u justify that view by comparing them to givens and branch  u are off base there

    RESPONSE: Stop the nonsense about playing in the AFC East. The NFC East has been no better...maybe worse. Until last year, the Washington Redskins were the Washington Generals for the past decade. The Eagles are awful, and the Dallas Cowboys have withered under the stewardship of GM Jerry Jones. The truth about the G-men is that their defense is all about getting to the opposing QB. When they can't do that, their mediocre at best LBs and secondary gets exposed. If the Giants are to regain their status as legitimate SB contenders, they must rebuild their pass rush, and must do a better job of protecting Eli.   

    not sure why u seem to be minimizing Cruz and Nicks so much

    RESPONSE: Did you bother to read the articles I posted? That will explain it...along with what I've seen with the Patriots over the years. Again I repeat...the Patriots nearly won a SB with a bunch of bargain basement WRs. But, when their defense stopped applying pressure to the opposing QBs, they had problems stopping anybody. 

    as for WW i did not bring in up his salary demands nor said the pats have to resign him-i was making the point that the "only a slot receiver " claim as the reason not to pay him/resign him is both overstated and silly-especially based on his prodcution...those who think he will be so easily replaced (kind of like ur cruz/nicks opines) may well be unpleasantly surprised

    RESPONSE: Wes is outstanding in the Patriots' system. But, imagine how much better the Pats would be if they could switch out Welker for, say, Larry Fitzgerald? Wes simply isn't in the same class as Fitz, Megatron, and budding star Torrey Smith.  At age 32, he's not worth an $8-10mil. per year deal. Neither is Cruz or Nicks. That money could be better spent on the OL and DL.

    ur more aggressive than normal here Tex...I am NOT Rusty after all!!! :  )

    RESPONSE: Agressive? Just stating my opinions on the Giants and Welker...and listing the reasons for my opinions. 

     

     

     

    with beane u don't seem to be getting the bigger picture I am pointing to


    first off very familiar with billy beane and his moneyball formula and my point is exactly what i said it was: billy beane is hailed as some sort of "genius" and his teams have won nothing-not even a pennant. remember when they were up 2-0 on the yanks heading home and couldn't win one more that showed exactly what i am talking about. Beane is a button down accountant type who treats people like robots, said managers are just there to push button and that anyone can do it and makes every move based on data and math, which is why his team goes so far and no further-computers and mathematics do not measure what's inside a person, how they will perform under pressure, heart, desire, improvisation-i really don't think billy sacred computers would have predicted derek jeters amazing flip to nail jeremy giambi at the plateb/c what jeter brings is NOT measurable only-if at all-by "cold hard data"

    then when the yanks came back and won-because they know how and because they had the smarts and heart his robots didn't he actually got mad and screamed about their payroll and buying everything blah blah blah-after all his years of saying money didn't matter and correct applied formulae is the ticket-when it failed him he became a petulant whiner

    sorry, billy beane, and all ur starry eyed and bedazzled disciples - moneyball is only big because it speaks to a generation/modern age of computer geeks and tech heads who think all the answers lie there....his a's have never won the biggie and they will never win and he will never understand any other way to do it...matter of fact he can lean on his limited payroll as proof of his "genius" but who says he would win with no spending limits? doesn't work that way tex (see sather, glenn new york rangers)

    say how did the marlins win with so little a payroll billy boy and ur a's can't win a pennant?

    u either get that or u dont tex, i cant explain it any better-and the "facts" back it up and will every year his team doesn't win and it was proven in spades vs the yanks...u either get what i am saying or u are too "logical" and want to praise bean beyond his actual accomplishments like so many (btw his formulas appeal has cooled in the big leagues)

    as for ur pats sorry...brady bellichick and weak division moreso than any cap magic (i know you want to think BB of football is the BB of baseball but nope)...sorry the other three teams in the AFC Easy have been all shades of medicore to awful for a decade plus and have sent less teams to the playoffs than any division except perhaps the nfc west...dont take it personally tex but pats can pencil in 4-6 wins a year every year in that sad sack divsion and 6 a couple of times no sweat...no way playing the ravens and steelers twice every year (hell thre bengals were better than the other 3 stiffs in the afc east last year with a much better qb than all 3) do they win the division every year and post 11+ wins...sorry afc easy a major reason-and what that has to do with the giants and the nfc east i dunno

    btw if ur pats "almost" won with bargain basement receivers goody for them...that means other teams are meant to do it that way? that means jints and others shouldn't bolster their o wit the best receivers they can to help their D? i didnt say to the detriment of the o line or d as a whole but still...and a question: what if u spent a weeeeee bit more on those bargain basement wr's? lombardi's? if yes shame on kraft...if no ur argument is moot

    WW? said what i said and i dont get the comparisons to fitzgerald or megatron etc...that is not his role and physically he is not able to do it anyway...my point-yet again-is that if some fans here use "slot receiver" as this disparaging putdown (really only in the past year since welker had the audacity to think he earned a little something from kraft) it is laughable in the face of his production and the prolific nature of the pats offense with him in it...thats all dont take it beyond that

    that all tired out my fingers and i am pretty much done b/c i restated what i said teh best i can and we can agree to disagree if u like-my points on beane, the afc east and ww are what they are

    ditto cruz and nicks-and i dont know what the jints will do but i have faith in reese-he has earned that...and no i dont think nicks and cruz were "made" by eli and don't really care what some eggheads or media "experts" said about that-i see with my own eyes

    maybe beane ought to do more of that his team may actually get over that hump

    nah, too "smart" for that after all

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

          Which brings us to the G-men. True, they have plenty of holes to fill...with their greatest needs being on their defensive and offensive lines. That's where they should seek help in the draft. Though WR Victor Cruz is a very good slot receiver and a fan favorite...he's not worth upsetting the teams' salary structure to pay him the kind of money that he's seeking. Nor is Hakeem Nicks worthy of breaking the bank on. He's too injury prone. Eli Manning can and will make due with lesser receivers, so long as he's adequately protected.      

    done next year? of course not!! thats queenie talking his bs again

    hell at 8-5 they were primed then it fell off so time to regroup...i know they are in a real division in a superior conference but i fully expect a nice bounce back, especially this coming season where their schedule downgrades from ridiculous to normal  :  )

     



         The Giants need to decide on how they handle WRs Nicks, and Cruz. What do you think that they should do? Both guys want huge money. At least one will not get it. Might they not be better off going with Randle, in place of Nicks...and bringing in a far less expensive slot receiver than Cruz? Next season, if Victor's mind is on his contract and not fully into his play, the results could be disasterous. Look what happened with DeSean Jackson and Mike Wallace, when they appeared to be more concerned about protecting themselves from injury, than for going all out on the field. The Giants should scrap these glamour boys...and go full bore towards rebuilding their OL and DL.

     

     




    well Tex first off I don;t consider either Nicks or Cruz "glamour boys"-not sure how or why you do but the Giants are like the Pats in that they really don't have many players u would call glamour

    RESPONSE: Here are a series of excellent articles dealing with how overrated WRs are to an offense. I think you'll find these articles illuminating: http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/moss-another-shiny-hood-ornament-wide-receiver/7510/; http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/draft-primer-those-shiny-wide-receivers/2454/; and  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/kerry_byrne/01/10/julio.jones.trade/index.html

         Furthermore, I'll remind you of the 2006 Patriots, who let starting WRs Deion Branch and David Givens go, in order to spare the team from tying up huge money at the WR position. The Pats still came within an eyelash of winning another SB in 2006...while  Branch and Givens did nothing for their new teams, in Tennessee and Seattle. I agree with the "Shiny Hood Orniment" theory discussed in the articles above. NFL games are won or lost primarily by OL/DL play, and QB play. A good QB makes a WR...not the other way around. Cruz and Nicks would be average players if they weren't playing with a quality QB like Eli.  

    as for Cruz calling him a "slot" reciever is a misnomer because of his size mostly-he is just a reciever who lines up in the slot but unlike WW and others he will go outside or long (witness the 75 yard game winner vs Redskins last year) ...and it amazes me how that term "slot  receiver" has become this snide disparaging label when people use it that way...Pats fans not wanting to pay WW because he is a "slot receiver" is absolutely head shaking and hilarious to outside fans like me-the guy goes 120/1500 6 yrs in a row basically but he's a SLOT receiver...

    RESPONSE: Surely you jest. Welker is a 5'9", 185 lb., 32 year old slot receiver. He's certainly made the most of his abilities in N.E....and is a quality receiver. But, are you seriously going to argue that the Pats should franchise him again, and pay him $11.4 mil. in 2013?? Sure...his play is deserving of a big money contract. But, the salary cap restricts what teams can do. What the Pats are paying Brady, Mankins, and Wilfolk eats up 35% of their cap space. The Pats place more value on certain positions...and WRs are not as valued in New England as elsewhere. Don't forget that RT Sebastien Vollmer and CB Aqib Talib are UFAs, too. Who do the Pats need more, a very good 32 year old WR, a top notch OT in his prime (bad back notwithstanding), or a very good, physical CB? Under cap restrictions, it's apparent to me that the Pats would be foolish to strap themselves to a lucrative, 2-3 year contract for a 32 year old WR. As for the Giants, are you suggesting that they saddle themselves to Nicks and/or Cruz for $10mil. per season, or more? That's what Cruz is seeking, and he's in his prime. Look what happened to DeSean Jackson, after contract issues clouded his play.     

    Dunno what they will do but they cleared some nice space to resign both Cruz and Nicks but of the two yes I agree keep Cruz-he is harder to displace than Nicks- tho i do believe Nicks is a heck of a receiver and had a wonderful SB46 for us

    RESPONSE: Both Cruz and Nicks are good players. But, what's more necessary to the future success of the Giants...strong line play, or good receivers? Job one in NY is protecting Eli. Job two in NY is getting to the opposing QB. Due to cap restrictions, a team can't have everything. The Giants would be wise to sink their resources in their OL and DL...rather than tie up their assets at the WR position. The greatest WRs in the world are worthless, if Eli is consistently getting flattened...and eventually gets hurt. 

      

     




    well i take the above u posted about receivers with a grain of salt to be honest...that is typical of the computer generation that now has all this time on their hands to think and think and come up with 100 different ways to reduce everything in sports to numbers and mathematical formulas...kind of like the billy beane's of the world who think players are robots and cogs instead of people-the main reason his team has sucess to a point but no bananas...i take that and then filter it thru the eye test, what's inside a player, how he plays when, etc..so again all that "cold hard" data is taken with a more than a grain of salt by me

    RESPONSE: What are you talking about?? Billy Beane was and is a successful GM, though he's operating every year with a shoe-string budget. He has his Moneyball formula, and, it works! I suggest you read the book, "Moneyball"...not watch the movie. Lots of good stuff in that book. BB also follows a set formula for rating and evaluating players. It too works. Dispite those two razor thin SB losses to the Giants, is there any doubt that the Patriots have been the most successful NFL team over the past decade? Sorry...but what those guys are talking about in those articles that I posted above make sense to me, and are backed up by facts.  

    second saying Cruz and Nicks would be average is an underestimation of their abilities and it's been proven in the biggest crunch time on the biggest stage too-see i dont neceassarily believe in separating the wrs from their qb in most situations-it doesn't matter if eli makes them or they make him or a combination...if they are all here and it all works thats the bottom line

    RESPONSE: Where did I state that they are "average" players? I credited them as being good receivers. But, much of the credit for their success lies in the fact that they're playing with one of the top QBs in the game. How good would they be if they played in Arizona with Kevin Kolb? How effective was arguably the games' best receiver, Larry Fitzgerald, with Kolb as his QB?    

    I wouldn't bring in the average receivers the Pats had back when b/c Tom Brady is the main ingredient and Giants don't have him nor that D and adam Vinitieri, nor play in the afc east and all the other things that figure in-if ur point is cruz and nicks are so easily replaced and u justify that view by comparing them to givens and branch  u are off base there

    RESPONSE: Stop the nonsense about playing in the AFC East. The NFC East has been no better...maybe worse. Until last year, the Washington Redskins were the Washington Generals for the past decade. The Eagles are awful, and the Dallas Cowboys have withered under the stewardship of GM Jerry Jones. The truth about the G-men is that their defense is all about getting to the opposing QB. When they can't do that, their mediocre at best LBs and secondary gets exposed. If the Giants are to regain their status as legitimate SB contenders, they must rebuild their pass rush, and must do a better job of protecting Eli.   

    not sure why u seem to be minimizing Cruz and Nicks so much

    RESPONSE: Did you bother to read the articles I posted? That will explain it...along with what I've seen with the Patriots over the years. Again I repeat...the Patriots nearly won a SB with a bunch of bargain basement WRs. But, when their defense stopped applying pressure to the opposing QBs, they had problems stopping anybody. 

    as for WW i did not bring in up his salary demands nor said the pats have to resign him-i was making the point that the "only a slot receiver " claim as the reason not to pay him/resign him is both overstated and silly-especially based on his prodcution...those who think he will be so easily replaced (kind of like ur cruz/nicks opines) may well be unpleasantly surprised

    RESPONSE: Wes is outstanding in the Patriots' system. But, imagine how much better the Pats would be if they could switch out Welker for, say, Larry Fitzgerald? Wes simply isn't in the same class as Fitz, Megatron, and budding star Torrey Smith.  At age 32, he's not worth an $8-10mil. per year deal. Neither is Cruz or Nicks. That money could be better spent on the OL and DL.

    ur more aggressive than normal here Tex...I am NOT Rusty after all!!! :  )

    RESPONSE: Agressive? Just stating my opinions on the Giants and Welker...and listing the reasons for my opinions. 

     

     

     

    with beane u don't seem to be getting the bigger picture I am pointing to


    first off very familiar with billy beane and his moneyball formula and my point is exactly what i said it was: billy beane is hailed as some sort of "genius" and his teams have won nothing-not even a pennant. remember when they were up 2-0 on the yanks heading home and couldn't win one more that showed exactly what i am talking about. Beane is a button down accountant type who treats people like robots, said managers are just there to push button and that anyone can do it and makes every move based on data and math, which is why his team goes so far and no further-computers and mathematics do not measure what's inside a person, how they will perform under pressure, heart, desire, improvisation-i really don't think billy sacred computers would have predicted derek jeters amazing flip to nail jeremy giambi at the plateb/c what jeter brings is NOT measurable only-if at all-by "cold hard data"

    then when the yanks came back and won-because they know how and because they had the smarts and heart his robots didn't he actually got mad and screamed about their payroll and buying everything blah blah blah-after all his years of saying money didn't matter and correct applied formulae is the ticket-when it failed him he became a petulant whiner

    sorry, billy beane, and all ur starry eyed and bedazzled disciples - moneyball is only big because it speaks to a generation/modern age of computer geeks and tech heads who think all the answers lie there....his a's have never won the biggie and they will never win and he will never understand any other way to do it...matter of fact he can lean on his limited payroll as proof of his "genius" but who says he would win with no spending limits? doesn't work that way tex (see sather, glenn new york rangers)

    say how did the marlins win with so little a payroll billy boy and ur a's can't win a pennant?

    u either get that or u dont tex, i cant explain it any better-and the "facts" back it up and will every year his team doesn't win and it was proven in spades vs the yanks...u either get what i am saying or u are too "logical" and want to praise bean beyond his actual accomplishments like so many (btw his formulas appeal has cooled in the big leagues)

    as for ur pats sorry...brady bellichick and weak division moreso than any cap magic (i know you want to think BB of football is the BB of baseball but nope)...sorry the other three teams in the AFC Easy have been all shades of medicore to awful for a decade plus and have sent less teams to the playoffs than any division except perhaps the nfc west...dont take it personally tex but pats can pencil in 4-6 wins a year every year in that sad sack divsion and 6 a couple of times no sweat...no way playing the ravens and steelers twice every year (hell thre bengals were better than the other 3 stiffs in the afc east last year with a much better qb than all 3) do they win the division every year and post 11+ wins...sorry afc easy a major reason-and what that has to do with the giants and the nfc east i dunno

    btw if ur pats "almost" won with bargain basement receivers goody for them...that means other teams are meant to do it that way? that means jints and others shouldn't bolster their o wit the best receivers they can to help their D? i didnt say to the detriment of the o line or d as a whole but still...and a question: what if u spent a weeeeee bit more on those bargain basement wr's? lombardi's? if yes shame on kraft...if no ur argument is moot

    WW? said what i said and i dont get the comparisons to fitzgerald or megatron etc...that is not his role and physically he is not able to do it anyway...my point-yet again-is that if some fans here use "slot receiver" as this disparaging putdown (really only in the past year since welker had the audacity to think he earned a little something from kraft) it is laughable in the face of his production and the prolific nature of the pats offense with him in it...thats all dont take it beyond that

    that all tired out my fingers and i am pretty much done b/c i restated what i said teh best i can and we can agree to disagree if u like-my points on beane, the afc east and ww are what they are

    ditto cruz and nicks-and i dont know what the jints will do but i have faith in reese-he has earned that...and no i dont think nicks and cruz were "made" by eli and don't really care what some eggheads or media "experts" said about that-i see with my own eyes

    maybe beane ought to do more of that his team may actually get over that hump

    nah, too "smart" for that after all

     




    No one will read this. ^^^

     



    ur point is?

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

         Wow Jints...I can see that you really have the hots for Billy Beane...LOL!! With all due respect, I am far from being a "computer geek". I judge based on facts...and your rant against Beane simply doesn't jive with the cold, hard facts. Over the past three seasons, while the Yankees average payroll has been $194mil., Beane has made due with an average payroll of just $63mil. In other words, the Yanks' payroll is three times larger. Yet...despite such a huge payroll discrepancy, Beane's Oakland A's have won at least 90 games seven times over the past 12 years. As for your whine about how the Yanks came back from an 0-2 deficit to beat the A's in 2001...big deal. The Yanks had the Red Sox down 0-3, yet choked that series away. It doesn't diminish the fact that the 2004 Yankees were a good team...it just means that the Red Sox were better. Had the Sox been able to hire Beane at the conclusion of the 2002 season, there's no telling what he could have done with a higher spending ceiling.    

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from tg19pats. Show tg19pats's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    Lots of reading for me, nut would love to have Cruz on the pats, very humble hard working football player, yes football player who would look great with Brady. 

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

         Wow Jints...I can see that you really have the hots for Billy Beane...LOL!! With all due respect, I am far from being a "computer geek". I judge based on facts...and your rant against Beane simply doesn't jive with the cold, hard facts. Over the past three seasons, while the Yankees average payroll has been $194mil., Beane has made due with an average payroll of just $63mil. In other words, the Yanks' payroll is three times larger. Yet...despite such a huge payroll discrepancy, Beane's Oakland A's have won at least 90 games seven times over the past 12 years. As for your whine about how the Yanks came back from an 0-2 deficit to beat the A's in 2001...big deal. The Yanks had the Red Sox down 0-3, yet choked that series away. It doesn't diminish the fact that the 2004 Yankees were a good team...it just means that the Red Sox were better. Had the Sox been able to hire Beane at the conclusion of the 2002 season, there's no telling what he could have done with a higher spending ceiling.    




    ur still not getting it tex and i am not going to go into it again-beane is exactly as i describe him and so is his system-it is based on the hubris and rather shortsighted view of human nature and athletes of a Mr Spock type and I will contend once again his teams have never won even a pennant and they will not this year or next either because of the flaws i just brought up and dont lean on payroll b/c teams with less have won more

    what i said about the yanks was not a whine but more proof of exactly what i am talking about...gee wonder if when a's up 2-0 on yanks or yanks 3-0 on the sox billy's computers would have said trailing team had any chance of coming back...i am betting the cold hard data would hae said no chance...same data would have said 07 jints aint beating the pats, 90 reds ain't beating the a's, 03 marlins ain't beating the yanks (care to say any of the winners were better as u said above? i am thinking no)...beane is the modern scientist with all the accompanying arrogance and he misses the forest for the trees like so many do

    i never said YOU were a pc geek i said people like beane are

    sports are much more than "cold hard data" as are athletes...sorry beane has shown he is too smart by half like so many "we are smarter than" you types and no his teams will never win the big banana and there is no cold hard fact greater than that one

    now we can agree to disagree and move on i hope

    and i say again whatever the jints do i have the faith in reese and coughlin that they have earned

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

         Wow Jints...I can see that you really have the hots for Billy Beane...LOL!! With all due respect, I am far from being a "computer geek". I judge based on facts...and your rant against Beane simply doesn't jive with the cold, hard facts. Over the past three seasons, while the Yankees average payroll has been $194mil., Beane has made due with an average payroll of just $63mil. In other words, the Yanks' payroll is three times larger. Yet...despite such a huge payroll discrepancy, Beane's Oakland A's have won at least 90 games seven times over the past 12 years. As for your whine about how the Yanks came back from an 0-2 deficit to beat the A's in 2001...big deal. The Yanks had the Red Sox down 0-3, yet choked that series away. It doesn't diminish the fact that the 2004 Yankees were a good team...it just means that the Red Sox were better. Had the Sox been able to hire Beane at the conclusion of the 2002 season, there's no telling what he could have done with a higher spending ceiling.    

     




    ur still not getting it tex and i am not going to go into it again-beane is exactly as i describe him and so is his system-it is based on the hubris and rather shortsighted view of human nature and athletes of a Mr Spock type and I will contend once again his teams have never won even a pennant and they will not this year or next either because of the flaws i just brought up and dont lean on payroll b/c teams with less have won more

    RESPONSE: Based on hubris??? LOL!!! Nice word...but wrongo! His system is based on necessity...not on ego or arrogance!! He had to try it because he didn't have the money to compete with the Yankees of the baseball world. AND...it worked!! Seven 90 or better win seasons in 12 years despite a shoestring payroll is an outstanding achievement. His teams can't go all the way because, to do so, a team needs top of the line pitching to win a championship. Top pitching costs big money. A "shortsighted view of human nature"?? How so? The guy runs his team as if he were constrained by a salary cap, because he has to. 

    what i said about the yanks was not a whine but more proof of exactly what i am talking about...gee wonder if when a's up 2-0 on yanks or yanks 3-0 on the sox billy's computers would have said trailing team had any chance of coming back...

    RESPONSE: "Billy's computers" help him build playoff teams. So, the A's have never won a pennant under Beane. But, Billy and his computers, system, or whatever you want to call it, put his shoestring budget teams in a position to win. 

    i am betting the cold hard data would hae said no chance...same data would have said 07 jints aint beating the pats, 90 reds ain't beating the a's, 03 marlins ain't beating the yanks (care to say any of the winners were better as u said above? i am thinking no)...beane is the modern scientist with all the accompanying arrogance and he misses the forest for the trees like so many do

    RESPONSE: What nonsense! All you seem to be focusing on is that one year where the A's and Yanks both won 103 games, and the Yanks, down 0-2, came back and won. Teams that win 103 games can do that. But, how does that make what Beane did a failure? That's analogous to saying that the 2007, 18-1 Patriots sucked, and BB's system doesn't work, because the Pats lost by 3 points in the SB. This is absurd, backward, Rustonian thinking.  

    i never said YOU were a pc geek i said people like beane are

    RESPONSE: More nonsense! Beane was a jock. Read the book, Moneyball...don't just go by what was depicted in the movie. 

    sports are much more than "cold hard data" as are athletes...sorry beane has shown he is too smart by half like so many "we are smarter than" you types and no his teams will never win the big banana and there is no cold hard fact greater than that one

    RESPONSE: Sorry pal...but you're all wet on Beane. He's a successful innovator, who went against the grain, and employed a system that worked...and continues to work.   

    now we can agree to disagree and move on i hope

    RESPONSE: Stop with these silly Griswolian retorts. I challenge you to find anyone who agrees with you...other than crazed Yankee fans.

    and i say again whatever the jints do i have the faith in reese and coughlin that they have earned

    RESPONSE: Agreed. Reese is a top flight GM...and Coughlin has certainly proved himself as a coach. Reese will, and should, take a hard line on Cruz and Nicks...much like he correctly did with Osi Umenyiora. REMEMBER: Job One is to see that Eli gets protected. Job Two is to see that opposing QBs are not protected.   

     




     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share