Week 1 QBR

MASTRxOFxPUPPETZ wrote:another set of useless stats jargon...the only stat i care about is the W

EPICxPLATYPUS69 wrote:

MASTRxOFxPUPPETZ wrote:another set of useless stats jargon...the only stat i care about is the W

yup. why dont running backs or offensive linemen have a rating system. its stupid. the passer rating was put in place to measure of all things passing...not a whole fucking position. football is one of the few sports where stats dont matter. games can be decided so many different way you really depend on the bounce of the ball. its a crazy game and ESPN has killed the game for hardcore fans

MaddMatt wrote:

EPICxPLATYPUS69 wrote:

MASTRxOFxPUPPETZ wrote:another set of useless stats jargon...the only stat i care about is the W

yup. why dont running backs or offensive linemen have a rating system. its stupid. the passer rating was put in place to measure of all things passing...not a whole fucking position. football is one of the few sports where stats dont matter. games can be decided so many different way you really depend on the bounce of the ball. its a crazy game and ESPN has killed the game for hardcore fans

I like stats so I think it's kind of interesting, but still. It doesn't mean shit if you don't get the W.

Nef77 wrote:Does it really matter that Ryan Fitzpatrick is the leader of this retarded stat?

EPICxPLATYPUS69 wrote:

MaddMatt wrote:

EPICxPLATYPUS69 wrote:

MASTRxOFxPUPPETZ wrote:another set of useless stats jargon...the only stat i care about is the W

yup. why dont running backs or offensive linemen have a rating system. its stupid. the passer rating was put in place to measure of all things passing...not a whole fucking position. football is one of the few sports where stats dont matter. games can be decided so many different way you really depend on the bounce of the ball. its a crazy game and ESPN has killed the game for hardcore fans

I like stats so I think it's kind of interesting, but still. It doesn't mean shit if you don't get the W.

stats do play a roll, but listen. stats do not make the game and the game dont make the stats. example. the steelers ravens game. a turnover now equals a 14 point swing. if that were true the ravens would have won 70-7

also, its averages. just because you average 160+ yards does not mean you get that automatically. you have a scrub team and you get like 240 and then you play the steelers and ravens and you average out to 160

tom brady. had 3900 yards, 36 tds, 4 ints. mind you 87 percent of his throws were behind the line of scrimmage to 10 yards down field, the lack of ints should not be that impressive

stats are nice and stuff but they are more exceptions to rules instead of the rule

Mutant wrote:Somewhat ironic that you've been bashing ESPN for weeks and are now suddenly happy the Stafford is in the Top 3 in a QBR list using the same ESPN logic that you thought was "fucking retarded" not a few weeks ago.

Mutant wrote:Somewhat ironic that you've been bashing ESPN for weeks and are now suddenly happy the Stafford is in the Top 3 in a QBR list using the same ESPN logic that you thought was "fucking retarded" not a few weeks ago.

MaddMatt wrote:

EPICxPLATYPUS69 wrote:

MaddMatt wrote:

EPICxPLATYPUS69 wrote:

MASTRxOFxPUPPETZ wrote:another set of useless stats jargon...the only stat i care about is the W

yup. why dont running backs or offensive linemen have a rating system. its stupid. the passer rating was put in place to measure of all things passing...not a whole fucking position. football is one of the few sports where stats dont matter. games can be decided so many different way you really depend on the bounce of the ball. its a crazy game and ESPN has killed the game for hardcore fans

I like stats so I think it's kind of interesting, but still. It doesn't mean shit if you don't get the W.

stats do play a roll, but listen. stats do not make the game and the game dont make the stats. example. the steelers ravens game. a turnover now equals a 14 point swing. if that were true the ravens would have won 70-7

also, its averages. just because you average 160+ yards does not mean you get that automatically. you have a scrub team and you get like 240 and then you play the steelers and ravens and you average out to 160

tom brady. had 3900 yards, 36 tds, 4 ints. mind you 87 percent of his throws were behind the line of scrimmage to 10 yards down field, the lack of ints should not be that impressive

stats are nice and stuff but they are more exceptions to rules instead of the rule

Oh yeah, you can never (always?) use stats in an argument because there are ALWAYS two sides to the stats. Stats really don't mean shit, but it's just fun to talk about in my opinion.

The only sport where stats are useful is Baseball.

Mutant wrote:Somewhat ironic that you've been bashing ESPN for weeks and are now suddenly happy the Stafford is in the Top 3 in a QBR list using the same ESPN logic that you thought was "fucking retarded" not a few weeks ago.

MaddMatt wrote:

Mutant wrote:Somewhat ironic that you've been bashing ESPN for weeks and are now suddenly happy the Stafford is in the Top 3 in a QBR list using the same ESPN logic that you thought was "fucking retarded" not a few weeks ago.

Really? You sure I said that?
https://sporting-world.forumotion.com/t941-new-qb-formula

Cause it looks like to me I say "It'll be interesting to see how it works."

Oh and if were serious about Stafford being top three why would I have put all the "'s?" How many times have I posted to brag about my team? I posted it to show you guys the QBR rating then joked about Stafford being top 3.

Mutant wrote:

MaddMatt wrote:

Mutant wrote:Somewhat ironic that you've been bashing ESPN for weeks and are now suddenly happy the Stafford is in the Top 3 in a QBR list using the same ESPN logic that you thought was "fucking retarded" not a few weeks ago.

Really? You sure I said that?
https://sporting-world.forumotion.com/t941-new-qb-formula

Cause it looks like to me I say "It'll be interesting to see how it works."

Oh and if were serious about Stafford being top three why would I have put all the "'s?" How many times have I posted to brag about my team? I posted it to show you guys the QBR rating then joked about Stafford being top 3.

Not that thread. In the ESPN bashing thread.

But come to think of it, it might have been Epic who said that.

Looked to me like you were bragging. and look pretty identical to me.

"LOOK STAFFORD IS #3! [big grinning smiliey]" is how I read it.

MaddMatt wrote:http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6943920/nfl-week-1-total-qbr-leaders



STAFFORDS AT THREE SUCK IT BITCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

EPICxPLATYPUS69 wrote:

Mutant wrote:

MaddMatt wrote:

Mutant wrote:Somewhat ironic that you've been bashing ESPN for weeks and are now suddenly happy the Stafford is in the Top 3 in a QBR list using the same ESPN logic that you thought was "fucking retarded" not a few weeks ago.

Really? You sure I said that?
https://sporting-world.forumotion.com/t941-new-qb-formula

Cause it looks like to me I say "It'll be interesting to see how it works."

Oh and if were serious about Stafford being top three why would I have put all the "'s?" How many times have I posted to brag about my team? I posted it to show you guys the QBR rating then joked about Stafford being top 3.

Not that thread. In the ESPN bashing thread.

But come to think of it, it might have been Epic who said that.

Looked to me like you were bragging. and look pretty identical to me.

"LOOK STAFFORD IS #3! [big grinning smiliey]" is how I read it.

now youre talking shit about me? banned