| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Flaccomania
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 16531
Location: Parkville, MD
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| Jakuvious wrote: | | Flaccomania wrote: | | Jakuvious wrote: | | texans_uk wrote: | | Why are chiefs fans choosing Charles ypc against their other backs as if that as an argument? Did you see the Texans running backs before foster with essentially the same oline? Yes Tate gets good ypc, but that's because he is a good running back in his own right and it always helps playing alongside an elite rb like Arian. |
I don't care about before. I'm not talking about before. In 2010, both Texans backups had a higher ypc. In 2011, Tate did, while Ward's was lower. This year, both backups are about equal to Foster in terms of ypc.
Not even close to the type of dramatic difference with Charles. And I'm sure since you said before Foster, you want to talk about 2009 or 2008, but those years included a different OC, different OGs, and much younger and lesser forms of Duane Brown and Eric Winston. |
So what you're saying is that in order for Arian Foster to get closer to Jamaal Charles' level, the Texans need to find some worse backups.
Makes sense. |
And what you're saying is, you either don't know how to read, or you have no desire to actually give adequate respect to my opinion before offering a uselessly inaccurate retort. |
I'm reading just fine. Your logic is that the dropoff from Foster to his backups compared to the dropoff from Charles to his backups, somehow reflects the talent between the two. Is that not the argument you're making?
My counter was that if we replace Foster's backups with practice squad guys, thus increasing that dropoff, using your logic that Foster would get himself closer to Charles.
_________________
Why not Michael Jordan? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jakuvious
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Posts: 4554
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Flaccomania wrote: |
I'm reading just fine. Your logic is that the dropoff from Foster to his backups compared to the dropoff from Charles to his backups, somehow reflects the talent between the two. Is that not the argument you're making?
My counter was that if we replace Foster's backups with practice squad guys, thus increasing that dropoff, using your logic that Foster would get himself closer to Charles. |
No, it genuinely isn't. I was answering a question about why I'd use that as an argument when texans_uk claimed that the exact same argument can be used for Foster. If you actually read where the argument came from, I haven't said Charles is better than Foster, or more talented than Foster, or even that he has better vision than Foster. It began with a post claiming that Foster's vision is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to Charles's vision. So no, I've made no argument about how Charles is more talented than Foster, let alone that the production of their backups reflects that.
Also, Charles's backups haven't been practice squad guys. Jackie Battle has been far more successful in San Diego this year, Thomas Jones was a pro-bowler for the Jets the year before, and McCluster is fairly dynamic in his own right. So these are guys, other than McCluster, who were more successful elsewhere.
You need to read where an argument begins if you're going to just jump in the middle, because this wasn't a "Is Foster or Charles a better RB?" debate.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flaccomania
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 16531
Location: Parkville, MD
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Jakuvious wrote: | | Flaccomania wrote: |
I'm reading just fine. Your logic is that the dropoff from Foster to his backups compared to the dropoff from Charles to his backups, somehow reflects the talent between the two. Is that not the argument you're making?
My counter was that if we replace Foster's backups with practice squad guys, thus increasing that dropoff, using your logic that Foster would get himself closer to Charles. |
No, it genuinely isn't. I was answering a question about why I'd use that as an argument when texans_uk claimed that the exact same argument can be used for Foster. If you actually read where the argument came from, I haven't said Charles is better than Foster, or more talented than Foster, or even that he has better vision than Foster. It began with a post claiming that Foster's vision is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to Charles's vision. So no, I've made no argument about how Charles is more talented than Foster, let alone that the production of their backups reflects that.
Also, Charles's backups haven't been practice squad guys. Jackie Battle has been far more successful in San Diego this year, Thomas Jones was a pro-bowler for the Jets the year before, and McCluster is fairly dynamic in his own right. So these are guys, other than McCluster, who were more successful elsewhere.
You need to read where an argument begins if you're going to just jump in the middle, because this wasn't a "Is Foster or Charles a better RB?" debate. |
Did you or did you not use the production of backups as part of your argument for Charles?
I'm not arguing the original point, I'm showing you that the logic you're using for your argument, regardless of what it is, is extrmely flawed.
_________________
Why not Michael Jordan? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jakuvious
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Posts: 4554
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Flaccomania wrote: | | Jakuvious wrote: | | Flaccomania wrote: |
I'm reading just fine. Your logic is that the dropoff from Foster to his backups compared to the dropoff from Charles to his backups, somehow reflects the talent between the two. Is that not the argument you're making?
My counter was that if we replace Foster's backups with practice squad guys, thus increasing that dropoff, using your logic that Foster would get himself closer to Charles. |
No, it genuinely isn't. I was answering a question about why I'd use that as an argument when texans_uk claimed that the exact same argument can be used for Foster. If you actually read where the argument came from, I haven't said Charles is better than Foster, or more talented than Foster, or even that he has better vision than Foster. It began with a post claiming that Foster's vision is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to Charles's vision. So no, I've made no argument about how Charles is more talented than Foster, let alone that the production of their backups reflects that.
Also, Charles's backups haven't been practice squad guys. Jackie Battle has been far more successful in San Diego this year, Thomas Jones was a pro-bowler for the Jets the year before, and McCluster is fairly dynamic in his own right. So these are guys, other than McCluster, who were more successful elsewhere.
You need to read where an argument begins if you're going to just jump in the middle, because this wasn't a "Is Foster or Charles a better RB?" debate. |
Did you or did you not use the production of backups as part of your argument for Charles?
I'm not arguing the original point, I'm showing you that the logic you're using for your argument, regardless of what it is, is extrmely flawed. |
You haven't shown anything, and you're still not reading.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
