Matt Ryan didn't have a break out year until his 9th season. Brady didn't have a break out year until his 8th NFL season (7th season starting). And what regressed?
HAHA! You're the one using NFL players as the barometer. I was mocking you. LMAO! What this has to do with Trump, however, is beyond me.
lol seriously?? .. I must've missed this one. Let's see.. suppose you want to buy something that costs $100 and you have $100, but you first trade the $100 for 93 Euros and use the 93 Euros to pay for the product. Would you say to the seller that you are willing to pay $100 dollars AND 93 Euros to buy the product??
The Dolphins spent 3 picks on Carroo. Let's try it this way. In the 2016 draft the Dolphins had no 3rd round pick to spend when they wanted to get Carroo in the 3rd round. So, they traded their 6th round in 2016, their 3rd round in 2017, and their 4th round in 2017. That's 3. 3 picks. What you're implying is that I have no money. However, I borrow $1 today and promise the lender to give them $3 dollars on payday. I buy a candy bar with my $1. Then I give the lender his $3 on payday. Now, my paycheck is $50. I now have $47. Have I spent $4 or $3? $50-$3 = $47 Clearly, I spent $3.
Which one of the picks that I mentioned wasn't used to acquire Caroo? The 3rd round pick we used to draft him, the '16 6th round pick, or the 3rd round pick this year, or 4th round pick this year. I'm fairly certain that all those 4 picks were used to acquire Caroo, we used the 3rd to draft him, and none of those other picks were available for us anymore, so how isn't that 4? Maybe I'm in a faulty logic whirlpool, not BSing, **** happens, but it looks like 4 to me, I think trades like this are so rare that we get stuck in swap math, normally there is an in-round swap involved, but we used 3 picks to buy a pick, then used that pick to draft him and don't have those other 3 picks.
Ryan made the PB in his 3rd year, in '11(4th year) he was 8th in yds, 6th in TDs and 8th in rating. Brady in '02(3rd year) was 6th in yds, 1st in TDs and 9th in rating. Btw, don't you always say those guys are overrated?
All 4 picks were used, yes, but when most people (I think) talk about what they had to "give up" to acquire something, they don't include everything that was equivalent to what they initially traded. We're thinking "how much value measured by draft picks did we have to trade" when saying "gave up". The answer to that is the value of the 3 draft picks. You're answering the question "how many draft picks needed to be traded to get the player".
Here's a better one; You trade 3 pieces of black licorice for a piece of red licorice, then trade that red licorice for a juju bee, all 4 of the pieces of licorice are gone and you have a juju bee.
Right.. so how many did you have to "give up"? You only gave up 3 because those 3 black licorice are equivalent to the 1 red licorice. Like I said.. "give up" tends to mean how much value-wise did you lose.
Speaking of Luck this is the first year Luck has unequivocally separated himself from Tannehill. He had a higher passer ratind and faced a tougher schedule of defences than Tannehill did for the first time in his career. However, if you want to pkay "imagine if Luck wasn't injurred" Tannehill supporters get to play "imagine if Tannehill wasn't injured and got to pkay the ladt 3 games". They would say you could expect Tannehill to perform no worse than Moore which would reduve Luck's lead over Tannehill. Interestingly with Luck, now that the retst of the AFCS isno longer entirely bottom feeders his W-L record has come back to what you would expect it to be given his and his team's performabce.
You no longer have the red licorice, you used it to get your juju bee. We didn't trade 3 picks for a player, we traded 3 picks for a pick, then used that pick, you aren't counting the pick itself. If we had a later 3rd(instead of the 6th) and used it and this years 3rd and 4th to trade up in the 3rd, then that would just be 3 because of the in-round swap, this is where the confusion comes from imo.
The difference is between an "OR" and an "AND". You used 4 picks but you gave up EITHER the 3 original ones OR the 1 you traded those 3 for. Besides.. it's really hard to argue you gave up more than you originally had. Not sure.. maybe danmarino is right in that for some reason no explanation will work.
Danmarino always getting into a battle of semantics. First my "turn it on" phrase then whether we went through 4 picks vs trading 3 picks for one then using that one. Is he donating money or something? Because this is toxic as hell. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maybe his "maths" are just superior to yours Nd every other person on this forum and in the entire NFL? Lol
I've been a member/frequent lurker of countless message boards through the years, but I had never experienced anything as hopeless as sifting through a "thread" here in the mains at any of them. Zero points, may God have mercy on all of our souls.
Nobody is playing the "Imagine if Luck wasn't injured" card, that's the point. Its, "realize Luck was injured" and he played through it, and 2016 is the result. And as you said, separated himself from Tanny, despite the injury. Nobody is saying, "imagine if Luck and Tanny weren't injured." Luck was injured since 2015 and played through it. Tannehill's injury knocked him out so he has no plays to discount.
Well one could argue, there were a total of 4 picks involved in drafting Carroo. But that's not saying we used 4 picks. We didn't have a 3rd round pick. Well we did, but we did not have that 3rd round pick. Imagine if you have two Honda motorcycles. Someone has a car you want to barter with, but he doesn't want your two motorcycles. He wants an MV Agusta. Or a Ducati. You trade your two Honda Motorcyles for the MV Agusta. Finally, the guy with the car will trade you. At the end, you can't say you traded two Honda Motorcyles AND a MV Agusta for the car. In this case, you used this year's 6th, and next years 3 and 4 to manufacture this year's 3. You had 3 picks, you turned it into one, and used that one. But you spent 3 picks.
Miami didn't have a 3rd round pick available when they wanted to draft Carro. That's 0. Miami gave their 2016 6th round pick to Minnesota. Their 2017 3rd round pick to Minnesota. And their 2017 4th round pick to Minnesota. That's 3 picks. Why? Because 3+0= 3. Minnesota gives 1 draft pic for Miami's 3 draft picks. The 2016 3rd round pick from Minnesota= the 2016 6th rd, 2017 3rd rd, and 2017 4th rd. 1=3 1=3 3=Carroo 1=Carroo Miami gave up 3 picks to get Carroo.
lol....I think that's what finsfandan just tried to start. I mean, I'm not sure how math, correct math, is semantics. I guess if he wants to argue about the "true" meaning of 1 or something.... haha
I stumbled across something looking into the splits. ESPN give splits for rating when blitzed. I know that there can be some disagreement about whether a play was or was not a blitz so the figures mght not be 100% accurate. I'll present the figures as follows: Passer ratting/passer rating when blitzed Pass plays/blitzes Difference/% blitzed. 2012 76.1/78.1 484/169 +2.0/34.9% 2013 81.7/86.6 588/177 +4.9/30.1% 2014 92.8/91.1 590/141 -1.7/23.8% 2015 88.7/67.5 580/158 -21.2/27.2% 2016 93.5/114.8 389/90 +21.3/23.1% Now I haven't dug up the figures for how the average NFL QB and how the rookie/sophomore QBs perform against the blitz. Anecdotally rookies are supposed to be bad, sophomores improve and then by year 3 QBs are supposed to be whom they are. Accordingly rookies and sophomores get blitzed at a much higher rate than other QBs. I will assume the anecdotes are true. We should have seen an improvement against the blitz vis-a-vis his average passer rating in 2014, but the difference is relatively small. So while there is a suggestion that Lazor's removal of the auduble hurt Tannehill'sperformance against the blitz, it is within the bounds of normal variations. and certainly not a reason for concern given the general iimprovement in RT's passer rating In 2015 was when it was well known by opposing DCs Tannehill was prevented from changimg out of bad situations so they sent more blitzes, at a time when veteran QBs should be seeing their blitz% stabilize, and those blitzes were much more effective, again at a time where a QBs passer rating against the blitz should be stabilized. The strong indication that this was a Lazor problem, not a Tannehill problem was RT's performance in Gase's offence where he is allowed to audible. Veteran QBs are not supposed to have 40+ point swings in their PR splits, especially in situations where there are reasonably large volumes of passes.
Pro Bowls are fan voted. Years ago I took them to mean something, but not anymore. Besides, Ryan was the reserve and not the starter. In that same year he had a 91 passer rating, if you want to consider that "breaking out" then you think RT broke out this past year too.
I'll try this one more time and if you still don't get it I suggest you take this to your local elementary school math teacher and have him/here explain it to you. The Dolphins used 1 pick they obtained from the Vikes to acquire Carroo. In order to get that 1 pick they traded 3 picks for it. In your world the Vikes only received 2 picks because they also gave up a pick, right? Miami gives 3 picks to Vikes. Vikes= +3 Vikes give 1 pick. Vikes = -1 Vikes = 3-1= 2 So, where did that other 3rd pick go? Easy, Miami spent it on Carroo. As you can see, well, YOU probably don't, there are only 3 picks.
True, you can't say you traded 2 Honda's and an Agusta for the car, but at the same time it did take 2 Honda's and an Agusta to get the car, no? People seem to be ending the scenario prior to the actual drafting, it cost 3 picks to buy the pick we used to draft Caroo, I think we can all agree on that, but the pick used to draft Caroo also has to be counted. See, we didn't trade 3 picks for a player, we traded 3 picks for a pick, and then we used that pick, so the total cost to acquire Caroo is all 4 of those picks, just like the 2 Honda's and the Agusta were needed to acquire the car. We traded a 6th, 3rd and 4th to acquire the 86th pick. So that's 3 picks gone to this point, and I think we all agree on that. Now we have the 86th pick, it took 3 picks to get this pick. We then use the 86th pick to draft Caroo, thats 1 pick. All tolled, it took all 4 of those picks to get Leonte Caroo in a Dolphins uni. The 3rd we used to draft him, and the 6th, 3rd and 4th we no longer had use of. I'll tell you what though, both scenarios are making sense to me and that is starting to make my head hurt, lol, is there a thing where it took all 4 picks but only cost 3 so that we are both right from different perspectives? Ouch, there goes my head again. Something we can agree on, and I'm going to leave it at that, is that it was too much, and that we hope Caroo does actually justify it in the end. I've got to go get into that semantical argument on semantics, so I've obviously got more important things to do... A dolphin's gotta porpoise, you know what i'm sayin bro.
That's all we're saying (I said that long ago in post #89 and repeated it thereafter).. as long as phrases like "give up" and "cost" are associated with how many of the original picks were needed = 3.
It involved 4 picks that we at one time held in our hands, yes. As for picks we started with, it was 3.
We never held those 4 picks at once in our hands. We had 3 and the Vikes had one. Thus, the Dolphins used 3 picks for Carroo.
That's his way of avoiding the real argument. Bring up something he thinks he can find fault in and go at it again and again and again until everybody forgets the topic at hand. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If I owe you $5, and I go to pay you in ones, and you say you want a $5 bill, so I go and trade my five ones to another person for a $5 bill, then I give you the $5 bill, how much money did I give up? $5 or $10?
Here's what you would do in my case. HAHAHA omg what an idiot!!! It's "your," not "you're." Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk