The Giants are loaded.......

[thespaniard]

Yes stats are fun, but in the hands of an amateur they can be a bad thing. as you have shown. :laugh:

see the point is stats are a tool to use to prove or disprove a point. BUT you must have a "point" first however. See my original point to to disprove Toms point that it was likely Tiki would gradually decline as he aged, but in reality Most starting RB drop in the level of ability quite rapidly, and I listed many of the BEST RB in the NFL to prove my point. the only exception was Emmitt Smith.. a power back.

Then I tried to explain logically why Brunell in theory should be able to last longer than Tiki at his present level of play, based on the skills needed, to play each one's position... but if that was too hard to understand...

Maybe I should explain in simpler terms.

find the answer to these questions, and maybe you will see my point.

1. How many QB started in a Super bowl at age 35 or older, compared to how many RB started in one, over age 30?

2. What's the average years of a career of both positions?

3. How Many RB's are currently starting in the NFL over age 30 compared to QB's over age 34.

4. You've already shown the number of RB who've broke the 1000 yard mark at age 31 and older, now find all the QB's in the modern era, who have topped 3000 yards passing at age 35 or older

5. Find the percentage of drop off from all QB 35 and older from their last 3000 yard season to the one directly after

The whole reason I repsonded to your post was because you only researched and showed statistics for half of your argument. You made two points: 1.) that RBs generally see a radical dropoff after age 30, and 2.) that QBs generally last longer and play well beyond 36. However, you only backed up #1 with stats. So I thought "Hmm, I wonder why he didn't back up his QB statement? Maybe I should look at some stats and find out myself." Lo and behold, there were plenty of examples of QBs who dropped off at or before Brunells age. If you're gonna be Mr. Stats then present some stats to validate ALL of your points. Then us "amateurs" wouldn't have to poke fun at your shoddy argument. As for some of your questions up there: why are you picking QB ages like 34 and 35? Brunell will be 36 this season. Make that the cutoff. Barber will be 31 this season, I'm not looking at 29 yr olds and up..

Anyway my basic point is you can make stats say anything you want. Spin spin spin hooray for numbers.

[thespaniard]

Again, this is the actual spin. Brunell had a good season in 2002 and a near pro-bowl season in 2005, so to say he declined from 2002-2005 is completely inaccurate.

Combine this with the fact that Tiki touched the ball over 400 times for his team virtually carrying his offense, and the decline of even the best RB's after such a season and you and your theories would be dead wrong. As for the glasses, I've noticed this along with the name calling is always the way people go around here when they've been backed into a corner.

I see you're still working out the nuances of the Quote function, but I am guessing this is what you were trying to say.

Anyway, let me spell this out for you:

Brunell:

| 2001 jax | 15 | 289 473 61.1 3309 7.0 19 13 | 39 224 1|Good

| 2002 jax | 15 | 245 416 58.9 2788 6.7 17 7 | 43 207 0 |decline

| 2003 jax | 3 | 54 82 65.9 484 5.9 2 0 | 8 19 1 |decline

| 2004 was|9 |118 237 49.8 1194 5.0 7 6 |19 62 0|little better but still bad

| 2005 was | 16 | 262 454 57.7 3050 6.7 23 10 | 42 111 0 |Good

last season was his best season since 2001. Heck, last year was the first year since 2000 that he played an entire season. Crap, I'm backed into a corner! There are no stats to back me up!!

Look, I've said this before and I'll say it again. I don't think either player will have a bad season this year. But I do think that if I had to put money on one to hit a wall, it would be Brunell. That's it.

[Birdlives]

I see you're still working out the nuances of the Quote function, but I am guessing this is what you were trying to say.

Anyway, let me spell this out for you:

Brunell:

| 2001 jax | 15 | 289 473 61.1 3309 7.0 19 13 | 39 224 1|Good

| 2002 jax | 15 | 245 416 58.9 2788 6.7 17 7 | 43 207 0 |decline

| 2003 jax | 3 | 54 82 65.9 484 5.9 2 0 | 8 19 1 |decline

| 2004 was|9 |118 237 49.8 1194 5.0 7 6 |19 62 0|little better but still bad

| 2005 was | 16 | 262 454 57.7 3050 6.7 23 10 | 42 111 0 |Good

last season was his best season since 2001. Heck, last year was the first year since 2000 that he played an entire season. Crap, I'm backed into a corner! There are no stats to back me up!!

Look, I've said this before and I'll say it again. I don't think either player will have a bad season this year. But I do think that if I had to put money on one to hit a wall, it would be Brunell. That's it.

Actually the quote function worked exactly as I had planned it. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point as I don't see a decline in Brunell except where he gets injured thanks to an overall decline of the Jaguars, and where he's learning a new system for the first time in his career. 2001 to 2002 wasn't an uptick, but 17tds and 7ints is pretty good year for a QB, especially throwing the ball 57 fewer times.

[thespaniard]

Actually the quote function worked exactly as I had planned it. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point as I don't see a decline in Brunell except where he gets injured thanks to an overall decline of the Jaguars, and where he's learning a new system for the first time in his career. 2001 to 2002 wasn't an uptick, but 17tds and 7ints is pretty good year for a QB, especially throwing the ball 57 fewer times.

I don't care to hear the excuses for Brunell. Why in the world would you want to use the quote function that way?

[JoeSkins]

Brunell:

| 2001 jax | 15 | 289 473 61.1 3309 7.0 19 13 | 39 224 1|Good

| 2002 jax | 15 | 245 416 58.9 2788 6.7 17 7 | 43 207 0 |decline

| 2003 jax | 3 | 54 82 65.9 484 5.9 2 0 | 8 19 1 |decline

| 2004 was|9 |118 237 49.8 1194 5.0 7 6 |19 62 0|little better but still bad

| 2005 was | 16 | 262 454 57.7 3050 6.7 23 10 | 42 111 0 |Good

.

What I'm seeing here is not a decline in play, as his QB rating has never been below 82 in a season where he starts at least 10 games. For those specific years, his ratings were:

01 - 84.1

02 - 85.7

03 - 89.7

04 - 63.9

05 - 85.9

Brunell's '04 rating had to do with having a lot of time off, and probably some kinks left over from his injury that kept him sidelined (and allowed Leftwich to take over) and rusting on the bench in '03. On top of that, he moved, was learning a new system, and Joey G was still getting used to today's game. '05, despite a lower completion percentage than he's capable of, he set a career mark for TD passes in a season. This guy is, in rating, a top 15 (no. 12 I think) passer of NFL history. I'm confident in his abilities, despite his age. Just so long as he doesn't take any shots in the knee late in the season...

Tiki Barber, though, has no reason to decline either. Running backs are lasting longer in this league every year, with Curtis Martin taking the rushing title well after 30 two years back. Barber, whose body hasn't taken as many hits because of his light workload early in his career, will definitely be able to keep up his level of performance this year.

We really shouldn't be arguing as to whether Brunell or Barber can last. But, even if he craps out, I hold out a little hope that Campbell could take over and play well.

[thespaniard]

What I'm seeing here is not a decline in play, as his QB rating has never been below 82 in a season where he starts at least 10 games. For those specific years, his ratings were:

01 - 84.1

02 - 85.7

03 - 89.7

04 - 63.9

05 - 85.9

Interesting stat, although the decline in all of the other categories is too much for me to ignore. Some guys make a living off coming in for a couple games a year and having a high rating.

Brunell's '04 rating had to do with having a lot of time off, and probably some kinks left over from his injury that kept him sidelined (and allowed Leftwich to take over) and rusting on the bench in '03. On top of that, he moved, was learning a new system, and Joey G was still getting used to today's game. '05, despite a lower completion percentage than he's capable of, he set a career mark for TD passes in a season. This guy is, in rating, a top 15 (no. 12 I think) passer of NFL history. I'm confident in his abilities, despite his age. Just so long as he doesn't take any shots in the knee late in the season...

Again, not interested in the excuses. We need a separate thread or something for those.

Tiki Barber, though, has no reason to decline either. Running backs are lasting longer in this league every year, with Curtis Martin taking the rushing title well after 30 two years back. Barber, whose body hasn't taken as many hits because of his light workload early in his career, will definitely be able to keep up his level of performance this year.

We really shouldn't be arguing as to whether Brunell or Barber can last. But, even if he craps out, I hold out a little hope that Campbell could take over and play well.

Agreed with all of that. Both Tiki and Brunell are aging, but have talented backups. I've been saying all along that I don't think either will hit the wall this year. But if they do, both teams would survive.

[sableholic]

Again, not interested in the excuses. We need a separate thread or something for those.

Is injuries a excuse? If so I think somebody owes me for a westbrook bet as him being injured was just a excuse for why he underperformed last year .

Oh and 17 TDs to 7 ints ain't bad at all, just saying not argueing that it wasn't a decline.

[sableholic]

Oh and forgot to mention this, but could the 2002 decline actually not have been because Brunell declined, but the Jags running game got better? You be the judge

2001 leader

Stacey Mack 213 877 4.1 54 9

2002 leader

Fred Taylor 287 1314 4.6 63 8

Oh and Brunell actually rushed for more yards in 2002.

[Birdlives]

I don't care to hear the excuses for Brunell. Why in the world would you want to use the quote function that way?

Makes it easier to point out what I am refering to. No excuses here, Brunell will be just fine in the Saunders Offense. Tiki, well I won't write him into the probowl just yet. I'll still take our 36 year old QB over any 31 year old RB, which of course was where this debate originated.

[tr1]

Yes stats are fun, but in the hands of an amateur they can be a bad thing. as you have shown. :laugh:

see the point is stats are a tool to use to prove or disprove a point. BUT you must have a "point" first however. See my original point to to disprove Toms point that it was likely Tiki would gradually decline as he aged, but in reality Most starting RB drop in the level of ability quite rapidly, and I listed many of the BEST RB in the NFL to prove my point. the only exception was Emmitt Smith.. a power back.

Then I tried to explain logically why Brunell in theory should be able to last longer than Tiki at his present level of play, based on the skills needed, to play each one's position... but if that was too hard to understand...

Maybe I should explain in simpler terms.

find the answer to these questions, and maybe you will see my point.

1. How many QB started in a Super bowl at age 35 or older, compared to how many RB started in one, over age 30?

2. What's the average years of a career of both positions?

3. How Many RB's are currently starting in the NFL over age 30 compared to QB's over age 34.

4. You've already shown the number of RB who've broke the 1000 yard mark at age 31 and older, now find all the QB's in the modern era, who have topped 3000 yards passing at age 35 or older

5. Find the percentage of drop off from all QB 35 and older from their last 3000 yard season to the one directly after

you'll see some pretty impressive numbers when compared to other positions like RB.

See in the NFL to be a starting RB one must be a freak of nature, and be a supreme athlete, but once he loses even the slightly bit of speed, or power... he will understand why football is called a game of "inches"

However QB, guys like Bernie Koshar, Billy Kilmer, Sonny J, Drew Bledsoe you don't rely solely on your athletic ability, and outside of of a strong (better than average) throwing arm, and sturdy legs to hold you up... not much else on the body is needed..... except the mind.. unlike RB where the slightest sign of diminishing ability means a soon end of your career, QB can compensate for diminishing skills physically easier and longer with experience than RB.

When someone asked a question about the future holds... all the resources available to you is the past to make an intelligent guess, you just have to find the best facts related to the question.

Bubba is my hero.

:notworthy

[thespaniard]

Oh and forgot to mention this, but could the 2002 decline actually not have been because Brunell declined, but the Jags running game got better? You be the judge

2001 leader

Stacey Mack 213 877 4.1 54 9

2002 leader

Fred Taylor 287 1314 4.6 63 8

Oh and Brunell actually rushed for more yards in 2002.

2004 Redskins Rushing:

ATT YDS YPC TD

471 1765 3.75 6

2005 Redskins Rushing:

ATT YDS YPC TD

525 2183 4.16 15

Another bad excuse. Case closed.

[thespaniard]

Is injuries a excuse? If so I think somebody owes me for a westbrook bet as him being injured was just a excuse for why he underperformed last year .

The bet was made barring injury. Go back in your records and look it up.

[sableholic]

2004 Redskins Rushing:

ATT YDS YPC TD

471 1765 3.75 6

2005 Redskins Rushing:

ATT YDS YPC TD

525 2183 4.16 15

Another bad excuse. Case closed.

You do realize that Brunell didn't play a lot of the 2004 season right? That and he was injured. Also the rushing attempt differential for the Jags was 83 whereas the skins was only 54. So you think having Fred Taylor out there rushing vs Stacey Freaking Mack didn't take away anything from Brunell's attempts? Its like say last year when the Saints were supposedly going to focus more on the run before the injuries that you wouldnt expect Brook's production to fall off a little bit.

[thespaniard]

You do realize that Brunell didn't play a lot of the 2004 season right? That and he was injured. Also the rushing attempt differential for the Jags was 83 whereas the skins was only 54. So you think having Fred Taylor out there rushing vs Stacey Freaking Mack didn't take away anything from Brunell's attempts? Its like say last year when the Saints were supposedly going to focus more on the run before the injuries that you wouldnt expect Brook's production to fall off a little bit.

few things:

1). Project Brunell's #s to a full season. It's not pretty.

2.) Usually a better running game HELPS the passing game.

3.) Aaron Brooks is a waste of life.

[Tom [Giants fan]]

Let's do a show of hands. If you really think that Tiki Barber's production is going to drop dramatically this coming season because he is now over 30, raise your hand and be counted.

[thespaniard]

']Let's do a show of hands. If you really think that Tiki Barber's production is going to drop dramatically this coming season because he is now over 30' date=' raise your hand and be counted.[/quote']

He will probably come down a little, but not because he is 30, because 1800+ yds is hard to duplicate. I'd say around 1500-1600 still.

[sableholic]

He will probably come down a little, but not because he is 30, because 1800+ yds is hard to duplicate. I'd say around 1500-1600 still.

agreed, going to come down, but not like a face plant or anything just won't be 1800+.

[Dirk Diggler]

']Let's do a show of hands. If you really think that Tiki Barber's production is going to drop dramatically this coming season because he is now over 30' date=' raise your hand and be counted.[/quote']

Not because he's over 30, but b/c of the # of touches he had last season. I'd venture to guess that he's more in the 1200 range.

[Chachie]

I have NO idea why people keep doubting Tiki Barber. :doh:

[supafly]

Not because he's over 30, but b/c of the # of touches he had last season. I'd venture to guess that he's more in the 1200 range.

With Eli's what? 50-60% completion rate, I wouldnt be so sure of that.

To answer Tom, it probably depends on the progress of Eli, if he makes no progress then yes I wouldnt be surprised to see tiki putting up those numbers again if he has to carry the offense.

[Tom [Giants fan]]

Fine, let's go by ypc. Let's see how many long runs he has compared to what he has done the last two years, etc... I do agree it will depend on Eli Manning. If he is more accurate, there will be less yards for Barber to get. But as was stated, Barber has little wear and tear on him so far. I see a couple of good years still in him.

[Shotgunner]

The G-men are loaded in the D-line, that's all I see as an advantage over us.

[Tom [Giants fan]]

I have to be honest, when I posted this thread with that title, I expected to see that pic of Eli looking drunk.

[thespaniard]

']I have to be honest' date=' when I posted this thread with that title, I expected to see that pic of Eli looking drunk.[/quote']

I believe it was linked to a couple pages ago...

[sableholic]

I believe it was linked to a couple pages ago...

Page 6 to be exact. They just didn't add the image correctly so it didn't display.