I didnt handpick any games. I posted his stats vs a top 10 Defense (EVERY ONE). Funny you couldnt defend the stats.
I'm starting to worry about you at this point. What do you think I was saying? I might have said "roll out of the pocket early" but obviously I was responding to your statement of "leaving the pocket early". It's a sure sign of having nothing worthwhile to say when you have to pick at paltry semantics. The POINT was that, as I guess I have to state for you yet again, that I went through that game and him "LEAVING THE POCKET EARLY" never happened. NOT ONCE. So just man up and admit you were wrong. It's really not that hard.We saw the same thing again yesterday. I never said "Ben rolls out of the pocket". I said BEN LEAVES THE POCKET PREMATURELY.
For the love of all that is holy I don't even think you can carry your own train of thought for longer than half a second. WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ARGUE?!?! I was arguing against your "point" that the majority of Ben's sacks happened in that specific Browns game because he LEAVES (not rolls, apparently lol) the pocket early. I'm still waiting on you to provide any evidence of this.I have never seen a quarterback manipulate the pocket like Manning or Kurt Warner. When the pocket gets muddy (filled with bodies), they hang in the pocket till the last second. Do you notice how HALEY is making Ben STAY in the pocket? Do you notice what the result is? LESS SACKS. The reason BEn is so efficient is SCHEME. Haley has him making 3 step drops and getting the ball out. This usually means throwing to your 1st read. Any line is at their best when they know where the qb will be. If Ben stays in the pocket it is a joy to block for him. But when he is running around undisciplined, its hectic to block for him. Ben admits its HIS STYLE.
Right. It's impossible to tell whether or not a QB takes a sack because of tight coverage or a bad throw when you watch the game. It's MUCH better to provide a bunch of hand picked stats from hand picked games in order to prove some type of ambiguous point about an ambiguous concept like "elite quarterback status". It's completely IMPOSSIBLE to tell when a lineman gets beat in a one on one match-up too right? I pointed out MULTIPLE instances of this in the game that YOU SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT UP. Sorry if you don't agree with it lol.Secondly as for your analysis from HIGHLIGHTS is comical. For you to tell whos fault a sack is you would have to know 1. The play 2. What line adjustment Ben called at the line. Lets say Ben thinks the blitz is coming from the left and he makes his line adjustment to the left. Now what if the blitz comes from the right? This will throw the whole blocking scheme off and will result is a sack due to the quarterback making the wrong pre snap read. The described situation would put the sack on the qb and not the line. The line does what the quarterback tells it to do (Line adjustment).
You're so far all over the place that I don't think that you even know what you're saying anymore. So, since we can't tell what's in the QB'S MIND we won't ever know who the sacks are on...and must from here on out disregard all actual tape of the games...HOWEVER, we can use handpicked stats from handpicked games in order to "prove" that an athlete doesn't do as well against better opponents than worse ones...and THAT'S how we can really know who has the right to be called the ambiguous title of "elite quarterback". That's your argument?Thats one of the reasons why Peyton Manning isnt sacked often. Its NOT his line. Its his Mind. Indsy line sucked in his absence. Who was missing? Peyton Manning was. To be successful at the line then you have to do your work in the film room. So excuse me if I disregarded your "breakdown" of highlights.
I'm trying really hard not to just type "hahahahahahahahahahaha" at this point.
When you start making attacks then you are frustrated. As I stated before. Skins game, sacks galore. Ben is hurt and enter Leftwich ( A qb who stays in the pocket). Sack problem no longer exists. What changed? One player, the qb.
Browns game (Both cited games in 0 sack problem, ints. Ben is hurt. Enter Leftwich, the sack problem is gone. Same with Eagles game of 08. I posted ALL of these games and you chose to HANDPICK the Browns game of 09. In your analysis if IRONIC That you didnt comment on the stupid safety. That was the lines fault. I get it. Ben has missed FIVE more games and you havent seen a game with 5 sacks, 6 sacks, 7 sacks 8 sacks or 9 sacks UNLESS BEN IS THE QB. Why is that? When you subtract ONE person the sack level goes down, why is that? Notice I havent called you any names. Noitce I just humbly pick apart your flimsy posts with class.
Hand picking stats is a good way to put it. I could say 4 way stop signs aren't necessary and pull up thousands of intersections across the country that don't have 4way stop signs or accidents. Does that really prove they're not needed? Not really.
Now that's just sad. I'm the one that picked that game? You chose that game, not me. If you're going to blatantly lie you've already lost.There are more Skins game, sacks galore. Ben is hurt and enter Leftwich ( A qb who stays in the pocket). Sack problem no longer exists. What changed? One player, the qb.
Browns game (Both cited games in 0 sack problem, ints. Ben is hurt. Enter Leftwich, the sack problem is gone. Same with Eagles game of 08. I posted ALL of these games and you chose to HANDPICK the Browns game of 09.
I'm assuming you meant to say "it's" instead of "if". I don't appreciate having to proofread your posts and would hope that you would start actually reading them before you post them. I know it may seem like it from our exchange in this thread, but I'm not your teacher. And what safety are you talking about? There was no safety in that Browns game. Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.In your analysis if IRONIC That you didnt comment on the stupid safety.
What was the line's fault? Your invisible safety? If you're referring to another game I currently have no opinion. I prefer to...actually watch the plays I comment on before commenting on them. I find that it helps. What would your point be anyway? The one game I discussed doesn't mean anything but this one safety does? Not very consistent on your part.That was the lines fault. I get it.
Why is what? Is it remotely possible for you to condense whatever it is you're trying to say into one statement? Are we still going on the "Ben gets sacked soooo often because he leaves the pocket early" or something else? Considering your propensity for not sticking with a specific point it's hard to tell.Ben has missed FIVE more games and you havent seen a game with 5 sacks, 6 sacks, 7 sacks 8 sacks or 9 sacks UNLESS BEN IS THE QB. Why is that? When you subtract ONE person the sack level goes down, why is that? Notice I havent called you any names. Noitce I just humbly pick apart your flimsy posts with class.
I don't recall calling you any names. Would you care to provide evidence of such? I'd appreciate it. And class? Really? Picking and choosing what points to continue with and then abandoning the ones you're called out on isn't classy. It's considered intellectual dishonesty. Moving the goal posts whenever you're proven wrong isn't classy. It's considered bad form. Ignoring proof that is contrary to your own opinions isn't classy, and it has no part in a civil conversation.