Brandon Lloyd is not a bust!

[wbecker999]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I have no clue where this thread is going. My own two cents Brandon Lloyd was a huge disappointment in 2006, especially after we gave up so much for him and he seemed to endear himself to fans with his cool blog in the summer. Furthermore, as BSB pointed out earlier in this thread we have seen what he's capable of so it even furthers the extent to which most fans should rightfully be disappointed in his performance.

However, by that same token and because he will be working (I hope) all offseason with Jason Campbell I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he can bounce back with a strong 2007

I agree ,the redskins in a whole were disappointing
but they show promise in 2007.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by wbecker999

*worst stats for any starting WR in the super bowl era - response

Ike Hilliard Tampa's # 2
2006 16 games 339 yds 10 ypc

Billy McMullen Vikings #2

2006 16 games 307 yds 13.3 ypc

Troy Brown
16 games 384yds 8.9 ypc

Brandan Jones
16 games 384 yds 14.2 yds per catch

Peerless price Buffalo bills #2
16 games 402 yds 8.2 yds per catch


Lloyd had only 15 games with 365 yds 15.9 yds per catch

These are just 2006 stats not since the super bowl era

math.
peerless price - 402 > 365.
troy brown 384 > 365 (and in only 9 starts).
brandon jones 384 > 365 (only 10 starts)

ike hillard was NOT the bucs #2, he had 0 starts.
clayton was the #2, but he got hurt after putting up 356yards in 9 starts (12 games) while on pace for 480 yards.

vikings - mcmullen had 0 starts. their starters were travis taylor (651 yards) and troy williamson (14 games, 455 yards) both of which beat lloyd.

you're going to have to keep looking.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by wbecker999

chad johnson is the best receiver in the league. he averages less yards per catch than Brandon Lloyd
how hard is that to understand.

I never claimed he had the highest yards per catch
I said his YPC is in line with the best receivers in the league
like chad johnson.

Sorry that is to hard for you to understand.

and what exactly does that prove? there's 100+ WRs with crappy numbers and 15.9+ypc. i have no idea why that should mean anything at all. please enlighten me, why does it matter that a crappy WR with 350yards on the year happens to have 15.9ypc? there's guys with 700 yards and 22ypc and there are guys with 200 yards with 18ypc. that seems like a totally random and meaningless point.

so, again, why does it matter and why is it good that he has the same ypc as chad johnson when he only has 25% of the yardage, and why would it also NOT matter that other WRs with various amounts of yardage (lesser and greater) have a higher ypc?

its hard to understand cause you seem to think this is somehow important and never explain why it's significant. if he had 50 more catches, there's no guarantee at all it wouldn't drop to 8 or 9ypc.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by wbecker999

I'm frustrated because I apologized about me attacking you, and tried to be civil . But you continue to attacking the way I portray my points.

Just stick to the points and quit attacking me .

to me you sound like a know it all

yeah okay, you continue calling me names and you're the one being civil :P

I'm sorry you can't take criticism and seem to be confused and think that by asking if you can back up your claims with something other than opinion that you consider it as a personal attack.

see, if you're allowed to respond to my posts, i'm allowed to respond to yours. but you're the only one that's made personal attacks and can't "stick to the points" as you say.

oh yeah, apologizing then turning around and calling me a dick and ****ing stupid in no way qualify as being civil. just fyi.

[wbecker999]

Originally Posted by That Guy

math.
peerless price - 402 > 365.
troy brown 384 > 365 (and in only 9 starts).
brandon jones 384 > 365 (only 10 starts)

ike hillard was NOT the bucs #2, he had 0 starts.
clayton was the #2, but he got hurt after putting up 356yards in 9 starts (12 games) while on pace for 480 yards.


vikings - mcmullen had 0 starts. their starters were travis taylor (651 yards) and troy williamson (14 games, 455 yards) both of which beat lloyd.
[COLOR="Red"]

you're going to have to keep looking.

All of the above receivers are listed as #2 on there teams rosters
they all played in 16 games each

Lloyd had only 12 starts but played in 15 games

[wbecker999]

Originally Posted by That Guy

and what exactly does that prove? there's 100+ WRs with crappy numbers and 15.9+ypc. i have no idea why that should mean anything at all. please enlighten me, why does it matter that a crappy WR with 350yards on the year happens to have 15.9ypc? there's guys with 700 yards and 22ypc and there are guys with 200 yards with 18ypc. that seems like a totally random and meaningless point.

so, again, why does it matter and why is it good that he has the same ypc as chad johnson when he only has 25% of the yardage, and why would it also NOT matter that other WRs with various amounts of yardage (lesser and greater) have a higher ypc?

its hard to understand cause you seem to think this is somehow important and never explain why it's significant. if he had 50 more catches, there's no guarantee at all it wouldn't drop to 8 or 9ypc.

Its a game of inches

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by wbecker999

All of the above receivers are listed as #2 on there teams rosters
they all played in 16 games each

Lloyd had only 12 starts but played in 15 games

maybe now, but not in 2006, when they actually played. If you think travis taylor or troy williamson weren't the vikings starters last year, that's just flat out wrong.

Originally Posted by wbecker999

Its a game of inches

okay... and what bearing does that have on anything at all?

[wbecker999]

Originally Posted by That Guy

yeah okay, you continue calling me names and you're the one being civil :P

I'm sorry you can't take criticism and seem to be confused and think that by asking if you can back up your claims with something other than opinion that you consider it as a personal attack.

see, if you're allowed to respond to my posts, i'm allowed to respond to yours. but you're the only one that's made personal attacks and can't "stick to the points" as you say.

oh yeah, apologizing then turning around and calling me a dick and ****ing stupid in no way qualify as being civil. just fyi.

I called you a dick because I stopped attacking you and apologized but you continued with your smart ass know it all comments.

I 'm Done trying to explain things to you so go ahead and
get your last word in ( that's what know it all's do) I'm done arguing with someone that is to ignorant to see anyone else's point or see things from a different perspective.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by wbecker999

I called you a dick because I stopped attacking you and apologized but you continued with your smart ass know it all comments.

I 'm Done trying to explain things to you so go ahead and
get your last word in ( that's what know it all's do) I'm done arguing with someone that is to ignorant to see anyone else's point or see things from a different perspective.

look, i've been asking the same thing since the first reply. please show me something that proves he's not a bust. the only thing of note anyone has said is maybe he'll be better next year. but you've shown NOTHING that disproves what a total bust he was this year, and there's not really a track record proving he'll be any good in 2007 beyond hope.

if anyone here is ignorant, i can guarantee it's you. i backed up what i said with actual evidence instead of just saying it was true "because i said so."

it's obvious you can't be civil and i'm sorry for that, but that's really not my fault, and seriously, grow up. if you can't handle logic or someone challenging your view, maybe the internet's not really your thing. I'm more than willing to see things from a different perspective, but it's gotta be reasonable in some way, and i've seen nothing of the sort from anything you've posted up to this point. There's no reason to act like a five year old about it though.

honestly, i can't believe anyone could possibly say he wasn't a bust in 2006 with that huge contract, attitude issues, and lack of production, and nothing that really shows it's anyone else's fault, but, you know, whatever.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I'll settle this pissing match, I can shoot my stream farther than both of you.

Isn't this debate tired yet? Without assinging blame, it's already devolved into nothingness.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I'll settle this pissing match, I can shoot my stream farther than both of you.

Isn't this debate tired yet? Without assinging blame, it's already devolved into nothingness.

How many yards per stream do you average though?

[Hog1]

I've drank more beer, pissed more blood, and banged more quif than any of you............thankyou Clint

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

How many yards per stream do you average though?

#$%^@%@$ it's NOT the YPS (yards per stream) that is the measure of a good piss, it's the FF (force of the flow) you #$#@$%#$!

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Hog1

I've pissed more blood, and banged more quif than any of you............thankyou Clint

Dude, what kinda ----- are ya hittin' to piss blood? I don't think that you can count hookers in Cancun as notches on yer belt.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

#$%^@%@$ it's NOT the YPS (yards per stream) that is the measure of a good piss, it's the FF (force of the flow) you #$#@$%#$!

I have no response to that...well played SGG, well played