WHAT?

Where has anyone mentioned Sanchez while debating your ridiculous statement that Brees would be just as effective in Pittsburgh as Rothlisberger?

WHAT THE ****?

the same can be said for what you are assuming. you dont know how many times he was hit do you? so you too are assuming. also look how many int's he throws. thats leaving a free shot on him open. my buddy is a huge saints fan and i've watched plenty of games. brees takes more hits than sacks

You can't prove Brees' toughness one way or another through stats. Ben gets hit a lot, and much of it is his fault. Ben also gets hurt a lot. Saying Brees couldn't play in Pittsburgh because he gets rid of the ball and doesn't get sacked 40+ times a year is just speculation with little reason behind it.

Uh, I'm using statistics and knowledge of the offensive system he plays in to build a case.

You two are basing your case on nothing more than assumptions.

Feel free to come up with something more concrete than assumptions, and I'll be more than happy to listen.

I'm actually shocked that ANYONE would say that Drew Brees takes anywhere NEAR the number of hits that Ben Roethlisberger does.

you are taking half the stats and assuming the rest sacks dont= hits, i'm shocked that you refuse to acknowledge this

This whole thing is about Sanchez and you know it. People like Brees don't deserve criticism just because you're hellbent on drafting Sanchez.

I'm not saying if he's not sacked, he's not getting hit.

But it's pretty fair to say that if he's not getting sacked more than once a game, he's probably not getting hit much.

I can deduct that based on his stats, and the type of offense they run.

YOU are ASSUMING he's getting hit for NO OTHER REASON than he throws a lot.

You have NOTHING to back up that assumption.

I do.

Case ****ing closed.

You are officially reeruned

No I'm not you ****ing nitwit.

I'm taking ALL the stats I'm offered, along with the knowledge that like Peyton Manning, Brees runs an offense that gets the ball out of the QB's hand quickly.

I'm not saying he doesn't take hits.

But to say he takes anywhere NEAR the amount of hits that Roethlisberger does is asinine.

This is something else I've figured it out lately. The three or four Sanchez lovers tell us we're making assumptions because they don't want to admit that other posters have a good point.

Interesting article from december shows that Brees was top-10 in the NFL in both hits and hurries to that point of the season: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ext...d-hurries-2008

I have to admit I was surprised by that. The guy was only sacked 13 times in 600+ attempts and completed 65% of his passes, which aren't exactly the kind of numbers that shout 'under pressure'.

This has nothing to do with Sanchez. WTF.....

This has everything to about someone saying that Brees would excel in Pittsburghs offense.

WTF does Sanchez have to do with this?

You've lost your ****ing mind.

The Saints don't have a great oline and when you pass that much you are bound to get a lot of pressure. The number of sacks given up says as much about a QB as it does the line. How many times have we seen teams give uo 40+ sacks and then a better QB comes in and all of a sudden the number of sacks goes down drastically? Or vice-versa. Brady was barely touched last year and Cassel was sacked 40+ times this year. And generally more mobile QBs are sacked more because they try to keep the play alive too long.

The fact that you don't realize how hellbent you are about Sanchez proves how much of a problem you have. You and the other couple Sanchez fanatics have gone too far to make your point. And I want the Chiefs to draft Sanchez.

So, all of those guys in the bottom list were actually hit MORE than Ben in the first half, huh?

I don't think anybody's even mentioned Sanchez in the last 12 hours or so.

Apparently.

I'm trying to find hurries stats for the whole season, but not having much luck.

This whole thing is about Thigpen and Sanchez.

No. They play the game so that we can tailgate and get drunk in the parking lot.

It's all about the Sunday Asphalt, Ribs, and Brew Social Club.

Really? I thought this thread had turned into "let's trade for Brees"...

I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

The whole thing is Thigpen and 'franchise quarterback', but I don't see anybody limiting that to Sanchez. Sanchez isn't even part of the discussion right now, and the last person to mention him (me) went into some detail about how he thinks he's too risky a pick. Nobody argued or even replied...

I love the logic of a True Fan.

Correlation implies Causation.

Brees throws the ball a lot, therefore, he gets sacked/hit a lot.

I remember all those shots Trent Green was taking with Bill Roaf, Shields, Waters, Weigmann, and Welbourne protecting him when he was throwing for 4k a year.... right?

There's an underlying meaning to certain posters' messages. They're ripping everything in their path to proving Sanchez should be the pick at 3. Today it was Drew Brees. I don't mind the Thigpen criticism because I like Sanchez, but Brees doesn't deserve it.

Translation: Until hits taken are an official NFL stat, I have my doubts. Seems like there is no uniform guidelines as to what a hit is, or isn't.

For sake of conversation, let's play with these numbers.

Through 14 weeks, Brees was supposedly hit 36.5 times.

That averages out to 2.6 times per game.

So, the best we can do is assume he was hit 42 times over the course of the season.

Add that to the 13 sacks he took, and we have contact on 55 out of 635 pass attempts. Or contact every 11.5 pass attempts.

Roethlisberger wasn't on the list, so we don't have numbers to do the math - but it shows he was hurried the same number of times that Brees was.

Let's be fair and say that BR took HALF (which is being generous, IMO) of the hits that Brees took. 1.5 per game.

That's 21 hits over the course of the season, added to the 46 sacks he took. Contact on 67 plays over the course of the season, out of 469 pass attempts - or contact every 7 pass attempts.

Brees doesn't have that kind of line.

Just because you say it's "ridiculous" doesn't make it so. I don't see what's ridiculous about the statement that Brees could do just as well. We're not talking about Joey Harrington here. We're talking about one of the top 3 most productive QBs in the league who happens to play in front of arguably one of the bottom 5 defenses in the league. And we're talking about a QB who spent most of the season without his top 2 wideouts and with his running backs injured all season.

And the blocking argument is definitely well within play. Basileus had a great point about the Pats' offensive line looking very human in 2008 without Brady. Brees is known for having one of the quickest releases in the game. Smart QBs are a lot harder to take down because they can smell the blitz from a mile away and exploit the living hell out of it. The Saints' o-line is nothing outstanding, but the QB makes them a lot better.

So let's flip this around. Could Big Ben be nearly as successful as he is now if he was in New Orleans? My guess would be a resounding "no."

You can't honestly say that Brees had 635 attempts last season and only got hit three times per game. You're stretching things again.

He made a logical projection from the stats we had in hand. Hard to argue with that.

And it doesn't make Brees a bad quarterback.

SO ACTUALLY you have nothing to back up what you are sying? you are assuming that because payton manning doesnt gat hit much and they run the same type of offense that brees isnt hit much. i have watched the saints quite a bit and yeah he gets hit

He has one of the five best lines in the NFL.

how do you figure that?

I seriously doubt that.

The Saints line is not quite that good, even if you only take pass blocking into account.

Did you read the goddamn post?

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ext...d-hurries-2008

Not counting sacks, Brees was hit 36.5 times in 14 games.

Do the ****ing math.

If he was hit 36.5 times in 14 games, that's 2.6 times per game.

And actually, you need to re-read my post. I had accidently listed those numbers based on 12 games played, when it was actually 14.

Here are the actual numbers:

rothlisberger wasnt on the list because he was farther down right?

NO ONE has said he's a bad QB.

Sam is just getting ****ing pwned in a debate about who takes more hits, and if Brees would survive behind the Steelers OL and running their offense - and is reaching to cover his ass.

Jamal Brown is a premier left tackle. Carl Nicks was a monster, Jalani Evans and Jon Stinchcomb are both very, very good players for their position.

It's not like the Saints couldn't run. It's that they chose not to.

Hell, when they decided to give Pierre Thomas the rock he ran wild.

I don't see how that is true. So far, the only thing I have seen that supports that is that Ben got sacked more. And that is due, in large part, to the fact that he holds onto the ball WAY too long. He often pump fakes 3 or 4 times.

Even if you take "hits" out of the equation for BR, since he's not on the list and we don't have a solid number...

Brees took contact on 55 of 635 pass attempts. Or contact every 11.5 pass attempts.

Assuming BR NEVER got hit OTHER than sacks, he had contact on 46 of 469 attempts. Or contact every 10.2 attempts.

So, Roethlisberger took more contact per attempt on SACKS ALONE, than Brees did with sacks and hits combined.

It makes no sense that he throws that many times and only gets hit three times a game. Think about how may times he faces a blitz.

Agreed.

Not many OL's I'd take over the Saints.

Nicely played sir....

I think it's kind of a pointless argument. They're completely different style quarterbacks. Roethlisberger's still more in the game-manager mold (although less than in the past with no real running game), whereas Brees is the central cog of that offense. I'd say Brees would fit the Steelers system about as well as Roethlisberger would fit the Saints, in other words. Both teams would have to fundamentally change what they do to fit the other behind center.

Either way, in the end, they're still both franchise quarterbacks. And Tyler Thigpen isn't either one of them.

Jesus.

Someone comes up with stats that show how many times he was hit in 2008, and now you're disputing that.

It's what we have to work with, and it's a hell of a lot more than your assumption that because he throws more, he gets hit more.

I agree.

Defensive coordinators aren't going to sit back and not blitz a QB who throws that much.

Blitzing doesn't mean the qb's going to be hit. Anybody who's watched the chiefs defense the last decade knows that better than most.

I'm willing to say both QBs get hit an equal amount, but I dispute the data about Brees.

Call the league and tell them someone is cooking the books.

Maybe you can split the long distance charges with chiefzilla, and he can tell them to pass on the message to all 32 GM's that they are idiots because they use the draft chart.

:clap:

The introduction in that link says scorers could do a better job of counting knockdowns. The data can't be trusted.

because every defense is as bad as the chiefs:shake:

You can flip the script and say blitzing doesn't mean the qbs going to be hit. Anybody who watched the Chiefs offense from '02 to '05 knows that better than most.

Good QBs/offenses handle blitzing.

Something I pointed out immediately.

But since hits aren't an official stat, but are tracked by the official scorer, it's what we have to work with.

So, you can either break down film of every pass attempt of his this season and get back to us, or you can continue to ignore the mountain of evidence that has been placed in front of you proving you wrong.

Body blow, body blow.

KNOCK HIM OUT!

http://sportscracklepop.com/wp-conte...unch-out-2.png

You can't honestly say he only got hit three times against Tampa Bay, Minnesota, Carolina, Atlanta and Chicago. He played a couple of those teams twice.

I still don't think he has been proven wrong. AFAIK, he has said that Brees took AS MANY hits as BR, not more. I don't see how that can be proven false. This whole thing got started when posters began saying that Brees would break in two playing in Pittsburgh. I still don't see how that is an absolute statement. It's not like BR took twice as many hits as Brees or somthing. And again, a large portion of those hits BR took were because he holds onto the ball too long.

You can't call it a "mountain of evidence" after acknowledging the scorer's inconsistencies. We can't sit here and know for sure. We don't know what the scorers consider a hit.

I can, and will, because that's exactly what the stats show happened.

When you take the data that's already been posted, and then add that he was only sacked once in each of the games against the opponents you just listed (except the 2nd Carolina game, he was sacked twice) it sure looks to me that the stats are staying extremely consistent.

Say you're wrong! Say you're wrong!

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-imag...llution460.jpg

Actually, go back and re-read the thread. He just recently changed his tune to admit they may have taken an equal number of hits. (which is also incorrect)

I've statistically already proven that wrong with the data that has been given.

It means BR was hit as much as Brees in nearly 200 fewer pass attempts.

I don't think Brees would have broken in half either, but it's kind of a silly thing to argue about. Trying to use stats and hard date to prove a fantasy (as in make-believe, not fantasy football) situation.

ROFL

No, it means BR was hit as much as Brees in nearly 200 fewer pass attempts, ASSUMING he took no other hits than sacks. (which we all know is not accurate)

I don't have data, so I've left it out.

Well, apparently, if Brees got hit more than Big Ben, Thigpen is a franchise quarterback and Stafford and Sanchez both suck, but if Big Ben took more shots, Thigpen is not a franchise quarterback and Stafford and Sanchez will both be in the Hall Of Fame without having to buy a ticket. It's a Chaos Theory thing....

There needs to be scientific research about this. Pro Football Outsiders and the scorers can't be trusted. I can believe the two QBs get hit an equal amount, but I doubt it's that lopsided. I dispute the whole thing because of the research limitations.

Of course you do, because it's much easier to dispute all this evidence instead of just saying, "I WAS WRONG."

Then again, I'd expect nothing less from you.

ROFLROFLROFL

What a staggering amount of intellectual dishonesty.

That kind of research can't be trusted. I know because research is the heart of what I'm doing at graduate school. I would never cite Pro Football Outsiders in a paper. It's OK on a message board, but not OK when conducting actual research.

That would take an expensive study where researchers attend games and count the number of times QBs get hit.

Amazing, ain't it?

I could easily say the same thing about you.

Then stick to verifiable stats. Roethlisberger got sacked 46 times in 469 pass attempts and Brees got sacked 13 times in 635. That's 1 sack every 10 drop-backs versus 1 sack every 49. That's nearly 3 sacks per game versus less than 1.

(How's that for lopsided...)

I think it would be very difficult to argue that Roethlisberger wasn't getting hit a lot more on a game-by game basis based on that. Project Roethlisberger's numbers out to the same number of attempts as Brees and he'd have been sacked over 62 times. Versus 13.

Again, this isn't some kind of argument that Brees is somehow less of a QB because he was hit less. It's just...numbers.

FUNNY COMING FROM YOU, you disputed the numbers yourself

I'm not the one making saying, "Well, I'm right because I think I'm right."

My position is backed up by statistics and evidence.

You think you're right because of what a Web site says. I know this is beyond message board logic, but show me a study published in an academic journal.

Exactly.

Hell, I even took hits COMPLETELY out of the equation for BR, since we didn't have anything listed, and the evidence STILL shows that he's getting hit more.

Here's Sam working as a defense attorney for an alleged murderer:

Judge: Mr. Hall, your opening argument, please?

Hall: Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, it is my opinion that my client did not murder those people. That is all.

What exact is your position? That Brees get's hit less than Rothlisberger? Let's say we grant that - actually MUCH less.

Now do a statistical breakdown on "Brees would be crushed behind Pittsburg's line," which is what started this whole "debate." You can use injuries/passing attempt, injuries/season, games missed/sack, or any other statistic you can come up with.

I guess you don't trust NFL.com either.

You know, like these:

You wouldn't get any further with the jury if you cited Pro Football Outsiders or NFL.com as evidence.