Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5480272)

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.

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 5480264)

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.

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5480272)

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.

Originally Posted by pestilenceaf23 (Post 5479658)

Can Bree's take a hit? Because that's what Big Ben repeatedly does....and still gets back up.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 5479663)

And apparently, you don't listen outside of the draft forum either:

Brees would absolutely be destroyed behind the Pittsburgh line, throwing to the Pittsburgh receivers.

If Ben was sacked 46 times, how many times do you think Brees would have been sacked? 60? What do you think his completion percentage would have been with defenders in his face one each and every play?

Originally Posted by Sam Hall (Post 5480286)

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.

Originally Posted by keg in kc

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.

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5480288)

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.

Originally Posted by orange (Post 5480294)

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.

Originally Posted by Sam Hall (Post 5479716)

Here's more: Brees had almost 1,300 pass attempts during the past two seasons. It's safe to say he took plenty of shots.

Originally Posted by Sam Hall (Post 5480286)

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.

Originally Posted by Sam Hall (Post 5480301)

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

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 5479663)

Brees would absolutely be destroyed behind the Pittsburgh line, throwing to the Pittsburgh receivers.

If Ben was sacked 46 times, how many times do you think Brees would have been sacked? 60? What do you think his completion percentage would have been with defenders in his face one each and every play?

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5480314)

What started this whole debate changed when Sam said this:



Go back and look: that is where I entered the debate.

Originally Posted by orange (Post 5480337)

Will you agree then that there is NO justification whatsoever for DaneMcCloud's claim?

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5480358)

I agree with his opinion, however, there is no way to back it up.

I wasn't part of that argument, I'm not sure why you're asking me.

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5480336)

Dear God.

Sure, I'd get no where with STATISTICAL EVIDENCE that was created and maintained by the league in which these games are being played.

Statistical evidence > opinion.

Every day of the week.

You've yet to show any evidence, statistical or otherwise to back your claim.

Originally Posted by orange (Post 5480365)

I'm asking you for a statistical breakdown to prove it or not. That's simple, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Sam Hall (Post 5480366)

It's going to take researchers conducting a study and publishing it. Those Web sites can't be trusted, which we both have acknowledged.

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5480369)

Why should I do that work? I'm not the one making the claim.

Ask Dane to back up his claim.