The Dean Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 Hmmm -- ESPN guy vs. small-town hack. Yeah, tough call. You may be from a small town, but you are no hack, my friend.
Kettle Creek Football Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 Mere typo, or Freudian slip? ha ha ha - Your choice!
Thurman#1 Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 Because one is a feature film and the other is TV. I think Gandy thinks of himself as a film actor, now, and not a TV actor. There is also a HUGE difference in time commitment between doing a 13-episode season, and one film. Add to that the $$ Gandy would make from one movie (while still being able to do other things, that year) and he just may come around. As with sports, never conclude a person won't do something because they once turned down something similar. Two Gandolfini quotes: It's been a great opportunity, but I don't have much trepidation about it ending. I think it's more than time. Part of the fun of acting is the research, finding out about other people. As much as I've explored this guy, I don't know what else to really do with him. I've been in one place for 10 years. That's enough. It's time for me to do other things. - about ending "The Sopranos" As it turns out, the actor has happily turned his back on his part in the hit TV show. "I was living well under the radar and then the monstrosity of The Sopranos came along. But it was a wonderful opportunity, and I guess it was my big break. I still get people shouting 'Tony' at me in the street, but it's getting less and less. I don't get offered mafia roles. I think people have realised that ship has sailed," he says. Yeah, I realize that things change, and you're right, a movie isn't a show, but I think he just doesn't want to do it anymore. And these days, movie salaries are dropping, not rising. We've seen the last of Tony, I think. And he's dead anyway.
TimGraham Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 My first question for you Tim, If given the same amount of play time at the starting RB position this coming up season is it your belief that Marshawn Lynch would exceed Freddie Jackson in all purpose yardage? (excluding any special teams) One of the reasons I ask you this is we may be able to compare them for a few games this season without injury being a contributing factor and In my opinion Fred Jackson could be a more productive all purpose back than Marshawn. Thanks Oh, and Tim, you do realize I may come back and tease you if you select Marshawn and Action Jackson blows Marshawn out of the water. To borrow a phrase from "Hockey Hotline," if Fred Jackson gets the same amount of touches as Marshawn Lynch (barring injury) I'll make you a watch. So don't hold your breath about Jackson proving your theory correct. But I'm picking Lynch anyway.
TimGraham Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Tim, Who is a better writer and/or analyst? Lori or you? It's like vanilla or chocolate. There's no wrong answer.
cåblelady Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 It's like vanilla or chocolate. There's no wrong answer. Awwwwwww.......
VABills Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 It's like vanilla or chocolate. There's no wrong answer. Oh I don't know. There was a recent thread about a lot of folks who like it fruity. But a very PC answer none the less.
Steely Dan Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 You may be from a small town, but you are no hack, my friend. Dean should know, he's a big city hack!
Steely Dan Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 It's like vanilla or chocolate. There's no wrong answer. So who's writing is vanilla?
Guest dog14787 Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 To borrow a phrase from "Hockey Hotline," if Fred Jackson gets the same amount of touches as Marshawn Lynch (bartring injury) I'll make you a watch. So don't hold your breath about Jackson proving your theory correct. But I'm picking Lynch anyway. No, I'm not holding my breath for Fred Jackson to get the same amount of touches for the season, but it could happen and if it does you will have to make me a watch. I meant hypothetically speaking, but with 2 possibly even 3 games to compare the two RB's. Fred Jackson in all likely hood starts the season off and then Marshawn follows up, when the games ( or touches ) are even we can compare the all purpose yards and actual rushing yards. I'll take Action Freddie Jackson. Thanks Tim Note: Marshawn Lynch's first 298 touches of his NFL career was for 1,299 total rushing and receiving yards. Fred Jackson's first 247 touches of his NFL career was for 1,378 total rushing and receiving yards. Jackson out gains Lynch with 50 less touches
youbotymyboty Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Yo Timmy- I'm callin you out. I'm the only one on here with the bones to throw down with you. Feature me in a ESPN dark- side of sports piece (tears of a fan). I'll shred it. Peace.
TimGraham Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 No, I'm not holding my breath for Fred Jackson to get the same amount of touches for the season, but it could happen and if it does you will have to make me a watch. I meant hypothetically speaking, but with 2 possibly even 3 games to compare the two RB's. Fred Jackson in all likely hood starts the season off and then Marshawn follows up, when the games ( or touches ) are even we can compare the all purpose yards and actual rushing yards. I'll take Action Freddie Jackson. Thanks Tim Note: Marshawn Lynch's first 298 touches of his NFL career was for 1,299 total rushing and receiving yards. Fred Jackson's first 247 touches of his NFL career was for 1,378 total rushing and receiving yards. Jackson out gains Lynch with 50 less touches But what percentage of Jackson's were passes?
Guest dog14787 Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 But what percentage of Jackson's were passes? Well, I was claiming Fred Jackson was a better all purpose back. I believe it was 50 receptions for Jackson and only 18 for Lynch. If it moves the ball down the football field what difference does it make? We can't penalize Jackson because he catches almost everything thrown at him. When comparing the two RB's in rushing stats that are comparable Jackson's stats are almost all higher than Lynch's and on all important 3rd downs Jackson averages 4.8 yards a carry and Lynch averages 3.6 yards on third downs.(more than 1 yard difference) So all the talk or hype about Lynch being a better RB than Jackson has zero proof to back it up and in fact the stats are pointing in the other direction and thats without even touching on Marshawn's character issues. What good does Marshawn do us when he is standing on the sidelines? Fred Jackson's extra training with the wideouts this off season is just going to increase his all purpose yardage potential and help create even more match up problems with opposing defenses. Something good is brewing in Buffalo, really good. Our Offense could go from one of the easiest , most predictable offenses to one of the nastiest, most unpredictable offenses in the NFL in just one off season. I Billieve...
TimGraham Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Well, I was claiming Fred Jackson was a better all purpose back. I believe it was 50 receptions for Jackson and only 18 for Lynch. If it moves the ball down the football field what difference does it make? When comparing the two RB's in rushing stats that are comparable Jackson's stats are almost all higher than Lynch's and on all important 3rd downs Jackson averages 4.8 yards a carrie and Lynch averages 3.6 yards on third downs.(more than 1 yard difference) So all the talk or hype about Lynch being a better RB than Jackson has zero proof to back it up and in fact the stats are pointing in the other direction and thats without even touching on Marshawn's character issues. What good does Marshawn do us when he is standinding on the sidelines? That's a coaching question, isn't it? That's called situational football. If the Bills want Jackson on the field on third down, he'll make a higher percentage of the first downs. But you say ZERO proof? Well, for one, I use my eyes. But if you need stats, try looking up the numbers on first down and second down. I have a feeling you'd find some proof there. Buffalo was in the top 10 last year in yards gained on first down and there are no wild passing numbers to skew that. The Bills ran 107 times on first down. Only three AFC teams ran more often on first down (Patriots, Dolphins, Ravens). I don't have the breakdown in games both Lynch and Jackson played (perhaps you do), but I'm sure Lynch got a great majority of those, making him one of the NFL's most productive backs on first down.
Guest dog14787 Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 That's a coaching question, isn't it? That's called situational football. If the Bills want Jackson on the field on third down, he'll make a higher percentage of the first downs. But you say ZERO proof? Well, for one, I use my eyes. But if you need stats, try looking up the numbers on first down and second down. I have a feeling you'd find some proof there. Buffalo was in the top 10 last year in yards gained on first down and there are no wild passing numbers to skew that. The Bills ran 107 times on first down. Only three AFC teams ran more often on first down (Patriots, Dolphins, Ravens). I don't have the breakdown in games both Lynch and Jackson played (perhaps you do), but I'm sure Lynch got a great majority of those, making him one of the NFL's most productive backs on first down. All purpose yardage is not skewing anything, it is what it is and it moves the ball. Its also one of the reasons Thurman Thomas was so dangerous, Thomas could run with the best and he could catch with the best.
TimGraham Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 All purpose yardage is not skewing anything, it is what it is and it moves the ball. Its also one of the reasons Thurman Thomas was so dangerous, Thomas could run with the best and he could catch with the best. You need to learn the definitions of what you're quoting. All-purpose yardage includes kickoff and punt returns. It certainly does skew numbers when comparing players. I think I'm done here.
Lori Posted July 1, 2009 Author Posted July 1, 2009 When comparing the two RB's in rushing stats that are comparable Jackson's stats are almost all higher than Lynch's and on all important 3rd downs Jackson averages 4.8 yards a carry and Lynch averages 3.6 yards on third downs.(more than 1 yard difference) To focus on this, I'd be interested to know how many of Jackson's runs were on third-and-long draw plays. A few years back, Shaud Williams had a great ypc average ... almost entirely because of seven-yard runs on third-and-10. Jackson filled that role on last year's team, while Lynch was more likely to be in the game on a short-yardage play.
Guest dog14787 Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 You need to learn the definitions of what you're quoting. All-purpose yardage includes kickoff and punt returns. It certainly does skew numbers when comparing players. I think I'm done here. Which if you look at my previous post it was excluding special teams.
Guest dog14787 Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 My first question for you Tim, If given the same amount of play time at the starting RB position this coming up season is it your belief that Marshawn Lynch would exceed Freddie Jackson in all purpose yardage? (excluding any special teams) One of the reasons I ask you this is we may be able to compare them for a few games this season without injury being a contributing factor and In my opinion Fred Jackson could be a more productive all purpose back than Marshawn. Thanks Oh, and Tim, you do realize I may come back and tease you if you select Marshawn and Action Jackson blows Marshawn out of the water.
Recommended Posts