Eagles Thumping Giants

King Glorious · #1 11-01-2009, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So far Harvin is better.

As expected. Thanks.

Cannon Shell · #2 11-01-2009, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

As expected. Thanks.

you disagree? What would make you think that your guy is better than Harvin has been? It really isnt close considering Harvin is one of the best return men in the league as well. Please explain to me why Nicks is or has been better?

King Glorious · #3 11-01-2009, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

you disagree? What would make you think that your guy is better than Harvin has been? It really isnt close considering Harvin is one of the best return men in the league as well. Please explain to me why Nicks is or has been better?

Oh, that's how it works? I give my opinion. You tell me I'm wrong. Then, without explaining your opinion, I'm supposed to explain mine? That's ok. I'll pass. You can have Harvin. I'll take Nicks.

dalakhani · #4 11-01-2009, 06:22 PM

I'll take Harvin.

GBBob · #5 11-01-2009, 06:27 PM

Unfortunately, so would I

Cannon Shell · #6 11-01-2009, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Oh, that's how it works? I give my opinion. You tell me I'm wrong. Then, without explaining your opinion, I'm supposed to explain mine? That's ok. I'll pass. You can have Harvin. I'll take Nicks.

What exactly did I do to get you in a huff? Harvin has more catches, more yards, more TD's, and fills two positions. I mean it is obvious stuff. And before you start with the Nicks was hurt stuff, Harvin has been playing banged up and sick. So Harvin it appears is more durable than Nicks as well. Enough?

Cannon Shell · #7 11-01-2009, 06:34 PM

And I think Nicks is good and who knows he may be great someday but KG insists that he is the best rookie bar none without much really "proving" it. I'm sure there are some defensive rookies that are doing at least as good as Phil pointed out but dont care enough to look.

philcski · #8 11-01-2009, 06:58 PM

Nicks is good. Harvin is really good- offensive rookie of the year IMO. He fits with the Vikings so well, too.

But you guys gotta check out this guy Byrd. He's got 7 interceptions in 4 games for the Bills, who would be 1-7 without him. He personally won two games for them already playing a position that usually requires several years of experience. As for ROY of the year voting he'll probably get passed over because he's playing for an irrelevant team in a forgotten market but he's the best rookie defensive player I've seen by quite a bit.

docicu3 · #9 11-01-2009, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

And I think Nicks is good and who knows he may be great someday but KG insists that he is the best rookie bar none without much really "proving" it. I'm sure there are some defensive rookies that are doing at least as good as Phil pointed out but dont care enough to look.

Turns out there's a damn good football game being played in New England next week. The first of several attempts to build a cushion to win the division. The Patriots need this first game against Miami badly...

Cannon Shell · #10 11-01-2009, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by docicu3

Turns out there's a damn good football game being played in New England next week. The first of several attempts to build a cushion to win the division. The Patriots need this first game against Miami badly...

Miami needs it pretty bad too

King Glorious · #11 11-01-2009, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What exactly did I do to get you in a huff? Harvin has more catches, more yards, more TD's, and fills two positions. I mean it is obvious stuff. And before you start with the Nicks was hurt stuff, Harvin has been playing banged up and sick. So Harvin it appears is more durable than Nicks as well. Enough?

Going into this week:
Harvin had 23 catches for 285 yards (12.4 ypc), and two touchdowns. He had played seven games (three starts) and his yards per game is 40.7. His yards after the catch average is 5.6.

Nicks had 16 catches for 315 yards (19.7 ypc), and four touchdowns. He had played five games (one start) and his yards per game is 63.0. His yards after the catch average is 11.1.

Harvin is a dynamic kick returner, one of the best in the league already. That is what brings him into the conversation. Just off of their receiving numbers thus far, it's not even close to me and Harvin is playing with a much better quarterback. Nicks is third in the NFL in yards per catch (Miles Austin 23.7, DeSean Jackson 20.1) and his yards after the catch is second among all receivers (Austin 12.2). You'd take Harvin and that's fine. I won't tell you that you are wrong. I'll take Nicks because I think he is more productive on the field.

Cannon Shell · #12 11-01-2009, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Going into this week:
Harvin had 23 catches for 285 yards (12.4 ypc), and two touchdowns. He had played seven games (three starts) and his yards per game is 40.7. His yards after the catch average is 5.6.

Nicks had 16 catches for 315 yards (19.7 ypc), and four touchdowns. He had played five games (one start) and his yards per game is 63.0. His yards after the catch average is 11.1.

Harvin is a dynamic kick returner, one of the best in the league already. That is what brings him into the conversation. Just off of their receiving numbers thus far, it's not even close to me and Harvin is playing with a much better quarterback. Nicks is third in the NFL in yards per catch (Miles Austin 23.7, DeSean Jackson 20.1) and his yards after the catch is second among all receivers (Austin 12.2). You'd take Harvin and that's fine. I won't tell you that you are wrong. I'll take Nicks because I think he is more productive on the field.

averages are fairly irrelevant with such a small size sample. I just find it impossible to make 16 catches (many in garbage time like the TD against the Saints when they were playing the special teamers on defense) over 5 games into a complete case for anyone.

Harvin is third in the NFL in yards per touch. He also is avg over 5 yards running the ball.

King Glorious · #13 11-01-2009, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

averages are fairly irrelevant with such a small size sample. I just find it impossible to make 16 catches (many in garbage time like the TD against the Saints when they were playing the special teamers on defense) over 5 games into a complete case for anyone.

Harvin is third in the NFL in yards per touch. He also is avg over 5 yards running the ball.

I don't go by the averages but you said more catches, yards, and touchdowns so I went by the stats. I thought Nicks was a better receiver before they had accumalated any stats so I don't need them to support me but even if it is a small sample size, it's what we have so far and they make a pretty good support case for any Nicks fans.

I don't think it's fair to use yards per touch when you've got a guy that returns kickoffs. Not many top receivers get the chance to up their averages on kickoff returns and fewer running backs do. Ted Ginn just got 201 yards on two returns today. Really helped his yards per touch average.

dalakhani · #14 11-01-2009, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Going into this week:
Harvin had 23 catches for 285 yards (12.4 ypc), and two touchdowns. He had played seven games (three starts) and his yards per game is 40.7. His yards after the catch average is 5.6.

Nicks had 16 catches for 315 yards (19.7 ypc), and four touchdowns. He had played five games (one start) and his yards per game is 63.0. His yards after the catch average is 11.1.

Harvin is a dynamic kick returner, one of the best in the league already. That is what brings him into the conversation. Just off of their receiving numbers thus far, it's not even close to me and Harvin is playing with a much better quarterback. Nicks is third in the NFL in yards per catch (Miles Austin 23.7, DeSean Jackson 20.1) and his yards after the catch is second among all receivers (Austin 12.2). You'd take Harvin and that's fine. I won't tell you that you are wrong. I'll take Nicks because I think he is more productive on the field.

Harvin is one of the best kick returners in the league. If he didnt line up a single down at wide receiver, he would still be a more valuable player than nicks. If you throw in his receiving, its not even a conversation.

Nicks is a good rookie but he is not a difference maker in any way right now. Teams have to actually adjust their gameplan to stop Harvin. I would imagine they barely consider Nicks who has been putting up merely okay numbers in blowout games.

King Glorious · #15 11-01-2009, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Harvin is one of the best kick returners in the league. If he didnt line up a single down at wide receiver, he would still be a more valuable player than nicks. If you throw in his receiving, its not even a conversation.

Nicks is a good rookie but he is not a difference maker in any way right now. Teams have to actually adjust their gameplan to stop Harvin. I would imagine they barely consider Nicks who has been putting up merely okay numbers in blowout games.

I couldn't disagree with this more. I guess Ted Ginn is more valuable than any receiver in the league too now?

Which is more ridiculous? Me saying that I think he's the best rookie in the league or Dalakhani saying Harvin is so much better that it's not even a conversation?