Phinsfan2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok, on what are you basing you conclusion that
> Duper was the "Primary WR" in that offense?
> Sure, he was fast but what else?
RESPONSE: The fact that like everyone considers Moss the Primary receiver in the NE Offense, the answer is the fact that Marino, the Dolphins and all of the opponents considered Duper the primary target.
> Again, the "primary reciever" is the guy you go to
> when it counts the most even if he's covered.
> Sorry, but Duper was NEVER that guy. Clayton
> was.
RESPONSE: The primary receiver is the number 1 target. It is the guy that you want to get the ball to. You're being silly. You don't throw to a covered guy unless everyone else is also covered. You don't throw to a covered guy when another guy is wide open. You go to the open guy. That's what I meant when I said that if the primary guy gets blanketed most of the time, the secondary receiver will often end up with the better stats.
> I think we stopped talking about Ginn a while ago.
RESPONSE: Well I am sorry but when Curt WAY BACCCCKKK WHENNN, made the off-hand remark that Duper was number 2, that's when I posted. Now, you blame me for talking about an old subject. Helllooo. That's when I joined in.
> I'm not arguing Moore's claim that the game was
> easier for him because he lined up opposite a HOF
> WR. It makes perfect sense he'd say that. It's
> true.
>
> I'm pointing out that YOUR assertion (not moore's)
> that Moore was "piling up better statisitcs" and
> as the #2 to Warfield's #1 is poppycock. Which is
> exactly what it was. That's what gives.
RESPONSE: He WAS!!!!! At the beginning of the short time he played with Warfield, That's what his comment was about! Why would you think he would make that comment! He made it because it was EASIER FOR HIM.
The
> numbers don't support your premise
RESPONSE: You gotta be either kidding or Autistic. Are you seriously saying that I was arguing that Nat Moore had better lifetime statistics than Paul Warfield????
You know, maybe, you should learn how to take an argument for what it is and not to extrapolate so wildly that you have the other person taking ridiculous positions because of your lack of understanding how to correctly perceive what point the person is making. I said that when Nat Moore first started playing, he was getting less coverage because they were worried about Warfield. I never said he had better stats than Warfield.
and therefore
> your example of Moore/Warfield doesn't support you
> claim that Clayton had better stats than Duper
> because Duper was the "primary reciever" and that
> his presence as such made clayton's job easier.
RESPONSE: But again you miss the point. You think I am saying that Clayton was not as good a receiver as Duper. I didn't say that. I think Clayton was more valuable but it wasn't seen that way when they first started.
If I were running the Patriots and I was told I had to get rid of either Moss or Welker, Moss would be out of here.
>
> No doubt that Moore's life as a rookie WR was made
> easier by Warfieled's presence, but he didn't
> outproduce the #1 guy when they were both on the
> field.
>
RESPONSE: Well, we don't have stats on that.
>
> Except that Welker doesn't have better statisitcs.
> He has more catches, by a wide margin, which is
> what you'd expect from an outlet reciever but he
> trails in yardage (which is surprising when you
> consider he has 56 more catches), and he has 1/3rd
> the TD's of the primary receiver in their offense.
> Over their two years together:
> Moss: 167 catches, 2501 yards and 33 TD's
> Welker: 223 catches, 2340 yards, 11 TD's.
RESPONSE: But that's exactly my point! Welker will have more catches because he will be covered less. But Welker is not going to breakaway and run past anyone with blazing speed. Moss will and will have more TD catches. On the other hand, Welker is not going to outjump anyone in the endzone for a touchdown ball, but Moss will and will have more TDs.
>
> This example doesn't support your argument...it
> supports mine. The 'primary' guy isn't the wr
> with the most catches.
RESPONSE: You're getting confused, I said the primary receiver is the "go to" guy. The guy you go to when he is open. The number 1 guy, the big cheese, the head honcho. How many ways can I say it. More often then not, it is the guy with the blazing speed. It is Moss over Welker, It was Duper over Clayton. The problem with you stats geeks is that you think every sentence in language relates to stats.
Its the guy with the most
> TD's. The guy they go to when they NEED points
> and big plays.
RESPONSE: Noooo.... It's the guy who IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO SCORE THE TOUCHDOWN.
> > Am I conducting an elementary school class
> here?
>
> I hope its not a logic class:
RESPONSE: LOL. Now I see why! Because you would get an "F."
>
> "..the less you are thrown to, the more you
> catch,..." WTF ????
RESPONSE: Now, I don't feel so guilty about the "autistic" comment. Let me show the readers how you are taking a phrase out of context.
This is the exact quote separated by dashes for the different points "That is the nature of the beast, Phinsfan2. The better you are, the more attention you get,--- the more attention you get, the less you are thrown to,---- the more you catch, the more you are covered, the less you are thrown to. "
>
> Look, you'd have a better argument if you said
> they were co-#1's. Duper's stats are close enough
> to Clayton's that you can make that argument.
RESPONSE: Yeah, at the end of their careers, it became obvious that speed isn't everything and Clayton was probably more highly regarded but for most of their careers, it was "Duper and Clayton."
> But I saw them both play their entire careers and
> I know that while Duper was a deep threat and made
> a lot of plays down field,
most of those plays
> came against single coverage.
RESPONSE: As is the case with most successful deep throws. They are rarely made against double coverage.
He was fast, but if
> you want to beat constant double teams deep you
> need to be fast and big. He wasn't big.
RESPONSE: In an era before the Randy Moss's and the Terrell Owens'. In an era of the Jerry Rice's etcs. You can't mix up different eras.
Because
> of that he saw more than his saher of single &
> zone coverages. Clayton drew more than his share
> of defensive attention which is what made them
> such an effective pairing.
RESPONSE: Not only Clayton but as Montequi points out, Bruce Hardy and others.
> Either way, I'm sure you aren't going to change
> your mind and I know you haven't schooled me to
> even a pre-K level let alone an elementary school
> level, so I'm not going to capitulate.
>
> I suggest you and I try e-mailing Dan Marino or a
> local sports writer to see if we can get an answer
> to the question.