PDA

View Full Version : Rookie of the Year


m5kwatts
11-01-2009, 11:37 PM
Not gonna be offense or defense specific.... whose the best rookie?

http://profootball.scout.com/2/914242.html

infantrycak
11-01-2009, 11:43 PM
Right now Iceman (new nickname from Tedc for icing games) Cushing is the no doubt leader. Offensive guys always get the edge so we'll see.

Kulluminatii
11-02-2009, 01:11 AM
I voted for Harvin...that much talent as a rookie...just wow. Nothing against Cushing though, he is a beast :tiphat:.

Goatcheese
11-02-2009, 01:14 AM
Byrd is playing out of his mind. 7 picks through the halfway point, which is more INTs than receptions allowed. As much as I would like to go for Cushing I can't see him over a potential All-Pro.

m5kwatts
11-02-2009, 02:00 AM
Byrd is playing out of his mind. 7 picks through the halfway point, which is more INTs than receptions allowed. As much as I would like to go for Cushing I can't see him over a potential All-Pro.

I would've voted Byrd over Cushing BUT he is catching a bunch of tip drill balls that fall right in his lap. Yes he's in the right place and thats half the battle but its not like he's running step for step with receivers and completely shutting down the oppositions passing game. He hasn't completely changed the attitude and performance of his defense like Cushing. Besides the Bills are an awful defense, Cushing might be headed to the postseason.

gtexan02
11-02-2009, 07:57 AM
As much as I love Cushing, I am having a tough time deciding between him and Byrd. You don't get 7 INTs from being in the right place at the right time. He's the 2nd player in the history of the NFL to get 2 INTs in 3 straight games. He's playing out of his mind and he is the SOLE reason that team scores any points.

At the same time, Cushing has completely changed the mindset on this defense and is not only a tackling machine, but is coming up with turnovers. He has more INTs than any of our DBs and that one to seal the game yesterday was a thing of beauty

texasguy346
11-02-2009, 08:17 AM
Right now Iceman (new nickname from Tedc for icing games) Cushing is the no doubt leader. Offensive guys always get the edge so we'll see.

I voted Cushing as well, but offensive guys usually win the award. I'd give a slight edge to Harvin in that regard given that the media loves anyone who plays with "The Favre".

Byrd is doing some amazing things in Buffalo, but Cushing has changed the whole mindset of this defense. I don't know how many times I've seen a running back or receiver running up the field only to be stopped dead in his tracks by Cushing. With the toughness and nastiness that he & Pollard have brought to this defense I feel really good about our chances against any team.

infantrycak
11-02-2009, 08:19 AM
You don't get 7 INTs from being in the right place at the right time. y

Yes you do apparently. How many of his INT's have been while the ball was being thrown to someone he was covering? - 1 or 2. Being 5-10 yds off a play and having the ball come at you is still skill to make the catch but it isn't analyzing the play and making a move, it is luck to have the opportunity to make the catch in the first place. Look at the two yesterday. One bounced off AJ and the other Schaub totally overthrew. In neither case did Byrd do anything to put himself in position to intercept the ball. The ball just came to the place he happened to be. I can't believe folks are so wrapped up in one stat they are discounting the across the board excellent play of Cushing.

Texan_Bill
11-02-2009, 08:25 AM
I voted Percy Harvin.

Not because I think he's better than Cush, but because of the exposure he will get playing with Favre.

50boys
11-02-2009, 09:10 AM
Cushing without a doubt! Call me bias but he's played better than the others.

bah007
11-02-2009, 09:38 AM
Fair or not, Harvin will win because is the best of the offensive rookies.

chicagotexan2
11-02-2009, 09:40 AM
Right now Iceman (new nickname from Tedc for icing games) Cushing is the no doubt leader. Offensive guys always get the edge so we'll see.

They do look alike.

http://www.ieatpaint.com/topgun/gayiceman.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/091507-USCNeb-BrianCushing.jpg

infantrycak
11-02-2009, 09:47 AM
Fair or not, Harvin will win because is the best of the offensive rookies.

When was the last time a WR won ROY with under 1000 yds? or even with 1000 yds for that matter?

Anquan Boldin had 1377.
Randy Moss had 1313 with 17 td's.

kastofsna
11-02-2009, 10:47 AM
interceptions are an incredibly overrated stat for defensive backs. Asante Samuel enjoys that fact.

i forgot Laurinaitis even existed. is he playing well?

HoustonFrog
11-02-2009, 11:04 AM
Made a mistake and hit Harvin over Cushing..though Harvin has been great and made a big difference. I will say Matthews is having a nice year also.

disaacks3
11-02-2009, 11:24 AM
Cases can be made for all, and YES I'm a :homer:, but I still think Cush is in the top 2-3 nonetheless.

Cush for ROY, Pro-Bowl, etc., if he keeps up his current stats throughout.

TimeKiller
11-02-2009, 11:26 AM
I can't believe folks are so wrapped up in one stat they are discounting the across the board excellent play of Cushing.
Yeah, the only player in the league with an int, forced fumble, sack and a safety. That's literally every category besides tackles, which he is also doing *okay* at. The difference in the D can largely be attributed to him.

Byrd man has been lucky and opportunistic. Cushing has been a freight train.

interceptions are an incredibly overrated stat for defensive backs. Asante Samuel enjoys that fact.

i forgot Laurinaitis even existed. is he playing well?

Everytime I see anything about him he's leading the Rams in tackles. Hard to say really, I haven't watched him play but he seemed like a solid player in the draft and his numbers seem solid.

Blazing Arrow
11-02-2009, 11:31 AM
Right now Iceman (new nickname from Tedc for icing games) Cushing is the no doubt leader. Offensive guys always get the edge so we'll see.

Byrd has a huge lead on anyone on D. Sorry you guys need to be less homerish and realize Byrd has had a pick in 4 consecutive games. Two in each of the last 3 games. It is only week 8 and he has 7 picks!

Second Honeymoon
11-02-2009, 11:33 AM
Harvin is the only guy I would even consider over Cushing, but Brian gets my vote.

That tip drill interception yesterday was incredible. Guy is proof that hard work and preparation matters

the guy makes a mistake and is out of position but doesn't panic and finds a way to make a play.

that made my day, yesterday. then Favremania was incredible so it was a perfect Sunday.

infantrycak
11-02-2009, 11:38 AM
Byrd has a huge lead on anyone on D. Sorry you guys need to be less homerish and realize Byrd has had a pick in 4 consecutive games. Two in each of the last 3 games. It is only week 8 and he has 7 picks!

Nothing homerish about it. Most of Byrd's picks have had almost nothing to do with his talent. He didn't analyze the play and put himself in the right place, he just happened to be where somebody tipped the ball to. If he was jumping balls and making real picks then yes I would be impressed and include him in the conversation. As it is, I think it is ridiculous to even consider him based on a single empty stat.

kastofsna
11-02-2009, 11:42 AM
Byrd is Ricky Manning Jr'ing the hell out of it right now

beerlover
11-02-2009, 11:46 AM
If Cushing continues his play he will be consensus defensive rookie of the year (don't they award ROY to both sides of the ball?).

Cushing is 5th in the NFL in total tackles one behind Patrick Willis. Both players also have mutliple stats in other categorys like INT's, Forced Fumbles, Recovered Fumbles, Sacks & Safetys. Willis is a MLB & Cushing is a SLB, both All-Pro caliber.

Add the intangible that Cushing leads a much improved defense & he makes plays in crunch time that result in wins gives him a chance to become the NFL Defense Player of the Year not just rookie of the year, cause he's not playing like a rookie :d:

Blazing Arrow
11-02-2009, 11:52 AM
Nothing homerish about it. Most of Byrd's picks have had almost nothing to do with his talent. He didn't analyze the play and put himself in the right place, he just happened to be where somebody tipped the ball to. If he was jumping balls and making real picks then yes I would be impressed and include him in the conversation. As it is, I think it is ridiculous to even consider him based on a single empty stat.

The guy is a rookie who is ALWAYS in the right place. With time I could see him be a shut down corner. You do not get "lucky" 7 times in 4 games. Some of that is skill.

He has 9 pass deflections. If he was just catching tipped balls he would not be in on that many plays. Plus he did not even start the first few games. The guy is a baller.

He also is only the second player in the NFL to have 2 INTs in 3 consecutive games.

MeLoveTexans
11-02-2009, 11:56 AM
The guy is a rookie who is ALWAYS in the right place. With time I could see him be a shut down corner. You do not get "lucky" 7 times in 4 games. Some of that is skill.

I thought he was a safety. Did he play corner earlier?

infantrycak
11-02-2009, 12:00 PM
The guy is a rookie who is ALWAYS in the right place. With time I could see him be a shut down corner. You do not get "lucky" 7 times in 4 games. Some of that is skill.

Have you actually watched the plays? For example yesterday, INT #1 came when he was yards from AJ with another guy covering him and AJ let the ball bounce off his chest randomly in his direction. Second INT he was ten yards out of the play and Schaub way overthrew his target sending it straight to him. Neither of those had anything to do with skill on his part. I'm not saying he is bad but it is silly to obsess on a single stat which plainly has not been accumulated on his football analysis/talent. It's like saying Larry Brown was a fantastic DB when O'Donnell kept mistaking him for a Steelers WR. Now like Brown Byrd may get rewarded for it and like Brown it would be undeserved.

He also is only the second player in the NFL to have 2 INTs in 3 consecutive games.

Yeah and David Carr once tied the NFL record for consecutive pass completions. It was a meaningless deal as well because he wasn't throwing more than 5 yards. Once again, he looks like a very good player but the only reason he is getting hyped are the INT's and those are mostly hollow skill wise.

I thought he was a safety. Did he play corner earlier?

Yes he is their backup strong safety in playing for Donte Whitner who is hurt.

Texan_Bill
11-02-2009, 12:00 PM
Byrd has a huge lead on anyone on D. Sorry you guys need to be less homerish and realize Byrd has had a pick in 4 consecutive games. Two in each of the last 3 games. It is only week 8 and he has 7 picks!

Cushing is well ahead of Byrd in every category but interceptions. Makes sense too. One is a DB, one is a LB.

Blazing Arrow
11-02-2009, 12:01 PM
I thought he was a safety. Did he play corner earlier?

You're right. I thought I was seeing him line up as a corner.

50boys
11-02-2009, 12:02 PM
I thought he was a safety. Did he play corner earlier?


Played corner in college. Switched to Safety after he was drafted

TexansSeminole
11-02-2009, 12:06 PM
When was the last time a WR won ROY with under 1000 yds? or even with 1000 yds for that matter?

Anquan Boldin had 1377.
Randy Moss had 1313 with 17 td's.

Well, he isn't just a receiver. He has made huge plays on kickoff returns.

Harvin stats:

28 receptions for 363 yards (13.2 yards per reception) and 3 TDs. 21 of 28 receptions have been first downs.

28 returns for 860 yards (30.7 yards per return) and 2 TDs. Longest return was 101 yards. Some of the returns have been extremely clutch late in games.

I voted Harvin over Cushing, but I think it is really close. Both players have been clutch for their teams, it really could go either way.

I didn't vote Byrd because of what cak has been saying. He has been handed a lot of INTs. If you look at Cushing's picks he has tipped the ball at the LOS and chased it down to make the pick, or he is reading the QBs eyes and jumping in front of a route. Byrd isn't doing that from what I have seen.

Texan_Bill
11-02-2009, 12:21 PM
I voted Harvin over Cushing, but I think it is really close. Both players have been clutch for their teams, it really could go either way.


Two words: Brett Favre. (and all the national exposure).

Goatcheese
11-02-2009, 12:39 PM
Yes you do apparently. How many of his INT's have been while the ball was being thrown to someone he was covering? - 1 or 2. Being 5-10 yds off a play and having the ball come at you is still skill to make the catch but it isn't analyzing the play and making a move, it is luck to have the opportunity to make the catch in the first place. Look at the two yesterday. One bounced off AJ and the other Schaub totally overthrew. In neither case did Byrd do anything to put himself in position to intercept the ball. The ball just came to the place he happened to be. I can't believe folks are so wrapped up in one stat they are discounting the across the board excellent play of Cushing.

Through his first 7 games he was thrown at 10 times, allowed 2 receptions, and picked off 5.

What more can you possibly ask from a rookie FS?

If he was a Texan he would have every vote in this poll.

dc_txtech
11-02-2009, 12:41 PM
Something that nobody has mentioned is that Cushing leads all LB's in PD's, which ties him for 15th out of all positions.

On the other hand Byrd leads the league in PD's.

I voted for Cushing because he is so multidimensional. He can lay the wood and force fumbles, rush the QB, and he's great in coverage. The guy is such a complete football player, I would take him over Byrd any day.

kastofsna
11-02-2009, 12:59 PM
Two words: Brett Favre. (and all the national exposure).

there's offensive and defensive categories, it shouldn't be an issue.

just watched all of Byrd's interceptions. it's incredible, all of them were either tipped or overthrown or poorly thrown into double coverage. they're all great heads-up plays and he certainly deserves the credit for them, but they're not even remotely indicative of his overall play. facing Derek Anderson, Mark Sanchez, and Jake Delhomme in three consecutive weeks helps a ton.

infantrycak
11-02-2009, 01:05 PM
Through his first 7 games he was thrown at 10 times, allowed 2 receptions, and picked off 5.

What more can you possibly ask from a rookie FS?

If he was a Texan he would have every vote in this poll.

Stop with the homer allegation. I have explained very plainly why I don't think he deserves it. And your stats don't counter my position. His INT's aren't even coming when he is being thrown at. He was not in coverage on the target receiver on either play yesterday. Geez people, saying he doesn't deserve ROY doesn't mean he is slag.

PS - your stats are suspect. He now has 16 passes defended. There is no way got that kind of stat on 10 targets plus whatever he had yesterday.

gtexan02
11-02-2009, 01:07 PM
Have you actually watched the plays? For example yesterday, INT #1 came when he was yards from AJ with another guy covering him and AJ let the ball bounce off his chest randomly in his direction. Second INT he was ten yards out of the play and Schaub way overthrew his target sending it straight to him. Neither of those had anything to do with skill on his part. I'm not saying he is bad but it is silly to obsess on a single stat which plainly has not been accumulated on his football analysis/talent. It's like saying Larry Brown was a fantastic DB when O'Donnell kept mistaking him for a Steelers WR. Now like Brown Byrd may get rewarded for it and like Brown it would be undeserved.



Yeah and David Carr once tied the NFL record for consecutive pass completions. It was a meaningless deal as well because he wasn't throwing more than 5 yards. Once again, he looks like a very good player but the only reason he is getting hyped are the INT's and those are mostly hollow skill wise.



Yes he is their backup strong safety in playing for Donte Whitner who is hurt.

Im surprised you're not giving him any credit at all here. Sure on one of the plays he got a lucky bounce off of AJs chest, but on the first INT he made a diving catch of a poorly thrown ball that any WR would be proud of.

Whether he's lucky or not, the guy has amazing ball skills. He is seemingly always aware of where the ball is and has great hands and great diving catch ability.

There are tons of tipped and poorly thrown balls in an average NFL season. 7 INTs is still a feat to be proud of in my opinion

infantrycak
11-02-2009, 01:11 PM
Im surprised you're not giving him any credit at all here. Sure on one of the plays he got a lucky bounce off of AJs chest, but on the first INT he made a diving catch of a poorly thrown ball that any WR would be proud of.

Whether he's lucky or not, the guy has amazing ball skills. He is seemingly always aware of where the ball is and has great hands and great diving catch ability.

There are tons of tipped and poorly thrown balls in an average NFL season. 7 INTs is still a feat to be proud of in my opinion

Who said anything about not giving him any credit at all? He looks like an excellent player. Without the INT's no matter how well he was playing as a safety he wouldn't even be whispered in a ROY conversation. I just think how the INT's came should be examined now that he is in the conversation.

kastofsna
11-02-2009, 01:20 PM
clearly Byrd has exceeded expectations and is making big plays. but he doesn't look like a shutdown corner or anything, he's just been the recepient of a few good passes, really. but he's not a Reed or Polamalu who will go after the ball as opposed to being in the right place at the right time. but he is playing sound football.

gtexan02
11-02-2009, 01:25 PM
Who said anything about not giving him any credit at all? He looks like an excellent player. Without the INT's no matter how well he was playing as a safety he wouldn't even be whispered in a ROY conversation. I just think how the INT's came should be examined now that he is in the conversation.

You're posts have implied that all of his INTs have come from luck rather than anything else. That to me is giving him no credit.

Some of his INTs have been luck. But that first one he picked off, while a poor pass by Schaub, took a helluva diving catch to come up with a turnover

RazorOye
11-02-2009, 01:40 PM
Have you actually watched the plays? For example yesterday, INT #1 came when he was yards from AJ with another guy covering him and AJ let the ball bounce off his chest randomly in his direction. Second INT he was ten yards out of the play and Schaub way overthrew his target sending it straight to him. Neither of those had anything to do with skill on his part.

disagree totally

You don't think it took skill to come down with those two picks?

The first one was a beautiful diving reception on a poorly thrown ball - like someone else pointed out, a WR would've been proud of that catch. But that took no skill?

The second one, imo, might've even more impressive than the first - the adjustment he had to make after the ball was tipped was something you don't see in a lot of DBs, much less rookies. Watching it at full speed it was hard for me to track the ball after it was tipped - and seeing it in slow motion gave me more appreciation.

He put himself in position where the ball was going - closing in on the intended receiver. That's good play by a DB. The ball is tipped, he reacts, and snags the deflection out of midair. That's exceptional play by a DB.

It's one thing to say that we should temper our investment in Interceptions as a stat and that we should consider the entire body of play by a player when we're talking about these awards.

But it's something else entirely to try and discredit the guy (which is what you're doing despite your claims to the contrary) by saying his interceptions had - quote - "nothing to do with skill on his part"

That's trying to discredit him.

I actually consider interceptions better than I do tackles - isn't it true that many NFL organizations tally their own tackles for their players because there's not much worth or accuracy in the NFL tallied totals?

I mean, we could sit here and pick apart which defensive stat is more/less valid - tackles, sacks, interceptions, etc...

For me - they pretty much all speak to a player doing his job - putting himself in position to get to the QB or make a tackle or collect an INT.

To dismiss it by saying it took no skill sniffs of homerism to me.

The teams I watch most behind the Saints are the Bills (proximity to Toronto) and the Texans (from all my time lived there and still having tons of friends and family there) and I voted for Byrd. He's looked very very good at the backend of that Bills defense. I don't know much about Harvin - I haven't seen much of him - so I'd probably put Cushing ahead of him. But still behind Byrd.

Dan B.
11-02-2009, 01:43 PM
Where is the option to vote for Aaron Curry?

Kaiser Toro
11-02-2009, 01:48 PM
Where is the option to vote for Aaron Curry?

That would be available on a Seahawks site. :specnatz:

Texan_Bill
11-02-2009, 01:51 PM
Yes you do apparently. How many of his INT's have been while the ball was being thrown to someone he was covering? - 1 or 2. Being 5-10 yds off a play and having the ball come at you is still skill to make the catch but it isn't analyzing the play and making a move, it is luck to have the opportunity to make the catch in the first place. Look at the two yesterday. One bounced off AJ and the other Schaub totally overthrew. In neither case did Byrd do anything to put himself in position to intercept the ball. The ball just came to the place he happened to be. I can't believe folks are so wrapped up in one stat they are discounting the across the board excellent play of Cushing.

You're posts have implied that all of his INTs have come from luck rather than anything else. That to me is giving him no credit.

Some of his INTs have been luck. But that first one he picked off, while a poor pass by Schaub, took a helluva diving catch to come up with a turnover

disagree totally

You don't think it took skill to come down with those two picks?

The first one was a beautiful diving reception on a poorly thrown ball - like someone else pointed out, a WR would've been proud of that catch. But that took no skill?

The second one, imo, might've even more impressive than the first - the adjustment he had to make after the ball was tipped was something you don't see in a lot of DBs, much less rookies. Watching it at full speed it was hard for me to track the ball after it was tipped - and seeing it in slow motion gave me more appreciation.

He put himself in position where the ball was going - closing in on the intended receiver. That's good play by a DB. The ball is tipped, he reacts, and snags the deflection out of midair. That's exceptional play by a DB.

It's one thing to say that we should temper our investment in Interceptions as a stat and that we should consider the entire body of play by a player when we're talking about these awards.

But it's something else entirely to try and discredit the guy (which is what you're doing despite your claims to the contrary) by saying his interceptions had - quote - "nothing to do with skill on his part"

That's trying to discredit him.

I actually consider interceptions better than I do tackles - isn't it true that many NFL organizations tally their own tackles for their players because there's not much worth or accuracy in the NFL tallied totals?

I mean, we could sit here and pick apart which defensive stat is more/less valid - tackles, sacks, interceptions, etc...

For me - they pretty much all speak to a player doing his job - putting himself in position to get to the QB or make a tackle or collect an INT.

To dismiss it by saying it took no skill sniffs of homerism to me.

The teams I watch most behind the Saints are the Bills (proximity to Toronto) and the Texans (from all my time lived there and still having tons of friends and family there) and I voted for Byrd. He's looked very very good at the backend of that Bills defense. I don't know much about Harvin - I haven't seen much of him - so I'd probably put Cushing ahead of him. But still behind Byrd.

Cak never said skill wasn't involved. How I read what Cak said, is that it took skill to make the catches, but it was luck that Schaub threw the ball so poorly and that it was a lucky bounce off AJ, because he makes that catch 99 times out of hundred.

I could be wrong but that's how I understood it.

Dan B.
11-02-2009, 01:53 PM
That would be available on a Seahawks site. :specnatz:

Don't get me wrong, I still would've voted for Cushing. And not just because I'm a Texan -- he's having a better year. Just saying Curry belongs on the list.

RazorOye
11-02-2009, 01:55 PM
Cak never said skill wasn't involved. How I read what Cak said, is that it took skill to make the catches, but it was luck that Schaub threw the ball so poorly

so is it also luck that offensive players run into Cushing to be tackled?

of course not - at least much of the time, I'd think

As I said - players put themselves into position to make plays from their position that they are expected to make. Byrd has done that - more than once. Enough to lead the league.

That's more than mere luck.

The insistence just makes no sense to me - no matter how you try and legitimate it.

I mean, if you think Cushing is stronger I'd put more stock into an argument that compares their merits favorably - I never was swayed by someone who tried to win an argument by running the other guy into the ground or providing conditions under which you have to consider Guy A's accomplishments that don't apply to Guy B.

Texan_Bill
11-02-2009, 02:01 PM
so is it also luck that offensive players run into Cushing to be tackled?

of course not - at least much of the time, I'd think

As I said - players put themselves into position to make plays from their position that they are expected to make. Byrd has done that - more than once. Enough to lead the league.

That's more than mere luck.

The insistence just makes no sense to me - no matter how you try and legitimate it.

I mean, if you think Cushing is stronger I'd put more stock into an argument that compares their merits favorably - I never was swayed by someone who tried to win an argument by running the other guy into the ground or providing conditions under which you have to consider Guy A's accomplishments that don't apply to Guy B.

Poor camparison.

Was it luck that TO ran the wrong route or Fitzpatrick threw the wrong route that allowed Petey Reeves got his interception? YES!!! Right place, right time.

No one ever disagreed that Byrd made a fine catch on Schaub over-thrown ball.

Visit my comments to Flaming Sparrow and you'll see the arguments I made for Cushing.

BTW, read my post closer. I said that'st the way I understood Cak's post.

Texan_Bill
11-02-2009, 02:06 PM
there's offensive and defensive categories, it shouldn't be an issue..

Since the OP listed both offensive and defensive okayers and asked the question "Rookie of the year", I'm playing by the players provided - as if there were only one ROY. That said, I felt Brett Favre would bring a lot more exposure to Harvin, than Cushing would recieve here.

RazorOye
11-02-2009, 02:12 PM
BTW, read my post closer. I said that'st the way I understood Cak's post.

I did... I understand you were talking about your interpretation.

I posted my response as I did out of anticipation that what you wrote was what cak intended - not as a lapse in reading comprehension. I just figured I could respond to it now rather than wait for cak - I'm on the site anyway, so countering that argument was something I thought I'd go ahead and do.

And I apologize for the lack of clarity - when I put my last paragraph that was still regarding (your interpretation of) cak's argument. Not you - I quoted your interpretation - not your initial explanation of your vote of Cushing. I thought that would be clear since I was quoting one and not the other.

Sorry about that.

As for the "poor comparison" - of course it's poor. It was meant to be poor. It was meant to show how absurd it is to take credit away from the leading INT'er in the NFL - as a rookie - by saying it's all just luck.

Convince me of this, then:

Why is it better and more respectable to give credit to Cushing for all of his tackles - a product of a LB being where he should be, putting himself in good position - than it is to give credit to Byrd for INTs - a product of a DB doing what he should do, putting himself in good position to make a great play on the ball?

Incidentally, my decision to pick Byrd over Cushing for my vote has more to do with just his INTs.

edit: I do wonder, though, that if Byrd was a Texan if we'd be seeing the same dismissal of his play in the secondary and scrutiny of his interceptions. As starved as y'all have been for stout defensive secondary play, I would think a lot of people on this site would be thrilled to have such a talent anchoring the back half of that defense and wouldn't be levying the same criticisms at him.

HOU-TEX
11-02-2009, 02:13 PM
Poor camparison.

Was it luck that TO ran the wrong route or Fitzpatrick threw the wrong route that allowed Petey Reeves got his interception? YES!!! Right place, right time.

No one ever disagreed that Byrd made a fine catch on Schaub over-thrown ball.

Visit my comments to Flaming Sparrow and you'll see the arguments I made for Cushing.

BTW, read my post closer. I said that'st the way I understood Cak's post.

Petey Reeves? :mcnugget:

Texan_Bill
11-02-2009, 02:15 PM
Petey Reeves? :mcnugget:

Bad habit! :ahhaha: Nah, I got to get off Reeves back for a little while. :fans:

Texan_Bill
11-02-2009, 02:18 PM
I did... I understand you were talking about your interpretation.

I posted my response as I did out of anticipation that what you wrote was what cak intended - not as a lapse in reading comprehension. I just figured I could respond to it now rather than wait for cak - I'm on the site anyway, so countering that argument was something I thought I'd go ahead and do.

And I apologize for the lack of clarity - when I put my last paragraph that was still regarding (your interpretation of) cak's argument. Not you - I quoted your interpretation - not your initial explanation of your vote of Cushing. I thought that would be clear since I was quoting one and not the other.

Sorry about that.


As for the "poor comparison" - of course it's poor. It was meant to be poor. It was meant to show how absurd it is to take credit away from the leading INT'er in the NFL - as a rookie - by saying it's all just luck.

Convince me of this, then:

Why is it better and more respectable to give credit to Cushing for all of his tackles - a product of a LB being where he should be, putting himself in good position - than it is to give credit to Byrd for INTs - a product of a DB doing what he should do, putting himself in good position to make a great play on the ball?

Incidentally, my decision to pick Byrd over Cushing for my vote has more to do with just his INTs.

edit: I do wonder, though, that if Byrd was a Texan if we'd be seeing the same dismissal of his play in the secondary and scrutiny of his interceptions. As starved as y'all have been for stout defensive secondary play, I would think a lot of people on this site would be thrilled to have such a talent anchoring the back half of that defense.

No worries!

Because he (Cushing) also leads other categories besides tackles.

I can't really argue at your pick. I picked Harvin. :brickwall:

Hell no he wouldn't. He be the best thing next to Brian Cushing. :cowboy1:

utahmark
11-02-2009, 02:21 PM
As much as I love Cushing, I am having a tough time deciding between him and Byrd. You don't get 7 INTs from being in the right place at the right time. He's the 2nd player in the history of the NFL to get 2 INTs in 3 straight games. He's playing out of his mind and he is the SOLE reason that team scores any points.

At the same time, Cushing has completely changed the mindset on this defense and is not only a tackling machine, but is coming up with turnovers. He has more INTs than any of our DBs and that one to seal the game yesterday was a thing of beauty

i don't know about birdman's other int. but against us he was'nt even the closest guy to the intended wr on either of his int's. one was way overthrown and the other was tipped. yesterdays int's was just luck if you ask me.

76Texan
11-02-2009, 02:28 PM
so is it also luck that offensive players run into Cushing to be tackled?

of course not - at least much of the time, I'd think

As I said - players put themselves into position to make plays from their position that they are expected to make. Byrd has done that - more than once. Enough to lead the league.

That's more than mere luck.

The insistence just makes no sense to me - no matter how you try and legitimate it.

I mean, if you think Cushing is stronger I'd put more stock into an argument that compares their merits favorably - I never was swayed by someone who tried to win an argument by running the other guy into the ground or providing conditions under which you have to consider Guy A's accomplishments that don't apply to Guy B.
They both deserve considerations.

One made more out of his own luck... Or being in the right place at the right time, whatever you said... and beyond, and then some.

There can be no doubt that Cushing worked hard for his own fortune!

You can make a case for Byrd. You can vote for him.
It doesn't change the facts! http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

HOU-TEX
11-02-2009, 02:37 PM
Why isn't Ryan Succop on the list? :foottap:

beerlover
11-02-2009, 02:37 PM
They both deserve considerations.

One made more out of his own luck... Or being in the right place at the right time, whatever you said... and beyond, and then some.

There can be no doubt that Cushing worked hard for his own fortune!

You can make a case for Byrd. You can vote for him.
It doesn't change the facts! http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

ultimate award is winning, Cushing closes games :cool:

Texan_Bill
11-02-2009, 02:38 PM
Why isn't Ryan Succop on the list? :foottap:

The last name. :worm:

Mari-OWNED!
11-02-2009, 03:18 PM
I voted for Darrius Heyward-Bey. :joker:

RazorOye
11-02-2009, 03:35 PM
They both deserve considerations.

There can be no doubt that Cushing worked hard for his own fortune!



agree totally!

And I didn't mean to suggest that Cushing's success has come from luck - there's no doubt the guy has worked his tail off. He has a track record of work ethic.

My counter would be that Byrd's success has been the product of hard work, too.

I'd guess that i watch as much - if not more - Bills football and read more about the Bills here in Toronto than most people on the boards and the guy is a legit talent, interceptions aside.

I have no beef with anyone who would cast their vote for Cushing right now, either. I'd just rather it done making the case for him instead of against Byrd and his interceptions.

Goatcheese
11-02-2009, 04:26 PM
Stop with the homer allegation.

Stop being a homer. :bubbles:

PS - your stats are suspect. He now has 16 passes defended. There is no way got that kind of stat on 10 targets plus whatever he had yesterday.

The pass doesn't have to be thrown at your man for you to make a play and break it up. Especially as a FS where you're supporting other people much of the time instead of being responsible for a specific guy.

Tailgate
11-02-2009, 04:45 PM
Byrd is on a TEAR. But again, his interceptions are just not all overly impressive to me. No batted balls by B. Edwards, no INTS for Byrd. No tip by AJ, no INT for Byrd. No extreme overthrow by Schaub, then no INT for Byrd, etc, etc,etc. The thing is, with as many has he has now... you cant discredit him as a solid player by any means. He seems to have all the skills. But the question is, will he keep this pace up? HELL NO. Its a record setting type run he has had recently. So I mean who really thinks that things wont inevitably slow down for him? Anyone? So why not? Because he wont see a run of this many gifts like he has received in such a short time frame (in his rookie year no less) for maybe the rest of his career imo.

infantrycak
11-02-2009, 05:37 PM
Cak never said skill wasn't involved. How I read what Cak said, is that it took skill to make the catches, but it was luck that Schaub threw the ball so poorly and that it was a lucky bounce off AJ, because he makes that catch 99 times out of hundred.

I could be wrong but that's how I understood it.

Nope that's pretty much it.

Convince me of this, then:

Why is it better and more respectable to give credit to Cushing for all of his tackles - a product of a LB being where he should be, putting himself in good position - than it is to give credit to Byrd for INTs - a product of a DB doing what he should do, putting himself in good position to make a great play on the ball?

Because Byrd is not thinking this is the place the bounce I don't know is coming is going to plop into my hands or gee I think this play I think Schaub will overthrow his intended target by 10 yards. Heck just compare the two players we are talking about. Brian Cushing picking off Carson Palmer was a classic reading the O INT. Cushing's INT of Fitzgerald was a great read followed by an athletic move to tip the ball and then a great catch to get the tipped ball. Standing in a zone and having the QB toss the ball to you like you were his WR is simply not the same.

edit: I do wonder, though, that if Byrd was a Texan if we'd be seeing the same dismissal of his play in the secondary and scrutiny of his interceptions.

Of course tons of folks would be rooting for him. That would be the homer response, not simply looking at his play.

The pass doesn't have to be thrown at your man for you to make a play and break it up. Especially as a FS where you're supporting other people much of the time instead of being responsible for a specific guy.

I understand that and the stats still don't make sense. There is normally a huge disparity between thrown at and passes defensed. Darrelle Revis has been targeted 45 times and has 7 passes defensed.

RazorOye
11-02-2009, 06:06 PM
Brian Cushing picking off Carson Palmer was a classic reading the O INT. Cushing's INT of Fitzgerald was a great read followed by an athletic move to tip the ball and then a great catch to get the tipped ball. Standing in a zone and having the QB toss the ball to you like you were his WR is simply not the same.

so none of Byrd's interceptions have come from reading the QB?

so none of Byrd's interceptions have come from athletic move to catch a tipped ball?

Selective logic.

Interceptions don't count unless they fit some criteria that you're defining - and of course your implying that none of Byrd's interceptions fit those criteria and Cushing's do.

Sorry - that's still not convincing. At all.

And I still think you're not giving him credit - despite your admonitions that you are. Look at your last sentence up there:


Standing in a zone and having the QB toss the ball to you like you were his WR is simply not the same.

Unfortunately, neither of the INTs from the game yesterday fit this criteria. So I'm not sure of the relevance.

Or do you mean - generally - that not all interceptions are created equally? A point I'll concede, of course. But then not all tackles and not all sacks are created equally, either. So let's take all individual defensive efforts of Cushing and put them under the same scrutiny - I just don't see equal consideration from you. How many of Cushing's sacks have come from great coverage in the secondary? How many of Cushing's tackles came because a DLineman provided the gap so he could make the play or the defense caused a shift leading the play into his direction? How many forced fumbles were the result of someone else making a play and he came in to strip the ball? Etc.... There are all sorts of "conditions" we can put on all sorts of plays on the defense. You're so quick to give Cushing credit and take it away from Byrd. It's a little too hypocritical for me

Of course tons of folks would be rooting for him. That would be the homer response, not simply looking at his play.

and I would counter that you're dismissing Byrd too easily, without "simply looking at his play"

That's why I think your posts sniff of homer-ism. Which is fine - I wouldn't expect you to be totally objective. But don't tell people not to accuse you of being partial, when it's apparent you are. The requests for people to stop saying there's some homer-ing beneath your posts is a case of "the lady doth protest[ing] too much, methinks"

You're not impartial - and it appears to me that you're being inconsistently critical.

Would you say that your more familiar with Cushing's body of work than Byrd's? Is all you've seen or know of/about Byrd taken primarily from highlights from ESPN - all the interceptions and from one game against the Texans?

The reason I ask is that you're citing all sorts of "evidence" on Cushing's behalf - more than just a single stat, a single dimension of his game. When it comes to Byrd, though, you're just talking about one stat, his interceptions. What about his ability to provide help over the top? What about his ability to cover receivers in single coverage when needed? What about his ability to read offenses and QBs and put himself into position to make plays? His position isn't an easy one to learn - arguably one of the toughest on the defensive side of the ball.

You're just not going to convince me that your not being partial when your consideration of Byrd seems to be so narrow and you're so reluctant to give credit and suggest that he only gets interceptions because of luck and because he stood still to receive a pass that was thrown straight to him. Sorry - I just don't find you to be objective, consistent, or convincing.

It matters not at all to me - Jenkins isn't even going to get any consideration for DROY - I'm envious y'all have a 1st rd pick that will. And I don't care who wins - Byrd or Cushing or someone else at the end of the season. I just think your way of going about it to be a bit disingenuous and selective.

edit: just to clarify - I don't think you're being a "homer" (and I'm using that for lack of a better word - I don't think you're a homer - you're far more than some narrow-minded apologist - that's why i said initially that I 'sniffed' some homer-ism in your post) just because you're voting for Cushing over Byrd. Not at all. Rather, it's in the inconsistent and hypocritical way I sense you're going about attacking the choice of Byrd rather than defending your choice of Cushing on equal footing between the two of them.

infantrycak
11-02-2009, 06:33 PM
so none of Byrd's interceptions have come from reading the QB?

so none of Byrd's interceptions have come from athletic move to catch a tipped ball?

Selective logic.

No apparently it would be selective reading. Try parsing through these statements again. Excellent player. He is getting hyped for a single stat. The circumstances of that stat should be considered. When considered about 5 of his INT's have been the result of luck followed by an athletic ability to make a catch. They have not been conventional analyze the play and QB INT's. Is that clear enough?

Unfortunately, neither of the INTs from the game yesterday fit this criteria. So I'm not sure of the relevance.

Yes the overthrow absolutely did.

Or do you mean - generally - that not all interceptions are created equally?

Yes not all INT's are created equal. I was a Cowboys fan and Larry Brown's super bowl INT's were cheap.

So let's take all individual defensive efforts of Cushing and put them under the same scrutiny - I just don't see equal consideration from you.

Holy reverse logic. I have explained several plays and my reasoning. You haven't said jack. So go ahead and pony up the cheap sacks, safety, INT's, etc. Cushing has gotten. Seriously you are off the deep end on this comment.

That's why I think your posts sniff of homer-ism. Which is fine - I wouldn't expect you to be totally objective. But don't tell people not to accuse you of being partial, when it's apparent you are. The requests for people to stop saying there's some homer-ing beneath your posts is a case of "the lady doth protest[ing] too much, methinks"

No it is the sign of someone who doesn't like cheap rhetorical tricks like labeling. I hate when people disagree and then say but I am just being realistic and I don't like it when people disagree and someone throws out homer.

Let's do it this way. Are you seriously contending Cushing should not legitimately be considered for ROY? If you don't say yes then we just reached different conclusions and labeling is as I said just a cheap rhetorical trick.

You're not impartial - and it appears to me that you're being inconsistently critical.

Prove it, don't just assert it. Show similar analysis of Cushing. Then we can talk. Right now you are all bluster and no proof.

Would you say that your more familiar with Cushing's body of work than Byrd's?

Of course I am more familiar with Cushing. Are you really claiming you know both players extremely well. I have said repeatedly INT's are getting him this attention and that is correct. But for that he wouldn't be sniffing ROY consideration as a safety therefore the INT's should be examined. How many Buffalo games have you watched that you feel so like so vigorously jumping in on a simple assessment of the ordering of two players doing an excellent job?

edit: just to clarify - I don't think you're being a "homer" just because you're voting for Cushing over Byrd. Not at all. Rather, it's in the inconsistent and hypocritical way I sense you're going about attacking the choice of Byrd rather than defending your choice of Cushing on equal footing between the two of them.

Well gee, maybe if I thought Cushing had some cheap stats I would be pointing them out. I can't think of any. Your assertion and allegation of hypocrisy only make sense if they exist. How about you point them out to us otherwise this has all been BS?

RazorOye
11-02-2009, 07:01 PM
With a Saints game coming on - I'll keep this short.

How many Buffalo games have you watched...?

Every. Single. One. Along with press conferences, team/player interviews, local sports talk, etc that are broadcast here. Had tickets to see one live but got sick the night before, so I missed the game.


Holy reverse logic. I have explained several plays and my reasoning. You haven't said jack. So go ahead and pony up the cheap sacks, safety, INT's, etc. Cushing has gotten. Seriously you are off the deep end on this comment.

I didn't make the assertion. I didn't say that Cushing was the beneficiary of anything "cheap"

My point was this: you pick out one stat of Byrd's and proceed to discredit all of them. You're not considering his entire body of work. And I was suggesting that if you're going to apply that much scrutiny to Byrd, you should do the same for Your Guy. That's what I'm not seeing. You mention it here in the final part of the post:


Well gee, maybe if I thought Cushing had some cheap stats I would be pointing them out. I can't think of any.

so using your argumentative logic, I'll defend my choice of Byrd by saying:

I don't think he has had any cheap stats or i would be pointing them out. I can't think of any.

Let's do it this way. Are you seriously contending Cushing should not legitimately be considered for ROY? If you don't say yes then we just reached different conclusions and labeling is as I said just a cheap rhetorical trick.

Did you skip over what I said earlier? Where I said I said I'd vote for Cushing behind Byrd but ahead of everyone else? Or the repeated times when I said he deserves merit and that a vote for him didn't automatically make a Texans fan a "homer"? I said earlier I don't object to your choice - it's a valid one. Rather, I object to how you're going about it. The tact of running Byrd into the ground is one way to go about it, but I don't think the way you're doing it to be genuine or objective or convincing, really.

Oh... but I'm the one who's a selective reader, right?

Prove it, don't just assert it. Show similar analysis of Cushing. Then we can talk. Right now you are all bluster and no proof.

That's not my point. Because that's not the tact I'm taking with my argument. I believe Byrd's performance stands on its own merit - do you want me to break down his play with more reference or specificity? I can do that if you like - time permitting.

Ultimately, I'm still not convinced.

You said Byrd was an:

Excellent player

I don't get that vibe from you at all. In fact, it seems to me that you're going out of your way to say that he's anything but an excellent player.


Standing in a zone and having the QB toss the ball to you like you were his WR

it is luck to have the opportunity to make the catch in the first place

Most of Byrd's picks have had almost nothing to do with his talent. He didn't analyze the play and put himself in the right place, he just happened to be where somebody tipped the ball to

I'm not saying he is bad

His INT's aren't even coming when he is being thrown at. He was not in coverage on the target receiver on either play yesterday. Geez people, saying he doesn't deserve ROY doesn't mean he is slag.

Without the INT's no matter how well he was playing as a safety he wouldn't even be whispered in a ROY conversation

so "not bad" and "not slag" = excellent player?

so "luck" = excellent player?

so "standing in a zone" and having the QB "throw it to you" = excellent player?

so a safety can't win the DROY no matter how well he's playing?

Like I said, I don't get the vibe that you think he's an 'excellent player' and you've gone out of your way to explain how his INTs and his play is anything but "excellent"

As I said, inconsistent.

Despite all that you've typed, ultimately your argument seems to come down to the following I see repeated over and over:

1. Cushing has had absolutely no stat of all his stats that was "cheap"

2. Nearly all of Byrd's stats are "cheap"

I don't think it's an accurate or convincing argument.

Again, sorry - but I'm just not swayed.

Anyway - peace - there's Falcons needing frying.

dc_txtech
11-02-2009, 07:54 PM
With a Saints game coming on - I'll keep this short.

That was actually kind of long. Just sayin.

RazorOye
11-03-2009, 12:56 AM
That was actually kind of long. Just sayin.

haha... you're right... +rep

Chalk it up to pre-game jitters

I really don't know why I'm investing this much time into the topic really... maybe I'm just jealous that Jenkins is pretty much restricted to ST duty and when called upon to cover, is showing he has some learning to do while you guys have a LB (a position we're lacking in and it showed tonight) that has a bright future ahead of him

beerlover
11-03-2009, 05:04 AM
haha... you're right... +rep

Chalk it up to pre-game jitters

I really don't know why I'm investing this much time into the topic really... maybe I'm just jealous that Jenkins is pretty much restricted to ST duty and when called upon to cover, is showing he has some learning to do while you guys have a LB (a position we're lacking in and it showed tonight) that has a bright future ahead of him

I for one have enjoyed your contribution & input.

I really think Cushing is the second coming of Romo & I don't mean Jessica's ex boyfriend. this cat is cold as ice, if there is such a thing as a shutdown LB he's it :bowser:

infantrycak
11-03-2009, 01:50 PM
Hmmm, who was closer on #1?

Cushing #1 & Byrd #14 (http://profootball.scout.com/2/914242.html) Edit - this one looks to be one week old.

Here is one that is a little more generous with comments about Byrd.

Cushing #1 & Byrd #9 (http://www.profootballweekly.com/2009/11/03/rookie-meter-byrd-finally-cracks-top-10)

Texan_Bill
11-03-2009, 02:03 PM
Hmmm, who was closer on #1?

Cushing #1 & Byrd #14 (http://profootball.scout.com/2/914242.html)

Here is one that is a little more generous with comments about Byrd.

Cushing #1 & Byrd #9 (http://www.profootballweekly.com/2009/11/03/rookie-meter-byrd-finally-cracks-top-10)

But Cak, those links are way too subjective.


:sarcasm:

RazorOye
11-03-2009, 02:13 PM
Hmmm, who was closer on #1?

Cushing #1 & Byrd #14 (http://profootball.scout.com/2/914242.html)

Here is one that is a little more generous with comments about Byrd.

Cushing #1 & Byrd #9 (http://www.profootballweekly.com/2009/11/03/rookie-meter-byrd-finally-cracks-top-10)

In 34 seconds of googling I came up with the following:

One that has Byrd at #2... behind a LB. But it's not Cushing.

http://www.scoresreport.com/2009/11/01/nfl-week-7-roy-power-rankings/

and from PFT (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/11/01/jairus-byrd-making-his-mark/):

For defensive rookie of the year, any debate has been pretty much resolved before the midpoint of the season.

In less than 7.5 games, Bills cornerback Jairus Byrd has seven interceptions. He has picked up two of them in the first half of Sunday's game against the Texans.

that means the argument is settled right?

this is a pretty silly way to go about it, don't you think?

infantrycak
11-03-2009, 02:24 PM
In 34 seconds of googling I came up with the following:

One that has Byrd at #2... behind a LB. But it's not Cushing.

http://www.scoresreport.com/2009/11/01/nfl-week-7-roy-power-rankings/

And it would have taken 2 more seconds to realize that is from week #7/

and from PFT (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/11/01/jairus-byrd-making-his-mark/):

that means the argument is settled right?

this is a pretty silly way to go about it, don't you think?

You know who Mike Florio is right?

The point was it isn't some homer take to think Cushing should be #1. There are other folks who aren't Texans fans who agree and frankly they have more credibility just at face value for considering both as opposed to the sites you provided neither of whom even mentions Cushing at all. Heck for that matter the first guy doesn't mention Harvin either.

Texan_Bill
11-03-2009, 02:31 PM
You know who Mike Florio is right?

The guy responsible for PFT posting that Terry Bradshaw had been killed(??)

RazorOye
11-03-2009, 02:40 PM
And it would have taken 2 more seconds to realize that is from week #7

wow... from one whole week before. You're right - that completely invalidates my subjective link and completely vindicates your subjective link.

You know who Mike Florio is right?...they have more credibility just at face value for considering both as opposed to the sites you provided neither of whom even mentions Cushing at all. Heck for that matter the first guy doesn't mention Harvin either.

yea - I know who Florio is. The guy I read regularly bashing Shockey and digging up dirt on him. rumor mongerer who doesn't seem to care for New Orleans. What's the relevance? I didn't say I agreed with him - I had Cushing in my Top 2, fwiw. My point is that apparently not everyone thinks Cushing = unanimous selection. But - for some reason - only the people that agree with you are the ones that have any credibility.

That's weak, dude. Just weak.

But just like with the interceptions vs. tackles, you're establishing some sort of criteria that evidently says your links of subjective pundits is somehow more credible than my links of subjective pundits.

Your argument and strategies get progressively weaker and increasingly arbitrary.

The point was it isn't some homer take to think Cushing should be #1.

I don't know how many different times I can say it. Or how many different ways I can put it. I've said - multiple times - that it's not a "homer take" to put Cushing at #1. My contention isn't with you having him at #1 but rather the arbitrarily dismissive and inconsistent way you're going about discrediting Byrd. And you've typed nothing - nothing - that's convinced me you're doing anything other than that. Sorry.

I'll cite something I wrote just above - repeating a sentiment I've said several times in this thread now:

Did you skip over what I said earlier? Where I said I said I'd vote for Cushing behind Byrd but ahead of everyone else? Or the repeated times when I said he deserves merit and that a vote for him didn't automatically make a Texans fan a "homer"? I said earlier I don't object to your choice - it's a valid one. Rather, I object to how you're going about it. The tact of running Byrd into the ground is one way to go about it, but I don't think the way you're doing it to be genuine or objective or convincing, really.

you're so put off by this accusation of "homerism" - once again, I don't really care for the term. I'd say you're being partial.

Your continued insistence and increasingly reaching tacts are, as I said before, a case of "the lady doth [protesting] too much, methinks"

Your guy has credibility - I acknowledge that.

My guy has credibility - you refuse to acknowledge that.

People you cite who agree with you have credibility but are of limited, subjective use - I acknowledge that.

People who I cite who agree with me have no credibility but are of limited, subjective use - you refuse to acknowledge that.

I think - ultimately - you're being disingenuous and, whether you're aware of it or not, you're being partial. You want to call it homer-ism, that's your label, not mine. I've got nothing invested in this argument, you do.

It's apparent you're not willing to entertain any contrary opinions and continue to shift rhetorical ground, backpeddling to progressively weaker arguments.

So anything else is on my part is a waste of time.

Peace -

RazorOye
11-03-2009, 02:50 PM
as a parting postscript:

And it would have taken 2 more seconds to realize that is from week #7

lmao

I just looked at your first link a bit closer - from your link:

As Week 8 of the NFL season approaches, Scout.com’s Chris Steuber updates his 2009 NFL Rookie Rankings

translation:

his link is from Week 7, too - "As Week 8 of the NFL season approaches..."

Your first link was posted on October 29.

Mine - which you objected to based on it being too old - was posted on November 1.

At best, we're possibly talking one week's difference - at worst, we're talking pundits on the same week.

sorry cak - I enjoy your contributions - especially in the NSZ. But this arbitrariness by which you judge your arguments and dismiss mine is become pretty laughable and it pretty much encapsulates and epitomizes my objection(s) to your argument throughout this entire thread:

"Interceptions don't count! They are an overrated inflated stat! Unless they are Cushing's!"

"How many games of Buffalo's have you watched?.... Oh... all of them... Ummm... I was sure you didn't watch any Buffalo games and I could get ya on that one. Total surprise... I have no counter, so, umm...." *crickets*

"Just because someone agrees with picking Cushing doesn't make them a homer! Oh, wait... you agree with that... Just because someone agrees with picking Cushing doesn't make them a homer! Oh, wait ad infinitum, ad nauseum"

"Football pundits/columnists count! Except if they are yours and don't bow to Cushing"

oh the absurdity....

Once more, peace - I'll continue to enjoy your fine work on these boards regardless

infantrycak
11-03-2009, 05:31 PM
I just looked at your first link a bit closer - from your link:

translation:

his link is from Week 7, too - "As Week 8 of the NFL season approaches..."

Nice job Sherlock Holmes. The Edit saying it was from week 8 has been up there from about 5 minutes after my original post.

sorry cak - I enjoy your contributions - especially in the NSZ. But this arbitrariness by which you judge your arguments and dismiss mine is become pretty laughable and it pretty much encapsulates and epitomizes my objection(s) to your argument throughout this entire thread:

No what has become laughable is what is now clear is your home team bias. I have always allowed Byrd in the conversation. I have always been clear I think Cushing should win based on to date performance. I have provided a reason. You have not. I have provided folks agreeing with me with Cushing at #1. The best you have come up with are Mike Florio (LOL on its face - and not for ROY by the way) and a guy who apparently doesn't know Cushing and Harvin even exist on a blog.

Once more, peace - I'll continue to enjoy your fine work on these boards regardless

Hey I like your contributions in the NSZ but you are taking this personal are something. In picking Cushing I look at the other contenders. I think Cushing has been a better all around player. So you don't like the conclusion, fine.

barrett
11-03-2009, 06:57 PM
How does Cushings stats match up to Ryan's by the halfway point of his DROY season?

dc_txtech
11-03-2009, 07:34 PM
How does Cushings stats match up to Ryan's by the halfway point of his DROY season?

Ryans first 8 games

73 tackles
2.5 sacks
0 FF
0 INT
1 PD


Cushing first 8 games

66 tackles
1.5 sacks
2 FF
2 INT
7 PD

DBCooper
11-04-2009, 09:05 AM
The bottom line is: Who would you rather have on your team?

Cushing makes his squad better, makes the most impact on his side of the ball. Period.

You can argue stats all day, but I'd rather have Cushing than any of the others.

And trying to argue logic with cak is like trying to have a better vocabulary than runner.

Texan_Bill
11-04-2009, 09:12 AM
The bottom line is: Who would you rather have on your team?

Cushing makes his squad better, makes the most impact on his side of the ball. Period.

You can argue stats all day, but I'd rather have Cushing than any of the others.

And trying to argue logic with cak is like trying to have a better vocabulary than runner.

:lol:

RazorOye
11-04-2009, 01:27 PM
cak -

a couple of things.

First, I promise I'm not taking this personally. I mean, I'm a Saints fan on a Texans board talking about a Bills player. I'm confident in my support of Byrd - but he's not from my "home" team - the Saints are my home team. Toronto is a temporary educational stopover for me.

I mean, if you said something about Hurricane Katrina I might take that personally - but a comment about Byrd? Nope. I enjoy the back and forth, but it's not hurting me or anything. If I took this personally, would I be taking on a Texans board moderator on hometurf? That's a recipe for disaster if I took these kinds of things personally.

More to the point, you keep insisting that you've made a strong, clear case for Cushing:

I have always been clear I think Cushing should win based on to date performance. I have provided a reason.

I disagree - I don't see it at all.

I'll try and demonstrate - a quick survey of the thread and multi-quoting your input where you talk about Cushing's play:

Right now Iceman (new nickname from Tedc for icing games) Cushing is the no doubt leader.


Brian Cushing picking off Carson Palmer was a classic reading the O INT. Cushing's INT of Fitzgerald was a great read followed by an athletic move to tip the ball and then a great catch to get the tipped ball.


Well gee, maybe if I thought Cushing had some cheap stats I would be pointing them out. I can't think of any.


I think Cushing has been a better all around player.

Did I miss a quote? I'm not sure - I did it in a hurry but I thought I grabbed them all.

In any event, I've read a lot more anti-Byrd than pro-Cushing analysis from you, which is really one of my primary points.

Looking back at your argument, would you honestly say that you've made a strong case pro-Cushing? Really?

In contrast, this is what I've said about Byrd:

You don't think it took skill to come down with those two picks?

The first one was a beautiful diving reception on a poorly thrown ball - like someone else pointed out, a WR would've been proud of that catch. But that took no skill?

The second one, imo, might've even more impressive than the first - the adjustment he had to make after the ball was tipped was something you don't see in a lot of DBs, much less rookies. Watching it at full speed it was hard for me to track the ball after it was tipped - and seeing it in slow motion gave me more appreciation.

He put himself in position where the ball was going - closing in on the intended receiver. That's good play by a DB. The ball is tipped, he reacts, and snags the deflection out of midair. That's exceptional play by a DB.

My counter would be that Byrd's success has been the product of hard work, too.

I'd guess that i watch as much - if not more - Bills football and read more about the Bills here in Toronto than most people on the boards and the guy is a legit talent, interceptions aside.


When it comes to Byrd, though, you're just talking about one stat, his interceptions. What about his ability to provide help over the top? What about his ability to cover receivers in single coverage when needed? What about his ability to read offenses and QBs and put himself into position to make plays? His position isn't an easy one to learn - arguably one of the toughest on the defensive side of the ball.

I mean, I'll agree that I haven't advanced some iron-clad defense on his behalf or why I cast my vote as such. But I honestly didn't feel the need because you hadn't for Cushing.

If you're talking about posts on other threads, then I'm not aware of them. I confess I spend most of my time on the NFL and NSZ areas of the forums. So my response is pretty restricted to your commentary here. If there's more, I'm guilty of being ignorant.

But after looking at these two side-by-side in this thread, I don't think you're in any position to say that you have and I haven't.

Does that make any sense?

Looking back, do you really think you've made that much stronger a case pro-Cushing (as you have anti-Byrd, for that matter) than I have pro-Byrd?

That goes back to the shifting burdens of proof here. Cushing doesn't have them but Byrd does. Your bloggers don't have to have them but everyone else's does (and I didn't 'vet' my sources primarily because I don't really give much credit to that in the first place - yours or mine). Your support of your guy doesn't have to be as thorough as that which you demand of me. Etc...

I don't expect you to find my argument convincing.

But I also don't think it's fair to say that yours is - I'd expect a lot more substance and support from you considering the number of times you've claimed to have made your case.

Peace.

infantrycak
11-04-2009, 01:46 PM
More to the point, you keep insisting that you've made a strong, clear case for Cushing:

I think if you honestly read back through I gave an opinion "I think" Cushing should win and then went on in response to someone else's mention of Byrd to explain why his INTs shouldn't spring him over Cushing. Here is the exchange (after I said I thought Cushing was in the lead stated without any attempt to prove anything) prior to me jumping in:

Byrd is playing out of his mind. 7 picks through the halfway point, which is more INTs than receptions allowed. As much as I would like to go for Cushing I can't see him over a potential All-Pro.

I would've voted Byrd over Cushing BUT he is catching a bunch of tip drill balls that fall right in his lap. ...

You don't get 7 INTs from being in the right place at the right time.

I have also called upon you to provide analysis of Cushing's stats as unjustified if you could. I don't think I have claimed to make a strong case for Cushing although as you quoted I used his INTs as an example of what I consider more meritorious INTs.

In any event, I've read a lot more anti-Byrd than pro-Cushing analysis from you, which is really one of my primary points.

That's because I gave an opinion on Cushing not a case and gave an analysis on Byrd and have since been defending it.

But after looking at these two side-by-side in this thread, I don't think you're in any position to say that you have and I haven't.

Does that make any sense?

Looking back, do you really think you've made that much stronger a case pro-Cushing (as you have anti-Byrd, for that matter) than I have pro-Byrd?

Well it would make sense if I was ever trying to make a case for Cushing. I didn't even see you as trying to make a case for Byrd per se but more just trying to counter my observation about the INTs.

I'd expect a lot more substance and support from you considering the number of times you've claimed to have made your case.

Find an example of me claiming to have made a case FOR Cushing. What I said a number of times was I had explained my criticism of too much focus on Byrd's INTs.

RazorOye
11-04-2009, 02:11 PM
I have also called upon you to provide analysis of Cushing's stats as unjustified if you could.

why?

The only time I mentioned it was when I asked you why you are so critical and analytical of Byrd's stats and none of Cushing's (providing a few examples of how LBs benefit from play from those around them). You replied that you didn't think he's had a single one like that - I might not think it's a great answer but that did answer my question.

I've not once used discrediting Cushing as part of my discussion in support of Byrd. Is that necessary? In any such award, to decide between players is it necessary to discredit players?

I don't think so.

I think it's entirely possible to judge two players on their play and simply believe one has demonstrated more than another. I think Byrd - based on what I've seen - has the edge on Cushing right now.

I don't understand why this strategy is a rhetorical requirement in deciding between two players. I think both players are deserving - I would have no issue with Cushing winning and couldn't complain that he's not deserving.

So why would I try and discredit him?

That's been your route re: Byrd - not mine re: Cushing. I think Cushing is more deserving than you think Byrd is. Okay - but don't force me to use an argument that I have no interest in using.

I don't get it...

I don't think I have claimed to make a strong case for Cushing

Well it would make sense if I was ever trying to make a case for Cushing.

Find an example of me claiming to have made a case FOR Cushing.

I guess I misunderstood this, then:

I have always been clear I think Cushing should win based on to date performance. I have provided a reason.


I took that as a statement of consistency of both your support of Cushing and your provision of reason for that. Something I just hadn't seen much evidence of.

Maybe I just mistook your meaning. But you asked for proof of you sounding like you were making a case for Cushing and it seemed to me that when you talk about providing "reason" on why "Cushing should win" that you were indeed making a case for him.

Also, you mentioned how I didn't give a strong argument in support of Byrd - so that only reinforced my impression that you were talking about presenting a case for our respective choices. All those things considered, perhaps you can see why I figured making a case for Cushing was something you were advocating.

infantrycak
11-04-2009, 02:49 PM
So why would I try and discredit him?

That's been your route re: Byrd - not mine re: Cushing.

I think this is where we jumped the tracks - your perception I was attempting to discredit Byrd or asking for you to discredit Cushing. I was analyzing the situation and providing an explanation. The reason I asked you for examples on Cushing was you made a number of comments about where LBs in general could get easy stats and I was asking if you had any specific to Cushing. That was to bring the conversation parallel. I didn't criticize Byrd with, "well generally when you see a DB with 7 INT's in this time period it is because he is playing suck QB's, is getting lucky" or some similar comment. I was referring to specific plays by Byrd. I was asking you to bring some specificity to your LB comments with specific comments about Cushing, not attempt to discredit him.

RazorOye
11-04-2009, 03:42 PM
The reason I asked you for examples on Cushing was you made a number of comments about where LBs in general could get easy stats and I was asking if you had any specific to Cushing.

ahh... I see that now. To make it clear - I wasn't saying that Cushing had any such benefits - I just put a list out there of general points (not levying it at Cushing at all) to see if you'd identified any such benefit as you did with Byrd. So I was asking - speaking of drawing a parallel - you to do the same for Cushing. Not suggesting that I was - I can't bring myself to be all that critical of Cushing personally.

I think this is where we jumped the tracks

well spotted... I agree

whiskeyrbl
11-04-2009, 03:47 PM
As much as I love Cushing, I am having a tough time deciding between him and Byrd. You don't get 7 INTs from being in the right place at the right time. He's the 2nd player in the history of the NFL to get 2 INTs in 3 straight games. He's playing out of his mind and he is the SOLE reason that team scores any points.

At the same time, Cushing has completely changed the mindset on this defense and is not only a tackling machine, but is coming up with turnovers. He has more INTs than any of our DBs and that one to seal the game yesterday was a thing of beauty

Actually both INT's were game enders.

Kaiser Toro
11-04-2009, 11:11 PM
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_QOPhI7wZ_d8/SO1rPlBbXqI/AAAAAAAABSQ/djxOxqIaYLk/s800/bird.is.the.word.gif