HorrorMovieFans.com

Headhunter wrote:By the way, when you hilariously trudge through every target vs. Champ on your white knight journey, be sure to note what kind of coverage shell is being played, man vs. zone etc. You demanded accountability from my sources, I demand accountability from you. Fair?

Absolutely. I am not biased.

Also, I finally took to google and am encountering the forums you've been reading. It's like you copy & pasted some of the shit and posted them here. lol

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:By the way, when you hilariously trudge through every target vs. Champ on your white knight journey, be sure to note what kind of coverage shell is being played, man vs. zone etc. You demanded accountability from my sources, I demand accountability from you. Fair?

Absolutely. I am not biased.

Also, I finally took to google and am encountering the forums you've been reading. It's like you copy & pasted some of the shit and posted them here. lol

Didn't read a single forum. I did cite the Schatz article. It's hilarious that you're digging through message boards on this white knight journey though. You go, girl!

But please continue to flail desperately like a pathetic child and tell lies. It's worked out so well for you so far.

From your article:

"In PFP 2007, you'll see Bailey listed with 86 passes."

Why does it say 2007?

Jason wrote:From your article:

In PFP 2007, you'll see Bailey listed with 86 passes. Some of those are double coverages, etc. He actually had 83 passes where he was listed in the DEFENDER1 column. Oddly, not one of those 83 passes had another defender listed in the DEFENDER2 column.

Why does it say 2007?

A little common sense here. They're published in the offseason. In the 2006 offseason, they couldn't very well publish a book worth of stats for a season that hasn't happened yet, could they?

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:From your article:

In PFP 2007, you'll see Bailey listed with 86 passes. Some of those are double coverages, etc. He actually had 83 passes where he was listed in the DEFENDER1 column. Oddly, not one of those 83 passes had another defender listed in the DEFENDER2 column.

Why does it say 2007?

A little common sense here. They're published in the offseason. In the 2006 offseason, they couldn't very well publish a book worth of stats for a season that hasn't happened yet, could they?

Mmmkay. That's pretty retarded. But I'll just concede there.

In the same article they said Bailey gave up a bunch of yards and catches to the Steelers in week 8. We played the Colts in week 8...

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:From your article:

In PFP 2007, you'll see Bailey listed with 86 passes. Some of those are double coverages, etc. He actually had 83 passes where he was listed in the DEFENDER1 column. Oddly, not one of those 83 passes had another defender listed in the DEFENDER2 column.

Why does it say 2007?

A little common sense here. They're published in the offseason. In the 2006 offseason, they couldn't very well publish a book worth of stats for a season that hasn't happened yet, could they?

Mmmkay. That's pretty retarded. But I'll just concede there.

In the same article they said Bailey gave up a bunch of yards and catches to the Steelers in week 8. We played the Colts in week 8...

How is it retarded? PFP is a preview of the upcoming season compiling stats from the previous season for reference, published during the summer.

And no it doesn't. It does say "The zero-yard Harrison catch was one of five from Week 8 where we have Bailey marked as the defender in coverage." That being Marvin Harrison. Of the Colts. That's the only place in the article where "Week 8" is mentioned.

Not sure how I attributed their week 8 claim to Pittsburgh. I think I looked away and shifted a paragraph down or something.

It is retarded because it makes it seems like you're referring to the 2007 NFL season. Not the 2007 "FootballProspectus Stat Recording" Season.

Jason wrote:Not sure how I attributed their week 8 claim to Pittsburgh. I think I looked away and shifted a paragraph down or something.

It is retarded because it makes it seems like you're referring to the 2007 NFL season. Not the 2007 "FootballProspectus Stat Recording" Season.

Probably.

More like it's retarded because you thought for a brief moment that you had a "Gotcha", but you didn't. I get it, man.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:Not sure how I attributed their week 8 claim to Pittsburgh. I think I looked away and shifted a paragraph down or something.

It is retarded because it makes it seems like you're referring to the 2007 NFL season. Not the 2007 "FootballProspectus Stat Recording" Season.

Probably.

More like it's retarded because you thought for a brief moment that you had a "Gotcha", but you didn't. I get it, man.

Nope. Just asking questions about the article. Did I approach my questioning in a "gotcha" way? No.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:Not sure how I attributed their week 8 claim to Pittsburgh. I think I looked away and shifted a paragraph down or something.

It is retarded because it makes it seems like you're referring to the 2007 NFL season. Not the 2007 "FootballProspectus Stat Recording" Season.

Probably.

More like it's retarded because you thought for a brief moment that you had a "Gotcha", but you didn't. I get it, man.

Nope. Just asking questions about the article. Did I approach my questioning in a "gotcha" way? No.

I didn't catch any grammatical errors in the article if you were hunting for those.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:Not sure how I attributed their week 8 claim to Pittsburgh. I think I looked away and shifted a paragraph down or something.

It is retarded because it makes it seems like you're referring to the 2007 NFL season. Not the 2007 "FootballProspectus Stat Recording" Season.

Probably.

More like it's retarded because you thought for a brief moment that you had a "Gotcha", but you didn't. I get it, man.

Nope. Just asking questions about the article. Did I approach my questioning in a "gotcha" way? No.

I didn't catch any grammatical errors if you were looking for those. Probably a few though.

I caught all your fuckin' edits throughout this entire thread and still didn't say shit. :p

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:Not sure how I attributed their week 8 claim to Pittsburgh. I think I looked away and shifted a paragraph down or something.

It is retarded because it makes it seems like you're referring to the 2007 NFL season. Not the 2007 "FootballProspectus Stat Recording" Season.

Probably.

More like it's retarded because you thought for a brief moment that you had a "Gotcha", but you didn't. I get it, man.

Nope. Just asking questions about the article. Did I approach my questioning in a "gotcha" way? No.

I didn't catch any grammatical errors if you were looking for those. Probably a few though.

I caught all your fuckin' edits throughout this entire thread and still didn't say shit. :p

I've always done that shit. There's always something to add. No "Gotchas" there.

By the way, how the fuck do you have the entire 2006 season available to you?

Headhunter wrote:By the way, how the fuck do you have the entire 2006 season available to you?

A little thing called VHS.

I have to:

a) Hope I can find the shit
b) Hope this wasn't an era where I taped over all the losses. Half the season would be gone. :p

If Bailey had that absurd a stat line, it would lead his every article and have been the headline of his HOF induction. Among the many places it would be mentioned.

Did anyone hear from Reign, even just to give us an ETA?

showa58taro wrote:If Bailey had that absurd a stat line, it would lead his every article and have been the headline of his HOF induction. Among the many places it would be mentioned.

This^

Hopefully we get some picks in today

Tiggnutz wrote:Hopefully we get some picks in today

Getting into Round 3 by tomorrow would be ideal.