Doesn't bug me at all. They're jags, like you say. Why does it bug you that I put up those numbers showing the offense has been fine?
Nope. Not making the case the offense is good because of those other WRs. Making the case the offense is good even with those other WRs.
Well I know its unlikely now but just saying we are overdue for it. I'd prefer a cheap vet route for now to hold us over but we'll see. I would hope they indeed address adding more versatile athletic type of WRs that can be possibly molded legit NFL WRs as we just don't have that type of player on the roster right now.
Now that would be hilarious if he turned out to actually still have some gas left in the tank and took it out on the Whiners
16, 21 and 24 the last 3 weeks? Better recheck those numbers. I think that flashing red engine light might be affecting your vision.
Please stop trying to turn this around, it bothered you which is why you responded the way you did. I said we have JAGs which most would agree with and you posted this long ass statistical post about how our offense performed with JAGs the whole time like that even addressed what I was talking about this year. You mean to tell me that you cannot see that our WRs (not our alphas) struggle and think we have ones in the wings that have some elite to great athletic traits that the Rams may be able to develop?
Is there an argument there that the offense is *good* right now?16, 21 and 24 the last 3 weeks? Better recheck those numbers. I think that flashing red engine light might be affecting your vision.
Please try fucking reading for comprehension! I said "they are jags". I posted the numbers for McVay's offense with various jags over the years. Last year looked pretty good eh? Or did you have trouble reading that too?
There's a suggestion there to use accurate numbers if you're going to make an argument. You seem to jump a little early before checking your numbers. I think they call that "premature calculation".
This is the second time (that I know of) where your numbers were incorrect in two different arguments.They're averaging 24.2 PPG.
The numbers I’m focusing on, overall, are an issue, to me. Not you? Fine.There's a suggestion there to use accurate numbers if you're going to make an argument. You seem to jump a little early before checking your numbers. I think they call that "premature calculation".
But I'll play. What do you call 35 and 24 points in back to back wins? They wasted 5 possessions over the first 28 minutes, then scored 24 points in the next 32 minutes. I'd say that's pretty good.
Not at all. Sometimes, you actually watch the game and don’t only look at the numbers.
If this is an issue to you, I suggest being accurate.
Last year Puka averaged 12.3 targets per game when Adams was out.
Damn man!!! What do expect to come from using logic and accurate numbers? Like I said, there's an agenda here. Don't you know we NEED a better #3 WR, so there's somebody else to fake it to before throwing to Puka!!!! I don't know about you but I'm almost done with that tag team imitation of Chris Farley and Jeff Daniels.
I'm all for debate but let's try to be accurate for God's sake.
Puka’s depth of target has changed significantly.
Nate Atkins.
Headcase may be an understatement. This could not have anything to do with the other, but, his cousin lived across the street from me and moved out a short while ago. He started acting extremely erratically and talking nuts -- literally similar to Brandon that I've seen on socials. Prior to these episodes, similar to Brandon, he was a fairly normal guy. Might be something inherited.
