Budda Baker Named Starter For The Pro Bowl

[Chopper0080]

Here is a major crux of our debate. How can you say that Budda played above average without doing these things?

Because turnovers/sacks are random outcome events. In order to gain a fumble recovery you have to be randomly near a football that is fumbled, and then happen to recover it. In order to get a sack, you have to be in a position to pressure a QB, and then just take him to the ground. That is why pressure rate is a better indicator of pass rush production than just sacks. In order to gain an int, you have to be targeted or in the path of a pass, have a QB make a mistake while being pressured, and then catch the ball. So much of this is dependent on the scheme, how you are asked to play, and then if you are even targeted.

If Budda is playing deep S, and is only blitzed 14 times the entire season, why would anyone expect sack totals? If Budda is playing deep S, and is only targeted 30 times in a season on a team that doesn't generate pressure, why would anyone expect ints totals?

So, in Budda's 3 seasons where he recorded his highest number of sacks, two of those were also with the highest numbers of blitzes. More opportunities generally lead to more results.

In Budda's 3 seasons with 2+ ints, he also had three seasons of under 9.0 yards per target. He was being played closer to the LOS, amongst more traffic, and was able to jump more routes.

That is why it is better to look at more controllable outcomes.

Amongst S's with 10+ starts Budda was

16th in comp %
11th in yards per target
35th in passer rating
13th in YAC allowed
14th in missed tackle %

Absolutely not the best...but also not average or bad by any means. He had a good year. Not a great year. And if these are the numbers the Cardinals are looking for out of a S in their scheme, you probably could find those at a much cheaper cost but that isn't the argument. Budda can only play the role that he is asked to play within the scheme.

 

[kerouac9]

Here is a major crux of our debate. How can you say that Budda played above average without doing these things?

He's already explained himself on this topic, multiple times, on this thread. You disagree, which is fine. But don't act like he's not trying to assert his position.

If you're main job is to hold back a tidal wave of excrement and you manage to only allow it to leak around the edges, that's doing a pretty good job. Obviously a lot of coaches and players agreed, or they wouldn't have voted for him.

It seems to me to ask someone to explain themselves over and over while ignoring or denying the evidence they provide is also a kind of trolling.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

He's already explained himself on this topic, multiple times, on this thread. You disagree, which is fine. But don't act like he's not trying to assert his position.

I don't agree and I have made that clear. In my opinion it isn't possible.

The difference is that I'm not claiming my opinion to be the truth and his opinion is wrong.

If you're main job is to hold back a tidal wave of excrement and you manage to only allow it to leak around the edges, that's doing a pretty good job. Obviously a lot of coaches and players agreed, or they wouldn't have voted for him.

Players get by on reputation all the time. This is one of those times.

It seems to me to ask someone to explain themselves over and over while ignoring or denying the evidence they provide is also a kind of trolling.

No surprise. You're the king of using the laughing emoji to troll.

 

[kerouac9]

No surprise. You're the king of using the laughing emoji to troll.

Obviously this is a very good example of an "attack the post, not the poster" kind of response.

Very appropriate for a moderator.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Obviously this is a very good example of an "attack the post, not the poster" kind of response.

Very appropriate for a moderator.

This is me calling out the behavior as a warning.

 

[kerouac9]

This is me calling out the behavior as a warning.

Okay.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Okay.

Thanks.

 

[Chopper0080]

Pointing out that you are going to use the laughing emoji how you did, IS trolling.

I am sorry you feel that is the purpose, it isn't.

The laughing emoji, for me, is a simplified way of stating that the opinion being provided is ignorant, uninformed, and as much as I would like to educate the individual, they are choosing to continue to argue to try to be right which makes them look even more ignorant and uninformed. That as a whole is laughable to me as I like to grow my knowledge and not limit it. Thus...the laughing emoji saves me from having to type all of this out.

Not a troll, just short hand for the above.

 

[Chopper0080]

I don't agree and I have made that clear. In my opinion it isn't possible.

The difference is that I'm not claiming my opinion to be the truth and his opinion is wrong.

Players get by on reputation all the time. This is one of those times.

No surprise. You're the king of using the laughing emoji to troll.

In this argument, in relation to Budda having a bad year, you are wrong. I have proven that. Your counter arguments have been the equivalent of "nuh uh".

Budda probably did get into the Pro Bowl by reputation, but it wasn't as egregious as you are presenting, and that wasn't your argument. If you had posted, Budda wasn't one of the three best S's in the NFC and therefore he was selected on his reputation...I don't believe anyone, including me, would have disagreed.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

In this argument, in relation to Budda having a bad year, you are wrong. I have proven that.

No you didn't. You used stats to provide an alternate theory.

Your counter arguments have been the equivalent of "nuh uh".

No, my arguments have been stats that you don't agree with, just like I have been accused of.

Budda probably did get into the Pro Bowl by reputation,

Seems that we agree on something.

but it wasn't as egregious as you are presenting, and that wasn't your argument.

... but it wasn't as egregious as you are presenting, and that wasn't your argument. If you had posted, Budda wasn't one of the three best S's in the NFC and therefore he was selected on his reputation...I don't believe anyone, including me, would have disagreed.

I'd argue he probably wasn't even top 5. Bates, Love, Winfield, (absolute snub) Diggs deserved to be there above him. Budda wasn't even the best safety on his team last year.

Look, we obviously disagree and I'm okay to leave it that that.

 

[schutd]

I need a nap after all that.