Breaking... on Tiki

[SniperShot]

FFC high stakes man... I love it.

[CC]

Fight to the death in the Octagon.

Tiki will train ampant and Reuben Droughns will train MrTwo94.

Let's get it on!

[stomperrob]

Tiki is the suckers pick this year. Ignore the warning signs if you want.

I believe you missed a comma there. It should read "sucker's bet" to indicate possession of the bet by the sucker. Not that I'm questioning your intelligence.

Better change that before he comes back and catches that - that's an apostrophe, not a comma.

[ampant]

Tiki is the suckers pick this year. Ignore the warning signs if you want.

I believe you missed a comma there. It should read "sucker's bet" to indicate possession of the bet by the sucker. Not that I'm questioning your intelligence.

Better change that before he comes back and catches that - that's an apostrophe, not a comma.

Lol. Good catch. I was tired. Commas, apostraphes, they all look the same anyways. Anyhow. . . . lock away or whatever. Sorry if I bored any of you.

[mystykoekaki]

Tiki is the suckers pick this year. Ignore the warning signs if you want.

I believe you missed a comma there. It should read "sucker's bet" to indicate possession of the bet by the sucker. Not that I'm questioning your intelligence.

Better change that before he comes back and catches that - that's an apostrophe, not a comma.

Lol. Good catch. I was tired. Commas, apostraphes, they all look the same anyways. Anyhow. . . . lock away or whatever. Sorry if I bored any of you.

Don't see how an apostrophe looks anything like a comma. Weird.

[ampant]

Don't see how an apostrophe looks anything like a comma. Weird.

Just in case you weren't kidding . . . I was kidding. (See the winky smiley )

[GreatestShowOnEarth]

i enjoyed the back and forth. I think this is defintely a valid issue.

[mystykoekaki]

Don't see how an apostrophe looks anything like a comma. Weird.

Just in case you weren't kidding . . . I was kidding. (See the winky smiley )

Oh yes! If only we could end the middle east suffering with just a simple winky smiley.

[MrTwo94]

We are definitely getting off track here but when you write "rediculous" twice I'm beginning to think it is not a typo. You just don't know how to spell that word. If you gave a group of people a spelling test, I'm sure you'd find a correlation between good spelling and IQ.

I have taken three IQ tests in my life, and scored 140, 138, and 139 respectively. You are a wanker.

There will always be exceptions but you'd be a fool to argue that there'd be no correlation. I feel silly discussing this in a football forum but we both know I like to argue.

I didn't argue that there was NO correlation. I pointed out that your analogy was false. The correlation is very small. There are a good number of extremely intelligent people who don't spell well (especially those who studied hard science and did not receive a liberal arts education - engineers, scientists, etc. Furthermore, there is a huge difference between spelling and typing.

Hey, if we're getting our final shots in then I'm going to point out that my IQ is above 140 (just now rushed through an online test to confirm that substance abuse has not done too much damage since the last one) and I'm an engineer who can spell. I don't know what kind of hard science you studied that didn't introduce you to such brain busters as "ridiculous" but I did manage to come across it a few times in engineering. As for the difference in typing and spelling... If the "i" and "e" were close to each other, I might let you off on a typo but they're not and you're 0 for 2.

I would move on to you arguments but none are really noteworthy. You've tried emphasizing parts of my sentences to improperly convey what I was saying. That was smooth. When I say that I think Tiki will finish in the bottom of the top 10 IF healthy, that does not mean I would draft Tiki at 1.12. I've said several times that I still won't take Tiki in the first round but you keep saying that I would. Barely living up to his adp IF healthy isn't good enough for me. I'm not particularly high on Caddy, but I'd rather have his upside than Tiki's bust risk and nonexistent upside.

And stop your incessant whining that I won't take your ridiculous bet. 99.9% of the people here predict Tiki to finish in the top 10. I'm definitely going against the grain here so why would I give you even odds on this? If we were in Vegas, you'd have to give me like a 9:1 payout on something like this. I contrived a bet that made the odds even. If you can't sack up and take an even bet, then who is it w/o the satchel? Did I ever even say Tiki wouldn't finish in the top 12? I said Tiki wasn't worth a first rounder. He's got a decent shot at finishing near the bottom of the top 10 RB's, but he's also got a decent shot at busting. I said that I'm not going to be the one to take a chance on that. So stop trying to put words in my mouth and change my bet. You take the even odds bet or wuss out.

To everyone else, yes, this should be over PM but I didn't want to look like the one wussing out. He is skewing my words and altering my terms. And for most of this time, he hasn't even been debating the important issue (that Tiki is overrated). He seems to just be arguing the side of the issue that everyone else agrees with just for the sake of hearing people agree with him.

Thanks and sorry to anyone who threw in some useful information that was disregarded due to this foolish 1 on 1 duel. I remember one that I did want to address so I might do that right now.

[MrTwo94]

In an attempt to get this thread back to a debate and away from a pissing contest, which can sometime happen in the midst of a debate, can we start talking some actual numbers and projections here?

For example, Tiki in in 2005 2,390 total yards and 11 total TD's.

LaMont - 1,685 11 TDs
S. Jax - 1,456 10 TDs
R. Johnson - 1,540 12 TDs

I'm just not sure how you can project a drop-off of 700-800 total yards on this guy because he's a "year older". You can show me statistics all day about RB's over 30, at some point, you have to acknowledge that some guys are exceptions to the rules - and it doesn't hurt when that guy wasn't a feature back his entire career.

Of Tiki's 9 rushing TD's last season, they were runs of:

21
12
16
4
4
3
41
20
95

yards. basically this guy scored from all over the field INCLUDING inside the 5 yard line.

add this into the fact that Tiki is a 3 down RB because of his receiving ability (unlike a guy like Tiki), and i just can't see dropping him off THIS much.

so what i'd like to see from the tiki-dissentors is some numbers - you think tiki should go after jax, jordan, rudi, ronnie? that's fine, let's see the projections. it's easy to say that everyone's idea of tiki is way off without showing your predictions for all the guys you are screaming to be taken ahead of him.

This is a good post. Tiki scored inside the 5 when Jacobs was either hurt or in the dog house. Or both. He didn't even get one carry in one of those games. I had him on one of my teams and do remember him being injured for a few games. Perhaps that was the case. Either way, you can clearly see that the Giants don't intent to give Tiki the ball inside the five. This is scary bc as Tiki gets older and slower, he won't be breaking those long TD runs. With all this emphasis on training for power, I could see Tiki losing even more speed than the average 31 year old. I remember reading about Curtis Martin training by running up and down a long set of tall stairs for the 2004 season. I'd much rather Tiki be doing that than squatting 650 lbs if Tiki was on my team.

I don't have my projections at home, but I do know that I've got Tiki, Jordan, and Jackson all with around 320 carries. It is widely known that both Oakland and St.Louis plan to run the ball more but I figured 320 was conservative enough. Jordan and Jackson both have higher ypc than last year while I knocked Tiki's down. I just don't see anymore 95 yd runs for ole Tiki. Both Jordan and Jackson have more TD's than Tiki. I think I gave Jackson somewhere around 13 +/- 1 and Jordan about 10. I only have Tiki down for 5. Jordan had 70 receptions last year and Jackson will now be the 3rd down back w/Faulk out of the picture. I don't see Tiki running away with the receptions title between the three of them. If anything, Tiki has the disadvantage there.

So, while I don't have my exact projections here, it sounds as though everything aside from TD's will be similar but I feel that my upgrades for Jordan and Jackson were conservative, I also feel that my downgrades for Tiki were conservative. If Tiki has lost a step after the long season and the post season, then his numbers could fall considerably. If Linehan is serious about giving Jackson 25 carries/game then Jackson's numbers could explode. If Shell is able to gel Oakland's talented O-line then Jordan could jump into the top 5 easily. As you can see, it is not just about projections, but the ceilings of the players you are drafting, that is important. Speaking of high ceilings, D.Davis was the #6 RB in 2004 with just 15 games played. Now that the offense has improved, there is no reason he can't bounce back into the top 5 mix other than his own health. He is a player I would monitor closely in the offseason. Even if healthy, he'll likely slide to the 2nd round. He could almost single-handedly save your team if you draft Tiki and he busts.