The best part of last night was when Tebow threw his first pass and it was actually on-line(even though if he would have put some air on it he could have dropped it over the defender and completed), I got on twitter and there was an explosion of "SEE TEBOW CAN PASS" because everyone was damn surprised that he actually threw a good pass.

Or after the first series, a friend tweeted "should they put Tebow in?" my response was "does tebow play offensive line?"

hasbeen;1291097 wrote:The best part of last night was when Tebow threw his first pass and it was actually on-line(even though if he would have put some air on it he could have dropped it over the defender and completed), I got on twitter and there was an explosion of "SEE TEBOW CAN PASS" because everyone was damn surprised that he actually threw a good pass.

Or after the first series, a friend tweeted "should they put Tebow in?" my response was "does tebow play offensive line?"

Reps. Or, can he rush the passer?

justincredible;1291122 wrote:Reps. Or, can he rush the passer?

Hold on. Let me check the Bible.

justincredible;1291122 wrote:Reps. Or, can he rush the passer?

Only when He's playing water polo...take a moment and think about it.

O-Trap;1291019 wrote:Fred "Glass Legs" Taylor was a whole new level of injury-proneness. The only current player I can think of who belongs in his camp right now is Beanie "Swells" Wells. That dude is a walking "Doubtful" tag even when healthy.

You're trying too hard. 25th All-Time in NFL Total yards from scrimmage (14,079). Sure, he had a couple seasons cut short, but 2534 carries, 11,695 yards, 4.6 avg, 290 catches, a dozen years in the league at RB. I wouldn't call that "glass legs".

Tiernan;1291218 wrote:Only when He's playing water polo...take a moment and think about it.

Lol

Safe for another week. Ryan says he's sticking with Sanchez again.

Speedofsand;1291234 wrote:You're trying too hard. 25th All-Time in NFL Total yards from scrimmage (14,079). Sure, he had a couple seasons cut short, but 2534 carries, 11,695 yards, 4.6 avg, 290 catches, a dozen years in the league at RB. I wouldn't call that "glass legs".

What am I trying to do? I'm just stating that the guy got injured a lot. He did. I didn't say he sucked when he was healthy. Not sure what you thought I was trying to imply, but you whiffed.

What's with the unprovoked assumption?

Here (per Wikipedia):

"In 1999, Taylor played in ten games, starting nine, missing six due to a hamstring injury."

"Overall, injuries caused Taylor to miss 23 out of a potential 48 games from 1999 to 2001. Fans and media were highly critical of Taylor's tendency to get injured, questioning his toughness and donning him the moniker "Fragile Fred", which deeply upset him, as he would later admit."

"Injuries hampered Taylor again in 2005, as he started 11 games while missing five games with injuries throughout the season."

"In his final season with the Jaguars in 2008, Taylor started the first 13 games of the season before being placed on injured reserve ..."

"Taylor was signed to a two-year contract by the New England Patriots on February 27, 2009. He played in the first four games of the season for the Patriots, starting one, before suffering an ankle injury in Week 4 against the Baltimore Ravens. Despite the fact that the injury was expected to keep him out until late in the season, the Patriots chose not to place Taylor on injured reserve, and instead de-activated him. Taylor returned to the field for the Patriots' Week 16 matchup with his former team, the Jaguars, on December 27, 2009. He did not play until the fourth quarter, but managed to rush for 35 yards on 11 carries. He finished the season with 269 yards on 63 attempts and four touchdowns."

"In 2010, Taylor played in the first three games of the season as a reserve before suffering a toe injury in Week 3 against the Buffalo Bills. He was inactive until Week 12 against the Detroit Lions, but did not play in that game."


The guy got injured a lot.

Injury caused him to miss:

6 games in 1999
3.5 games in 2000
14 games in 2001
2 games in 2004
5 games in 2005
(can't confirm if game missed in 2006 was related to injury)
3 games in 2008
11 games in 2009
9.5 games in 2010

A grand total of at least 54 games (out of a possible 192) missed specifically due to injury. Equal to just shy of three and a half seasons-worth. As such, he was injured 28.1% of the entire time he was in the NFL ... not including preseason, which would only hurt that ratio.


Just sayin' ...

O-Trap;1291299 wrote:What am I trying to do? I'm just stating that the guy got injured a lot. He did. I didn't say he sucked when he was healthy. Not sure what you thought I was trying to imply, but you whiffed.

All NFL players get injured. What's the avg career length of a RB ? You're saying the mass majority of them have glass legs. You compared him to Beanie Wells. Right, if Beanie runs for over 1000 yards 6 of the next 7 years, including this year where he has 76 so far.
LOL I'm sure every missed play you count is specifically because of injury. N.E. having Sammy Morris, Maroney, BJ G-E or Fred's age had nothing to do with him not carrying the ball every down. :rolleyes:

LOL @ you going all wiki 'cause you got your jimmies rustled.

Speedofsand;1291347 wrote:All NFL players get injured. What's the avg career length of a RB ? You're saying the mass majority of them have glass legs. You compared him to Beanie Wells. Right, if Beanie runs for over 1000 yards 6 of the next 7 years, including this year where he has 76 so far.
LOL I'm sure every missed play you count is specifically because of injury. N.E. having Sammy Morris, Maroney, BJ G-E or Fred's age had nothing to do with him not carrying the ball every down. :rolleyes:

LOL @ you going all wiki 'cause you got your jimmies rustled.

Be honest, you got them rustled first...because hes a Gator.

And stats have NOTHING to do with being injured. So quit bringing them up into the discussion.

Speedofsand;1291347 wrote:All NFL players get injured.

Nearly 30% of their games? I doubt that, but if you can find stats that prove otherwise, I'm glad to eat my words.

Speedofsand;1291347 wrote:What's the avg career length of a RB ? You're saying the mass majority of them have glass legs.

Longevity of a RB and amount of time not retired, but injured, is hardly the same thing. That's like comparing retirement to sick leave.

However, like I said, if the majority of them miss 30% of their games because of injury, then I'll take that back. There's a reason he developed the nickname "Fragile Fred." If you don't believe me, feel free to Google that term.

Speedofsand;1291347 wrote:You compared him to Beanie Wells.

In frequency of injury, yes.

Speedofsand;1291347 wrote:Right, if Beanie runs for over 1000 yards 6 of the next 7 years, including this year where he has 76 so far.

You can't be this dense. I'm not comparing their level of skill. Not in any way. Clear?

I'm comparing how often they cannot play because of injury. That's all. I promise. You don't have to act butthurt because I happened to point out that a player you seem to like a lot (if I'd known you'd be so defensive, I wouldn't have said anything) got injured a LOT.

Speedofsand;1291347 wrote:LOL I'm sure every missed play you count is specifically because of injury. N.E. having Sammy Morris, Maroney, BJ G-E or Fred's age had nothing to do with him not carrying the ball every down. :rolleyes:

Not at all. There were games he didn't play, but that weren't referenced as games missed for injury purposes, so I left those out. The 54 games he missed were SPECIFICALLY said to have been games he missed as a result of injury. It was stated clearly that he missed games due to injury. Feel free to read the page if you think I'm wrong, but injury reports have been well-documented for quite some time, so there's not much room for discussion. He missed 54 games as a result of injury alone. He missed other games for other reasons, which every player does. I distinguished the difference.

Speedofsand;1291347 wrote:LOL @ you going all wiki 'cause you got your jimmies rustled.

I "went all Wiki" because I didn't have hard facts off the top of my head, and I was certain that said hard facts would validate my statement that he was extremely injury prone. I wasn't wrong, as they do.

Look, I didn't mean to step on your tail and dare say anything less than god-worthy about a Florida grad. I don't hate Florida. I'm more or less indifferent toward them. I have no motivation other than the facts to say that the dude got injured way more than a normal RB.

If I'm wrong, and you can substantiate it with unbiased fact, I'll use a Fred Taylor image as my avatar for a week.

Laley23;1291488 wrote:Be honest, you got them rustled first...because hes a Gator.

And stats have NOTHING to do with being injured. So quit bringing them up into the discussion.

I didn't even remember him being a Gator until I looked up the Wiki page. I don't give a shit where he went to college. Hell, I'm an Ohio State fan, and I've got no problem poking fun at Beanie Swells.

Laley23;1291488 wrote:Be honest, you got them rustled first...because hes a Gator.

And stats have NOTHING to do with being injured. So quit bringing them up into the discussion.

I lol'd. I reply to a ridiculous remark and Otrap says I whiffed and I'm making unprovoked assumptions. OK you mods win. No use trying to be logical with *******. Beanie & Fred are in the same class. Not counting PRE-SEASON, cause everybody plays hurt then. :rolleyes:

Here's a couple more STATS for you.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/sports/2010/09/10/nfl-players-pay-dearly-for-careers.html
The NFL players' association says the average career-length of a player is 3.3 years. Running backs have the shortest average careers: 2.57 years.

I bet alot of guys wish they had 'glass legs'.

Speedofsand;1291580 wrote:I lol'd. I reply to a ridiculous remark and Otrap says I whiffed and I'm making unprovoked assumptions. OK you mods win. No use trying to be logical with *******. Beanie & Fred are in the same class. Not counting PRE-SEASON, cause everybody plays hurt then. :rolleyes:

Here's a couple more STATS for you.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/sports/2010/09/10/nfl-players-pay-dearly-for-careers.html
The NFL players' association says the average career-length of a player is 3.3 years. Running backs have the shortest average careers: 2.57 years.

I bet alot of guys wish they had 'glass legs'.

Again, you speak to two stats that have no direct link to injury.

Nowhere ever did anyone say that Fred and Beanie are in the same class regarding skill. Fred Taylor was far and away a better player when healthy. They ARE in the same class ONLY AS IT PERTAINS TO PROPENSITY FOR INJURY.

Here, let me try something.

The comparison had nothing to do with skill.
The comparison had nothing to do with skill.
The comparison had nothing to do with skill.
The comparison had nothing to do with skill.
The comparison had nothing to do with skill.
The comparison had nothing to do with skill.

Is that clear enough? Your whiff was missing this the first time, despite the fact that it was clearly stated. In not one single statement ... not one little iota ... did I say ANYTHING about Fred Taylor not being talented. I can't believe I've had to say that this many times. Fred Taylor and Beanie Wells got/get injured more frequently. That's it. Comparison over. Propensity for injury. That's it. That's all. No more. Dear lord, and you think I'M being irrational? Your statements since the very first reply have been so covered in some strange bias that you're arguing against an argument that nobody has made. Not once has ANYONE here compared Beanie and Freddy in talent or performance on the field. You can throw all the rushing yards you want, but nobody is arguing them. You're arguing with a position that nobody here is taking. THAT is the definition of a strawman ... which is one of the most basic illogical statements ... ironic, given your suggestion that I'm being illogical for saying that a career starting RB missing almost 30% of his games is a lot.

Second, the 2.7 years means that they stop being a member of the team. They're not sitting on the injured reserve. They're retired. And I did notice that your article, while ABOUT injury, does not contribute the 2.7 year average directly to injury.

But we're talking about a talented starter, here. Most of those 2.7 year players get dropped and not picked up. They don't end their careers because of career ending injuries. They just aren't talented enough to be picked up. They might be able to play 138 mediocre games in 12 years or more. 138 games from Fred Taylor was better than 192 games from almost all of those early retirees. However, that doesn't change the fact that he missed more than one out of every four games over his 12-year career ... substantially higher, I'd wager, than a normal lifer in the NFL, even a lifer running back.

Fred Taylor averaged missing 4.5 games per year as a result of injury alone. Find "the mass majority" of running backs who are injured with the same frequency and, again, I'll put Fred Taylor as my avatar for a week.

Speedofsand;1291580 wrote:I lol'd. I reply to a ridiculous remark and Otrap says I whiffed and I'm making unprovoked assumptions. OK you mods win. No use trying to be logical with *******. Beanie & Fred are in the same class. Not counting PRE-SEASON, cause everybody plays hurt then. :rolleyes:

Here's a couple more STATS for you.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/sports/2010/09/10/nfl-players-pay-dearly-for-careers.html
The NFL players' association says the average career-length of a player is 3.3 years. Running backs have the shortest average careers: 2.57 years.

I bet alot of guys wish they had 'glass legs'.

Why did you lol?? What does Fred Taylors skill level and propensity to be injured have to do with Beanie Wells skill level and his propensity to be injured? The average length of a RB is at least relevant to your argument. His great (just shy of HOF, imo) career have nothing to do with how often he was or was not hurt.

Id stick to the second part you seem to want to point at though...average RB career. At least that is a tangible argument as a lot of those careers are cut short because of wear and tear of being hit 20-30 times a game or more since the time they are in 9th grade. But again, even that isnt a concrete fact...though I do agree RBs careers are cut short because of wear on the legs and body. So to last as long as Fred Taylor did is quite something. He was still hurt a shit done in his career though.

Sanchez is still the starter.

O-Trap;1291590 wrote:Again, you speak to two stats that have no direct link to injury.

Nowhere ever did anyone say that Fred and Beanie are in the same class regarding skill. Fred Taylor was far and away a better player when healthy. They ARE in the same class ONLY AS IT PERTAINS TO PROPENSITY FOR INJURY.

Here, let me try something.

The comparison had nothing to do with skill.
The comparison had nothing to do with skill.
The comparison had nothing to do with skill.
The comparison had nothing to do with skill.
The comparison had nothing to do with skill.
The comparison had nothing to do with skill.

Is that clear enough? Your whiff was missing this the first time, despite the fact that it was clearly stated. In not one single statement ... not one little iota ... did I say ANYTHING about Fred Taylor not being talented. I can't believe I've had to say that this many times. Fred Taylor and Beanie Wells got/get injured more frequently. That's it. Comparison over. Propensity for injury. That's it. That's all. No more. Dear lord, and you think I'M being irrational? Your statements since the very first reply have been so covered in some strange bias that you're arguing against an argument that nobody has made. Not once has ANYONE here compared Beanie and Freddy in talent or performance on the field. You can throw all the rushing yards you want, but nobody is arguing them. You're arguing with a position that nobody here is taking. THAT is the definition of a strawman ... which is one of the most basic illogical statements ... ironic, given your suggestion that I'm being illogical for saying that a career starting RB missing almost 30% of his games is a lot.

Second, the 2.7 years means that they stop being a member of the team. They're not sitting on the injured reserve. They're retired. And I did notice that your article, while ABOUT injury, does not contribute the 2.7 year average directly to injury.

But we're talking about a talented starter, here. Most of those 2.7 year players get dropped and not picked up. They don't end their careers because of career ending injuries. They just aren't talented enough to be picked up. They might be able to play 138 mediocre games in 12 years or more. 138 games from Fred Taylor was better than 192 games from almost all of those early retirees. However, that doesn't change the fact that he missed more than one out of every four games over his 12-year career ... substantially higher, I'd wager, than a normal lifer in the NFL, even a lifer running back.

Fred Taylor averaged missing 4.5 games per year as a result of injury alone. Find "the mass majority" of running backs who are injured with the same frequency and, again, I'll put Fred Taylor as my avatar for a week.

Your jimmies are SO rustled LOL because you keep spinning your first idiotic post about a player who played 3 or 4 times longer than the avg career being in a whole new level of injury. Glass Legs played 9 years longer than the avg RB. He started 11 or more games in 9 different years and 9 games another year. Forget N.E. 2 years because many great players hang on too long after they should've retired. (Favre, LT, etc.) He played in 80% of those Jacksonville games. And you are wrong saying 30% missed in the first place. Its 26% including 2001 when he only played 2.

Teams start with 53, dress 46. By the end of the season almost 9 are out injured and replaced. That's almost 20%.
A RB missing games is normal because they are taking the hits. So you can say Fred was out injured 6% more than the avg guy. LOL

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/06/injury-rates-and-extended-season.html

Take "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!!!" meme. Replace "BRITNEY" with "FRED".

Now you have the recent direction of this thread.

Heretic;1291834 wrote:Take "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!!!" meme. Replace "BRITNEY" with "FRED".

Now you have the recent direction of this thread.

Replace Britney with "Us O.C. mods who refuse to acknowledge the internet outside of ohio" LOL

Speedofsand;1291842 wrote:Replace Britney with "Us O.C. mods who refuse to acknowledge the internet outside of ohio" LOL

Fred Taylor was an injury prone star. The reason he played so much longer than the average RB was because he was more talented so they kept working with him. If he was a low-level RB, he wouldn't have had so many chances.

Speedofsand;1291824 wrote:Your jimmies are SO rustled LOL because you keep spinning your first idiotic post about a player who played 3 or 4 times longer than the avg career being in a whole new level of injury. Glass Legs played 9 years longer than the avg RB. He started 11 or more games in 9 different years and 9 games another year. Forget N.E. 2 years because many great players hang on too long after they should've retired. (Favre, LT, etc.) He played in 80% of those Jacksonville games. And you are wrong saying 30% missed in the first place. Its 26% including 2001 when he only played 2.

Teams start with 53, dress 46. By the end of the season almost 9 are out injured and replaced. That's almost 20%.
A RB missing games is normal because they are taking the hits. So you can say Fred was out injured 6% more than the avg guy. LOL

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/06/injury-rates-and-extended-season.html

Guy, I really don't care about Fred. In fact, I don't think I've ever met anyone with a hard-on for him quite like you seem to have, and I've certainly never met anyone who wasn't a fan of his that cared enough to dislike him with any real intensity. As such, the only thing that has rustled my jimmies is your inability to get your team loyalty bias out of the way when you post. It makes you look ignorant, which I guarantee you're not.

Those who RETIRE after 3 years are RETIRED. They aren't still playing. They aren't taking sick leave for 28% of the seasons they're employed, and if they had been, then maybe they SHOULD be retired.

Since you contest the 28% (I said ALMOST 30), I'll step through the math with you:

12 seasons x 16 games per season = 192 games on his career
Per Wikipedia, he missed 54 games due to injury -- see the math in my previous post above.

54 divided by 192 is what?

And are you bragging about how often he started 9 and 11 games? You serious, Clark? He had a great streak of consecutive starts (43 maybe? Not going back to check). Outside that, however, he was constantly banged up. The dude averaged missing 4.5 games a year due to injury.

Look, like I said, I didn't come up with the nickname "Fragile Fred." That was pretty widespread. You don't get that kind of a moniker if you're not injury prone. Sorry. You can like the guy all you want, and when healthy, he was certainly a talented back, but that doesn't change the fact that he had a higher rate of injury per season than most running backs in the NFL ... enough to acquire him a nickname about it.

Speedofsand;1291842 wrote:Replace Britney with "Us O.C. mods who refuse to acknowledge the internet outside of ohio" LOL

I'm a Steelers fan for the NFL and a Bobcats fan for the NBA. Also, I don't care all that much about college football (indicated by the fact that you never, ever see me in that forum), so I hardly care enough to snub some college team just because they're out of state.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it less true. You can cry all you want, but the rest of the sports world obviously saw what your orange and blue glasses wouldn't let you see.

hasbeen;1291848 wrote:Fred Taylor was an injury prone star. The reason he played so much longer than the average RB was because he was more talented so they kept working with him. If he was a low-level RB, he wouldn't have had so many chances.

This was the point I was making before. A lot of these guys who retire early do so as much because their talent isn't at a level to be valued in the NFL.

The average career of a STARTING running back in the NFL is not 2.7 years. It's significantly longer, which indicates that the career longevity has more to do with talent than durability.

Just ran across this (figured I'd see if I could find a study on the average career length of a starting RB): A study done a year ago found that the actual average is almost seven years. Link

I'd be curious to see what the average tenure is of an NFL starter.

Also, this article goes a long way to show that talent is a more determining factor of career longevity. According to this study, the average career length of a first round draft pick (Taylor went 9th overall) is 9.3 years. The average career length of a player who is selected to at least one Pro Bowl (2008 for Taylor) is 11.7 years.

As such, Fred's career length is about what it should have been. His propensity for injury, however, was way higher than most in the same class of player.

and you ignore the facts I post showing he played nearly as much as NFL avg. injury stats show. You're acting like every other RB in the NFL plays 100%. He played 140 games in 11 years in Jacksonville. That's 79.545% including only 2 games in 2001. Counting N.E., and letting you say all the games missed were specifically from injury(do you really know?), its still 73.55% , so less than your WIKI 28%.
http://www.nfl.com/player/fredtaylor/2503256/profile
Look again at the chart, teams lose 8.75 out of 46 players by the end of every year. 19% of guys on the field get injured. You know I was right about your first post because you're spinning my 5 line reply into 6 different quotes and arguing like hell replying to yourself over and over for something you say you don't care about. LMAO. You're STILL trying too hard.

If Fred Taylor didn't play for Florida would SoS give a fuck that he is known as Fragile Fredie? Probably not. SoS needs to get a life.

Thanks for derailing another thread.