So what's wrong with Bridgewater?

[Mage]

This is what is so annoying.  You talk so condescending.  "This might be hard for you to understand," "I don't know how to help you," and yet... you are literally making up stories.

Yes, football players get fatigued.  But no, it is not a reason for them to have subpar play in Week 11.  And quite frankly, I seriously doubt that has anything to do with Teddy's performance.  It isn't like his opponents aren't "fatigued" either.  

Teddy's performance is lackluster because he is a lackluster QB.  That's it.  I'm not sure why we keep having to find reasons to explain why.  "Oh, the scheme is meant for dink-and-dunk," "oh, he's fatigued," "oh, the offensive line," "oh, lack of chemistry with Moore."

It's none of that.  Teddy is lackluster BECAUSE HE IS LACKLUSTER.  Why is that so hard to accept?  Ya'll keep trying to fish for reasons to explain his mediocrity and the fact is, he is mediocre because he is mediocre.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Are we comparing the fatigue of an aging battering ram RB to the fatigue of a non-running QB coming off of a week long layoff due to injury? LOL

We're trying to explain how football takes a toll on a player's body to someone who apparently doesn't get it.

No, Bridgewater doesn't take the kind of pounding that Bettis did, but Bridgewater also isn't the kind of athlete that Bettis was (as mentioned earlier).

[Mage]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

You think all the wear and tear from his NFL years didn't hit him until all at once when he was 30?

Dude... what the hell are you talking about?

First, you said Bettis got less effective down the stretch.  I proved that wrong.

Second, you said Bettis fading in the playoffs is why his role was reduced.  I proved that wrong - especially when consider Bettis still led the team in rushing attempts in 2003 and 2004.

Now, you are... I don't even know what you are doing?  I literally never suggested that somehow none of the wear and tear hit him until he was 30.  

Like your argument makes no sense.  Everyone else sees this, right?  You just make stuff up, hope it sticks, and then shift the argument to somewhere else.

[Mage]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

We're trying to explain how football takes a toll on a player's body to someone who apparently doesn't get it.

No, Bridgewater doesn't take the kind of pounding that Bettis did, but Bridgewater also isn't the kind of athlete that Bettis was (as mentioned earlier).

How do I not get it?

You are literally making up LIES.  Lmao.  This is insane.

I'm not going crazy, right?  I mean... I know everyone else has to see how dumb your argument is. You tried to use Bettis to help your argument and I debunked everything.  And yet, you are still trying to convince everyone that "I don't get it" lol

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, Mage said:

Dude... what the hell are you talking about?

First, you said Bettis got less effective down the stretch.  I proved that wrong.

Second, you said Bettis fading in the playoffs is why his role was reduced.  I proved that wrong - especially when consider Bettis still led the team in rushing attempts in 2003 and 2004.

Now, you are... I don't even know what you are doing?  I literally never suggested that somehow none of the wear and tear hit him until he was 30.  

Like your argument makes no sense.  Everyone else sees this, right?  You just make stuff up, hope it sticks, and then shift the argument to somewhere else.

Your analysis of the effectiveness of your own arguments is... exaggerated. Especially given that you're clearly not understanding what I'm telling you.

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, Mage said:

How do I not get it?

You are literally making up LIES.  Lmao.  This is insane.

I'm not going crazy, right?  I mean... I know everyone else has to see how dumb your argument is. You tried to use Bettis to help your argument and I debunked everything.  And yet, you are still trying to convince everyone that "I don't get it" lol

See above.

And maybe chill a little. You sound like you're about to blow a gasket.

[Mage]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

Your analysis of the effective are you your own arguments is... exaggerated. Especially given that you're clearly not understanding what I'm telling you.

Lol.

You said Bettis got weaker down the stretch.  He didn't.

You said the Steelers reduced his role.  They didn't.  His role didn't get reduced until he was in his 30s, you know, like the majority of NFL players.

And you, predictably, didn't even bother trying to respond to either of them because you knew you were wrong and made up your argument.  So yeah.  Unless you are going to explain why you made those statements ("Bettis got far less effective" and "Steelers reduced his role"), then stop responding and trying to make it seem like I have no idea what I'm talking about. 

[Mage]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

See above.

And maybe chill a little. You sound like you're about to blow a gasket.

What do you mean, see above?

Again... you said Bettis got far less effective and you said Steelers reduced his role because of it.

Please prove to me how those aren't lies.  

It's just so annoying how condescending you talk to people around here when all you do is make up stuff.  You either say lies or speculative nonsense and when people disagree, you talk down to them.  It's very obnoxious.  Even now, you keep saying "I can't help you" or "this guy can't understand" or stuff, when all you've done is post nonsense.  Bettis did not get 'far less effective' and Steelers did not reduce his role because of it.  Bettis was their bell-cow for YEARS. 

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, Mage said:

Lol.

You said Bettis got weaker down the stretch.  He didn't.

You said the Steelers reduced his role.  They didn't.  His role didn't get reduced until he was in his 30s, you know, like the majority of NFL players.

And you, predictably, didn't even bother trying to respond to either of them because you knew you were wrong and made up your argument.  So yeah.  Unless you are going to explain why you made those statements ("Bettis got far less effective" and "Steelers reduced his role"), then stop responding and trying to make it seem like I have no idea what I'm talking about. 

Here's the problem with your argument.

You're taking what I say as if it were over his entire career. It's not. It's certain years later in his career.

In one of his late games, Bettis had the amazing stat line of 5 carries, 2 yard, 3 touchdowns.

I'd call five carries 'a reduced role".

[Mage]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Here's the problem with your argument.

You're taking what I say as if it were over his entire career. It's not. It's certain years later in his career.

In one of his late games, Bettis had the amazing stat line of 5 carries, 2 yard, 3 touchdowns.

I'd call five carries 'a reduced role".

See, this is bull crap as well.  You said Bettis fading down the stretch is why they reduced his role.  

Bettis got old.  That is why his role was reduced.  Which is applicable to the majority of NFL players.  Newsflash, guys get worse when they get in their 30s.

It had nothing to do with Bettis being "far less effective" down the stretch, which was your initial point.  But you won't admit you are wrong, so now you are gonna convince me that him getting his role reduced in his 30s, when he was near-retirement, had something to do with him "fading" down the stretch... and somehow it took the Steelers 10 years to realize it.

But alright man.  You got it.  I was wrong.  You are right.  Bettis was 'far less effective' down the stretch (even though stats say otherwise, but whatever), and the Steelers decided 10 years later that they were finally gonna reduce his role because of it.  Great argument, Mr. Scot, and I now understand why 28-year old quarterback Teddy Bridgewater is too fatigued to play well in November.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, Mage said:

See, this is bull crap as well.  You said Bettis fading down the stretch is why they reduced his role.  

Bettis got old.  That is why his role was reduced.  Which is applicable to the majority of NFL players.  Newsflash, guys get worse when they get in their 30s.

It had nothing to do with Bettis being "far less effective" down the stretch, which was your initial point.  But you won't admit you are wrong, so now you are gonna convince me that him getting his role reduced in his 30s, when he was near-retirement, had something to do with him "fading" down the stretch... and somehow it took the Steelers 10 years to realize it.

But alright man.  You got it.  I was wrong.  You are right.  Bettis was 'far less effective' down the stretch (even though stats say otherwise, but whatever), and the Steelers decided 10 years later that they were finally gonna reduce his role because of it.  Great argument, Mr. Scot, and I now understand why 28-year old quarterback Teddy Bridgewater is too fatigued to play well in November.

Bettis lasted till his 30s.

Tom Brady is still playing at 43.

That doesn't mean everybody can do it.

Heck, the vast majority of NFL players don't last more than three to five years, some less. And that's not all due to ability. Some of them just can't take the pounding.

Ask Dan Morgan.

[Mage]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Bettis lasted till his 30s.

Tom Brady is still playing at 43.

That doesn't mean everybody can do it.

Heck, the vast majority of NFL players don't last more than three to five years, some less. And that's not all due to ability. Some of them just can't take the pounding.

Ask Dan Morgan.

Oh sh*t bro!  I see how this is connected.  Damn, good point, especially connecting the careers of running back Jerome Bettis, middle linebacker Dan Morgan, and quarterback Tom Brady.  Bettis lasted until his 30s, and Brady is still playing at 43.  This has definitely made me realize that players don't wear-and-tear the same.

It's unfortunate that 28-year old quarterback Teddy Bridgewater had to fatigue so early into his career.  What do you think we can do going forward to help our fatigued quarterback?  Or should we just wait until 2021 for him to be less tired?  

[Mage]

Now that you brought that up, it has me thinking... are there any other fatigued players on the roster?

Ian Thomas hasn't really had a strong season, but he's shown potential in the past.  Do we think fatigue might have something to do with it?  After all, he didn't get much of an offseason because he was injured or something.  I think it's fair to speculate that he might be too fatigued.

Tahir Whitehead too.  Having to go from Oakland to Charlotte, the time zones and stuff, it could explain why he's been so bad on the field.  He's older than Luke Kuechly when he retired, so I think fatigue is definitely possible with him.  And they play the same position to boot!  But even if they didn't, I'm pretty sure Whitehead is older than Earl Campbell when he fell off.  So like you just never know man.  

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, Mage said:

Oh sh*t bro!  I see how this is connected.  Damn, good point, especially connecting the careers of running back Jerome Bettis, middle linebacker Dan Morgan, and quarterback Tom Brady.  Bettis lasted until his 30s, and Brady is still playing at 43.  This has definitely made me realize that players don't wear-and-tear the same.

It's unfortunate that 28-year old quarterback Teddy Bridgewater had to fatigue so early into his career.  

Bridgewater is far from the only guy for whom the physical toll was too much, too soon. And as I said in the original post, having a major injury didn't help matters.

Heck, take a look at Luke Kuechly. Even among his peers, Kuechly is a superior athletic specimen. But just eight years into his career, his body told him he couldn't do it anymore.

That's what football fatigue can do.