I'm sorry but to say he was just "almost" for 5 years doesn't count for shit. Certainly doesn't earn as much money as guys who are better than "almost".
Not quite but close enough I suppose. There are differences but I generally feel that the money spent on him would be better served and do more for the team on the OL, just as I did last year.
You're right. He didn't have more rush attempts. He had significantly less and while his sacks nearly doubled, it only cost him about 8 pressures compared to 2011. Tell me you're referring to the BTB (or whatever site) article where some guy randomly predicted that Spencer would have more than 6 sacks. Aside from it being a "fuck, I hope so" situation, it's not exactly going out on any sort of limb. That guys' argument was that a sack usually occurs like 25% of the time in terms of pressures or some shit. 8 pressures essentially swaps for how many sacks at that exchange rate? Where did all the other sacks come from?
He rushed way less. Like over 100 times less which represents 25% of his 2011 total and 33% of his 2012 total. That's a shit ton less and yet he did a shit ton more.
Compare 2012 to 2010 and he has like 90 more rushes in 2010 but fewer pressures and half as many sacks.
There is no regressing to the mean. There is just better play.
As far as being right, don't tug your dick too much there. You are the hindsight guy, right? How could you ever be wrong?
Not that I even know what your stance was in the first place. Let me check my journal though, I'm sure I probably wrote it down somewhere.
