Dibs

My point is that the question was daring people to defend an obvious situation which was not supposed to have been any different. Neither Whittner nor McCargo were ever considered to be potential "impact" rookies. Whitner was considered to be a sure instant starter but since both were considered reaches at the time of being drafted, neither was considered to be an "impact" rookie. Your last bit......"Although it is absolutely subject to change, I think that day 1 was piss poor." Is a totally fair thing to say & obviously has merit. BillnutinHouston finished his post with "......so someone please convince me how a nondescript safety and John McCargo were good, solid "impact" picks in the first round?" which is not fair & has very little merit. If he'd left the word "impact" out, it would be asking a question which has merit. To(obviously) intend the word to be in there implies that there was some discussion of how both players would be "impact" rookies......and also....since neither have been "impact" rookies......it implies that the poster is goading people......why not say "since neither have been "impact" rookies.....blah, blah, blah" It would be like me posting......."so someone please convince me how JP was a good, solid "4000 yard" QB this year". There's merit to talking about JP.....but to ask that question has no basis & is intentionally inflammatory.

Josh Reed??? You put up an intentionally antagonistic, moronic post to get an emotional response from someone who you can then attempt to discredit & shoot down. You are a complete idiot. Totally. Without question. A fool. A buffoon. Josh Reed????????? Cantankerous summed you up in his 1st three word post. .....and finishing with "the tr00f hurts".....like you know darn well what you are saying is ridiculous & that a majority of people will totally disagree & some will actually take offence. Way to be offensive & stupid. Aside from that....have a nice day

It's obviously a rhetorical question you ask......"impact"???? You know Whitner did not produce many big plays & that McCargo has been out injured most of the season. What are you attempting here....to goad a fool who doesn't quite read your post correctly? Were the two of them sold to us as "impact" players? The answer is no. They were sold as 1st round picks that we hope can become impact players(with Whitner billed as an instant starter).....Therefore your question has no real merit. If you were to simply ask about the effectiveness of the 2 1st round picks.......most don't assess things after just the rookie year. Impact

""Main point of conjecture."" I believe that what you believe is the main point of conjecture is nothing to do with the main point that HA was establishing. As I mentioned in earlier posts......what difference does it make to the actual concept HA is making if he titles it correctly, or incorrectly. It makes no difference at all. He could have said "What a mean regression".....or...."Errors are mean, but I regress." It makes no difference to the validity of the concept he is talking about. The example he gives is either correct or it's not. The fact that he missuses words in trying to describe the concept has NOTHING to do with whether the concept is correct or not. I do. You expect me to go through hundreds of posts to find a previous basic yes or no response from you when you could easily & simply type it again? That smacks of you knowing the importance of your response in relation to the relevance of your semantic arguments on HAs initial premise.

But my point is that I care not for what he calls the premise he put forward......just whether the premise is correct or not. If it is correct, it should in all fairness be acknowledged & only after that should one move forward to correct the semantics involved. As a stupid example...... If I were to say that big hairy spiders are a common cause of phobias in society.....it would be wrong(yet semantically right) to say the statement is incorrect. Spiders do not have hairs....only mammals have hairs. There is no doubt that what is meant by the statement, is correct.....yet a stickler in the terms of biology could argue the statement is wrong. Is this not exactly what you are doing? BTW, what's the answer to his question?.....post #441

Are you sure about that? As far as I could tell, the actual crux of what HA initially was saying was the question he proposed in post #441 above. The fact that an argument ensued leads me to believe nobody actually gave the base concept any credence and instead pounced on....perhaps certain wordings....which then logically degenerated into tens of pages of argument over irrelevancies to the initial premise. Basically.....if you answer his question.....and the answer is "yes"(which it obviously is).....you acknowledge that the basics of what HA said is correct(regardless of his ability to prove it mathematically....or his ability to word the question in a totally 'correct' manner.). So....what's the answer to the question? Here it is again so you don't have to scroll up.....

It seems to me that it is a semantic argument because you refuse say to HA.... "Your premise is correct.....but you are using certain words incorrectly." Either you are.... blinded(fixated on the specific definitions), an idiot(in that you cannot see the logic behind HAs premise) or an arse(you see the logic but just wish to continually be a stickler for 'rules' because it's annoying to him). I'm figuring blinded.

Thanks for that syhuang. Well explained. I figured as much myself but not being conversant with all the correct terminology I was unsure. To me it felt like a semantic argument due simply to the fact that I totally understood what HA meant.....& it seems a totally logical premise.....yet people continued to argue the point. There is somebody I know (in real life, not cyber life) who seems to feel that the people should only use the exact meaning of words & that anyone who has errors in this regards is a moron(sounds stupid, but he really does). I tend to view the English language as not only very pliable.....i.e. words have multiple meanings(which can cause confusion when using a general meaning for a word in a specific area....such as statistics....which has a very specialized & exact meaning for the word).....but....is designed for communication.....not miscommunication. IMO if person A understands what person B means.....even though person B has used words incorrectly(very obvious example is pacific/specific), person A is an arse to belabour the fact that what person B said was technically incorrect, if in fact what person B had meant was a correct. As an example..... is fairly irrelevant if you know what the person you are talking to means. Being a stickler for specific definitions is laudable when it is important for communication. In the cases where it isn't however, it is simple elitism. What it means is that people who are not fully conversant in a fields terminologies would be totally excluded from discussion in that field. Sometimes though, the boffins cannot seem to understand this.

What condition? Not that I'm jealous or anything. Cool looking preview......though the surfer felt very CG(computer game) to me.

Some veterans will be of the mentality of 'pointless game'.... while some backups(young talent) might be of the mentality of 'I finally get to show what I've got.....It might be my only real opportunity for a while so.....I'm gonna go out there & KILL!!!!!"

Why didn't you answer his question? The one before your response above. To this question here..... It's a straight forward question. Why avoid answering it?

1. Obviously yes 2. There is a great chance Spikes will get back to at least 'very good' in his second year of recovery from injury(which is quite common). He will also count for about $5mil in dead cap space next year if we cut him. We have pretty decent depth at the position.....why throw away the money(equivalent of 1 star player money). 3&4(5). Sadly I agree. If we could sign Thomas(or Briggs) instead of re-signing Fletcher I would think it the better move for the future. Young up&comer with 'star' potential instead of older 'very good' player likely to be declining mid-way through the contract.....and all for just a few mil. more. 6. I find it interesting how the best run stuffing DT on the market is also only 302lbs. 7&8. I'm fairly certain the new CBA prohibits the concurrent use of the franchise tags anyway. There is virtually no chance we will get any compensation if we let NC go....apart from the 3rd the following year as league compensation. Even if I'm wrong about us being able to tag him again.....do you really want to pay him $8.66mil for a 1 year deal.....which he will obviously be disgruntled.....and face the certainty of the same situation the following season but at a further 120%(10.4mil)? 9. der. 10. nope......he's perfect at DT in this Defence. 11. Why?

Which is exactly why Adams was not going to fit into the teams 'character' line. Come to think of it, if half the posters here are correct about WMs inconsistency of effort, I'd say he'd be viewed by Marv & DJ as low character as well.

wjat sperl chacker?

I've got this strange feeling that I've read this thread before.....

Corey Simon is listed at 300lbs

Actually.....Scott is listed at 302lbs & it is only Boone(Garay is there due to injuries) who is a bit heavier at 318lbs. BTW, Jefferson(our guy who is there due to injury) is listed at 310lbs I guess I set things off a little incorrectly in my opening post.....what I meant to say was the Tampa 2 prefers DTs that have good initial bursts & can get to the QB. A larger DT could have the ability....it's just not as common in a bigger man. Basically if a DT(large or small) cannot do what he is required for the style of defence, I would not think that DJ or Marv. would bring him in to be the answer. In response to Faustus' list.....thanks for the compilation of stats This brings up the percentages argument. Since there are only really 3 defences who have been using the Cover(Tampa) 2 for a few years(Bears, Colts, Bucs) by pure averages you'd expect that if the style of D can stop the run the same as the more traditional D....then there should be one team in each 3rd of the rankings. When we look we find the Bears in the top 3rd, the Bucs in the middle 3rd & the Colts in the bottom 3rd. I am certainly not convinced that the Cover 2 Defence is disastrously weak against the run.

Ever since the aquisition of Tripplett & drafting of McCargo people on this board have been saying...."We need bigger DTs, the ones we have are too small." That might be the case.......but then again it might not. The results from this season do not actually show us much of whether we need bigger DTs to stop the run. What it does resoundingly show is that we need better(minimally) DTs to stop the run. The Tampa 2 scheme relies even more than normal on rotation of players at DT. Since the only DT we had before entering FA last off-season was Anderson(not good enough), we always knew it would be a difficult task to obtain 4 DTs in one off-season. We obtained 3....but the one with the greatest potential(McCargo) went down to injury. Even if he didn't, that would have left us with 2 rookies & a scrub(Anderson) for 3 of the 4 spots. We were bound to have severe growing pains against the run.....& with McCargo getting injured we are left with..... 1 rookie(Williams)..... 1 scrub(Anderson)..... 1 solid vet(Tripplett).... and.... um.... let me look it up.... 1 guy I had to look up(Jefferson). We will only be adding 1 DT next off-season. I'm hoping it's a good one but for all those wanting to re-vamp the DTs......who do you chuck? The FA(who should fit perfectly with talent around him? The 1st round talent that got injured? The lower round rookie that showed he can play in this league? Tripplett, McCargo & Williams will all be on the roster next season(baring major unforeseen situations). That leaves 1 DT acquisition in the off-season. Will he be a BIG DT? I severely doubt it. There is no reason to think the coaches will not go after a 'good' 300lb DT rather than a bigger guy. I say this due to us simply not having the talent in our 4(5) DTs this season to show that it was the system that couldn't stop the run....rather than the players who caused such inconsistent run D.

Maybe so.....but his ability to rush the passer has not only been well above average but also consistent year after year.

Yeah....like Whitner, Simpson, Ellison, Williams, Pennington..... I'm just kidding, I think it can only be possitive giving the young guys some propper playing time....you never know when(& how) it's going to pay off.

OK....I admit it.....I got a bit emotional. It's just that I(& others) had the same argument with Hammond a week ago in this thread where I even linked to my original research from a previous argument showing how AS does not get garbage time sacks nor piles them up in a few games against sub-standard opposition in comparison to his pro bowl peers. It gets to me when not only people have irrational hatred for players(particularly our better players) but when shown that their opinion is simply not backed up by statistical analysis they just ignore it....wait a week....& spread their bile again.

Um..... There should be no question in regards to whether he is an ABOVE average player or not. There should be no question in regards to whether he is a GOOD player or not. There should be no question in regards to whether he is a VERY GOOD player or not. There should only be a question in regards to whether he is a GREAT player or not. Anyone who thinks he is anywhere near below AVERAGE either has some sort of perverse man-hate for him or simply has no idea what the average level of play is for a DE in todays league. Re-read the title of the thread & the first post. Is there any justification for either after this weeks game? In a way you are right.....I could have just ignored this thread(thus not getting defensive) but........I made the choice to defend AS against a ridiculous attack.

Oh....I'm sure glad you explained all that. So he's not a terrible player.....just a joke & a fraud. Not saying he is terrible so.....he deserves a thread devoted to tell everyone how not terrible, but not probowl talented he is.....all without putting it simply like that. Please explain how you can create a thread complaining greatly about a player & call him a joke & a fraud & not be saying he is terrible. What you wrote above doesn't explain it at all. Since when did it become a crime to get into the probowl & not be a great player at that position anyway? Esp. if it's one of our guys? Why create a hate thread for the guy just because he didn't win the game for us this week? You guys make me sick sometimes.