Dibs

Ditto. Or this one:

No, not at all. Apart from the concept that I am a big believer in using the best words for communicative purposes, the only place I have come across the term "apologist" is here on the board. That doesn't mean to say that you are wrong, as it may well be used all over the place in that context. It means that I personally have not come across it in the manner you speak of.....and I would very much appreciate the benefit of doubt in future before you jump to conclusions and call me disingenuous.

I definitely agree. It seems aparent that a majority who use the word are intending it to be some sort of insult......which is really weird. It would be like calling the guy that does your accounts "an accountant"(meaning it in a negative way). It could be worse......they could have chosen to misuse the word "rationalist" in a similar manner.

I'm no psychomalologist, but as last week was such an emotionally charged week(has there ever been a bigger one?) for everyone involved......a flat followup perhaps shouldn't have been totally unexpected(for players and fans alike).

I used to take umbrage to the word "apologist" as you do. I ended up looking up the word in the dictionary and realized that it is the correct descriptive word for the situation. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apologist?s=t 1. a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc As people are defending against the concept that EJ can be call a bust at this point in his career, apologist is simply the dictionary definition of those people. I really don't know what dictionary definition would be for people who preemptively draw conclusions and then dogmatically argue them(causing the need for apologists).

Perhaps we would be getting some pressure if we weren't held as often as we have been.

I thought he was our QB. Are you not a Bills fan for life?

Block a guy in the back no less.

Sorry, my mistake. My mind reading abilities are a little off lately. Perhaps the drinking has hindered your usual cognitive abilities. My point was that you derided others about talking in absolutes, yet entered the thread by stating one yourself.

Actually, that was you when you entered this thread with....

Had you just said "English", you could have gotten away with the other definitions(raw recruit, a novice)......but you specifically said "NFL football English". In NFL football terminology(and every sport) a rookie is an athlete playing in their first season. By dictionary definition, EJ is not a rookie. I reiterate that I have no problem whatsoever with your argument. EJ didn't play a full rookie season, therefore that should be factored into ones analysis when determining his progress etc, etc. I merely had a problem with you saying(in a superior manner) that you had "a full command of the English dictionary" and then directly followed that up with "...EJ is a Rookie....in NFL football English". For somebody who avows to have a full command of the English dictionary, it is ironic that you cannot understand that you made a simple error in regards to the definition that you used.

The only reason I initially responded was because you posted these 2 points... The English dictionary definition is.... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rookie?s=t 1. an athlete playing his or her first season as a member of a professional sports team: I think that you are a very intelligent person and I truly appreciate and value your posting.......but if you are going to act obnoxiously superior I will take the time to call you out on mistakes. (btw, I agree with your premise and argument, but you called up the wrong definition).

Petttine's highest yearly sack total was 40 with the Jets. I think there are a lot of apples and oranges in looking at the sack totals for DCs/HCs.

Say what? By dictionary definition, for a sportsperson/athlete, he most definitely isn't a rookie.

Tallywacker.

Bradham going for the tackle.

Ah, I missed that bit. I humbly stand corrected.

It's not overly inflammatory at all.....but considering the myriad of positives that one could mention at this point, after 2 good wins he chose to highlight only negative things. IMO this is your standard modern day professional trolling by the media to generate views.

This very much can change the run/pass ratio. If we look at supposed run happy Bills last week, we had a run/pass ratio of 33/26. Looks like it supports the concept that running teams win(as stated earlier in the thread). If we however separate the 4th Q(12/4) where we were nursing a strong lead(13 pts), we see the normal play ratio reduce to 21/22.......more passes than runs. This should really be in the "Stats Lie" thread.

Thanks. Well worth linking.

Stats don't kill people. Bullets kill people.

No.....and I'm really quite interested in one. I'm fairly sure 26CB will respond when he sees it(he seems pretty good that way).

Unfortunately the search function only seems to go back to May(in TSW archives)......so it seems I have no way to back up what I wrote. Oh well, can't win em all.

If I(or everyone?) stated the "facts" about other's posting, I would be very quickly banned. if somebody is really getting under your skin with the opinions that they post, best to just put them on ignore rather than get worked up about it and potentially getting a ban.

What is wCP?