Justice Posted June 2, 2009 Author Posted June 2, 2009 Average and mediocre are the same thing, and you have them as 2 different grades.....LOL. Lame post. As for your grades....hangartner is good? LOL.....josh reed is a mediocre 3rd wr??? LOL. Mckelvin and lynch have the same grade? LOL And you responded, so what does that make you? Hangartner is a good center. The Panthers' running game was phenomenal last year and Hangartner played a part in that. Josh Reed is mediocre. He will never make a Pro Bowl. McKelvin is very talented and so is Lynch.
DazedandConfused Posted June 2, 2009 Posted June 2, 2009 You've watched Remember the Titans too many times. Remember the Titans> Let's see. Wasn't that a film about a team that finished its season undefeated? Sure it was just high school, but any watcher of the NFL should understand that a big part of the Pats doing so well in the past decade was not a testimony to them having by far the best players at every position or even the expertise of that cheater BB, it was in part because they had team leadership which refused to lose (even when a fortunate injury to Bledsoe started them on the winning path with their young QB as the vets on the field held them together). Should one want to give all credit to Belifool then simply remember when even the lowly Bills tagged them with a blowout loss when Belifool totally mishandled the contract negotiations for Milloy, but it was the players who vocally called out the HC who held it together until BB was able to lead them to an exact reversal of the Bills tatooing at the end of the seaspm. Rather than watching too many movies faking real life I have seen a little too much real life in the NFL where on field leadership we do not have has made a difference.
Leonidas Posted June 2, 2009 Posted June 2, 2009 Well than that just proves how friggin retarded you are. There has been a lot worse. Moron. BTW. 300 sucked and so does your handle. Your avatar is gay. You like sweaty ball sacks. You have no life. You're a loser. Have a nice day Jesus. I'm ashamed to even respond. First off, it was an exaggeration. I'm sure there's been something worse. But this topic is borderline retarded. Actually, it might be over that border. But you get the idea. Second, 300 did suck. I don't generally like movies based on comic books. I got it from a website that's not safe for work, but it's similar to this one: http://www.lolercoaster.com/wp-content/be_a_spartan.jpg. Third, well, I have no argument. I do enjoy a sweaty ball sack every now and then...
Bufcomments Posted June 2, 2009 Posted June 2, 2009 my reply to the post.... Edwards Average 12-11 as a starter Lynch Good...with more push from the Oline he could be great. Throw in Jackson = great FB Average well maybe just a tad below, cant catch out the backfield Evans Good...but tends to disappears sometimes due to coverage, but that might change this year T.O Great....I think he still has 2 or 3 very good years left in him ala James Lofton Reed Good in slot, would not have said this 2 yrs ago Parrish Way above average PR, way below average WR I will judge the OL as a whole and say incomplete due to all the changes Kelsey Below average good against the run, sorry pass rusher Schobel Good would be better if Maybin can provide some balance to the pass rush Marcus S Good Williams Average and I am being kind on that one. Mitchell Average but above average when motivated, like Evans tends to disappear sometimes Poz Average-Good last year was his rookie season but what you see is what you get with him Ellison Below Average why the Bills like him so much is puzzling McGee Very good when healthy McKelvin Very good with a chance to be great Scott Average but seems to make plays for us Whitner average not what you except from such a high draft pick. overall just 1 starter I would give a great grade and thats T.O. But Evans could be bumped up to great just because of T.O. special teams are great with great coaching....thanks Bobby April outside special teams overall coaching is below average ...they have cost us wins the last 3....I repeat ...the last 3 yrs. that is why I see 7-9 once again only way they do better if Trent plays above his head,T.O scores at least 10 TDs, Marshawn and Jackson has monster years they get lucky and the Oline plays better than we expect. But I will have my popcorn and beer ready
WellDressed Posted June 2, 2009 Posted June 2, 2009 And you responded, so what does that make you? Hangartner is a good center. The Panthers' running game was phenomenal last year and Hangartner played a part in that. Yea, but Hangartner didn't have two rookie g's next to him.
WellDressed Posted June 2, 2009 Posted June 2, 2009 Not only is it a weak post, but it is just an addition to this one Sad Sack Bills
Orton's Arm Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 Average and mediocre are the same thing, and you have them as 2 different grades.....LOL. Lame post. I'm not sure why I'm defending B. Harami, considering that he just did the unthinkable and insulted 300! But . . . average and mediocre are not the same thing. Saying that someone is of average height, or of average intelligence, or put in an average effort, is not the same thing as saying that someone is mediocre in these areas. Mediocre = rather poor or inferior.
Orton's Arm Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 Hangartner is a good center. The Panthers' running game was phenomenal last year and Hangartner played a part in that. No. NO! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! This sounds so familiar. A guy was some other team's backup at center, but they had a good running game while he was on the field. Ergo, he must have been good, or else said team wouldn't have run the ball so well. That, at least, was what I heard when Melvin Fowler was first brought in. I never bought into the Melvin Fowler hype. Early in his career, Cleveland apparently decided he wasn't starter material, and drafted his replacement. The rest of the league agreed with the Browns, which is why Fowler couldn't land a starting gig. Hence the fact he became Birk's backup in Minnesota. Supposedly, he distinguished himself so well in his appearances there that someone just had to make him a starter. Hopefully, Hangartner won't be another Melvin Fowler story. At least this time around, only one team decided it didn't want Hangartner as its starter. In Fowler's case, it was every team!
The Dean Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 I'm not sure why I'm defending B. Harami, considering that he just did the unthinkable and insulted 300! But . . . average and mediocre are not the same thing. Saying that someone is of average height, or of average intelligence, or put in an average effort, is not the same thing as saying that someone is mediocre in these areas. Mediocre = rather poor or inferior. They are two different words, but have little use in an exercise like this, as they present too much confusion. The choices of "Elite, Great, Good, Average, Mediocre, and Garbage" is a horrible scale. In fact, while "mediocre" can be used to mean "moderate-to-inferior", "mediocre" is also regularly used as a synonym for "average" by many people. You offered a random dictionary definition, so I will offer another: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mediocre "a novel of average merit"..."there have been good and mediocre and bad artists"... Even my favorite dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary is confused. While defining the word as "Moderate to inferior in quality; ordinary", they also say: "See synonyms at average" http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webi...p;Submit=Search I would also argue the difference between "mediocre" and "garbage" is far greater than the difference between "great" and "elite". A horrible, and generally worthless, scale. It would be far easier to say, on a scale from X to Y. where X equals the worst to ever play the position and Y equals the best to ever play, rate each player. I'd suggest a 5 or 7 point scale for that exercise. If you have to go with words, then you need to make them easily definable as having similar relative differences from each other.
Justice Posted June 3, 2009 Author Posted June 3, 2009 I'm not sure why I'm defending B. Harami, considering that he just did the unthinkable and insulted 300! But . . . average and mediocre are not the same thing. Saying that someone is of average height, or of average intelligence, or put in an average effort, is not the same thing as saying that someone is mediocre in these areas. Mediocre = rather poor or inferior. Yeah, it is pretty rare for someone to defend me on this board. They are two different words, but have little use in an exercise like this, as they present too much confusion. The choices of "Elite, Great, Good, Average, Mediocre, and Garbage" is a horrible scale. In fact, while "mediocre" can be used to mean "moderate-to-inferior", "mediocre" is also regularly used as a synonym for "average" by many people. You offered a random dictionary definition, so I will offer another: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mediocre Even my favorite dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary is confused. While defining the word as "Moderate to inferior in quality; ordinary", they also say: "See synonyms at average" http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webi...p;Submit=Search I would also argue the difference between "mediocre" and "garbage" is far greater than the difference between "great" and "elite". A horrible, and generally worthless, scale. It would be far easier to say, on a scale from X to Y. where X equals the worst to ever play the position and Y equals the best to ever play, rate each player. I'd suggest a 5 or 7 point scale for that exercise. If you have to go with words, then you need to make them easily definable as having similar relative differences from each other. I've always respected you Dean. You point out flaws in peoples' posts the right way and don't resort to insults or over the top comments like, "this is the most idiotic thread ever". Thanks for pointing out my error. I'll be sure to be on point next time.
The Dean Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 Yeah, it is pretty rare for someone to defend me on this board. I've always respected you Dean. You point out flaws in peoples' posts the right way and don't resort to insults or over the top comments like, "this is the most idiotic thread ever". Thanks for pointing out my error. I'll be sure to be on point next time. Honestly, it's really not that big of an issue for a discussion on a board like this. If you were actually conducting a survey, it would be horrible. But this is an informal message board, so there' no real foul, IMO. I was being a little over critical of you, when pointing out to HA the problem with his response. It is easy to see why some people would have a problem with "mediocre" and "average". It's all good.
Justice Posted June 3, 2009 Author Posted June 3, 2009 Honestly, it's really not that big of an issue for a discussion on a board like this. If you were actually conducting a survey, it would be horrible. But this is an informal message board, so there' no real foul, IMO. I was being a little over critical of you, when pointing out to HA the problem with his response. It is easy to see why some people would have a problem with "mediocre" and "average". It's all good. Thanks. No harm. I can take criticism when done correctly, but I do attack back pretty hard when insulted. Many of us here can follow your lead and be a little bit more level-headed, myself included.
Orton's Arm Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 They are two different words, but have little use in an exercise like this, as they present too much confusion. The choices of "Elite, Great, Good, Average, Mediocre, and Garbage" is a horrible scale. In fact, while "mediocre" can be used to mean "moderate-to-inferior", "mediocre" is also regularly used as a synonym for "average" by many people. You offered a random dictionary definition, so I will offer another: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mediocre Even my favorite dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary is confused. While defining the word as "Moderate to inferior in quality; ordinary", they also say: "See synonyms at average" http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webi...p;Submit=Search I would also argue the difference between "mediocre" and "garbage" is far greater than the difference between "great" and "elite". A horrible, and generally worthless, scale. It would be far easier to say, on a scale from X to Y. where X equals the worst to ever play the position and Y equals the best to ever play, rate each player. I'd suggest a 5 or 7 point scale for that exercise. If you have to go with words, then you need to make them easily definable as having similar relative differences from each other. That's a solid post, Dean. I think that part of the perceived overlap between the words "average" and "mediocre" is that people sometimes use the word "average" to mean "mildly disappointing." (In a perfect world, "average" would only mean one thing: average. But this world isn't always perfect.) I also agree that there isn't necessarily a huge distinction between "great" and "elite."
Recommended Posts