Sean Taylor studying Ed Reed

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

Agreed, but in fairness the title of the post is "Sean Taylor studying Ed Reed". That certainly gives the impression that we are talking about something that is true. Otherwise, why even discuss the topic? Everyone can assume what they like. If others want to assume he's working out with Reed, I guess that's fine. As for me, I'm going to assume he's at the beach right now eyeing up spring-breakers.

Regardless, even if he was "studying" Ed Reed, that's no excuse for missing the workout. Who he should be studying is Gregg Williams, who I think knows a little more about Defense than Ed Reed.

Ok you are right on about the title of the post, but does that mean that it is true? Maybe if the title had be "Sean Taylor IS studing Ed Reed" then maybe I would have ben led to believe that it was true.

Also is that how you read posts on here only by the title and not what the poster wrote?

[onlydarksets]

BTW, did anyone read this article in the Post about Thomas saying Moss is going to be in peak shape? My favorite line:

Despite the voluntary nature of these workouts, numerous players said they consider it part of their job responsibilities to be here. As Pro Bowl linebacker Marcus Washington put it: "It's pretty voluntary, like if your wife or girlfriend tells you . . . [not to] get her nothing for her birthday, and then if you don't come home with a present, you know you're in trouble. It's kind of like that."

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

BTW, did anyone read this article in the Post about Thomas saying Moss is going to be in peak shape? My favorite line:

http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=5783

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

Ok you are right on about the title of the post, but does that mean that it is true? Maybe if the title had be "Sean Taylor IS studing Ed Reed" then maybe I would have ben led to believe that it was true.

Also is that how you read posts on here only by the title and not what the poster wrote?

Look, I'm not here to argue semantics with you. I'm just saying that the prior poster made a valid point about this thread. Here we are discussing ST studying Ed Reed as if that's what's actually going on. For all we really know, ST could be lifting weights in his basement with S. Moss. For all we know ST could be boogie boarding in the Atlantic. But the fact that we're all here debating whether it is good for ST to be studying with Ed Reed seems to lend credence to the fact that some people are looking at the this thread and thinking that we are debating something that is actually happening. So obviously the title of the post has caused some confusion.

And in answer to your question: Yes, all I do is read the title of the posts and not what the poster wrote. Yes, that's exactly what I do. So far it appears that 20 people all have exactly the same thing to say; that being "Sean Taylor studying Ed Reed." Yah, valid question.
Don't be a smartass unless you want me to treat you in kind. All I was doing was supporting some else who I thought made a valid point that you refuted directly. I thought that was allowed on this site. Isn't that the point of a chat room? To discuss?

[jdlea]

I think everyone on this board can agree that Warren Sapp was a very good football player at one time. I think he was one of the best DE in the league up until last a few seasons ago. He said that up until about the last 2 years he was in Tampa he showed up to 0 voluntary workouts. None. Never.

I just don't see it as that big of a deal. He was still a leader on that team. He was still a great player between the lines. Despite all of the talk, he could get it done and he lead his team. I don't think players missing voluntary is a big deal. However, I do agree with the consensus that they should be there.

[Drift Reality]

Originally Posted by jdlea

I think everyone on this board can agree that Warren Sapp was a very good football player at one time. I think he was one of the best DE in the league up until last a few seasons ago. He said that up until about the last 2 years he was in Tampa he showed up to 0 voluntary workouts. None. Never.

I just don't see it as that big of a deal. He was still a leader on that team. He was still a great player between the lines. Despite all of the talk, he could get it done and he lead his team. I don't think players missing voluntary is a big deal. However, I do agree with the consensus that they should be there.

With all due respect, Sapp was a leader on the team, but I think more of a vocal leader than anything - that's why he is not with Tampa anymore. To me, he was more of a self-promoting loudmouth than anything else.

Also, the last time he did anything was four years ago - in 2000, when he had 16.5 sacks. The four years since then, his sack totals have gone: 6, 7.5, 5, 2.5.

Maybe if he went to more workouts and spent less time eating, he would have sustained himself better.

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

Look, I'm not here to argue semantics with you. I'm just saying that the prior poster made a valid point about this thread. Here we are discussing ST studying Ed Reed as if that's what's actually going on. For all we really know, ST could be lifting weights in his basement with S. Moss. For all we know ST could be boogie boarding in the Atlantic. But the fact that we're all here debating whether it is good for ST to be studying with Ed Reed seems to lend credence to the fact that some people are looking at the this thread and thinking that we are debating something that is actually happening. So obviously the title of the post has caused some confusion.

And in answer to your question: Yes, all I do is read the title of the posts and not what the poster wrote. Yes, that's exactly what I do. So far it appears that 20 people all have exactly the same thing to say; that being "Sean Taylor studying Ed Reed." Yah, valid question.
Don't be a smartass unless you want me to treat you in kind. All I was doing was supporting some else who I thought made a valid point that you refuted directly. I thought that was allowed on this site. Isn't that the point of a chat room? To discuss?

I was not trying to be a smartass. I am sorry if I came off as such. All I did was respond to your post!! "I thought that was allowed on this site."

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

I was not trying to be a smartass. I am sorry if I came off as such. All I did was respond to your post!! "I thought that was allowed on this site."

In your post you asked: "Also is that how you read posts on here only by the title and not what the poster wrote?"
Was that a serious question? Because to me, that sounds like you're being a smartass. It doesn't, however, sound like all you were doing was responding to my post. If you have something substantive to add, by all means, please do so. If all you are going to do is throw jabs by asking absurd questions to try to make a point and degrade me, then that, my friend, is being a smartass.

In any event, apology accepted.

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

In your post you asked: "Also is that how you read posts on here only by the title and not what the poster wrote?"
Was that a serious question? Because to me, that sounds like you're being a smartass. It doesn't, however, sound like all you were doing was responding to my post. If you have something substantive to add, by all means, please do so. If all you are going to do is throw jabs by asking absurd questions to try to make a point and degrade me, then that, my friend, is being a smartass.

In any event, apology accepted.

My point was that you should not judge a book by its cover and to try to see what the poster is saying. And by just reading the title to some of the threads on here could throw some people for a loop....