rooting for Goliath

[That Guy]

Quote:
you don't mention that only 11 players are on the field at a time, so maxing those 11 (or 22) is more important than value at RB #4,

I explained a basic strategy in a couple of sentences. There were lots of lesser points omitted

please point it out. I see you said its important to spend to the limit after someone else brought it up, but i definately didn't see anything about how talent at starting positions are more important even if it rubs against the price/performance thing a bit.

Incidentally, I think this "bargain strategy" applies to the draft as well. One study I saw concluded that the best values in the draft happen between picks 25 to 75. I didn't look at their data but I can understand logically why their conclusion might be valid.

if leinhart or bush bust, you're out at least 20million. if pick #30 busts,
you're out less than 5$mill. Starting LBs, RBs, #2/possible #1 CBs, OGs, Cs, FS/SSs, FBs, Ks, Ps, TEs, DTs can all be found easily in the 2nd round.

starting/#1 WRs, QBs, DEs, OTs (especially LTs), solid #1 CBs and stars at other positions are what can't be easily found outside round 1. These positions also tend to earn the most money. sometimes you get lucky and pull a QB in the 6th that turns into a HoF player, but its not that likely.

[Huddle]

That Guy

please point it out. I see you said its important to spend to the limit after someone else brought it up, but i definately didn't see anything about how talent at starting positions are more important even if it rubs against the price/performance thing a bit.

Did you read my response? How am I supposed to point out something that was omitted (along with dozens of other points less important than the basic strategy)?

As for the spending limit, I made two references to it BEFORE you brought it up as though it had never been discussed.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Huddle

That Guy



Did you read my response? How am I supposed to point out something that was omitted (along with dozens of other points less important than the basic strategy)?

As for the spending limit, I made two references to it BEFORE you brought it up as though it had never been discussed.

you don't think its important to max out your starters talent? and if someone else brings it up, they should be shot down for it? please don't start this pointless bickering crap again.

and i never said you didn't bring it up before I said something, but you didn't bring it up before someone else did. You're always on people for twisting your words, so let's not do that.

[Huddle]

That Guy

you don't think its important to max out your starters talent? and if someone else brings it up, they should be shot down for it? please don't start this pointless bickering crap again

.

I "shot you down" for asking me to point out something that I had already told you that I had intentionally omitted. Why can't you simply admit that you mis-read my post? It's not a sin.

and i never said you didn't bring it up before I said something, but you didn't bring it up before someone else did. You're always on people for twisting your words, so let's not do that.

Actually, I DID bring up the spending limit before Schneed mentioned it. In fact, he put the sentence in bold type and quoted me on it. So, you were wrong in your first post on this nitpicky point and wrong again in the one I've quoted here.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Huddle

That Guy

.

I "shot you down" for asking me to point out something that I had already told you that I had intentionally omitted. Why can't you simply admit that you mis-read my post? It's not a sin.



Actually, I DID bring up the spending limit before Schneed mentioned it. In fact, he put the sentence in bold type and quoted me on it. So, you were wrong in your first post on this nitpicky point and wrong again in the one I've quoted here.

first gtrip is the one that mentioned before you edited your post, so you may think thats nitpicking, but it alsso means you were wrong.

and nowhere is it articulated or mentioned that you intentionally omitted anything, nor was that point stated anywhere else. I'm glad no one is allowed to add anything onto anything you say without having you do this retarded shit on them. I most clearly did not mis read your post and you never said anything regarding that point and for some reason you're acting like i insulted your family.

get a life.

[dan_snyder69]

I think Dan Snyder should run for president in 2008! Does anyone know his political affiliation?

[Sociofan]

Greetings from Miss Sally.

Today we learn about the playground and the rules for settling disputes.

Rule #1: If you push someone under the merry-go-round, you must make sure that all riders jump off. It's there only for bumps and bruises, not broken bones.

Rule #2: If you are going to play dodge ball, you may only wear a cup over one bean or the other, but not both.

Rule #3: If a dispute is going to be settled with fists, you may only hit your opponent's fists with your nose, mouth or stomach. There will be no pill popping.

Rule #4: There will be no bantam-rooster strutting about the playground. Either get down to business or sit quietly at your desk.

Rule #5: Don't come crying to Miss Sally when your feelings get hurt.

[LILnino121]

Guys dont sweat it. I love being hated by everyone else they are all jealous because we are the next big dynasty on the NFL and t hey know it.

[Schneed10]

Huddle, after reading through the rest of this thread I'm compelled to tell you that if I were a moderator (which I'm not of course), I'd be looking for a reason to ban you from the site. At this point you don't seem to be in any violation of the forum guidelines, but you're so aggravating to deal with on this site. You basically don't listen to a single thing said to you on here. That Guy has been making point after point but you don't even seem to acknowledge it. Then you eventually come around to modifying your points, without acknowledging that someone else made that point previously. Furthermore, I've seen huge arguments involving you in other threads where you fervently argue point for point, and yet admit to not reading a number of posts directed at you. It comes across like you're more concerned with winning debates and saving face than with having meaningful and civil discussion.

Now I'm not trying to get you thrown out because as I said, I don't think you're breaking any rules; I'm just trying to say that you are quickly developing a reputation as someone who nobody enjoys talking to. You're very aggravating.

I think you make great points sometimes. And we need disagreements on this site, because it makes for more meaningful discussion. But if one person isn't listening to the viewpoints of other members, or is flat out skipping over posts and continuing to argue a point, it ruins any chance we have at having meaningful discussion. It just results in people talking past one another.

Just thought I'd say my peace on the subject.

[724Skinsfan]

By the way, this has only a very litle bit to do with this thread and I haven't noticed if it was mentioned before but...

On Mike & Mike this morning Mike Greenberg actually said, "The Redskins will have a very good team this year, I think". Golic slightly shook his head in an affirmative manner w/o comment. I was stunned to hear something positive from either one of these guys. Anyway, just thought I'd mention one more quasi-supporter for the 'Skins.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Huddle, after reading through the rest of this thread I'm compelled to tell you that if I were a moderator (which I'm not of course), I'd be looking for a reason to ban you from the site. At this point you don't seem to be in any violation of the forum guidelines, but you're so aggravating to deal with on this site. You basically don't listen to a single thing said to you on here. That Guy has been making point after point but you don't even seem to acknowledge it. Then you eventually come around to modifying your points, without acknowledging that someone else made that point previously. Furthermore, I've seen huge arguments involving you in other threads where you fervently argue point for point, and yet admit to not reading a number of posts directed at you. It comes across like you're more concerned with winning debates and saving face than with having meaningful and civil discussion.

Now I'm not trying to get you thrown out because as I said, I don't think you're breaking any rules; I'm just trying to say that you are quickly developing a reputation as someone who nobody enjoys talking to. You're very aggravating.

I think you make great points sometimes. And we need disagreements on this site, because it makes for more meaningful discussion. But if one person isn't listening to the viewpoints of other members, or is flat out skipping over posts and continuing to argue a point, it ruins any chance we have at having meaningful discussion. It just results in people talking past one another.

Just thought I'd say my peace on the subject.

Will it surprise you if I don't agree?

I am a veteran of some debate boards, politics and religion, where the moderators are very strict. The way you and others make ad hominem attacks here would never be tolerated on those boards.

Since there is no impartial panel on these boards to judge who has won a debate, I've devised my own way.

Strawman arguments are the first sign of frustration. When opponents have to twist my words to come up with arguments, they're all but done.

The next level of growing frustration is the logical fallacy referred to sometimes as Appeal to Popularity: "Everyone here thinks you're wrong." I get a lot of these because I'm self-confident enough to present controversial positions.

In the final stage, losers vent their frustration with the ad hominem fallacy, personal attacks in lieu of arguments. I get a lot of those.

When a poster continually alternates personal attacks with strawman arguments, I ignore their posts. They waste my time.

Your most recent post is nothing more than a belated ad hominem attack which would signal to any impartial mind reading this (if there is one) that you are bearing a grudge. I wonder why?

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Huddle

The next level of growing frustration is the logical fallacy referred to sometimes as Appeal to Popularity: "Everyone here thinks you're wrong." I get a lot of these because I'm self-confident enough to present controversial positions.

LOL......priceless.


It couldn't be that you're simply wrong. No....that's just not possible. LOL!

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

It couldn't be that you're simply wrong. No....that's just not possible. LOL!

Of course it's possible, and it can sometimes be proven by making a sound logical argument. You should try it sometime.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Of course it's possible, and it can sometimes be proven by making a sound logical argument. You should try it sometime.

Wow, pot calling the kettle black here. Bit hypocritical aren't we? Given your recent "I'm of a higher standard than everyone else here" posts?

I've tried arguing with you on multiple occasions via sound logical argument. And rather than engage me, you've deliberately avoided taking my arguments head on. Or, you've simply addressed only small segments of my overall arguments, quoted them, taken them out of context, focused on them even though they weren't the main thrust of the argument I was making, and/or have completely ignored every argument I've made that has proven your point wrong (even when a number of other people on the same thread could understand my arguments and points without confusion). I'm not about to rehash the whole statistics argument, but the fact is I killed you in that debate.

See, you're not the only one who can come off like a condescending prick.

[gibbsisgod]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Of course it's possible, and it can sometimes be proven by making a sound logical argument. You should try it sometime.

lets all just let it go