Brunell in Saunders's offense ?

warriorzpath · 05-17-2006, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

how ironic, eh? :P this was dead last night, yet you felt the need to respond specifically to my post with retread information you already posted 3 times for some reason. so, i'm sorry (actually i'm not) but i'd have to disagree with you yet again.

see post #105. Yes I agree, that too is ironic.

That Guy · 05-17-2006, 03:50 PM

whats so magical about post 105? i already saw it and responded, and then you started yet another childish run of pointless posting instead of actually replying to any of the issues i raised.

whatever, have fun, you're pointless.

warriorzpath · 05-17-2006, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

whats so magical about post 105? i already saw it and responded, and then you started yet another childish run of pointless posting instead of actually replying to any of the issues i raised.

whatever, have fun, you're pointless.

What did you respond to ? Point #1 or #2 ?

12thMan · 05-17-2006, 03:51 PM

This is great!

BTW, I'm only trying to raise my number of posts

warriorzpath · 05-17-2006, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12thMan

This is great!

BTW, I'm only trying to raise my number of posts

I am too, but I think I may need to stop

12thMan · 05-17-2006, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

I am too, but I think I may need to stop

I think we all should, and let this thread RIP

That Guy · 05-17-2006, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

What did you respond to ? Point #1 or #2 ?

damn, did you even read my response? I said you blantantly misrepresented a quote that you took completely out of context and then decided it should be taken a gospel to top it off.

and are you really saying stats are worthless? is this huddle's new screen name? they magically make sense after watching someone, but are completely void beforehand? come on.

warriorzpath · 05-17-2006, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

damn, did you even read my response? I saide you blantantly misrepresented a quote that you took completely out of context and then decided it should be taken a gospel on top of that.

I did read your post and it wasn't arguing anything directly in what I posted in #105. I believe him (with what he says his opinion is) when he says Collins is as good a technician there is in this passing game and when he says he hasn't had a chance because of Trent Green.

There's nothing else to it in my mind.

warriorzpath · 05-17-2006, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

they magically make sense after watching someone, but are completely void beforehand? come on.

If they don't make sense then the stats don't accurately reflect the player's ability.

Do you judge players strictly by their stats before you even watch them play ?

I don't, I reserve judgment until I watch them play - this is just where you and I just differ.

warriorzpath · 05-17-2006, 04:55 PM

When I reread the posts, it appears repetitious on my part - but all I'm doing is going back to the same points over and over again because that's the 2 main things i'm arguing. It's simple: I believe Saunders and I judge players after I watch them play (and not before).

If you think I shouldn't do the 2 things above then that's your opinion.

GTripp0012 · 05-17-2006, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Actually he was with the Skins for two seasons

Profile

Gannon wasn't on the roster in 94. I don't know why they have him listed as a Redskin.

GTripp0012 · 05-17-2006, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

Saunders never said he didn't want to go to battle with him. Actually he is saying the opposite.

No one can expect Saunders to say he doesn't want to go into battle with him. In fact, if he's on the roster, I believe we should try to give him a sense of value.

One more thing I forgot to add: all the other QBs we were talking about were successful in part because they were trusted by their coaches on the field. All three threw a lot, 400-500 times a year. So that's another area where they differ. If Collins plays due to injury, and we run the ball 80% of the time, he still isn't getting his chance. And the offense would suffer because of it.

Given my football background, I would know the feeling

That Guy · 05-17-2006, 06:57 PM

great, does it make a lot more sense after you've posted it the 15th time?

instead of discussing how grievously out of context you're taking that quote or pointing out a QB that showed up for the very first time after 35, you totally ignore those points and repeating the same thing which isn't even relevent as a reponse.

how do you tell if a player is any good when video isn't immediately available? just assume they're all great? stats have their place, and if you can't see that a guy throwing 30tds is better than a guy throwing 12tds without video, well, that's a bit silly.

GTripp0012 · 05-17-2006, 07:02 PM

Well, his point is that you can't judge Collins yet even though he's 30 something which is valid, but you can certainly draw a stronger correlation between him and Shane Matthews then you can between him and Rich Gannon.

That Guy · 05-17-2006, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, his point is that you can't judge Collins yet even though he's 30 something which is valid, but you can certainly draw a stronger correlation between him and Shane Matthews then you can between him and Rich Gannon.

well, he's been around for over 12 years without doing ANYTHING of note (which says an awful lot in and of itself), and comparisions to detmer are much more valid than comparisions to gannon et al.

If you really believe he's a star or has the chance to be great that strongly, we can always put money on it.

05-17-2006, 03:50 PM	#122
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 43 Posts: 17,620	Re: Brunell in Saunders's offense ? whats so magical about post 105? i already saw it and responded, and then you started yet another childish run of pointless posting instead of actually replying to any of the issues i raised. whatever, have fun, you're pointless.

05-17-2006, 03:51 PM	#124
12thMan MVP Join Date: May 2005 Location: washington, D.C. Posts: 11,460	Re: Brunell in Saunders's offense ? This is great! BTW, I'm only trying to raise my number of posts

05-17-2006, 04:55 PM	#130
warriorzpath Registered User Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,880	Re: Brunell in Saunders's offense ? When I reread the posts, it appears repetitious on my part - but all I'm doing is going back to the same points over and over again because that's the 2 main things i'm arguing. It's simple: I believe Saunders and I judge players after I watch them play (and not before). If you think I shouldn't do the 2 things above then that's your opinion.

05-17-2006, 06:57 PM	#133
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 43 Posts: 17,620	Re: Brunell in Saunders's offense ? great, does it make a lot more sense after you've posted it the 15th time? instead of discussing how grievously out of context you're taking that quote or pointing out a QB that showed up for the very first time after 35, you totally ignore those points and repeating the same thing which isn't even relevent as a reponse. how do you tell if a player is any good when video isn't immediately available? just assume they're all great? stats have their place, and if you can't see that a guy throwing 30tds is better than a guy throwing 12tds without video, well, that's a bit silly.

05-17-2006, 07:02 PM	#134
GTripp0012 Living Legend Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Evanston, IL Age: 38 Posts: 15,994	Re: Brunell in Saunders's offense ? Well, his point is that you can't judge Collins yet even though he's 30 something which is valid, but you can certainly draw a stronger correlation between him and Shane Matthews then you can between him and Rich Gannon. __________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

Brunell in Saunders's offense ?

Locker Room Main Forum