PDA

View Full Version : My NFL Truths


SenorGato
09-01-2008, 01:27 AM
- A running *game* is important, the RB is not.

- Unless you find yourself an LT or Walter Payton, theres no real point in spending huge dollars on the RB position. The position takes such a pounding, and the difference in production between an elite talent (LT) and someone running behind a great O-line just isn't big enough to justify a long term contract to none but a superstar or a really sturdy young backup (and MJD or Turner type). This leads to my next truth.

- The O-line is the backbone to the great modern offense.

Thats right. So many teams run similar offenses with similar plays that offense is more of a matter of execution. No offense executes without the big mofos clearing the way. A great O-line allows for a great running game which allows for a more open passing game. First LT's got their payday, but with the sheer size and speed of DT's today has caused huge emphasis on the interior line now and the guards are getting their pay day. NFL FO's know what makes their teams go tick, and the key to a great offense is the O-line. Which leads to...

- Great QB's can be made.

Don't take it too literally. A QB must still be highly intelligent and...to put it simply...must be able to be described as a "good guy." He must have his head straight, and he must be dedicated to football. Theres alot of BS to deal with if you're the starting QB of an NFL team. The all powerful "football mindset." Still, after you cross that barrier, QB development goes to the coaches today. Theres a few quote Lewis used in "The Blind Side" from Bill Walsh that pushed me in this direction, and seeing Walsh's emphasis on the modern offense makes me buy into the fact that a coach and the team has as much to do with QB production as the QB does. The NFL offense has been systemized...relying on precise timing and running smooth routes as much as on the physical skill of the players.

Look at all the QBs within Walsh's WCO early on, and their drastic improvements in performance. Look at Elway once Shanahan came in, orgnanized the offense, and gave him a running game. Best years of his career statistically. Look at how well Eagles backups do when McNabb goes down. Look at how the successful young QBs in this league have been eased in after the rest of the offenses were built...Ben...Palmer...Garrard...Anderson last year...Cutler (kinda-ish)...Rogers this year...Romo...Then look at the ones who have struggled...Alex Smith...Kellen Clemens...Grossman...Carr when he first got started...all thrown behind poor O-lines with little to no offensive weapons to play with. The development on the young QB is a very fragile thing, but when done right you got yourself a moneymaker and a winner.

- Ignore what your team says your base D is.

No team uses one front anymore.

- Jay Cutler really is the next great QB.

This just has to be said. Seriously, the guy really is as talented as I thought he was.

- We won't miss Rey too badly.

Not with Willis and Harris. And then theres Ryans and Tatupu...USC Rey and OSU James next year...

It'll suck to see Lewis leave the Ravens after this season, but the ILB/MLB position has many candidates for the crown.

- The Jets are the '08 version of the '07 Browns. No homer.

bigbluedefense
09-02-2008, 08:26 AM
Jay Cutler is a stud. He's one of the few young shining stars on that Broncos team.


And Im a big believer in RBC. I agree completely, olines make the run game. Theres only a handful of RBs in this league (maybe 3, 4 max) that are worth taking early or investing top dollar in.

eaglesalltheway
09-02-2008, 08:31 AM
I really like what you got there Gato. I really like what you have in your line "Great QBs can be made". We all know that there are plenty of less talented QBs that succeed because of many factors around them. The O-line, running game, WRs, scheme, coaching, thier defense, and that isn't even including the mental and psychological aspects of the position that you touched on.

rockio42
09-02-2008, 08:36 AM
I agree with everything you say in there, except for the last part Ray is the man

MetSox17
09-02-2008, 09:01 AM
You forgot to mention Beaston as one of the MLB's of the future.

And i agree completely that an offensive line can make a more productive running attack, but i still think you need to invest at one point or another in a dynamic running back. At the end of the day, that's the difference between a very good running game and a great one (Titans without Vince Young vs. Vikings).

I also agree that it's probably best to let your young quarterback groom and sit for a year or two, but you have to realize the situations some of these headcoaches and GM's are in. They are made to understand that the cornerstone of a franchise is a QB, so they go out and get one. Now what? You don't have a line or a defense or weapons, so what are you to do? Be the laughing stock of the league while you let a scrub get the beatdowns while you build the rest of your team around your young stud?

These guys are being forced to play at a very early stage in their careers by the circumstance of their team.

My suggestion would be to change the conventional thinking of the way a franchise should be structured. Build a strong offensive and defensive line. Add the weapons (WR, RB, TE) slowly and through development. At the end of the day, it's ones scouting department which dictates the success of a franchise. The teams that can hit big with picks after the second round, are the ones who will always be better off, but then again, that's not news to anyone.

Smooth Criminal
09-02-2008, 10:54 AM
I am a huge supporter of runningback by commitee. If you can get a group of guys that can all be effective carrying the ball it allows you to keep them fresh and have them at the top of their game at all times, and it forces defenses to gameplan for all of the backs.

BlindSite
09-02-2008, 07:57 PM
You forgot to mention Beaston as one of the MLB's of the future.

And i agree completely that an offensive line can make a more productive running attack, but i still think you need to invest at one point or another in a dynamic running back. At the end of the day, that's the difference between a very good running game and a great one (Titans without Vince Young vs. Vikings).

I also agree that it's probably best to let your young quarterback groom and sit for a year or two, but you have to realize the situations some of these headcoaches and GM's are in. They are made to understand that the cornerstone of a franchise is a QB, so they go out and get one. Now what? You don't have a line or a defense or weapons, so what are you to do? Be the laughing stock of the league while you let a scrub get the beatdowns while you build the rest of your team around your young stud?

These guys are being forced to play at a very early stage in their careers by the circumstance of their team.

My suggestion would be to change the conventional thinking of the way a franchise should be structured. Build a strong offensive and defensive line. Add the weapons (WR, RB, TE) slowly and through development. At the end of the day, it's ones scouting department which dictates the success of a franchise. The teams that can hit big with picks after the second round, are the ones who will always be better off, but then again, that's not news to anyone.

I think that if you couple a great offensive line with a great running back you have a recipe for dominance rather than success. If you've got talent at one or the other you'll usually find you've got just enough to keep the offense ticking over. Of course though a lot of this depends on the quarterback and offensive coordinator as well.

Burns336
09-02-2008, 09:03 PM
Did Ray Lewis come out and say he is going to retire or something?

yo123
09-02-2008, 09:08 PM
Jay Cutler is a stud. He's one of the few young shining stars on that Broncos team.


And Im a big believer in RBC. I agree completely, olines make the run game. Theres only a handful of RBs in this league (maybe 3, 4 max) that are worth taking early or investing top dollar in.

I'd go with 5. AD, LT, Steven Jackson, Frank Gore, and Brian Westbrook. Maybe Marion Barber depending if he shows he can carry the full load.

Iamcanadian
09-03-2008, 12:51 AM
- A running *game* is important, the RB is not.

- Unless you find yourself an LT or Walter Payton, theres no real point in spending huge dollars on the RB position. The position takes such a pounding, and the difference in production between an elite talent (LT) and someone running behind a great O-line just isn't big enough to justify a long term contract to none but a superstar or a really sturdy young backup (and MJD or Turner type). This leads to my next truth.

---Your right, Of course when teams draft a RB in round 1, they think they are getting a potential super star so just maybe that's why so many teams do it but what do NFL GM's know. One truth flushed down the drain.

The O-line is the backbone to the great modern offense.

---H..mm, Indy lost its All Pro LT and substituted him for a 2nd rounder and their offense didn't miss a beat. The Giants moved their 5th round LG to LT and won the Super Bowl. NE has a LT who was drafted out of round 1 and who nobody mistakes for a Pace or an Ogden but what do they know about building a great offense.

Thats right. So many teams run similar offenses with similar plays that offense is more of a matter of execution. No offense executes without the big mofos clearing the way. A great O-line allows for a great running game which allows for a more open passing game. First LT's got their payday, but with the sheer size and speed of DT's today has caused huge emphasis on the interior line now and the guards are getting their pay day. NFL FO's know what makes their teams go tick, and the key to a great offense is the O-line. Which leads to...

---Yeah, there are maybe 3-5 OG's in the NFL with high salaries but it has a lot more to do with the fact that if you want to franchise an OG, he falls into the same catagory as a LT and has to be paid like one.


Great QB's can be made.

---Now, your not serious are you??? You must be joking in all these comments, well, you have got me in stitches.

Don't take it too literally. A QB must still be highly intelligent and...to put it simply...must be able to be described as a "good guy." He must have his head straight, and he must be dedicated to football. Theres alot of BS to deal with if you're the starting QB of an NFL team. The all powerful "football mindset." Still, after you cross that barrier, QB development goes to the coaches today. Theres a few quote Lewis used in "The Blind Side" from Bill Walsh that pushed me in this direction, and seeing Walsh's emphasis on the modern offense makes me buy into the fact that a coach and the team has as much to do with QB production as the QB does. The NFL offense has been systemized...relying on precise timing and running smooth routes as much as on the physical skill of the players.

Look at all the QBs within Walsh's WCO early on, and their drastic improvements in performance. Look at Elway once Shanahan came in, orgnanized the offense, and gave him a running game. Best years of his career statistically. Look at how well Eagles backups do when McNabb goes down. Look at how the successful young QBs in this league have been eased in after the rest of the offenses were built...Ben...Palmer...Garrard...Anderson last year...Cutler (kinda-ish)...Rogers this year...Romo...Then look at the ones who have struggled...Alex Smith...Kellen Clemens...Grossman...Carr when he first got started...all thrown behind poor O-lines with little to no offensive weapons to play with. The development on the young QB is a very fragile thing, but when done right you got yourself a moneymaker and a winner.

---I love your McNabb example. Yeah, all those substitute Philly QB's have led the team to the playoffs and the SB, oh wait, Philly didn't make the playoffs last year when McNabb got hurt, H...mmm. And haven't made it to the SB since he started getting injured.
H..mmm Walsh invented the WCO and few teams knew how to defend it and by the way, he never had a poor QB to begin with so we'll never know how he would have faired if he did.
Seems like your saying great HC's are far more important than the OL. Which way is IT??? H...mmm, Shanahan hasn't done much since Elway retired so I guess he must be losing his ability to make a QB.

- Ignore what your team says your base D is.

No team uses one front anymore.

---No they run muliple variations of their base defense so what is your point if you have any.

- Jay Cutler really is the next great QB.

---I love how you justify it. I guess if you say it, it must be true. WOW, we are in the presence of greatness.

This just has to be said. Seriously, the guy really is as talented as I thought he was.

- We won't miss Rey too badly.

Not with Willis and Harris. And then theres Ryans and Tatupu...USC Rey and OSU James next year...

---Why don't you just state the obvious so we can all be impressed.

It'll suck to see Lewis leave the Ravens after this season, but the ILB/MLB position has many candidates for the crown.

- The Jets are the '08 version of the '07 Browns. No homer.

---Thanks for your insight, I've filed it under rubbish.

Bruce Banner
09-03-2008, 01:01 AM
---Thanks for your insight, I've filed it under rubbish.

Real nice, Canuck.

BlindSite
09-03-2008, 01:14 AM
---Thanks for your insight, I've filed it under rubbish.

You do know how to break up a quote using the tags don't you? Overlooking the fact that you have the grammatical skill of a five year old, you do realise most of your arguments were insulting the author, not the argument itself. That being said, I'll point out where you couldn't be more wrong.

Your right, Of course when teams draft a RB in round 1, they think they are getting a potential super star so just maybe that's why so many teams do it but what do NFL GM's know. One truth flushed down the drain.To use an example, I'll use a team I know. Carolina last year ranked 14th overall in the running game with DeShaun Foster as the starting tail back. This is what you'd call the definition of an average running back doing enough for the team to have a middle of the road running game. By giving Williams and Stewart a combined starting job, which we'll eventually see the team is hoping for a dominant running game. Their hope is clearly to have a running game where they can beat a team with either power or speed, that is why they've built an offensive line of size but is retaining elements of a of zone blocking system.

The first round backs were drafted to be dominant... NFL GM's want dominant running backs. It makes an offense more successful and thus, their life easier.

H..mm, Indy lost its All Pro LT and substituted him for a 2nd rounder and their offense didn't miss a beat. The Giants moved their 5th round LG to LT and won the Super Bowl. NE has a LT who was drafted out of round 1 and who nobody mistakes for a Pace or an Ogden but what do they know about building a great offense.
So what? All you're saying here is that the best teams in the NFL have been able to find the best value for money and their picks that fit in their scheme. If a player fits in the scheme and can excel and does so then they're a success regardless of when they're drafted. Thus far all you've done is say that the Giants, Pats and Indianapolis have good offensive lines...

Yeah, there are maybe 3-5 OG's in the NFL with high salaries but it has a lot more to do with the fact that if you want to franchise an OG, he falls into the same catagory as a LT and has to be paid like one.You're insane if you think that a franchise OG is as important as a left tackle. Competitive guards can be had in rounds 3-5 and a lot of them don't go before then for a reason. The 3-5 guards who're highly paid are elite game changers, which is uncanny for the position. Plenty of teams do well with Budget guards.

Now, your not serious are you??? You must be joking in all these comments, well, you have got me in stitches.I don't see any proper refutation here. Need anyone point out that David Garrard and Derek Anderson have jumped onto the scene because they're decent quarterbacks who're surrounded by brilliance and solid coaching? Garrard wouldn't be doing well with the 49ers thats for damn sure.

No they run muliple variations of their base defense so what is your point if you have any.
The point is, is that being a 43 defense means that they come out of 4 downlineman and 3 linebackers and can play in a cover 2, cover 3, 46 or any other package based on the call of the day.

Saying the cover 2 defense is the best in the NFL is a little silly, considering that's just the look that a defense shows at the beginning of the play.

Very few if any defensive coordinators still employed soley run plays from a single defensive scheme.

Clearly his point is that there is no defensive package that can be considered superior because they're all hybrid nowadays anyway.

Iamcanadian
09-03-2008, 01:48 PM
You do know how to break up a quote using the tags don't you? Overlooking the fact that you have the grammatical skill of a five year old, you do realise most of your arguments were insulting the author, not the argument itself. That being said, I'll point out where you couldn't be more wrong.

To use an example, I'll use a team I know. Carolina last year ranked 14th overall in the running game with DeShaun Foster as the starting tail back. This is what you'd call the definition of an average running back doing enough for the team to have a middle of the road running game. By giving Williams and Stewart a combined starting job, which we'll eventually see the team is hoping for a dominant running game. Their hope is clearly to have a running game where they can beat a team with either power or speed, that is why they've built an offensive line of size but is retaining elements of a of zone blocking system.

---I don't get your point. He's saying that drafting a RB in round 1 is a waste of a pick since you can find top RB's in later rounds. the only exception is if your drafting a true stud. He would probably argue that Carolina made a stupid pick since they intend to have him share time with another RB and he therefore isn't a true stud. You did read his argument didn't you???

The first round backs were drafted to be dominant... NFL GM's want dominant running backs. It makes an offense more successful and thus, their life easier.

So what? All you're saying here is that the best teams in the NFL have been able to find the best value for money and their picks that fit in their scheme. If a player fits in the scheme and can excel and does so then they're a success regardless of when they're drafted. Thus far all you've done is say that the Giants, Pats and Indianapolis have good offensive lines...

---Again your failing to read his argument and respond to it. He would argue that say Indy(Addai) or NE(Maroney) wasted a top pick selecting a RB when they could have found just as good a player to play the position later in the draft. It seems to me that you are mistaking my argument for his and his argument for mine. You obviously didn't understand why I used 3 dashes to differentiate his ideas from mine.

You're insane if you think that a franchise OG is as important as a left tackle. Competitive guards can be had in rounds 3-5 and a lot of them don't go before then for a reason. The 3-5 guards who're highly paid are elite game changers, which is uncanny for the position. Plenty of teams do well with Budget guards.

---You are just agreeing with my argument and failing to read his. He is the one claiming that OG's are getting so important that they are being paid the same as LT's. He is arguing interior OLmen have moved up in importance enough to match salaries with a LT. My argument is that a LT is far, far more important than an interior OLmen and that the only reason a few OG's are getting LT money is that for the franchise tag, an OG is classified the same as a LT, it isn't a separate category and if a team wants to keep its top notch guard by franchising him, they are going to have to pay him LT money and that is why the Hutchinson's and the Faneca's were released and signed elsewhere. Interesting that you in fact are calling him insane while I only ridiculed him yet you argue I'm insulting.

I don't see any proper refutation here. Need anyone point out that David Garrard and Derek Anderson have jumped onto the scene because they're decent quarterbacks who're surrounded by brilliance and solid coaching? Garrard wouldn't be doing well with the 49ers thats for damn sure.

---His argument is that coaching makes great QB's including the Brady's and the Peyton's. Without great coaching Brady and Peyton wouldn't be the stars they are. In essence he is saying that the player himself has little to do with his own success as a QB, it is basically all coaching. I'm not arguing that coaching doesn't help but I am completely certain that Brady and Peyton have more to do with their success than the coaching alone provided.
As for Garrard, it seems quite presumptuous to me that you can tell how he would do in San Fran.

The point is, is that being a 43 defense means that they come out of 4 downlineman and 3 linebackers and can play in a cover 2, cover 3, 46 or any other package based on the call of the day.

---Every team has packages for certain situations but they play their basic defense most of the time with quite a few little wrinkles to confuse QB's. They don't line up as a Cover 2 team very often if say they are a 3-4 team. It takes a completely different athlete to play both types of defense and you are not going to find too many HC's who will put their players into a position where they can be complete failures resulting in a score. Sure on an obvious passing down, they may take out a non pass rusher and substitute in a pass rusher and they may try and confuse the QB by hiding exactly where the pass rush is coming from, but that is a far cry from switching from a 3-4 defense to a Cover 2 defense.


Saying the cover 2 defense is the best in the NFL is a little silly, considering that's just the look that a defense shows at the beginning of the play.

---Where did I say a Cover 2 defense is the best in the NFL. I never said it.????

Very few if any defensive coordinators still employed soley run plays from a single defensive scheme.

---Huh, what are you talking about??? If by scheme you mean defense as in 3-4 or Cover 2 or a basic 4-3, DC's will line up in their basic defense but they will move their players around to confuse the QB. The SS may move into the box, the LB's may set up in different spots with different intentions etc. but they are still in their basic set.

Clearly his point is that there is no defensive package that can be considered superior because they're all hybrid nowadays anyway.

---That's not what he is saying at all. He is quite clearly saying that there is no such thing as a basic defense anymore since teams switch around so much. No where does the idea of superior get even mentioned, certainly not by me.
My argument is that there is a thing called a basic defense for each team and that while they include many wrinkles to confuse the QB, they still employ a basic defense.

---I think you reading comprehension is really lacking. You obviously didn't bother to read his argument or completely misunderstood it. Since there is no bold feature that I know of in Draft Countdown, I indented my arguments so you could differentiated between what he said and what I said. Obviously, somewhere along the way you completely lost it and intermixed both arguments into one. I don't know where your mind was but it certainly wasn't on reading both sides of the argument correctly.

SenorGato
09-03-2008, 03:03 PM
Canadian...re-read my post...stop adding stuff that I didn't say in there...stop with the first round pick fetish...and learn to use the internet and organize your arguments so I can properly own them.

Bruce Banner
09-03-2008, 03:29 PM
and learn to use the internet and organize your arguments so I can properly own them.
http://cache.bordom.net/images/f9cc829ae0b529241778cbc6134fbbcc.jpg

awfullyquiet
09-03-2008, 04:46 PM
---That's not what he is saying at all. He is quite clearly saying that there is no such thing as a basic defense anymore since teams switch around so much. No where does the idea of superior get even mentioned, certainly not by me.
My argument is that there is a thing called a basic defense for each team and that while they include many wrinkles to confuse the QB, they still employ a basic defense.

---I think your reading comprehension is really lacking. You obviously didn't bother to read his argument or completely misunderstood it. Since there is no bold feature that I know of in Draft Countdown, I indented my arguments so you could differentiated between what he said and what I said. Obviously, somewhere along the way you completely lost it and intermixed both arguments into one. I don't know where your mind was but it certainly wasn't on reading both sides of the argument correctly.

does that make sense?

He is nothing. The idea is basic. Your reading comprehention is really lacking. I could differentiate what he said. Obviously, you completely lost it.

because you should.

BlindSite
09-03-2008, 06:35 PM
Nothing IamCanadian says makes sense. All he does is post big chunks of incoherent gibberish in the middle of someone's quotes because he doesn't know how to copy and paste.

I'd argue with him more, but I can't understand a damn word he's saying.

Iamcanadian
09-04-2008, 01:16 PM
Nothing IamCanadian says makes sense. All he does is post big chunks of incoherent gibberish in the middle of someone's quotes because he doesn't know how to copy and paste.

I'd argue with him more, but I can't understand a damn word he's saying.

Considering you made a complete mess of the discussion between me and SenorGato, I'm not surprised your running for cover.

Iamcanadian
09-04-2008, 01:29 PM
Canadian...re-read my post...stop adding stuff that I didn't say in there...stop with the first round pick fetish...and learn to use the internet and organize your arguments so I can properly own them.

Here's your quote!

"- A running *game* is important, the RB is not.

- Unless you find yourself an LT or Walter Payton, theres no real point in spending huge dollars on the RB position. The position takes such a pounding, and the difference in production between an elite talent (LT) and someone running behind a great O-line just isn't big enough to justify a long term contract to none but a superstar or a really sturdy young backup (and MJD or Turner type). This leads to my next truth."

Sure seems to me like your suggesting that a RB isn't worth taking in round 1 unless you believe he is an elite RB and I'm telling you that when a GM drafts a RB in round 1, he believes he is getting someone special and that is why he does it. Oh by the way, GM's do it all the time so obviously they don't follow your premise. So your 1st truth isn't true at all.

Looks like you are just trying to avoid my criticism because you have no come back to substantiate your claims.

Iamcanadian
09-04-2008, 01:35 PM
does that make sense?


As all can see my gibberish is quite readable even without the Bold, unless your education ended in grade 3. BlindSite just got confused and ended up with a post that was complete gibberish because he didn't take the time to read both arguments. Rather than admit he made a simple mistake, he feels he has to attack me to get some respect but instead comes out looking like an ----- .

SenorGato
09-05-2008, 12:28 AM
Here's your quote!

"- A running *game* is important, the RB is not.

- Unless you find yourself an LT or Walter Payton, theres no real point in spending huge dollars on the RB position. The position takes such a pounding, and the difference in production between an elite talent (LT) and someone running behind a great O-line just isn't big enough to justify a long term contract to none but a superstar or a really sturdy young backup (and MJD or Turner type). This leads to my next truth."

Sure seems to me like your suggesting that a RB isn't worth taking in round 1 unless you believe he is an elite RB and I'm telling you that when a GM drafts a RB in round 1, he believes he is getting someone special and that is why he does it. Oh by the way, GM's do it all the time so obviously they don't follow your premise. So your 1st truth isn't true at all.

Looks like you are just trying to avoid my criticism because you have no come back to substantiate your claims.

I'm talking about production on the football field. An NFL team doesn't *need* a big time talent at RB, because a RB's first few yards are almost always based on how good the run blocking is. The average NFL offense gains something like 4 YPC per running play/ That, plus the league's emphasis on the passing game has kind of devalued the RB position.

I'm not saying they shouldn't or wouldn't use a 1st round pick on a RB. I'm saying it's a very easy position to acquire talent at because so much of it's production relies on the O-line.

Bengalsrocket
09-05-2008, 01:13 AM
The O-line and RB don't supplement each other in the running game. Their roles are completely different.

An offensive line's job is to push the defense back and pick up key blocks making the first few yards of a run possible.

The Running backs' job is to read the offensive line's blocks and find the biggest opening and then "beat" any defenders left.

Minus the few exceptions here and there like Westbrook, you don't find many backs who are able to get much further than the offensive line takes them, like LT, AP, LJ, Sjax etc. If you've ever heard the phrase "Home run threat from anywhere on the field" its these guys they're talking about it. They can score any time they're on the field and that's why they were drafted in the first round.

If you don't want to spend the big bucks on a first round RB you'll get a guy like Rudi johnson who played for us for 7 years, and his longest run was 54 yards - and he only had like 7 runs over 30 yards.

If you do want to spend the big bucks on a first round RB you'll get a guy like LaDainian Tomlinson who has had several 70+ yard runs and even 1 I know of that was 85 yards.

oh and he'll also score 115 touchdowns to Rudi Johnson's 48 touchdowns.

Its a simplistic view, and I agree that the 5 guys on the line are far more important than most people give them credit for, but to think they're any more valuable than the guy carrying the rock is just flawed and history clearly doesn't agree with you.

BlindSite
09-05-2008, 01:28 AM
Considering you made a complete mess of the discussion between me and SenorGato, I'm not surprised your running for cover.

First of all it should read

"Considering you made a complete mess of the discussion between SenorGato and I, I'm not surprised you're running for cover.

You're is a conjunction meaning "you are".

There are some elementary English books available on amazon. Maybe while there you can grab a copy of "Football for Dummies."

Bengalsrocket
09-05-2008, 01:35 AM
First of all it should read

"Considering you made a complete mess of the discussion between SenorGato and I, I'm not surprised you're running for cover.

You're is a conjunction meaning "you are".

There are some elementary English books available on amazon. Maybe while there you can grab a copy of "Football for Dummies."

Good job flaming his grammar instead of his actual argument.

There are some elementary debating books available on amazon. Maybe while there you can grab a copy of "Moving Out of Your Parent's Basement for Dummies."

Bruce Banner
09-05-2008, 01:42 AM
Good job flaming his grammar instead of his actual argument.

There are some elementary debating books available on amazon. Maybe while there you can grab a copy of "Moving Out of Your Parent's Basement for Dummies."

I recommend, "Ad Hominem and You: Can't beat the point? Beat the man!"

Iamcanadian
09-05-2008, 08:45 AM
First of all it should read

"Considering you made a complete mess of the discussion between SenorGato and I, I'm not surprised you're running for cover.

You're is a conjunction meaning "you are".

There are some elementary English books available on amazon. Maybe while there you can grab a copy of "Football for Dummies."


Once again, you completely fail to prove your points and revert to :) grammar to get from under the mess you created. The funny part is that in essence, we agree on many points, unfortunately by not comprehending the argument, you failed to see that.:)

awfullyquiet
09-05-2008, 02:15 PM
I recommend, "Ad Hominem and You: Can't beat the point? Beat the man!"

Fantastic book.

BlindSite
09-05-2008, 03:55 PM
Good job flaming his grammar instead of his actual argument.

There are some elementary debating books available on amazon. Maybe while there you can grab a copy of "Moving Out of Your Parent's Basement for Dummies."

I can't read his argument.

Once again, you completely fail to prove your points and revert to :) grammar to get from under the mess you created. The funny part is that in essence, we agree on many points, unfortunately by not comprehending the argument, you failed to see that.:)

If your argument was presented properly, you'd get more credence and respect. I cannot read, nor adequately understand what you put forward, unless you format things properly.

At the beginning of what you quote write [quote.] at the end [/quote.] without the . and you'll break up the quote. There's also a multi quote button. Hell, use a differen't font colour.

awfullyquiet
09-05-2008, 04:06 PM
I can't read his argument.



If your argument was presented properly, you'd get more credence and respect. I cannot read, nor adequately understand what you put forward, unless you format things properly.

At the beginning of what you quote write [quote.] at the end [/quote.] without the . and you'll break up the quote. There's also a multi quote button. Hell, use a differen't font colour.


What credence?
Credence clearwater revival?