NBC Sports - ProFootballTalk: Report: Cowboys explored trading up for Charles Harris http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...wboys-explored-trading-up-for-charles-harris/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I wonder if the Dolphins front office knew this. Judging from how fast they ran the pick in I don't think it would have mattered. But I wonder.
For a raw prospect who has only played football for 6 years, he seems to have some unteachable skills.
The never ending saga to get to Brady based on the Giants formula. Hope this one sticks Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't believe that's accurate. When we had JT and others we showed how to do it. And the Giants followed suit albeit in their own fashion.
As you never mentioned that being in the Super Bowl was part of argument why is it being used as means to discount what I said? You only noted that is was the never ending saga of pressuring Brady on the giants formula. As the teams did face each other outside of the SB and again you never indicated that you were advocating a SB winning formula I think, what you actually said is different from what you meant.
Well, if a person mentions the Giants formula for beating the Pats it kinda makes one think of two certain Superbowls before they think of the reg season games.
Con was just saying JT wrote the book on how to beat Marcia. Beat her *** and she goes to the bench crying. Yeah, the Giants won the Super Bowl twice doing the thing they learned from watching JT do it. Yes we are trying to replicate that still. Don't know why anybody had to go getting all snippy bout some kindygarden stuff. Kids!
That's what you might think, but that does not mean it's an altruistic outcome. There was no qualifier injected in that sentence. If that is what was meant so be it, but it was not was said nor was it defintively implied. And because one thinks of SB first, it does not remove the inclusion of any other games they played as in the rematches of SB's the league likes to schedule the following year. Thinking of something first does not negate all other aspects - to do that would be looking at a limited part of the story and opens the conclusion up to criticism due to the limited nature of it's supporting evidence. Also it may in fact allow someone to say the it falls into the fallacy of 'begging the question' whereby the conclusion is produced before the evidence can provide the conclusion for itself.
It doesn't take a great defensive mind to KNOW HOW to beat NE. It takes the horses in the stable. Pressure without having to blitz.Allow your LB's to clog the zones. There it is. The key to beating/slowing down NE. Wheres my book money? I just cracked the code.
You wouldn't have to worry about book money if you made your book available as an eBook like I told you to.
So you're saying that if someone is not an English and communications expert, they're not entitled to an opinion? Because that's what you're arguing here... The rest of us understood his implication.
No. Not even close and you're well aware of that. His meaning was not clear and you don't need to be an English major to know how to produce a sentence that does in fact make what you meant to say clear. Are you speaking for everyone on the site? If so may I see your poll, and any other data to suggest that you have in fact become the voice of the board? If not then it's pretty clear you can't say "everyone" else knew what he implied as that would be nothing more than an opinion. Opinions are not facts. They may be supported by facts but they are not facts in and of themselves. Trying to imply what someone else said is more a matter of each individuals own mindset - as that is where ones ability to imply comes from. And "begging the question" has nothing to do with English, or communications, it actually does pertain to the study of logic and it's use within arguments. So, if you're going to try and be snarky at least have a clue as to what you're trying to be snarky about. I did not insult, belittle or condescend. I simply stated in first post that "what you said may not in fact be what you meant" - which can be born out in the old axiom - say you mean, don't mean what you say. If the fact that I use logical thought processes to produce my arguments, rather than falling prey to the common fallacies of arguments bothers you, then I suggest you look it up and find out how to produce a higher quality of argument on your own. And finally, I would you to directly quote or produce anything I have said that directly states that I said he is not entitled to his own opinion, I merely stated that I think his meaning was not clear. Otherwise what you wrote about my implied meaning is jibberish and only serves to provide a proof as to why I say trying to insinuate what people imply is simply not a good idea. If you cannot produce that quote then it's clear that you are: 1. Wrong 2. Producing inaccurate statements. Neither of which accurately reflect what I said.
Surprise, surprise. I do not. I do however have an IQ of 141. Now that I've said that it will likely be taken the wrong way by some, but so be it.
There is a lawyer inside you, trying to express himself. Let him out, Richard. (And there is never a graceful way to mention a high IQ, but we shouldn't be ashamed of it either) What do you do for a living, btw? Curious.
Giants didn't produce the formula for beating getting to Brady, as was stated, since the Dolphins were getting to Brady with JT, Zach, and others long before. Winning the Super Bowl is different than being able to get to Brady. You need a complete team to win a Super Bowl.
JT never went to the Superbowl so Con saying anything about it not being the Giants formula must be false.
Confucius is a great big barrel of knowledge..I enjoy his insight rather I agree or not. put some respek on his name
OR, have an OC who understands that running the ball inside the 40 with less than 3 min left is the right play.
His meaning was clear to several of us, despite you calling it "inaccurate" and then "a means to discount what you said." Yet, the only reason he reinforced his opinion directly is because of you challenging him. Despite what you may think, everyone is entitled to their own opinions here and there's no prerequisite on how they share it. Sure. Re-read the thread and you'll see where the OP shared his opinion, you called him wrong and others stated that they understood his implications (myself included). That's your poll. As I stated, you belittled his opinion because you didn't understand it. Instead of accepting the mistake and moving on though, you decided to point out how he could better himself by making his opinions clearer. Insult, belittle, condescend- take your pick. That's what happens when you imply that someone is not intelligent enough, or eloquent enough, to have an opinion.
You and a few others are not everyone. It is interesting how you dropped your use of everyone and have changed it to "several". This validating my point that you are not actually able to speak for "everyone". You have yet to quote where I said he was not entitled to his opinion so that's pretty much done and dusted. So rather than keep telling that's what I said - just quote the part where I ACTUALLY said that. I'll bet hell freezes over first. You never said before that I didn't understand his point and therefore belittled it. The first time you said THAT was just now. So how could you say it before? And yes there is a prerequisite of how people share their opinions on this board if they want them to be understood on the board; it's called English. That's because it's the primary language of this board. If he wrote in Chinese how many would have a clue what he said. So by all means try again. There was no mistake. The only mistake was that what he said may not have been what he meant. And strangely enough he hasn't taken issue with it from what I've seen - only you who is desperately trying to legitimize this straw man argument. You may continue to try as you might but it's very clear that your in over your head. That's the only implication I've made - and it relates to you and you alone. And the more you type about this subject the clearer my implication becomes; making it less likely that I'll have to repeat it as your own hand has verified my implication. Or in laymans terms you are poor at constructing viable, cohesive arguments. Throwing **** against the wall and seeing what sticks however you appear to be exceptional at. And actually I mentioned that YOU could go and learn how to construct arguments better, not him. So maybe you should re read things or just stop because this is frankly becoming embarrassing as ****.
WTF? DE's get paid (the good ones) because they pressure the QB. That's not a magical formula, and it doesn't just apply Brady (I said his name, bet you jizzed).
BTW the Giants "formula" required a roster bubble WR to make a crazy helmet catch and an all-reliable WR to drop passes.
Is any body else ready for football season to start again yet??? I hate this time of year. It's still flippin cold and wet. I'm in the middle of a rainforest and allergic to tree pollen, which the flipping things are spewing everywhere faster than half you malafalas getting a lap dance for the first time!, and there is nothing more exciting than Mariner baseball going on. AAAAGGGGHHHH!!!!!! Just somebody flippin HIT SOMETHING ALREADY!!!!
Speaking of Brady, he just called JT one of the greatest of all time. JT was really great. 2nd favorite player of all time. http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...g-nba-hall-famer-michael-jordan-ultimate-goat