For all the Chris Sammuels haters...

[mcarey032]

Well I am glad to see that there are people out there who know what they are talking about.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

First of all, it's universally understood , if not acknowledged, that NFL Pro Bowl selection is somewhat overrated. It's more of a popularity contest. I wonder how many actual coaches voted for CS. Many of you are pissed off about the fact truly deserving Redskins players like Sean Taylor didn't make it despite a huge year of making highlight films and garnering near universal praise from the Sunday talking heads. Roy Williams in the PB? This year? Yeah right. It's a mistake to place so much emphasis and weight on the Pro Bowl. But I know some of you out there are so keen on certain types of logical fallacies, and would never dare offer an opinion that was seemingly out of step with the "authorities". I seem to recall one inconsequential person in particular who is deathly afraid of contradicting so called authorative sources, even if they're incorrect.

Anyhoo...

I've said it before, and Ill say it again... Chris Samuels is overrated. He's an average OT making top 3 money. In other words, he's not a great value. Ever wonder why the Redskins attempted to trade him last offseason? Hmmmm......

I can think of three huge games this year in which Samuels had a very poor day: KC, Denver, and NYG.

Last week (and most of the season, really), Portis favored running behind a real tandem - Jansen and Thomas.

So, on the one hand, most of you will reference his PB selection and offer that as incontrovertible proof that CS is just so wonderful. And yet on the other hand, you'll damn the PB because Sean Taylor, Marcus Washington, etc. were either not selected at all or not selected as PB starters.

Very funny, people....

:laugh: :doh:

[Art]

Oakton if you remember Denver as a bad day you're hopped up on some powerful altering substances because the Denver game was a dominating line performance that left the Broncos crying about how impossible it was to penetrate our line. KC was a game Samuels actually played pretty well though Allen got a clean sack on him. The Giants was a brutal game, no doubt.

[goldenster95]

First of all, it's universally understood , if not acknowledged, that NFL Pro Bowl selection is somewhat overrated. It's more of a popularity contest. I wonder how many actual coaches voted for CS. Many of you are pissed off about the fact truly deserving Redskins players like Sean Taylor didn't make it despite a huge year of making highlight films and garnering near universal praise from the Sunday talking heads. Roy Williams in the PB? This year? Yeah right. It's a mistake to place so much emphasis and weight on the Pro Bowl. But I know some of you out there are so keen on certain types of logical fallacies, and would never dare offer an opinion that was seemingly out of step with the "authorities". I seem to recall one inconsequential person in particular who is deathly afraid of contradicting so called authorative sources, even if they're incorrect.

Anyhoo...

I've said it before, and Ill say it again... Chris Samuels is overrated. He's an average OT making top 3 money. In other words, he's not a great value. Ever wonder why the Redskins attempted to trade him last offseason? Hmmmm......

I can think of three huge games this year in which Samuels had a very poor day: KC, Denver, and NYG.

Last week (and most of the season, really), Portis favored running behind a real tandem - Jansen and Thomas.

So, on the one hand, most of you will reference his PB selection and offer that as incontrovertible proof that CS is just so wonderful. And yet on the other hand, you'll damn the PB because Sean Taylor, Marcus Washington, etc. were either not selected at all or not selected as PB starters.

Very funny, people....

:laugh: :doh:

Man, you're pathetic. "Logical fallacies"? To be sure, SOME Pro-Bowl selections stink. But that doesn't mean that ALL of them do. Of course, under your "logic," the selections of Willie Anderson, Willie Roaf and Johnathan Ogden for the AFC and Walter Jones and Orlando Pace for the NFC were necessarilyflawed too, right? Of course, if they're dead on with those, I guess they just put in Samuels, who hasn't been there for the past few years, on reputation, right? :laugh:

:insane:

In addition, it's not just the Pro-Bowl selection that counts. It's the commentary offered by other knowledgeable fans. Too bad you're the only guy now that's tooting that horn and the other "supporters" -- who, I might add (as noted by someone in another thread) are those with a sparse amount of posts -- you had "pulling" for you have now jumped completely off the Titanic you think will still sail safely across the Atlantic.

Keep bailing the water off that ship, man. I'm sure she's still seaworthy. :laugh:

[goldenster95]

Oakton if you remember Denver as a bad day you're hopped up on some powerful altering substances because the Denver game was a dominating line performance that left the Broncos crying about how impossible it was to penetrate our line. KC was a game Samuels actually played pretty well though Allen got a clean sack on him. The Giants was a brutal game, no doubt.

Couldn't have said it better myself, Art.

Oakton, sadly, probably needs an increase in his methadone treatments.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Oakton if you remember Denver as a bad day you're hopped up on some powerful altering substances because the Denver game was a dominating line performance that left the Broncos crying about how impossible it was to penetrate our line. KC was a game Samuels actually played pretty well though Allen got a clean sack on him. The Giants was a brutal game, no doubt.

I'll have to revisit the Denver game. The KC game? Hmmm.... I don't think I need to review that one. Snyder is paying CS top 3 money. One would think - expect - CS to hold his own against top assignments. We both agree that CS has failed to meet that objective against the Giants. Nonetheless, I'll be at the game Saturday losing my voice again cheering him on.

[goldenster95]

I'll have to revisit the Denver game. The KC game? Hmmm.... I don't think I need to review that one. Snyder is paying CS top 3 money. One would think - expect - CS to hold his own against top assignments. We both agree that CS has failed to meet that objective against the Giants. Nonetheless, I'll be at the game Saturday losing my voice again cheering him on.

Go ahead and re-visit that game, man. You might also want to re-visit the second Cowboy game. While you're at it, you might also want to take a look at the fact that those who selected the five other OTs who made the Pro-Bowl were dead on with those selections and then consider the fact that you'd be asserting that they completely blew it with Samuels.

Get real, man. And get a clue when Art cues you into the reference to "powerful [mind] altering substances" and the fact that absolutely NO ONE -- and I mean NO ONE -- is sitting in your corner sputtering out the nonsense you're blowing out now.

:laugh:

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Man, you're pathetic. "Logical fallacies"? To be sure, SOME Pro-Bowl selections stink. But that doesn't mean that ALL of them do. Of course, under your "logic," the selections of Willie Anderson, Willie Roaf and Johnathan Ogden for the AFC and Walter Jones and Orlando Pace for the NFC were necessarilyflawed too, right? Of course, if they're dead on with those, I guess they just put in Samuels, who hasn't been there for the past few years, on reputation, right? :laugh:

:insane:

In addition, it's not just the Pro-Bowl selection that counts. It's the commentary offered by other knowledgeable fans. Too bad you're the only guy now that's tooting that horn and the other "supporters" -- who, I might add (as noted by someone in another thread) are those with a sparse amount of posts -- you had "pulling" for you have now jumped completely off the Titanic you think will still sail safely across the Atlantic.

Keep bailing the water off that ship, man. I'm sure she's still seaworthy. :laugh:

Believe whatever you want. The fact of the matter is that Samuels' track record against top assignments isn't very good. The fact of the matter is that Portis is far more successful running behind Jansen's side. Very telling. On Saturday we'll see, once again, if Samules is up the challenge. Will he be the "human revolving door" again, or will he actually perform to a level commensurate with his inflated salary? Again, top players are expected to hold their own against their best assignments, and in his last outing against the Giants he failed miserably. Against Allen, poor again. I could go on.

The best you can do is reference a popularity contest.

Back to the copier, goldenboy.

[goldenster95]

Believe whatever you want. The fact of the matter is that Samuels' track record against top assignments isn't very good. The fact of the matter is that Portis is far more successful running behind Jansen's side. Very telling. On Saturday we'll see, once again, if Samules is up the challenge. Will he be the "human revolving door" again, or will he actually perform to a level commensurate with his inflated salary? Again, top players are expected to hold their own against their best assignments, and in his last outing against the Giants he failed miserably. Against Allen, poor again. I could go on.

The best you can do is reference a popularity contest.

Back to the copier, goldenboy.

:stupid:

Yeah, so Walter Jones, Jonathan Ogden, Willie Anderson, Willie Roaf, and Orlando Pace won that same "popularity" contest too, right? They're not actually good, they just happened to be really "popular" huh? Funny how you dont' address that.

Also, funny how you don't address the fact that I'm addressing more than just that "popularity contest." If you have any ability to comprehend, you'll see that I'm also citing to, competely independent of the "popularity contest," the other fans who've commented in this posts. This includes Art, who absolutely just punked you by not so subtely referring to the fact that you're on some mind altering drug. Last but not least is the all so salient fact that you've got no one else in your corner on this one.

Hey, keep bailing out that water off the Titanic, will you?

And when you're done, I'd like fries with #2.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Go ahead and re-visit that game, man. You might also want to re-visit the second Cowboy game.

:laugh:

I was there. Guess which side Portis favored? Who was most successful "pulling" for Portis? It wasn't Samuels.

And yes, Samuels does live mostly by reputation.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

:stupid:

Yeah, so Walter Jones, Jonathan Ogden, Willie Anderson, Willie Roaf, and Orlando Pace won that same "popularity" contest too, right? They're not actually good, they just happened to be really "popular" huh? Funny how you dont' address that.

Also, funny how you don't address the fact that I'm addressing more than just that "popularity contest." If you have any ability to comprehend, you'll see that I'm also citing to, competely independent of the "popularity contest," the other fans who've commented in this posts. This includes Art, who absolutely just punked you by not so subtely referring to the fact that you're on some mind altering drug. Last but not least is the all so salient fact that you've got no one else in your corner on this one.

Hey, keep bailing out that water off the Titanic, will you?

And when you're done, I'd like fries with #2.

Keep silent about the fact that Samuels rarely meets the challenge of the best the league has to offer. Yeah, he's really worth that huge chunk of cap space.

[Doctor ToughLove]

What?? I have never heard of a Chris Samuels hater? Or a anti-Samuels faction?

[goldenster95]

I was there. Guess which side Portis favored? Who was most successful "pulling" for Portis? It wasn't Samuels.

And yes, Samuels does live mostly by reputation.

Yeah, reputation, right? You mean . . .

1. The reputation propped up by reputable talent evaluating services like Scouts, Inc. that have him rated as the fourth best OT behind Pace, Ogden, and Jones.

2. Consistent with those reputable talent evaluating service, Pro-Bowl selections that include no-brainers of Pace, Ogden, Jones, Willie Anderson and Willie Roaf. According to your moronic view, however, those guys are clearly Pro-Bowlers but Samuels somehow got there on reputation despite the fact that he's not been there since 2002.

3. No one else supports you lame view of Samuels. In fact, Art just lit you up by suggesting you've been hitting the glass pipe.

4. The only thing you've got to support your view of Samuels is YOU yourself.

Sorry pal, but you've got owned, punked, etc.

Give it up, skippy.

[goldenster95]

Keep silent about the fact that Samuels rarely meets the challenge of the best the league has to offer. Yeah, he's really worth that huge chunk of cap space.

See my post above. And read Art's post again.

Also, keep silent about the fact no one else shares your view on Samuels and that the cap space point is a completely different issue. Way to try to escape, sonny.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Yeah, reputation, right? You mean . . .

1. The reputation propped up by reputable talent evaluating services like Scouts, Inc. that have him rated as the fourth best OT behind Pace, Ogden, and Jones.

2. Consistent with those reputable talent evaluating service, Pro-Bowl selections that include no-brainers of Pace, Ogden, Jones, Willie Anderson and Willie Roaf. According to your moronic view, however, those guys are clearly Pro-Bowlers but Samuels somehow got there on reputation despite the fact that he's not been there since 2002.

3. No one else supports you lame view of Samuels. In fact, Art just lit you up by suggesting you've been hitting the glass pipe.

4. The only thing you've got to support your view of Samuels is YOU yourself.

Sorry pal, but you've got owned, punked, etc.

Give it up, skippy.

There we go again.... fallacious argument by authority peppered with conjecture and your typical projection. Very nice, goldenboy.

Try opening your eyes for a change and actually watch the freakin' games instead of referencing everyone and their mother.

Art may be right about the Denver game - I need to see it again - but he's wrong about the KC game. He and I are in complete agreement with respect to the NYG game.

Try responding to the question of why he can't compete with the best the league has to offer? Why isn't he consistent? Why can't he take on an Allen successfully? So he can keep up with the average DE's.... that's why he get's paid the big money?

If he made an average or slightly above average salary for his position, then I wouldn't be so upset.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Oh, and how can I forget the Tampa game?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/11/11/DI2005111100673.html

Columbia, S.C.: Will someone please explain the play where Robert Royal just stands there, while Simeon Rice runs past him and sacks Brunel. What was Royal thinking?

Christian Swezey: I think it was a clever change on the earlier play where Chris Samuels stood still while Simeon Rice sacked Brunell.

Gee, I'm all alone.... :laugh:

[goldenster95]

There we go again.... fallacious argument by authority peppered with conjecture and your typical projection. Very nice, goldenboy.

Try opening your eyes for a change and actually watch the freakin' games instead of referencing everyone and their mother.

Art may be right about the Denver game - I need to see it again - but he's wrong about the KC game. He and I are in complete agreement with respect to the NYG game.

Try responding to the question of why he can't compete with the best the league has to offer? Why isn't he consistent? Why can't he take on an Allen successfully? So he can keep up with the average DE's.... that's why he get's paid the big money?

If he made an average or slightly above average salary for his position, then I wouldn't be so upset.

Son, don't try this logic bit cuz you're completely lost on what it is. If you want to apply that "logic," try figgering out why Samuels is on that list of OTs in this year's Pro-Bowl.

And I'm not just relying on others, I've set forth at length my own views on Samuels. Let me make it really simple for you and how you weave logic with a cogent argument: come up with your own view and then support it with other reputable sources that back you up. That's what I've done. You, on the other hand, have come up with your view alone. If you can't see how utterly stupid that is, you're more than the crack addicted fiend Art makes you out to be.

So, to sum up.

Goldenster: (1) has own theory on Samuels; (2) backed up by (a) reputable talent evaluating services, ( Pro-Bowl selections that include top five OTs in the game and a Pro-Bowl selection for himself that includes himself, and © other reputable posters on this forum.

Oakton: (1) has his own theory on Samuels; (2) backed up by his own theory on Samuels.

Getting to see how stupid you look?

Good.

[goldenster95]

Oh, and how can I forget the Tampa game?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/11/11/DI2005111100673.html

Columbia, S.C.: Will someone please explain the play where Robert Royal just stands there, while Simeon Rice runs past him and sacks Brunel. What was Royal thinking?

Christian Swezey: I think it was a clever change on the earlier play where Chris Samuels stood still while Simeon Rice sacked Brunell.

Gee, I'm all alone.... :laugh:

Oooooooohhhhh . . . one play and you've got a supporter. Too funny.

Hey, why don't you PM those other guys that had four or five posts to come out and speak their peace now?

Funny how you've got no one else other than yourself.

:stupid:

[Jumbo]

Here, here, ghost. And, ah yes, Lachey. The good days. I remember how we rooked the Chargers for him.

We didn't rook the Chargers. We got him from the Raiders. He only played one game there. They got him from the Chargers. The Raiders got Jay Schroeder. A rook indeed that my old Raider buddy agonized over.

I've never been a hater of any player I can think of, but I have been of some fans I think :laugh: . As for Samuels, he says he'd really slipped the two years under Spurrier and credits Buges for getting his game back.

As with other prominent Redskins, I see some critics get hard on him when his performance is notably less than his pay scale demands, and then change their opinion when his performance improves. That's reasonable. I'm sure other critics are just generally clueless because that's always a factor with any topic.

It also seems pretty clear to me that our whole offensive line has been up and down in quality of play, individually and collectively, over the last 4-5 years. No big bulletin there.

The most consistently misjudged performance level is inevitably our own perceptual acuity in believing ourselves to be the exceptional football analysts we all know we are :laugh: .

:gaintsuck :gaintsuck :gaintsuck :gaintsuck :gaintsuck

[UK Skins]

The guy who said Samuel's performance and his cap space are not related is missing the point. I have only managed to watch three or four of our games this year but I think Samuels was criticised by the commentators in all of them.

You also get the impression from this board after games that this is carried on in the other games I haven't seen (although that might just be all OaktonSkin's posts!).

It is extremely difficult to rate O Linemen, especially based on TV pictures, but for every Samuels hater there seem to be two or three Samuels lovers. I am not sure how we decide who is right, unless the rumours about trading him each year eventually turn out to be true.

[Seabee1973]

Here, here, ghost. And, ah yes, Lachey. The good days. I remember how we rooked the Chargers for him.

Lachey came from the Raiders in a trade with Schroeder

[mcarey032]

So trading rumors of Sammuels validates the fact that he is no good? Then that arguement would apply to edgerrin james who was on the choping block as well as shawn alexander. Chris Sammuels got to go to the pro bowl because he is a top lineman. Like I said, he does have some tangible numbers to support his pro bowl bid. It is easy to blame one player for having a bad game. Where was the thread about when Jon Jansen let Lance Briggs through the whole and he hurt Ramsey? I know you are going to say that the Ramsey injury was fortuitous. However, what if it were campbell or less likely Brunell because of his throwing hand that were injured? Would you hold Jansen in any less esteem? I don't think so. So just give the man his due. He earned it by his numbers and he shouldn't be slammed. When he is validated for being a pro bowl lineman only one or two posters come on and even then they try and slam him. You can't please everyone I guess.

[goldenster95]

The guy who said Samuel's performance and his cap space are not related is missing the point. I have only managed to watch three or four of our games this year but I think Samuels was criticised by the commentators in all of them.

You also get the impression from this board after games that this is carried on in the other games I haven't seen (although that might just be all OaktonSkin's posts!).

It is extremely difficult to rate O Linemen, especially based on TV pictures, but for every Samuels hater there seem to be two or three Samuels lovers. I am not sure how we decide who is right, unless the rumours about trading him each year eventually turn out to be true.

For this particular issue, cap space and performance aren't related. The only question is whether he's one of the top OTs in the league. And that, in the context of this dispute, does not turn on what he's getting paid or how much cap space he's taking. And the trade stuff is irrelevant too. First of all, they're false. Second, a lot of other talented folks are, as noted by another poster, put on the trading block all the time. For instance, perhaps the top OT in the league right now, Walter Jones, has been put on the trading block (and drawn a franchise tag) almost every year the last few years.

Don't get drawn in by red herrings thrown out by short-busers like Oakton.

On another note, YIKES, it was the Raiders not the Bolts. I was thinking about the draft pick we got from the Bolts in '92 when we traded some stiff to them for their number one, which happened to be fourth overall. Alas, we netted Desmond Howard from all of that.

[Jumbo]

For this particular issue, cap space and performance aren't related. The only question is whether he's one of the top OTs in the league. And that, in the context of this dispute, does not turn on what he's getting paid or how much cap space he's taking. And the trade stuff is irrelevant too. First of all, they're false. Second, a lot of other talented folks are, as noted by another poster, put on the trading block all the time. For instance, perhaps the top OT in the league right now, Walter Jones, has been put on the trading block (and drawn a franchise tag) almost every year the last few years.

Don't get drawn in by red herrings thrown out by short-busers like Oakton.

On another note, YIKES, it was the Raiders not the Bolts. I was thinking about the draft pick we got from the Bolts in '92 when we traded some stiff to them for their number one, which happened to be fourth overall. Alas, we netted Desmond Howard from all of that.

I didn't add this when I made the Raider/Schroeder correction (before you did, Seabee-who-didn't-read-the-whole-thread- ) but believe it or not, there were times when Lachey was raked over the coals by some Redksins fans/DC papers back then. It's the nature of the beast I guess. Myself, I always loved how we boned Al on that one.

I was staying out of the specific exchange between you and Oak when I made my generalized comments because you guys got it going fine as it is . One more note on the o-line, I have confidence in Ray, but Thomas was having a great year and the line was really peaking IMO. He'll be missed, but where there's a will...

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Once again, a heavy barage of rhetorical fallacies. Goldenboy's fallacies du jour. Let's begin the decontstruction...

gb: Son, don't try this logic bit cuz you're completely lost on what it is. If you want to apply that "logic," try figgering out why Samuels is on that list of OTs in this year's Pro-Bowl.

>>>> Another red herring... how many of those have you committed thus far? It's a staple response for you. You dilberately avoid answering one of my key questions - why Samuels almost never has a good day against his top assignments (premier DEs), which supports my contention that Samuels is not a good value - and instead introduce a diversionary question.

gb: And I'm not just relying on others, I've set forth at length my own views on Samuels.

>>>>>>> Actually, that's a flat out lie. Your views on Samuels, as presented in a few threads with the same or similar topic, consistent almost exclusively of referencing the views and opinions of others.

gb: Let me make it really simple for you and how you weave logic with a cogent argument: come up with your own view and then support it with other reputable sources that back you up. That's what I've done.

>>> What you've actually done... Next fallacy... Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). Your're a big time repeat offender with this one. Your are attempting to make the argument that the truth of a proposition relies exclusively on "sources that back you up". So, just because some authority(ies) happen to agree with you, then you are necessarily correct. Forget about the one's that do not (which I've previously referenced in other related posts). Ignore what actually transpires on the field and is captured on tape. Nah, for goldenboy, that's not valid. Only popularity contests and outdated scouting reports are valid.

gb: You, on the other hand, have come up with your view alone.

>>>> Another factually incorrect statement. How much would you like to wager that I'm not the only person - fan, sports journalist, etc. - that thinks CS is overrated, too expensive, inconsistent,and altogether not such a great value?

gb: If you can't see how utterly stupid that is, you're more than the crack addicted fiend Art makes you out to be.

>>>> Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). Not to mention the fact that you have butchered and twisted Art's actual words and meaning. Another straw man...

gb: So, to sum up.

Goldenster: (1) has own theory on Samuels; (2) backed up by (a) reputable talent evaluating services, ( Pro-Bowl selections that include top five OTs in the game and a Pro-Bowl selection for himself that includes himself, and © other reputable posters on this forum.

>>>> Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). How old is that scouting report? Look at some of the other PB selections - and just as importantly, those not selected, and tell me why the PB is such the great barometer and validator you think it is. It's a factor, but just one in many and, due to it's construct and practice, requires reasonable people to take it with a grain of salt.

gb: Oakton: (1) has his own theory on Samuels; (2) backed up by his own theory on Samuels.

>>> Ridiculous straw man argument... no further elaboration required.

gb: Getting to see how stupid you look?

>>>> And you were saying?

>>>> Oh, nothing to say?

gb: Good.

Oh, and let's not forget the worst of your fallacies: Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust by repitition).