For all the Chris Sammuels haters...

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

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.

>>> 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.

Read: Value doesn't count for anything. Forget about the fact that he's still inconsistent against the best assignments. Nah, so called top tier OT need not meet the challenge of top ranked DEs. Whatever.

Read: Pro Bowl selection is the only barometer for evaluating a player and determining if he's a top player at his position or not. Nevermind the fact that subjectivity is inherent in the entire process. Take a look at QB for the NFC: Mike Vick? He's the #11 ranked QB and Brunnell is #7. Not suggesting that MB should have been selected, but why was Vick? Reputation. Popularity.

>>>>And the trade stuff is irrelevant too. First of all, they're false.

Yeah, whatever...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A521-2004Apr9.html (2004)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48596-2005Feb23.html (2005)

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

See previous post. You've got some nerve to throw that accusation around. Hypocrite.

[goldenster95]

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).

Oh, it's this again. Some cataloging of logical fallacies you get off of some laminated sheet of paper at Staples. Let me round all this up:

1. Appeal to authority? You're kidding, right? Most people do that to back themselves up. How that's a fallacy is beyond me, dummy.

2. Samuels has had a damn good year against all comers -- good, bad, and otherwise. So don't give me this idiotic refrain that he hasn't. Case in point: Art's hilarious post calling you out as someone who's been whacked on the glass pipe.

3. You're now the only guy who's making these idiotic assertions about Samuels. LET ME REPEAT: YOU'RE THE ONLY GUY WHO'S NOW HOLDING UP THIS RIDICULOUS ARGUMENT. Other than yourself, you've got ZERO to back you up. All you've got is yourself. Sorry, but I'll take Pro-Bowl voters who select Samuels on a non-reputation basis this year (since the last time he got in was a few years ago) and some experts in the field over your idiotic view. Got anything to show me that your view is anything other than some lame lay opinion on Samuels?

ONE MORE THING: TRY READING THROUGH THE POSTS IN THIS THREAD. NOTICE ANYTHING? YEAH, IT'S THE COLLECTIVE CHORUS OF THOSE NOT ONLY DISAGREEING COMPLETELY WITH YOU, BUT LAUGHING AT YOU AS WELL. CORRECT THAT, MAKING A MOCKERY OF YOU.

HERE'S A SMALL EXAMPLE: GO READ WHISKEYPEET'S POSTS. OR BETTER YET ART'S POST AGAIN.

SORRY IF YOU'RE TOO TONE DEAF TO FIGURE THIS OUT, BUT WHEN YOU'VE GOT REPUTABLE SCOUTING SERVICES, PRO-BOWL VOTERS WHO VOTE ON A NON-REPUTATION BASIS, MODERATORS, AND OTHER POSTERS WHO NOT TAKE ISSUE WITH WHAT YOU SAY BUT LAUGH AT YOU AS WELL, THAT MIGHT SUGGEST SOMETHING TO YOU.

OH YEAH, BUT WE'RE ALL WRONG -- THAT BEING ALL THE PRO-BOWL SELECTION FOLKS, REPUTABLE SCOUTING SERVICES, ART, AND THE REST OF US LUNATICS -- AND YOU, AND ONLY YOU, ARE SOMEHOW CORRECT, RIGHT?

Hey, but keep it buddy, maybe all this ranting might fetch you another on the "mind altering substance" fringe that Art talked about.

:laugh: :rofl:

:stupid:

[Newera]

All our lineman looked bad under Spurrier. They had bad coaching and developed bad habits -- and thus he began to lose confidence. He's now back to his original old self.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Oh, it's this again. Some cataloging of logical fallacies you get off of some laminated sheet of paper at Staples.

Let me round all this up:

>>>>Whatever. Another red herring. Another argumentum ad nauseum. You can keep it up, but that doesn't mean you've won the debate.

1. Appeal to authority? You're kidding, right? Most people do that to back themselves up. How that's a fallacy is beyond me, dummy.

>>> That's not incontrovertible evidence. You lose.

2. Samuels has had a damn good year against all comers -- good, bad, and otherwise. So don't give me this idiotic refrain that he hasn't. Case in point: Art's hilarious post calling you out as someone who's been whacked on the glass pipe.

>>> Lie #1: First NYG game and KC game. That's just two of them. Even one doesn't - if that were really the case, and it's not - does not exactly equate to success against all comers. You're a fool and a liar.

3. You're now the only guy who's making these idiotic assertions about Samuels. LET ME REPEAT: YOU'RE THE ONLY GUY WHO'S NOW HOLDING UP THIS RIDICULOUS ARGUMENT. Other than yourself, you've got ZERO to back you up. All you've got is yourself. Sorry, but I'll take Pro-Bowl voters who select Samuels on a non-reputation basis this year (since the last time he got in was a few years ago) and some experts in the field over your idiotic view. Got anything to show me that your view is anything other than some lame lay opinion on Samuels?

>>> Unsubstantiated conjecture. Visit the ES search engine, and Google.

Oh, CAPS and color. Sorry, but that doesn't bring your absurd conjecture any closer to the truth.

ONE MORE THING: TRY READING THROUGH THE POSTS IN THIS THREAD. NOTICE ANYTHING? YEAH, IT'S THE COLLECTIVE CHORUS OF THOSE NOT ONLY DISAGREEING COMPLETELY WITH YOU, BUT LAUGHING AT YOU AS WELL. CORRECT THAT, MAKING A MOCKERY OF YOU.

>>> Projecting again, are we?

HERE'S A SMALL EXAMPLE: GO READ WHISKEYPEET'S POSTS. OR BETTER YET ART'S POST AGAIN.

Whiskeypeet? Enough said. :laugh: Sorry, but even Art isn't infallible. Tape, however, is infallible.

SORRY IF YOU'RE TOO TONE DEAF TO FIGURE THIS OUT, BUT WHEN YOU'VE GOT REPUTABLE SCOUTING SERVICES, PRO-BOWL VOTERS WHO VOTE ON A NON-REPUTATION BASIS, MODERATORS, AND OTHER POSTERS WHO NOT TAKE ISSUE WITH WHAT YOU SAY BUT LAUGH AT YOU AS WELL, THAT MIGHT SUGGEST SOMETHING TO YOU.

You mean outdated scouting reports? Fickle and irrational PB voters - e.g. Vick as the #11 ranked QB in the NFC making the PB. Singular - one moderator. And other posters agreeing with me.

OH YEAH, BUT WE'RE ALL WRONG -- THAT BEING ALL THE PRO-BOWL SELECTION FOLKS, REPUTABLE SCOUTING SERVICES, ART, AND THE REST OF US LUNATICS -- AND YOU, AND ONLY YOU, ARE SOMEHOW CORRECT, RIGHT?

Hey, but keep it buddy, maybe all this ranting might fetch you another on the "mind altering substance" fringe that Art talked about.

:laugh: :rofl:

:stupid:

There are liars, and then there are damned liars. You're one of them.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Golden, and for your reading pleasure...

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134164

So much for your unsubstantiated contention that I'm the only person that minimizes the import of the PB...

[goldenster95]

There are liars, and then there are damned liars. You're one of them.

Ooooooohhhhhhh . . . jeez, calling my a liar, huh? Hey, sonny, how 'bout "pants on fire" too? Think that might actually buttress your point with more of these puerile rants?

This is too funny though. First, it was services like Scouts, Inc. and long time regs and moderators lined up against you and other hacks who've had six posts or something like that. Now, not only have those six posters dropped from sight, but we've got a Pro-Bowl selection to boot. No, it's not an alternate selection, IT'S A STARTING SELECTION. AND IT'S NOT A POPULARITY THING, IT'S CLEARLY BASED ON MERIT SINCE HE'S NOT BEEN TO THE PRO-BOWL FOR A FEW YEARS.

Yet, you persist in this horrendously comical defense of your point.

:laugh:

To call you an idiot would really now be a complete insult to idiots. So, I'll leave to at that.

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[goldenster95]

Golden, and for your reading pleasure...

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134164

So much for your unsubstantiated contention that I'm the only person that minimizes the import of the PB...

AAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAAHHHHHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU'RE KIDDING RIGHT?

Hey smart guy, I've already given my views on why the Pro-Bowl SOMETIMES can be a joke but AT OTHER TIMES it can really be a true reflection of your worth. For instance, the selections of Larry Allen and Roy Williams are a joke since, while they did justify Pro-Bowl selections back in the day, they don't now. One hallmark of a "reputation" selection is (but not necessarily compel the conclusion as such) as I've noted before a SUCCESSIVE selection. There are some that do deserve those successive selections, but successive selections are those which should raise some eyebrows.

NEWSFLASH: SAMUELS WASN'T A SUCCESSIVE SELECTION. In fact, he didn't make for a few years. THUS, UNLESS YOU'VE GOT SOME OTHER INFO, HIS SELECTION, NOT JUST AS AN ALTERNATE BUT AS A STARTER COMPLETELY UNDERCUTS YOUR POINT, YOU FOOL.

GOD, YOU'RE A DUNCE. FIGURE IT OUT, MAN. YOU'VE LOST NOT ONLY EARLY ON, BUT HAVE LOST BIG. GIVE IT UP. OR BETTER YET, ASK YOURSELF WHY THERE'S NOBODY -- AND I MEAN NOBODY -- STEPPING UP FOR YOU NOW. WHY DON'T YOU PM THOSE GUYS WITH SIX POSTS TO COME TO YOUR DEFENSE NOW? JEEZ, EVER FIGURE OUT WHY THEY'RE MIA?

:owned:

:shutup:

:stupid:

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

AAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAAHHHHHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU'RE KIDDING RIGHT?

Hey smart guy, I've already given my views on why the Pro-Bowl SOMETIMES can be a joke but AT OTHER TIMES it can really be a true reflection of your worth. For instance, the selections of Larry Allen and Roy Williams are a joke since, while they did justify Pro-Bowl selections back in the day, they don't now. One hallmark of a "reputation" selection is (but not necessarily compel the conclusion as such) as I've noted before a SUCCESSIVE selection. There are some that do deserve those successive selections, but successive selections are those which should raise some eyebrows.

NEWSFLASH: SAMUELS WASN'T A SUCCESSIVE SELECTION. In fact, he didn't make for a few years. THUS, UNLESS YOU'VE GOT SOME OTHER INFO, HIS SELECTION, NOT JUST AS AN ALTERNATE BUT AS A STARTER COMPLETELY UNDERCUTS YOUR POINT, YOU FOOL.

GOD, YOU'RE A DUNCE. FIGURE IT OUT, MAN. YOU'VE LOST NOT ONLY EARLY ON, BUT HAVE LOST BIG. GIVE IT UP. OR BETTER YET, ASK YOURSELF WHY THERE'S NOBODY -- AND I MEAN NOBODY -- STEPPING UP FOR YOU NOW. WHY DON'T YOU PM THOSE GUYS WITH SIX POSTS TO COME TO YOUR DEFENSE NOW? JEEZ, EVER FIGURE OUT WHY THEY'RE MIA?

:owned:

:shutup:

:stupid:

Wow, somebody probably needs to be buy a new keyboard. :laugh:

Again, it doesn't really matter how many times you lie, mischaracterize, overstate, repeatedly offer unsubstantiated claims as counterargumets, fail to address some key questions, attempt to insult me, use large type, use color type, use silly "emoticons", etc. None of it changes the fact that you are: 1) a liar; 2) haven't successully stated your case; 3) unjustifiably arrogant.

BTW, you probably shouldn't ignore the instructions printed on your bottle of prescription tranquilizers.

[redskinfansince73]

:helmet: CONGRATS TO SAMMUELS on His Pro Bowl Award! I think he has had a very good season. :applause: :gaintsuck

[goldenster95]

Wow, somebody probably needs to be buy a new keyboard. :laugh:

Again, it doesn't really matter how many times you lie, mischaracterize, overstate, repeatedly offer unsubstantiated claims as counterargumets, fail to address some key questions, attempt to insult me, use large type, use color type, use silly "emoticons", etc. None of it changes the fact that you are: 1) a liar; 2) haven't successully stated your case; 3) unjustifiably arrogant.

BTW, you probably shouldn't ignore the instructions printed on your bottle of prescription tranquilizers.

Oh, I see . . . I'm a liar for having stated that (1) reputable scouting services have ranked Samuels fourth overall; (2) other reputable posters here claiming the same thing; (3) Bugel saying the same thing; (4) now, Pro-Bowl voters saying the same. To top all that off, all your little six post minions have all but abandoned you.

Oh yeah, but I've lied about those things, right? LMFAO. Or understated my case, huh? IDIOT.

What have you got now to support your view of Samuels? YOURSELF.

You don't seem to get the fact that all these folks have taken into account all of what you've said and STILL DISAGREE WITH YOU. Yes, that means they've taken into account things like Samuels purported inablility to answer the bell against top tier talent. And when considering those idiotic observations have still found that he's a top-flight OT.

Need I re-post what Art and Whiskeypeet said?

I mean, really, can't you graciously admit defeat, a defeat that makes the Cowboys loss look like some barnburner? LMFAO.

FACE IT, THE ONLY PIECE OF EVIDENCE YOU'VE BEEN REDUCED TO IS YOURSELF. AND THAT'S REALLY LAME. YOU, YES, STUPID YOU.

HAVE AT IT SONNY.

MAN, THIS IS A RIOT. IT REALLY IS.

Scouting services: Samuels is top flight.

Pro-Bowl voters: Samuels is one of the best.

Other reputable posters here: Samuels is a premiere LT.

Oakton :dunce: : Well, they're all wrong. All I've got is my own opinion, but they're wrong.

DUH.

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[goldenster95]

:helmet: CONGRATS TO SAMMUELS on His Pro Bowl Award! I think he has had a very good season. :applause: :gaintsuck

Well, wait a minute, here. You'd better clear that with Oakton. In the first place, Samuels won that Pro-Bowl selection because he was popular. Don't mind the fact that he's not won it since a few years back, but, you see, he hired the A-one PR firm in DC to really boost his popularity to get him back in the Pro-Bowl

In actuality, Samuels sucks. If you really think about it, this Pro-Bowl thing (along with the other scouts who think he's onen of the top five OTs in the game) is, in fact, further evidence that Chris sucks. Oh yeah, it's also not important that Oakton's now the ONLY guy who thinks Samuels is a stiff. All our arguments -- based on reputable scouting services and this latest Pro-Bowl berth -- is rife with fallacies which include but are not limited to argumentum ad evidencem (argument based on evidence) and argumentum ad logicum (argument based on logic).

What we need to do now is to try to trade Samuels as soon as we can. Maybe we can fetch a seventh round draft choice for him. Or, if we can't, just cut the SOB.