Sammuels haters! How many sacks did he give up?

goldenster95 · December 27, 2005

I'll start this post off where I left the last one off. It was Art's immortal words to you: "It's okay to admit you're wrong." Really. Go ahead. Would you please? I'm getting too many PMs urging me to continue this toying with you. Notice how absolutely NO ONE else agreeing with you now? Well, let's just say some of those posters have PMed me asking me to provide further entertainment value of me pounding on some special ed kid like you. ONCE AGAIN NOTE THAT NO ONE ELSE IS COMING TO YOUR DEFENSE AND THAT SOME VERY RESPECTABLE AND REPUTABLE POSTERS HAVE CLOWNED YOU.

Now, I don't want to do that. I think I can "convert" you. But these piddly witticisms on your part just warrant a response.

So, here I go . . .

>>>> Yeah, The Sporting News hired a bunch of family members to evaluate the PB selection. Man, you are freakin' lame. It must suck to be holding onto the slide of that steep cliff by your hangnails.

OMFG. My point about the "scouts" was that not all are reliable, dope. Pointing out that at least one team used family members was just one example. Maybe the Sporting News didn't use the Bengals scouts, but until we know who they are, that's kind of like the National Enquirer quoting unnamed sources that you were out pumping the neighbor's cat? Get it?

>>>> Um, sorry, I know you have a personal Art fetish going on, but do you understand the difference between conjecture and valid debate? Art, as much as I like the guy (as an ES personality), offered nothing more than a derisive characterization without any substantiation - i.e. proof.

No, I don't have a personal Art fetish, I have a fetish for credible evidence and cogent, logical arguments. And your retort to Art's point is nothing short of what some desperate chump like you will argue when driven into a corner, ALL ALONE, with nothing to offer up other than the lame points you refer to. I call this the 'Saddam Hussein' defense: when faced with uncontrovertible proof against yourself, either deny it and claim the witnesses are out to lunch or start driving the point elsewhere.

>>> Gee, you're about to look for very foolish....ready? I'm warning you right now, you better take your blood pressure medicine and examine that savings acct - you need to make sure that the balance can withstand yet another expenditure for a new keyboard. Here it goes...
Who is Scouts, Inc.?ESPN.com

ESPN Insider uses Scouts, Inc. information to provide the most in-depth football coverage available on the Internet, while ESPN Productions uses the information to prepare for all the football shows you see on ESPN, including NFL PrimeTime, Sunday NFL Countdown, Monday Night Countdown, NFL Live and Sunday Night Football.

>>>> Looks like those "loser" TV analysts get some of their info from Scouts. Feeling really, uh, not too intelligent right now? Yeah. Thought so.

Oh boy. This is a classic case of what lawyers object to as "lacking foundation." First of all, what "analysts" are you talking about? Second, what evidence do you have that they actually rely on this info? Third, what evidence do you have on the issue of, assuming arguendo that they do rely on this info, what degree of reliance they place on it?

I'll be waiting for a response to those questions for you to lay some appropriate foundation, dunce.

Scouts, Inc. Recruiting Personnel
Tom Luginbill has been working for Scouts Inc. for the last three years as a pro personnel evaluator for the NFL, NFL Europe, the Canadian Football League and the Arena Football League. Now as national director of recruiting, he will provide in-depth recruiting analysis for the top collegiate football prospects.

Luginbill coached in NFL Europe, the XFL and the AFL. He served as a head coach twice, with the Tennessee Valley Vipers of arenafootball2 (2000) and the Detroit Fury (2004). Luginbill's teams appeared in two championship games and won one (Los Angeles Xtreme of the XFL). Luginbill also has been directly responsible or involved in player personnel for the last seven years.

Henry Gola also is a Scouts, Inc. recruiting coordinator after serving two years as a writer and segment producer for ESPN's NFL Live. He has covered college and professional football for the last seven years and graduated from Washington and Lee University with a degree in broadcast journalism.

>>> NFL Europe. XFL. CFL. Arena Football League. The scouts in the article I referenced are actually employed by NFL teams in each division. Oh, and the last guy was a sports jounralist in a former life - you know, goldlocks, one of those idiots as you call them.

Ummmm, who cares if they're NFL employees? That doesn't mean they're any good, you fool. Ever wonder why some of our FAs in the mid-90's turned out horribly (e.g., Stubblefield and Wilkinson). Because we had horrid scouts, a fact noted time to time by the media that loved to rile on us. The question here is who's considered authoritative, not what superficial credentials they bring.

At any rate, the Pro-Bowl voters selected Samuels as a starter this year, a selection clearly based on merit and not reputation. That's discussed next.

>>> Thank you for reinforcing my premise that Samuels is too inconsistent to be the second highest compensated OT in the NFL.

Wow are you stupid. Yeah, he's inconsistent because he doesn't make the Pro-Bowl? LMFAO.

:dunce:

Next.

>>> "Punked on"? Aren't you a little old for MTV? BTW - I guess you totally miss the premise of that show. Figures. And no, the PB, regardless of position, is largely a popularity contest and there are many sports journalists, analysts, and probably players and coaches which share that viewpoint. Hell, ST said he could give a rat's a$$ about it, and as a player, he knows what drives those votes.

The stupidity continues. CAN YOU READ AND COMPREHEND? Since you're a little "slow," I'll explain it to you again, for the 116th time. To be sure, SOME Pro-Bowl selections are based on popularity. Larry Allen is a classic example. Others, however, aren't. When you've made the Pro-Bowl for the first time or haven't gone in a while, it's not popularity, you driveling fool.

Of course, if you're right, Santana's selection was a product of popularity right? Good Lord, are you that stupid? [Dumb question] Samuels wasn't selected since a few years ago, thus making his selection this year AS A STARTER legit. Thus, as stated in my prior post, whatever the merits of those incognito scouts are, they've all gotten zapped by this latest development.

Get it, skippy?

>>>> Really? Have you seen his contract(s)? Have you now anointed yourself as some kind of authority or arbiter with respect to what sports journalists are permitted to cover? Hubris, I tell you, will get you in the end.

Hardly hubris. Like I said, why don't you go asking around here for a little bit of what people will tell you about Pete Prisco. That moron can't get his facts straight, much less perform any type of reasoned analysis. I guess Prisco must be some relative of yours, huh?

>>>> Tell you what, I'd be happy to tell you to piss off in person. What time does your K Street cleaning shift begin?

Why? I haven't told you to move your cardbox home yet. However, if you'd like to tell me to 'piss off', come to the Harvard Club. PM me for details. Partake in some rum and the finest in cigars from undisclosed locales in the Caribbean while some blue bloods make a mockery of you.

[QUOPT]Like I said before, if I or anyone I know ever needed a shrink, it wouldn't be one you know (read: one of your personal sanity-keepers). Doesn't seem to be working out to well for you.

No, I can't seem to resist the urge of beating up on the special ed kid. I'll keep going back to them though.

>>> Yep, go ahead and ignore all of the evidence I've introduced.

Yeah, some report from undisclosed scouts from last year. Great. I've got a reputable talent evaluating service which actually discloses the people doing the survey and are a far cry from the idiotic National Enquirer-esque garbage you offer up. And I've got that the support of those folks from the popularity contest that's called the Pro-Bowl. Yeah, I guess all of them decided that this year, as opposed to the past few, Samuels became popular. Was it the change in the way he did his corn rows? And will their opinion of him change if he goes bald?

Oh yeah, looks like Santana got really popular this year too. You know what's really coincidental though? He's the second leading receiver in the NFL this year as well. Boy, imagine that, huh? What a coincidence, huh? Popular and good in the same year. Jeez.

This also doesn't put at issue the fact now that you've got ZERO people on your side. ZERO. On the flip side, you've got some other reputable posters like Art calling you out and to admit you're wrong and others that assert the painful truth that you're "dreadfully wrong." Did I mention that you've got ZERO people on your side? If I did already, I just thought of that to remind you of it.

At any rate, I tire of this beating down of a lower primate. Those that are e-mailing me will have to understand. But I'll read their deluge of messages later on to consult with them as to what the next step will be.

Toodles.

:laugh:

G-Prime · December 27, 2005

Zippy none nunca! Not one sack on his watch! I guess going against a pro bowl DE he had no chance? Get over it people! He made the pro bowl for a reason.

He gave up two in one game. But your right he's deserving and anyone who knows football is aware of his value. The parrots are making all the noise, no one important

Slateman · December 27, 2005

Samuels played very well on Saturday. But I don't consider Osi a top tier DE. He's not even the best DE on his team.

When Samuels puts that kind of performance on a guy like Rice, or the like, then I'll be impressed.

Ghost of · December 27, 2005

Samuels played very well on Saturday. But I don't consider Osi a top tier DE. He's not even the best DE on his team.
When Samuels puts that kind of performance on a guy like Rice, or the like, then I'll be impressed.

He's done that. Gotta love fans on these boards. Short term memory, the lot of them.

goldenster95 · December 27, 2005

Originally Posted by Gothimus
He gave up two in one game. But your right he's deserving and anyone who knows football is aware of his value. The parrots are making all the noise, no one important

Amen.

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin
He's done that. Gotta love fans on these boards. Short term memory, the lot of them.

Amen again.

:laugh:

Dirk Diggler · December 27, 2005

Yep, he hasn't gotten there but he's also he second highest paid OT in the NFL behind Ogden.
Now, I think you are correct in stating that thers IS value in having someone that knows the system this well and is growing within that system. In other words, there's always a learning curve for new guys - i.e. a newly acquired OT - and that does need to be considered.

I wonder how another solid OT - not great -would have faired, and how that cap savings could have helped us in other positions of great need like a top flight DE.

Actually both Walter Jones and Ogden have bigger contracts than Samuels with higher bonus dollars. Pace signed a contract that is in the same ballpark as CS and might even be higher. These contracts range from 15-20 mill in up front money and while that may seem ridiculous, a lot of coaches see the Left tackle position as the most important aside from QB (and I agree). If you somehow manage to land a stud there, you never, ever, ever let him go.

IMO, I would take Samuels over all of these players except for Jones who is just freak of nature. As mentioned, even the best of the best at LT have bad games and a few bad plays just like the best receivers have drops and QBs have overthrows. But make no mistake, Samuels body of work this season has been perhaps the best in his 6 year career.

goldenster95 · December 27, 2005

Actually both Walter Jones and Ogden have bigger contracts than Samuels with higher bonus dollars. Pace signed a contract that is in the same ballpark as CS and might even be higher. These contracts range from 15-20 mill in up front money and while that may seem ridiculous, a lot of coaches see the Left tackle position as the most important aside from QB (and I agree). If you somehow manage to land a stud there, you never, ever, ever let him go.
IMO, I would take Samuels over all of these players except for Jones who is just freak of nature. As mentioned, even the best of the best at LT have bad games and a few bad plays just like the best receivers have drops and QBs have overthrows. But make no mistake, Samuels body of work this season has been perhaps the best in his 6 year career.

Agreed. Samuels is playing really well and doing so while injured. Let's hope he doesn't aggravate his injury any further.

OaktonSkins/BushFan · December 27, 2005

I'll start this post off where I left the last one off. It was Art's immortal words to you: "It's okay to admit you're wrong." Really. Go ahead. Would you please? I'm getting too many PMs urging me to continue this toying with you. Notice how absolutely NO ONE else agreeing with you now? Well, let's just say some of those posters have PMed me asking me to provide further entertainment value of me pounding on some special ed kid like you. ONCE AGAIN NOTE THAT NO ONE ELSE IS COMING TO YOUR DEFENSE AND THAT SOME VERY RESPECTABLE AND REPUTABLE POSTERS HAVE CLOWNED YOU.
Now, I don't want to do that. I think I can "convert" you. But these piddly witticisms on your part just warrant a response.

So, here I go . . .

OMFG. My point about the "scouts" was that not all are reliable, dope. Pointing out that at least one team used family members was just one example. Maybe the Sporting News didn't use the Bengals scouts, but until we know who they are, that's kind of like the National Enquirer quoting unnamed sources that you were out pumping the neighbor's cat? Get it?

No, I don't have a personal Art fetish, I have a fetish for credible evidence and cogent, logical arguments. And your retort to Art's point is nothing short of what some desperate chump like you will argue when driven into a corner, ALL ALONE, with nothing to offer up other than the lame points you refer to. I call this the 'Saddam Hussein' defense: when faced with uncontrovertible proof against yourself, either deny it and claim the witnesses are out to lunch or start driving the point elsewhere.

Oh boy. This is a classic case of what lawyers object to as "lacking foundation." First of all, what "analysts" are you talking about? Second, what evidence do you have that they actually rely on this info? Third, what evidence do you have on the issue of, assuming arguendo that they do rely on this info, what degree of reliance they place on it?

I'll be waiting for a response to those questions for you to lay some appropriate foundation, dunce.

Ummmm, who cares if they're NFL employees? That doesn't mean they're any good, you fool. Ever wonder why some of our FAs in the mid-90's turned out horribly (e.g., Stubblefield and Wilkinson). Because we had horrid scouts, a fact noted time to time by the media that loved to rile on us. The question here is who's considered authoritative, not what superficial credentials they bring.

At any rate, the Pro-Bowl voters selected Samuels as a starter this year, a selection clearly based on merit and not reputation. That's discussed next.

Wow are you stupid. Yeah, he's inconsistent because he doesn't make the Pro-Bowl? LMFAO.

:dunce:

Next.

The stupidity continues. CAN YOU READ AND COMPREHEND? Since you're a little "slow," I'll explain it to you again, for the 116th time. To be sure, SOME Pro-Bowl selections are based on popularity. Larry Allen is a classic example. Others, however, aren't. When you've made the Pro-Bowl for the first time or haven't gone in a while, it's not popularity, you driveling fool.

Of course, if you're right, Santana's selection was a product of popularity right? Good Lord, are you that stupid? [Dumb question] Samuels wasn't selected since a few years ago, thus making his selection this year AS A STARTER legit. Thus, as stated in my prior post, whatever the merits of those incognito scouts are, they've all gotten zapped by this latest development.

Get it, skippy?

Hardly hubris. Like I said, why don't you go asking around here for a little bit of what people will tell you about Pete Prisco. That moron can't get his facts straight, much less perform any type of reasoned analysis. I guess Prisco must be some relative of yours, huh?

Why? I haven't told you to move your cardbox home yet. However, if you'd like to tell me to 'piss off', come to the Harvard Club. PM me for details. Partake in some rum and the finest in cigars from undisclosed locales in the Caribbean while some blue bloods make a mockery of you.

[QUOPT]Like I said before, if I or anyone I know ever needed a shrink, it wouldn't be one you know (read: one of your personal sanity-keepers). Doesn't seem to be working out to well for you.

No, I can't seem to resist the urge of beating up on the special ed kid. I'll keep going back to them though.

Yeah, some report from undisclosed scouts from last year. Great. I've got a reputable talent evaluating service which actually discloses the people doing the survey and are a far cry from the idiotic National Enquirer-esque garbage you offer up. And I've got that the support of those folks from the popularity contest that's called the Pro-Bowl. Yeah, I guess all of them decided that this year, as opposed to the past few, Samuels became popular. Was it the change in the way he did his corn rows? And will their opinion of him change if he goes bald?

Oh yeah, looks like Santana got really popular this year too. You know what's really coincidental though? He's the second leading receiver in the NFL this year as well. Boy, imagine that, huh? What a coincidence, huh? Popular and good in the same year. Jeez.

This also doesn't put at issue the fact now that you've got ZERO people on your side. ZERO. On the flip side, you've got some other reputable posters like Art calling you out and to admit you're wrong and others that assert the painful truth that you're "dreadfully wrong." Did I mention that you've got ZERO people on your side? If I did already, I just thought of that to remind you of it.

At any rate, I tire of this beating down of a lower primate. Those that are e-mailing me will have to understand. But I'll read their deluge of messages later on to consult with them as to what the next step will be.

Toodles.

:laugh:

I'll start this post off where I left the last one off. It was Art's immortal words to you: "It's okay to admit you're wrong." Really. Go ahead. Would you please? I'm getting too many PMs urging me to continue this toying with you. Notice how absolutely NO ONE else agreeing with you now? Well, let's just say some of those posters have PMed me asking me to provide further entertainment value of me pounding on some special ed kid like you. ONCE AGAIN NOTE THAT NO ONE ELSE IS COMING TO YOUR DEFENSE AND THAT SOME VERY RESPECTABLE AND REPUTABLE POSTERS HAVE CLOWNED YOU.

>>> Let me get this straight. The fact that not many people have bothered to post supporting my position necessarily means that the majority of ES members agree with you? Hmmm.... Better dust off that old Logic 101 book. :silly:

>>> Assuming this is true, then this proves what? If you would bother to use the search function, you'd see that over the years - inluding this season - many ES members have the same or similar opinion.But, that still doesn't prove anything. So again, assuming that most people on this site agree with you, how does that PROVE anything. The vast majority of ES members are simply fans like you and I, and as such, they do not qualify as experts. So, that's two logical fallacies right there (which you've employed several times already): (1) argumentum ad populum - Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X). Therefore X is true. (2) Argumentum ad Verecundiam - Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject X.

Person A makes claim C about subject X. Therefore, C is true. I've already provided my counterpoints from other "experts" as well, but somehow, that just doesn't cut it. Whatever gets you through the day. :laugh:

Quote:

>>>> Yeah, The Sporting News hired a bunch of family members to evaluate the PB selection. Man, you are freakin' lame. It must suck to be holding onto the slide of that steep cliff by your hangnails.

OMFG. My point about the "scouts" was that not all are reliable, dope. Pointing out that at least one team used family members was just one example. Maybe the Sporting News didn't use the Bengals scouts, but until we know who they are, that's kind of like the National Enquirer quoting unnamed sources that you were out pumping the neighbor's cat? Get it?

>>> Yeah, only the one's you mention are reliable. And speaking of which, they are ex-recruiters and coaches for the XFL, CFL, NFL-Europe, Arena Football, etc. Great! TSN article used actual, real scouts working within each NFL division. I'll take the current NFL scouts over those guys every single time.

Quote:

>>>> Um, sorry, I know you have a personal Art fetish going on, but do you understand the difference between conjecture and valid debate? Art, as much as I like the guy (as an ES personality), offered nothing more than a derisive characterization without any substantiation - i.e. proof.

No, I don't have a personal Art fetish, I have a fetish for credible evidence and cogent, logical arguments.

>>>> Sorry, but allow me to correct that horrendous misrepresentation: "[gorgias has] a fetish for sophism."

And your retort to Art's point is nothing short of what some desperate chump like you will argue when driven into a corner, ALL ALONE, with nothing to offer up other than the lame points you refer to. I call this the 'Saddam Hussein' defense: when faced with uncontrovertible proof against yourself, either deny it and claim the witnesses are out to lunch or start driving the point elsewhere.

>>>> Wrong again. It IS an incontrovertible fact that opinion without substantiation is nothing more than conjecture. If Art -or you, for that matter - would like to prove that the aforementioned WT journalist is a "dope", and therefore not worthy of consideration in this debate, then PROVE the point. Here, let me post the definition of conjecture for you:

1 obsolete a : interpretation of omens b : SUPPOSITION

2 a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved

Quote:

>>> Gee, you're about to look for very foolish....ready? I'm warning you right now, you better take your blood pressure medicine and examine that savings acct - you need to make sure that the balance can withstand yet another expenditure for a new keyboard. Here it goes...

Who is Scouts, Inc.?ESPN.com

ESPN Insider uses Scouts, Inc. information to provide the most in-depth football coverage available on the Internet, while ESPN Productions uses the information to prepare for all the football shows you see on ESPN, including NFL PrimeTime, Sunday NFL Countdown, Monday Night Countdown, NFL Live and Sunday Night Football.

>>>> Looks like those "loser" TV analysts get some of their info from Scouts. Feeling really, uh, not too intelligent right now? Yeah. Thought so.

Oh boy. This is a classic case of what lawyers object to as "lacking foundation." First of all, what "analysts" are you talking about? Second, what evidence do you have that they actually rely on this info? Third, what evidence do you have on the issue of, assuming arguendo that they do rely on this info, what degree of reliance they place on it?

I'll be waiting for a response to those questions for you to lay some appropriate foundation, dunce.

>>>> You've made wholesale characterizatons of TV analysts and other sports journalists which are derisive and dismissive without, of course, providing any meaningful substantiation. Now, think about this for second - would you continue to patronize and support a business if you couldn't honestly answer those two questions? In other words, if wasn't useful to them to some extent, then they wouldn't pay for it. Who would, unless you like pissing money away.

Quote:

Scouts, Inc. Recruiting Personnel

Tom Luginbill has been working for Scouts Inc. for the last three years as a pro personnel evaluator for the NFL, NFL Europe, the Canadian Football League and the Arena Football League. Now as national director of recruiting, he will provide in-depth recruiting analysis for the top collegiate football prospects.

Luginbill coached in NFL Europe, the XFL and the AFL. He served as a head coach twice, with the Tennessee Valley Vipers of arenafootball2 (2000) and the Detroit Fury (2004). Luginbill's teams appeared in two championship games and won one (Los Angeles Xtreme of the XFL). Luginbill also has been directly responsible or involved in player personnel for the last seven years.

Henry Gola also is a Scouts, Inc. recruiting coordinator after serving two years as a writer and segment producer for ESPN's NFL Live. He has covered college and professional football for the last seven years and graduated from Washington and Lee University with a degree in broadcast journalism.

>>> NFL Europe. XFL. CFL. Arena Football League. The scouts in the article I referenced are actually employed by NFL teams in each division. Oh, and the last guy was a sports jounralist in a former life - you know, goldlocks, one of those idiots as you call them.

Ummmm, who cares if they're NFL employees? That doesn't mean they're any good, you fool. Ever wonder why some of our FAs in the mid-90's turned out horribly (e.g., Stubblefield and Wilkinson). Because we had horrid scouts, a fact noted time to time by the media that loved to rile on us. The question here is who's considered authoritative, not what superficial credentials they bring.

>>>> I see, so the fact that some scouts pick losers from time to time precludes them from being, overall, successful? Nice logic. Given your logic, the next thing you should do is - no, not break your keyboard again - post a new thread announcing that Cerrato is a "fool" and is "horrid". :laugh:

At any rate, the Pro-Bowl voters selected Samuels as a starter this year, a selection clearly based on merit and not reputation. That's discussed next.

Quote:

>>> Thank you for reinforcing my premise that Samuels is too inconsistent to be the second highest compensated OT in the NFL.

Wow are you stupid. Yeah, he's inconsistent because he doesn't make the Pro-Bowl? LMFAO.

>>>> non causa pro causa. You're still assuming that it's warranted and you've failed to prove your case.

Next.

Quote:

>>> "Punked on"? Aren't you a little old for MTV? BTW - I guess you totally miss the premise of that show. Figures. And no, the PB, regardless of position, is largely a popularity contest and there are many sports journalists, analysts, and probably players and coaches which share that viewpoint. Hell, ST said he could give a rat's a$$ about it, and as a player, he knows what drives those votes.

The stupidity continues. CAN YOU READ AND COMPREHEND? Since you're a little "slow," I'll explain it to you again, for the 116th time. To be sure, SOME Pro-Bowl selections are based on popularity. Larry Allen is a classic example. Others, however, aren't. When you've made the Pro-Bowl for the first time or haven't gone in a while, it's not popularity, you driveling fool.

>>> Hmmm.... Good time to bring up the following stat that I calculated after reviewing the last 15 NFL gamebooks for the Redskins:

Redskins running backs were more productive running behind the RT/RE (520 yrds) vs the LT/LE (467 yds). It would be interesting to perform a complete study on Samuels vs Jansen and also against other OTs. What's missing from your argument is some form of empirical evidence. While the aforementioned numbers do not prove anything, they are interesting nonetheless. Surely, you will agree that stats are more meaningful than the subjective opinion of, minimally, 1/3 of the PB voters.

Quote:

>>>> Really? Have you seen his contract(s)? Have you now anointed yourself as some kind of authority or arbiter with respect to what sports journalists are permitted to cover? Hubris, I tell you, will get you in the end.

Hardly hubris. Like I said, why don't you go asking around here for a little bit of what people will tell you about Pete Prisco. That moron can't get his facts straight, much less perform any type of reasoned analysis.

>>>> Ah, more conjecture. Looking real good, goldy. Prove it or STFU, and stop wasting everyone's time. Argue the facts (his statements), and not the person. More horrid rhethoric. Sheesh.

I guess Prisco must be some relative of yours, huh?

>>>> Sure, and you must be having a private man-love affair w/ CS.

Quote:

>>>> Tell you what, I'd be happy to tell you to piss off in person. What time does your K Street cleaning shift begin?

Why? I haven't told you to move your cardbox home yet. However, if you'd like to tell me to 'piss off', come to the Harvard Club. PM me for details. Partake in some rum and the finest in cigars from undisclosed locales in the Caribbean

>>>> Rum? Sugar and molasses. No thanks, when I indulge, I try and stick to first growths and single malts.

while some blue bloods make a mockery of you.

>>>> Interesting pattern I've noticed - you are so dependent on others, whether it's other ES members or "blue bloods". What's wrong, mommy and daddy didn't give you enough validation growing up?

[QUOPT]Like I said before, if I or anyone I know ever needed a shrink, it wouldn't be one you know (read: one of your personal sanity-keepers). Doesn't seem to be working out to well for you.

No, I can't seem to resist the urge of beating up on the special ed kid. I'll keep going back to them though.

>>>> Haven't they told you not to take your frustrations out on your kid?

Quote:

>>> Yep, go ahead and ignore all of the evidence I've introduced.

Yeah, some report from undisclosed scouts from last year. Great. I've got a reputable talent evaluating service which actually discloses the people doing the survey and are a far cry from the idiotic National Enquirer-esque garbage you offer up.

>>>> They are not identified in person for obvious reasons. Living in the DC area, you should understand and appreciate that. Yep, a scouting service for ESPN - the media - which you have damned up and down throughout this and other threads. And we've already discussed the ex-CFL/AFL, etc. retreads on Scouts.

And I've got that the support of those folks from the popularity contest that's called the Pro-Bowl.

Are you a parrot? And you do realize that this is like the 116th time you've employed that rhetorical fallacy, right?

This also doesn't put at issue the fact now that you've got ZERO people on your side. ZERO. On the flip side, you've got some other reputable posters like Art calling you out and to admit you're wrong and others that assert the painful truth that you're "dreadfully wrong." Did I mention that you've got ZERO people on your side? If I did already, I just thought of that to remind you of it.

>>>> Again, you're wrong for which a simple review of this and other threads will reveal. And try using the search function as well. As previously stated, this argumentum ad populum is menaingless anyway.

At any rate, I tire of this beating down of a lower primate.

>>> Wow, you're many things, but I never pegged you for a wife-beater as well.

Those that are e-mailing me will have to understand. But I'll read their deluge of messages later on to consult with them as to what the next step will be.

>>> So, does your shrink suggest this virtual activity as some form of pscyhological therapy? Or maybe you've had one too many beatings in court, and you're trying to practice?

Pour, tortured soul.

goldenster95 · December 27, 2005

>>> Let me get this straight. The fact that not many people have bothered to post supporting my position necessarily means that the majority of ES members agree with you? Hmmm.... Better dust off that old Logic 101 book.

Ummm, no, you better go back to the fifth grade reading comprehension section of your language arts class, sonny. The posters that are agreeing with me are simply a part of the avalanche of evidence that I've got supporting me, dummy. And it's not just that there are a lot of folks, but folks who are regs and one moderator. On top of that, you had other small timers chming in on your idiotic point and ALL of them have mysteriously shut up, except for a few that have admitted they were wrong. Thus, given these circumstances, those being a reputable scouting service ranking Samuels fourth, Pro-Bowl voters selecting him as a starter, everyone who's posting is agreeing with me (and I'll add that there are two others that have jumped in again), no one else has come out to support you, and those who've supported your position in the past have no admitted they were wrong all equal up to an obvious conclusion.

Man, you're a poor little disturbed boy.

This is really getting too easy.

>>> Assuming this is true, then this proves what? If you would bother to use the search function, you'd see that over the years - inluding this season - many ES members have the same or similar opinion.But, that still doesn't prove anything. So again, assuming that most people on this site agree with you, how does that PROVE anything. The vast majority of ES members are simply fans like you and I, and as such, they do not qualify as experts. So, that's two logical fallacies right there (which you've employed several times already): (1) argumentum ad populum - Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X). Therefore X is true. (2) Argumentum ad Verecundiam - Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject X.
Person A makes claim C about subject X. Therefore, C is true. I've already provided my counterpoints from other "experts" as well, but somehow, that just doesn't cut it. Whatever gets you through the day.

The points about reliance on other posters is addressed above. Your point about your experts are ridiculous. They're undisclosed and there's no way we can judge who they are and how qualified they may be. That's as stupid as getting an expert in an antitrust trial who's put up as an economist at one of the Big 5 accounting firm but not getting him to establish his credentials. Ever hear how stupid you sound?

And just because those other guys are from the XFL doesn't hardly mean they're not qualified as talent evaluators. Joel Buchsbaum and Mel Kiper are two examples of talent evaluators that aren't employed by NFL teams that are highly respected in the industry, you dunce.

Talk about "rhetorical fallacy." :laugh:

>>> Yeah, only the one's you mention are reliable. And speaking of which, they are ex-recruiters and coaches for the XFL, CFL, NFL-Europe, Arena Football, etc. Great! TSN article used actual, real scouts working within each NFL division. I'll take the current NFL scouts over those guys every single time.

See above.

>>>> Sorry, but allow me to correct that horrendous misrepresentation: "[gorgias has] a fetish for sophism."

Huh? More stupidity.

>>>> Wrong again. It IS an incontrovertible fact that opinion without substantiation is nothing more than conjecture. If Art -or you, for that matter - would like to prove that the aforementioned WT journalist is a "dope", and therefore not worthy of consideration in this debate, then PROVE the point. Here, let me post the definition of conjecture for you:
1 obsolete a : interpretation of omens b : SUPPOSITION

2 a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved

Man, are you aboslutely dense.

1. It's a FACT that a reputable scouting service has ranked Samuels fourth overall amongst OTs this year.

2. It's a FACT that the Pro-Bowl voters selected Samuels as a starter this year. It's also a FACT that those voters selected him for the first time in a few years, thus making his selection based on merit not on popularity.

3. It's a FACT that, when this debate arose in prior threads, there were some that panned Samuels. It's a FACT that most if not all of those folks were small time posters. Further, it's a FACT that since then, all those posters have mysteriously disappeared, with the exception of a few who've now admitted they were wrong. Finally, it's a FACT that people like Art are laughing at your inability to admit error.

4. It's a FACT that Samuels has, with the exception of the Giants game, had good games (and in some cases great games) by shutting out RDEs from getting to the QB and providing some key blocks for other folks (e.g., Moss's 78 yard TD catch-and-run i the KC game). In fact, in the past two games, Samuels has completely owned Umenyiora and Ware.

Given all these FACTS, it becomes pretty clear you're not only wrong, but, in Ghost's words, "dreadfully wrong."

If I could, I'd love to release all the messages I'm getting of those folks who're absolutely laughing their butts off at you, especially with your resort to those "logical fallacies" you talk about.

Hey, but more power to you. :dunce:

>>>> You've made wholesale characterizatons of TV analysts and other sports journalists which are derisive and dismissive without, of course, providing any meaningful substantiation. Now, think about this for second - would you continue to patronize and support a business if you couldn't honestly answer those two questions? In other words, if wasn't useful to them to some extent, then they wouldn't pay for it. Who would, unless you like pissing money away.

I guess this legal talk went way over your head. Let me quote it for you again so you can understand it: "Oh boy. This is a classic case of what lawyers object to as "lacking foundation." First of all, what "analysts" are you talking about? Second, what evidence do you have that they actually rely on this info? Third, what evidence do you have on the issue of, assuming arguendo that they do rely on this info, what degree of reliance they place on it?

I'll be waiting for a response to those questions for you to lay some appropriate foundation, dunce."

This is a point about your failure to provide a sufficient factual predicate for the "experts" you're putting up. You don't come marching in a medical malpractice trial and start reading off some book about a doctor giving an opinion on certain issues in the case. You've got to at the very least state who the doctor is, what his or her qualifications are, and what facts they used in making their opinions. Without that basic information, you can't just point out that there are some NFL "scouts" who've opined something on Samuels.

Until you answer those questions, thos "experts" are useless. Dunce.

>>>> I see, so the fact that some scouts pick losers from time to time precludes them from being, overall, successful? Nice logic. Given your logic, the next thing you should do is - no, not break your keyboard again - post a new thread announcing that Cerrato is a "fool" and is "horrid".

Ummmm, did I say that? You must be getting lost in the fine points of logic. Sorry.

Quote:
>>>> non causa pro causa. You're still assuming that it's warranted and you've failed to prove your case.

Oh, I see. The Pro-Bowl is NEVER about rewarding those who're actually the best at their position right? Yeah, I guess giving that Pro-Bowl selection to Santana Moss -- a point you've conveniently dodged -- was really a fraud, huh?

Man, do you ever listen to how stupid you sound?

BWWWAAAHHHAAAAA!!!!

>>> Hmmm.... Good time to bring up the following stat that I calculated after reviewing the last 15 NFL gamebooks for the Redskins:
Redskins running backs were more productive running behind the RT/RE (520 yrds) vs the LT/LE (467 yds). It would be interesting to perform a complete study on Samuels vs Jansen and also against other OTs. What's missing from your argument is some form of empirical evidence. While the aforementioned numbers do not prove anything, they are interesting nonetheless. Surely, you will agree that stats are more meaningful than the subjective opinion of, minimally, 1/3 of the PB voters.

You're right, those numbers don't prove anything. Running backs like to run to the right sometimes because they're right handed. Also, you've got better folks on the LT side of the ball. There are a ton of reasons, sonny, but when take a look at the scouting services and the Pro-Bowl voters you get a pretty clear picture of what's going on.

>>>> Ah, more conjecture. Looking real good, goldy. Prove it or STFU, and stop wasting everyone's time. Argue the facts (his statements), and not the person. More horrid rhethoric. Sheesh.

Awwwwww . . . to say that Prisco is a raving idiot is to say that Sally Jenkins is some opportunistic shill . . . you want an example? . . . Prisco blew the story on Marty's departure from the 'Skins . . . he initially reported that Snyder had fired Marty when, in fact, nothing of the sort happened . . . when told that, he still, like a moron, stuck to his story . . . as it turned out, Snyder wouldn't fire Marty because he'd owe him the huge amount due on the remainder of his contract . . . he therefore bought him out and there was, completely contrary to Prisco's version of events, no talk of a termination . . .

>>>> Sure, and you must be having a private man-love affair w/ CS.

Jeez, you sound jealous.

>>>> Rum? Sugar and molasses. No thanks, when I indulge, I try and stick to first growths and single malts.

We've got those, too. The invitation's open. Laurence Tribe might be in town in a few weeks. Wanna meet him and try out your idiotic recitations to that laminated sheet of paper you bought at Staples?

>>>> Interesting pattern I've noticed - you are so dependent on others, whether it's other ES members or "blue bloods". What's wrong, mommy and daddy didn't give you enough validation growing up?

Here we go round and round again. It's called use of expert testimony. You should look that up and find out how utterly moronic that appeal of authority "fallacy" you refer to is.

>>>> Haven't they told you not to take your frustrations out on your kid?

Nah, the paternity test came up negative. Get someone else to ask you "who's your daddy?"

>>>> They are not identified in person for obvious reasons. Living in the DC area, you should understand and appreciate that. Yep, a scouting service for ESPN - the media - which you have damned up and down throughout this and other threads. And we've already discussed the ex-CFL/AFL, etc. retreads on Scouts.

Oh, this is precious. Yes, march out "experts" to support your point, but don't point out who they are, what they qualifications are, and what info they rely on. Yeah, just trust you, right?

:dunce:

:stupid:

Are you a parrot? And you do realize that this is like the 116th time you've employed that rhetorical fallacy, right?

Uh huh. What "fallacy" is that? That I'm nuking your points? The Pro-Bowl votes for Samuels are legit since he hasn't been there for a while. Same goes for Moss since it's his first time. Of course, under your brilliant theory, it's a "fallacy" right?

:laugh:

>>>> Again, you're wrong for which a simple review of this and other threads will reveal. And try using the search function as well. As previously stated, this argumentum ad populum is menaingless anyway.

Ummm, it is when it's manifest in the way I described above and if it's also simply part of a larger wall of authority that dunningly refutes your points.

>>> Wow, you're many things, but I never pegged you for a wife-beater as well.

I'm not a wife-beater, at least not mine. If I beat yours, I'm sorry; I've got nothing with your wedlock to a chimp.

>>> So, does your shrink suggest this virtual activity as some form of pscyhological therapy? Or maybe you've had one too many beatings in court, and you're trying to practice?
Pour, tortured soul.

Awwwww . . . I've got a record pretty darn similar to most other big firm partners out there. If you'd like, join me at the Club. We'll have a field day with you. And some of those sending me messages will want to tag along as well. Game?

Toodles.

OaktonSkins/BushFan · December 28, 2005

Ummm, no, you better go back to the fifth grade reading comprehension section of your language arts class, sonny.
The posters that are agreeing with me are simply a part of the avalanche of evidence that I've got supporting me, dummy. And it's not just that there are a lot of folks, but folks who are regs and one moderator.

>>>> Once again, please present the professional or "expert" credentials of all of these posters. I'll tell you what, next time they give you a shot in the courtroom, bring in some folks off the street and present them as witnesses. It'll go over real well. I'm sure. :laugh: It seems as if your objective is to win some kind of a circle jerk contest, whereas I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of this.

On top of that, you had other small timers chming in on your idiotic point and ALL of them have mysteriously shut up, except for a few that have admitted they were wrong. Thus, given these circumstances, those being a reputable scouting service ranking Samuels fourth, Pro-Bowl voters selecting him as a starter,

>>>> You know, you've been throwing that around quite a bit. I'm assuming you're a subscriber, so post it. Given that 1/3 of the PB vote is comprised of fan votes, there's a large element of subjectivity. How many games do you watch every Sunday? How many games does the average fan watch every Sunday?

everyone who's posting is agreeing with me (and I'll add that there are two others that have jumped in again),

no one else has come out to support you, and those who've supported your position in the past have no admitted they were wrong all equal up to an obvious conclusion.

>>>> Oh, here we go again. Let's logically deconstruct your whole stupid assertion... There are 30K + ES members. Approx. 10 people have posted in your defense, and somehow this becomes a valid rep. sample of the ES and Redskins fan community? Oh, and you realize that 1 does not equal 0, right? There was actually one recent post essentially with me agreeing that CS usually doesn't match up well against his best assignments - i.e. the Rice example. Even the gamebook can be used to demonstrate his example.

>>> But I digress... Like I said before, who cares? To argue that x amount of fans - whom we've established are not experts - agree with you, is a basic rhetorical fallacy, and PROVES absolutely nothing. Yet, you persist somehow believing that if you repeat (and rephrase) enough times, it will somehow be true.

This is really getting too easy.

>>> You've been saying that for quite sometime, and yet you continue to utter the same stupid things over and over again. If you had already won, then there would be no reason to continue - not with the same tired, fallacious arguments, anyway.

>>>>>

The points about reliance on other posters is addressed above.

>>> Again - you have not. Prove to me that an appeal to popularity (however limited that it may be) is logically valid.You can't.

Your point about your experts are ridiculous. They're undisclosed and there's no way we can judge who they are and how qualified they may be.

Uh huh. The fact that they are working as staff scouts for NFL teams is immaterial. Dan Snyder, for instance, probably employs unqualified people. Alrighty then... They are undisclosed. But why? You know the answer, but instead try to dismiss it, just as you dismiss most things without even addressing it head on.

That's as stupid as getting an expert in an antitrust trial who's put up as an economist at one of the Big 5 accounting firm but not getting him to establish his credentials. Ever hear how stupid you sound?

>>> Goodness, how many times have you used this fine piece of equivocation?

And just because those other guys are from the XFL doesn't hardly mean they're not qualified as talent evaluators. Joel Buchsbaum and Mel Kiper are two examples of talent evaluators that aren't employed by NFL teams that are highly respected in the industry, you dunce.

Yep. With a focus on collegiate players and the draft. Yeah, they're always great IF they can be (mis)used to support your position. Yeah, let's talk about two scouts, both specializing in college players/draft who happened to rate CS highly in 2000, and introduce that as evidence today, some 5 years later. Ok, whatever.

1. It's a FACT that a reputable scouting service has ranked Samuels fourth overall amongst OTs this year.

>>> It's also a fact that there are other authorities (journalists and scouts) that see differently.

2. It's a FACT that the Pro-Bowl voters selected Samuels as a starter this year. It's also a FACT that those voters selected him for the first time in a few years, thus making his selection based on merit not on popularity.

>>> What about the opinion I posted earlier about Ogden? If it can happen with one, it can happen with others as well.

3. It's a FACT that, when this debate arose in prior threads, there were some that panned Samuels. It's a FACT that most if not all of those folks were small time posters. Further, it's a FACT that since then, all those posters have mysteriously disappeared, with the exception of a few who've now admitted they were wrong. Finally, it's a FACT that people like Art are laughing at your inability to admit error.

>>> already addressed

4. It's a FACT that Samuels has, with the exception of the Giants game, had good games (and in some cases great games) by shutting out RDEs from getting to the QB and providing some key blocks for other folks (e.g., Moss's 78 yard TD catch-and-run i the KC game). In fact, in the past two games, Samuels has completely owned Umenyiora and Ware.

Given all these FACTS, it becomes pretty clear you're not only wrong, but, in Ghost's words, "dreadfully wrong."

>>> And has been owned several times as well. At his price, I'm looking for consistency. And I don't mean perfection, but I'd like to see consistently respectable performances against his best assignments, which is not what we've seen from CS over the past few years.

If I could, I'd love to release all the messages I'm getting of those folks who're absolutely laughing their butts off at you, especially with your resort to those "logical fallacies" you talk about.

>>> Well, why don't you post them? If they feel that strongly about it, then there's no reason to withhold. Go ahead. BFD.

I guess this legal talk went way over your head. Let me quote it for you again so you can understand it: "Oh boy. This is a classic case of what lawyers object to as "lacking foundation." First of all, what "analysts" are you talking about? Second, what evidence do you have that they actually rely on this info? Third, what evidence do you have on the issue of, assuming arguendo that they do rely on this info, what degree of reliance they place on it?

I'll be waiting for a response to those questions for you to lay some appropriate foundation, dunce."

This is a point about your failure to provide a sufficient factual predicate for the "experts" you're putting up. You don't come marching in a medical malpractice trial and start reading off some book about a doctor giving an opinion on certain issues in the case. You've got to at the very least state who the doctor is, what his or her qualifications are, and what facts they used in making their opinions. Without that basic information, you can't just point out that there are some NFL "scouts" who've opined something on Samuels.

Until you answer those questions, thos "experts" are useless. Dunce.

>>>> already covered above...

Oh, I see. The Pro-Bowl is NEVER about rewarding those who're actually the best at their position right?

Answer one question... Based on emperical evidence, do you think that Vick deserves ANY consideration to be selected to the PB? I can give you 6 reasons why he shouldn't be. Again, you're making an awful supposition.

Yeah, I guess giving that Pro-Bowl selection to Santana Moss -- a point you've conveniently dodged -- was really a fraud, huh?

>>> Now this is outright fabrication. When did I say or even insinuate that he doesn't deserve it. The liar - or great equivocator - stikes again.

Man, do you ever listen to how stupid you sound?

I type into a computer. Do you speak to your computer?

>>>

You're right, those numbers don't prove anything. Running backs like to run to the right sometimes because they're right handed. Also, you've got better folks on the LT side of the ball.

>>> You're claiming that the Samuels and Dockery tandem - the dyanamic duo of the human revolving dooor and the penalty machine, respectively - are better than Jansen and Thomas? Now, that's comedy.

There are a ton of reasons, sonny, but when take a look at the scouting services and the Pro-Bowl voters you get a pretty clear picture of what's going on.

>>> Uh huh. Because he scouting services and PB voters are calling the plays.

Awwwwww . . . to say that Prisco is a raving idiot is to say that Sally Jenkins is some opportunistic shill . . . you want an example? . . . Prisco blew the story on Marty's departure from the 'Skins . . . he initially reported that Snyder had fired Marty when, in fact, nothing of the sort happened . . . when told that, he still, like a moron, stuck to his story . . . as it turned out, Snyder wouldn't fire Marty because he'd owe him the huge amount due on the remainder of his contract . . . he therefore bought him out and there was, completely contrary to Prisco's version of events, no talk of a termination . .

And let me guess... you were right there, hiding behind the drywall in Snyder's office? Very funny...

>>>> Rum? Sugar and molasses. No thanks, when I indulge, I try and stick to first growths and single malts.

We've got those, too. The invitation's open. Laurence Tribe might be in town in a few weeks. Wanna meet him and try out your idiotic recitations to that laminated sheet of paper you bought at Staples?

>>>> I guess he's a good friend? Then ask him to signup and become an ES member. He can post right here.

Nah, the paternity test came up negative. Get someone else to ask you "who's your daddy?"

Ummm, it is when it's manifest in the way I described above and if it's also simply part of a larger wall of authority that dunningly refutes your points.

>>>> Yep, mostly fans - The Great Wall of Authority.

If you'd like, join me at the Club. We'll have a field day with you.

I guess this is part of your shrink's prescriptive therapy? Yeah, nothing like arguing on an Internet message board to boost that self-esteem. :laugh:

>>>>

And some of those sending me messages will want to tag along as well. Game?

>>> What's the matter? Does someone always hold your hand whenever you walk into courtroom? If you'd like to discuss this in person, simply PM me and we'll arrange to meet. Game?

goldenster95 · December 28, 2005

>>>> Once again, please present the professional or "expert" credentials of all of these posters. I'll tell you what, next time they give you a shot in the courtroom, bring in some folks off the street and present them as witnesses. It'll go over real well. I'm sure. It seems as if your objective is to win some kind of a circle jerk contest, whereas I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of this.

OH MY FRIGGIN’ GAWD. Do you understand my point, sonny? It’s not something that exclusively relies on these posters, you dunce. It’s one that uses them as part of a larger argument that includes other sources such as the Pro-Bowl voters and reputable scouting services. As for credentials of those other posters, I’d note that Art and Ghost are folks well versed in football knowledge, and the fact that both of them come out strongly on my side of the argument ought to tell you something.

Hello, McFly?

>>>> You know, you've been throwing that around quite a bit. I'm assuming you're a subscriber, so post it. Given that 1/3 of the PB vote is comprised of fan votes, there's a large element of subjectivity. How many games do you watch every Sunday? How many games does the average fan watch every Sunday?

I’m not sure that fan votes comprise that much of the voting. Even if they did, as noted by how Cooley got robbed of his Pro-Bowl selection, the other two-thirds of the vote can clearly drown out any fan sentiment in the selection process.

>>>> Oh, here we go again. Let's logically deconstruct your whole stupid assertion... There are 30K + ES members. Approx. 10 people have posted in your defense, and somehow this becomes a valid rep. sample of the ES and Redskins fan community? Oh, and you realize that 1 does not equal 0, right? There was actually one recent post essentially with me agreeing that CS usually doesn't match up well against his best assignments - i.e. the Rice example. Even the gamebook can be used to demonstrate his example.

Ummmm, try reading what I’ve posted above and posted previously. Do so especially with Art’s post and Ghost’s post, two very knowledgeable fans who’ve basically come out and said that you’re a moron from posting what you have.

And, as to this valid representation of the ES community, try figuring out things like why we don’t hear nary a peep from those who’d fallen on your wayward view of things before and why they’re actually some that have admitted some error. And why there are more coming on here to side with me.

>>> But I digress... Like I said before, who cares? To argue that x amount of fans - whom we've established are not experts - agree with you, is a basic rhetorical fallacy, and PROVES absolutely nothing. Yet, you persist somehow believing that if you repeat (and rephrase) enough times, it will somehow be true.

I’m not saying they’re experts you dunce. I’m saying that, as noted umpteen times, that they’re simply a part of a larger argument. :dunce:

>>> You've been saying that for quite sometime, and yet you continue to utter the same stupid things over and over again. If you had already won, then there would be no reason to continue - not with the same tired, fallacious arguments, anyway.

I have already won. I’d usually let it be, but some of your assertions are so abjectly preposterous, they simply cry out for a response.

>>> Again - you have not. Prove to me that an appeal to popularity (however limited that it may be) is logically valid. You can't.

See above. It’s not an appeal to popularity. Funny how you’ve ditched this appeal to authority point.

Uh huh. The fact that they are working as staff scouts for NFL teams is immaterial. Dan Snyder, for instance, probably employs unqualified people. Alrighty then... They are undisclosed. But why? You know the answer, but instead try to dismiss it, just as you dismiss most things without even addressing it head on.

Yeah, Jack Kent Cooke employed some unqualified, horrific scouts. Why do you think we got so many busts for players in the mid-90's? And if you can’t get the point about these “undisclosed” scouts, you’re truly daft. If they’re not disclosed, how else do you judge them, skippy? Hell, how do you know he even spoke to scouts in the first place? Of course, this is coming from some guy that would read the National Enquirer when they’d quote a “close source of the Simpson family” as support for the fact that she dumped Nick Lachey cuz she’s some lesbian. Hey, who cares who that “close source” is right? Just believe everything you read? :laugh:

:dunce:

>>> Goodness, how many times have you used this fine piece of equivocation?

Umm, it’s hardly a fine piece of equivocation. Know any lawyers? Try running this point past them, the one about the “undisclosed” expert. Brace yourself for the stentorian guffaws that will ensue.

:stupid:

Yep. With a focus on collegiate players and the draft. Yeah, they're always great IF they can be (mis)used to support your position. Yeah, let's talk about two scouts, both specializing in college players/draft who happened to rate CS highly in 2000, and introduce that as evidence today, some 5 years later. Ok, whatever.

First of all, get the point, dummy. The point is that you don’t have to be a part of the game to know it well. Mel Kiper isn’t on the payroll of the NCAA or any NCAA team, yet his knowledge is incredibly well-respected. So too with others who haven’t or aren’t on NFL payrolls. Get it?

Also, the late Joel Buchsbaum was an NFL commentator employed by the Pro Football Weekly and was perhaps one of the most respected commentators of his day. You didn’t know that? I’m not surprised.

>>> It's also a fact that there are other authorities (journalists and scouts) that see differently.

And we’ve discussed that. Yes, the “undisclosed” scouts. And, those journalists? I think Art said it best with his prior post on journalists. You remember that one, don’t’ you, the one where he pounded you into the ground?

Even assuming that you’ve got those gaggle of covert purveyors of the truth, I’ve got something clearly better in a respected scouting service that actually tells you who’s doing the analysis and gives their credentials. In addition, I’ve got this year’s Pro-Bowl voting. IN ALL, THIS SET OF EVIDENCE CLEARLY REFUTES YOUR VIEW ON SAMUELS BEING SOMEONE SO BAD THAT YOU EITHER TAKE THE IDIOTIC STEP OF TRADING OR CUTTING HIM AFTER THIS SEASON.

>>> What about the opinion I posted earlier about Ogden? If it can happen with one, it can happen with others as well.

Huh? What was your point about Ogden? And if it did happen with one, you’ve got to show that it could and did happen with Samuels. Oh, but I realize how you’ve drawn this little pearl of logic. You posit that if some homeless guy can win the lottery, it can happen to a homeless guy like you too, right?

Wow.

>>> And has been owned several times as well. At his price, I'm looking for consistency. And I don't mean perfection, but I'd like to see consistently respectable performances against his best assignments, which is not what we've seen from CS over the past few years.

Owned several times? I’ve seen every game as have numerous folks here. What’s our consensus: Samuels may have gotten beaten on a few plays, but he was hardly owned and has been playing at a Pro-Bowl level despite an injury he’s been nursing.

>>> Well, why don't you post them? If they feel that strongly about it, then there's no reason to withhold. Go ahead. BFD.

Because they want to remain anonymous and some are unsuitable for posting here. I can tell yo that the phrase “village idiot” has been bandied about quite a bit. One or two might actually post their own messages to me themselves.

>>>> already covered above...

Ummm, this hasn’t been already covered above . . . try addressing this, jack . . .

I guess this legal talk went way over your head. Let me quote it for you again so you can understand it: "Oh boy. This is a classic case of what lawyers object to as "lacking foundation." First of all, what "analysts" are you talking about? Second, what evidence do you have that they actually rely on this info? Third, what evidence do you have on the issue of, assuming arguendo that they do rely on this info, what degree of reliance they place on it?

I'll be waiting for a response to those questions for you to lay some appropriate foundation, dunce."

This is a point about your failure to provide a sufficient factual predicate for the "experts" you're putting up. You don't come marching in a medical malpractice trial and start reading off some book about a doctor giving an opinion on certain issues in the case. You've got to at the very least state who the doctor is, what his or her qualifications are, and what facts they used in making their opinions. Without that basic information, you can't just point out that there are some NFL "scouts" who've opined something on Samuels.

Until you answer those questions, those "experts" are useless. Dunce.

Answer one question... Based on emperical evidence, do you think that Vick deserves ANY consideration to be selected to the PB? I can give you 6 reasons why he shouldn't be. Again, you're making an awful supposition.

I don’t disagree with that. Vick (and I’m a huge Vick fan) making the Pro-Bowl is a complete, utter joke. He’s an example of how the Pro-Bowl can be a popularity contest. Moss, on the other hand, isn’t.

>>> Now this is outright fabrication. When did I say or even insinuate that he doesn't deserve it. The liar - or great equivocator - stikes again.

Ummm, this is hardly fabrication. All along, you’ve pressed the absolutist proposition that the Pro-Bowl selections had all the objectivity of a Prom Queen election. According to you, since EVERY Pro-Bowl selection was a popularly based choice, so too was Moss’. Just following what you’re passing off as “logic,” sonny.

>>> Uh huh. Because he scouting services and PB voters are calling the plays.

Huh? What the hell?

And let me guess... you were right there, hiding behind the drywall in Snyder's office? Very funny...

Uhh, no. It came out in something called the newspaper. Prisco looked, well, kind of like an idiot. I’m sure you can relate.

>>>> I guess he's a good friend? Then ask him to signup and become an ES member. He can post right here.

You’re kidding, right? Do you know who Tribe is?

>>>> Yep, mostly fans - The Great Wall of Authority.

See above. Incredible.

I guess this is part of your shrink's prescriptive therapy? Yeah, nothing like arguing on an Internet message board to boost that self-esteem.

Nah, just trying to set the record straight. I come from humble origins and don’t have any problem or fear going back to them.

>>> What's the matter? Does someone always hold your hand whenever you walk into courtroom? If you'd like to discuss this in person, simply PM me and we'll arrange to meet. Game?

No one has to hold my hand for squat. Too bad you can’t figure out that reliance on evidence isn’t a sign of some weakness, it’s in fact a sign of cogent argument.

Toodles.

OaktonSkins/BushFan · December 28, 2005

This is my last reply to you on this subject. Honestly, going back and forth with you, listening to the same BS is getting boring. So, one more time for those in the cheap seats - that's you, goldie.

OH MY FRIGGIN’ GAWD. Do you understand my point, sonny? It’s not something that exclusively relies on these posters, you dunce. It’s one that uses them as part of a larger argument that includes other sources such as the Pro-Bowl voters and reputable scouting services. As for credentials of those other posters, I’d note that Art and Ghost are folks well versed in football knowledge, and the fact that both of them come out strongly on my side of the argument ought to tell you something.
I’m not sure that fan votes comprise that much of the voting. Even if they did, as noted by how Cooley got robbed of his Pro-Bowl selection, the other two-thirds of the vote can clearly drown out any fan sentiment in the selection process.

Ummmm, try reading what I’ve posted above and posted previously. Do so especially with Art’s post and Ghost’s post, two very knowledgeable fans who’ve basically come out and said that you’re a moron from posting what you have.

And, as to this valid representation of the ES community, try figuring out things like why we don’t hear nary a peep from those who’d fallen on your wayward view of things before and why they’re actually some that have admitted some error. And why there are more coming on here to side with me.

I’m not saying they’re experts you dunce. I’m saying that, as noted umpteen times, that they’re simply a part of a larger argument. :dunce:

>>>> You've tried to admonish me several times for using, in your OPINION, sources which are superflous. Funny, you've already admitted that they are not experts, but you keep representing them as such in so far as you're willingness to constantly beat your chest whilst singing their praises. Like I said before, next time you're in court, why don't you try dragging in some non-expert witnesses and tell the jury that they are simply part of a "larger argument". Good luck with that. Get it? Please, be consistent for once. :laugh:

I have already won. I’d usually let it be, but some of your assertions are so abjectly preposterous, they simply cry out for a response.

>>>> Yeah, keep telling yourself that. The more you repeat it to yourself, the more you'll believe it. Good for you. :laugh:

Yeah, Jack Kent Cooke employed some unqualified, horrific scouts. Why do you think we got so many busts for players in the mid-90's? And if you can’t get the point about these “undisclosed” scouts, you’re truly daft. If they’re not disclosed, how else do you judge them, skippy? Hell, how do you know he even spoke to scouts in the first place? Of course, this is coming from some guy that would read the National Enquirer when they’d quote a “close source of the Simpson family” as support for the fact that she dumped Nick Lachey cuz she’s some lesbian. Hey, who cares who that “close source” is right? Just believe everything you read? :laugh:

:dunce:

>>> And JKC also has three SBs, remember? The point is simple: the fact that scouts -like anyone in any profession - are imperfect does not preclude them from being successful as a whole. Using your logic, we can also say that the scouts employed by Scouts, Inc. are suspect. Afterall, due to their imperfect nature, they must have failed at some point as well. And hey, when you can see that some of them are retreads from the XFL, CFL, etc - not the NFL, the world's premier (American) football league which is the league we're talking about in the first place, maybe we should question Scouts instead. But go ahead with your claim that TSN is employing (for their PB mysteries article) a bunch of team personnel's relatives.

Umm, it’s hardly a fine piece of equivocation. Know any lawyers? Try running this point past them, the one about the “undisclosed” expert. Brace yourself for the stentorian guffaws that will ensue.

:stupid:

>>> It is because this is not a courtroom. You cannot expect current NFL team scouts to disclose their identities. It's that simple. With that said, is there a chance that they could be biased for one reason or another? Sure. Just like the PB vote. Just like non-expert fans.

First of all, get the point, dummy. The point is that you don’t have to be a part of the game to know it well.

>>> So, now you're obviating the need to be an expert or reputable source? Nice. You are as consistent as CS himself. Enough said.

And we’ve discussed that. Yes, the “undisclosed” scouts. And, those journalists? I think Art said it best with his prior post on journalists. You remember that one, don’t’ you, the one where he pounded you into the ground?

>>> You mean the conjecture, right? Because until there is unimpeachable proof that said NFL analyst is XYZ (with XYZ being how Art characterized him), then your point is simply fraught with fallacy. I believe that lawyers are supposed to employ such methods in the courtroom - you know, debunking expert witnesses? Sound familiar? It should, but too bad you've done little of that here.

Even assuming that you’ve got those gaggle of covert purveyors of the truth, I’ve got something clearly better in a respected scouting service that actually tells you who’s doing the analysis and gives their credentials.

>>> You sure do. Let's recap. They are: ex-XFL, CFL, AFL scouts/coaches; sell their analysis to TV analysts (which you deride); market to NFL fans via ESPN. Okey dokey...

In addition, I’ve got this year’s Pro-Bowl voting.

>>> covered ad nauseum... how many times can you repeat yourself in one post? Sheesh...

IN ALL, THIS SET OF EVIDENCE CLEARLY REFUTES YOUR VIEW ON SAMUELS BEING SOMEONE SO BAD THAT YOU EITHER TAKE THE IDIOTIC STEP OF TRADING OR CUTTING HIM AFTER THIS SEASON.

Forgive me for being underwhelmed, even with your CAPS LOCK key firmly glued down.

Huh? What was your point about Ogden?

>>> Read the article I referenced earlier regarding this year's PB.

Owned several times? I’ve seen every game as have numerous folks here. What’s our consensus: Samuels may have gotten beaten on a few plays, but he was hardly owned and has been playing at a Pro-Bowl level despite an injury he’s been nursing.

>>> More like the opinion of others. You, of course, jumped on that bandwagon later on after screaming at the top of your lungs about Scouts et al. Overall, I think he's been inconsistent, and there are others which agree - you may not care for them (well, you don't care for anyone that disagrees with you), but that doesn't make them wrong or "idiots", as you would prefer.

Because they want to remain anonymous and some are unsuitable for posting here. I can tell yo that the phrase “village idiot” has been bandied about quite a bit. One or two might actually post their own messages to me themselves.

>>>> Oh, that anonymous thing again - you know the "undisclosed sources" stuff. Funny how that can actually work against you as well. It's fiction unless you can prove otherwise. If it's true, it's probably the usual suspects: the resident lefties who despise me. Good. Let them eat cake.

Ummm, this hasn’t been already covered above . . . try addressing this, jack . . .

I guess this legal talk went way over your head. Let me quote it for you again so you can understand it: "Oh boy. This is a classic case of what lawyers object to as "lacking foundation." First of all, what "analysts" are you talking about? Second, what evidence do you have that they actually rely on this info? Third, what evidence do you have on the issue of, assuming arguendo that they do rely on this info, what degree of reliance they place on it?

I'll be waiting for a response to those questions for you to lay some appropriate foundation, dunce."

This is a point about your failure to provide a sufficient factual predicate for the "experts" you're putting up. You don't come marching in a medical malpractice trial and start reading off some book about a doctor giving an opinion on certain issues in the case. You've got to at the very least state who the doctor is, what his or her qualifications are, and what facts they used in making their opinions. Without that basic information, you can't just point out that there are some NFL "scouts" who've opined something on Samuels.

Until you answer those questions, those "experts" are useless. Dunce.

>>> Already did - The fact that the channels employing the TV analysts subscribe to the Scouts service indicates that they use it to some significant extent. Would you continue subscribing to an expensive news service - say, Lexus-Nexus - if it didn't prove to be valuable and useful? The answers are obvious. Stupid questions, in this case.

I don’t disagree with that. Vick (and I’m a huge Vick fan) making the Pro-Bowl is a complete, utter joke. He’s an example of how the Pro-Bowl can be a popularity contest. Moss, on the other hand, isn’t.

So, let me get this straight. The PB popularity contest can work for your argument (how convenient), but not mine? Right...

Ummm, this is hardly fabrication. All along, you’ve pressed the absolutist proposition that the Pro-Bowl selections had all the objectivity of a Prom Queen election. According to you, since EVERY Pro-Bowl selection was a popularly based choice, so too was Moss’. Just following what you’re passing off as “logic,” sonny.

>>>> Mischaracterization. Read again.

Uhh, no. It came out in something called the newspaper. Prisco looked, well, kind of like an idiot. I’m sure you can relate.

>>>> Really? Where's the link? In court, do you tell the jury, "oh, my dog ate the deposition, but here's what was said." Very funny.

You’re kidding, right? Do you know who Tribe is?

>>> Sure, I do. And I'm sure he'd also love to sit around and debate Chris Samuels all evening long. Don't you think that your attempt to intimidate me with your Harvard references is just a bit over the top ridiculous? Yeah, I can just see you now walking into the HC swinging a hard copy of this thread, saying "hey, guys, look at this internet debate that I'm engaged in. Cool, huh?" Yeah, they'd probably kick you the F out or relegate you to the "his dad's name is in on the bldg, and that's how he got in" corner.

Nah, just trying to set the record straight. I come from humble origins and don’t have any problem or fear going back to them.

>>> Me too. The record doesn't clearly support you. To be fair, it doesn't completely support my position either. But, of course, that doesn't mean that you've won anything.

No one has to hold my hand for squat. Too bad you can’t figure out that reliance on evidence isn’t a sign of some weakness, it’s in fact a sign of cogent argument.

>>> Evidence? You mean conjecture and fallacious arguments (for the most part). But you're right about one thing, Art has convinced me (not in this thread) to atleast keep an open mind about it by offering ....drum roll.... empirical evidence, and not false appeals to authorities that are subject to question, fans, etc. My reply? Let CS keep it up (remember, my gripe is consistency and value) thru the playoffs and next year, and he'll make a believer out of me.

goldenster95 · December 28, 2005

>>>> You've tried to admonish me several times for using, in your OPINION, sources which are superflous. Funny, you've already admitted that they are not experts, but you keep representing them as such in so far as you're willingness to constantly beat your chest whilst singing their praises. Like I said before, next time you're in court, why don't you try dragging in some non-expert witnesses and tell the jury that they are simply part of a "larger argument". Good luck with that. Get it? Please, be consistent for once.

Ummm, try understanding the point here, buddy. My point is that the posters are simply a component of an overall point I’m making. (No, they wouldn’t generally be useful as experts a trial but it is possible to qualify a lay witness as an expert.) I’m also using them for the general “Village Idiot” point.

>>>> Yeah, keep telling yourself that. The more you repeat it to yourself, the more you'll believe it. Good for you.

I don’t have to believe it, it’s true.

>>> And JKC also has three SBs, remember? The point is simple: the fact that scouts -like anyone in any profession - are imperfect does not preclude them from being successful as a whole. Using your logic, we can also say that the scouts employed by Scouts, Inc. are suspect. Afterall, due to their imperfect nature, they must have failed at some point as well. And hey, when you can see that some of them are retreads from the XFL, CFL, etc - not the NFL, the world's premier (American) football league which is the league we're talking about in the first place, maybe we should question Scouts instead. But go ahead with your claim that TSN is employing (for their PB mysteries article) a bunch of team personnel's relatives.

Once again, you’re completely missing the boat. My point isn’t about whether people are imperfect or other extant issues such as that, it’s a more fundamental one: IF YOU’VE GOT UNDISCLOSED SOURCES, THERE’S SIMPLY NO WAY TO MAKE AN INFORMED JUDGMENT AS TO MERITS OF HOW THEY ARRIVED AT THEIR CONCLUSIONS. THIS IS NOTHING DIFFERENT THAN “BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ.” THIS IS ALSO NOTHING DIFFERENT THAN IF YOU WERE SUING A DOCTOR FOR MALPRACTICE AND THAT DOCTOR WERE TO OFFER UP AN EXPERT TO TESTIFY THAT HE DID NOTHING WRONG IN HIS SURGERY. IF THE DOCTOR REFUSED TO DISCLOSE THE EXPERT’S NAME, CREDENTIALS, AND FACTUAL ASSUMPTIONS HE OR SHE USED IN FORMING HIS OPINION, THERE’S A LITTLE PROBLEM WITH THAT, CAPICHE?

>>> It is because this is not a courtroom. You cannot expect current NFL team scouts to disclose their identities. It's that simple. With that said, is there a chance that they could be biased for one reason or another? Sure. Just like the PB vote. Just like non-expert fans.

No, it’s not a courtroom, but a lot of courtroom principles can apply. And if you’re hiding behind undisclosed sources, you might as well be relying on Mother Goose.

>>> So, now you're obviating the need to be an expert or reputable source? Nice. You are as consistent as CS himself. Enough said.

OMG. An expert or reputable source become who they are because they are RELIABLE. Who cares where they came from or what they’ve done? If they’re RELIABLE, that’s what counts.

>>> You mean the conjecture, right? Because until there is unimpeachable proof that said NFL analyst is XYZ (with XYZ being how Art characterized him), then your point is simply fraught with fallacy. I believe that lawyers are supposed to employ such methods in the courtroom - you know, debunking expert witnesses? Sound familiar? It should, but too bad you've done little of that here.

HUH?! WHAT?!

>>> You sure do. Let's recap. They are: ex-XFL, CFL, AFL scouts/coaches; sell their analysis to TV analysts (which you deride); market to NFL fans via ESPN. Okey dokey...

Ummmm . . . okay. Whatever your point is, those guys are still reliable period. Perhaps this is best answered in another section below.

>>> covered ad nauseum... how many times can you repeat yourself in one post? Sheesh...

As many times as it takes to respond to your rantings.

>>> Read the article I referenced earlier regarding this year's PB.

If that article prattles on about how the entire Pro-Bowl is a popularity contest, we’ve discussed that fallacy at length.

>>> More like the opinion of others. You, of course, jumped on that bandwagon later on after screaming at the top of your lungs about Scouts et al. Overall, I think he's been inconsistent, and there are others which agree - you may not care for them (well, you don't care for anyone that disagrees with you), but that doesn't make them wrong or "idiots", as you would prefer.

Good Lord, this has been discussed at length.

>>>> Oh, that anonymous thing again - you know the "undisclosed sources" stuff. Funny how that can actually work against you as well. It's fiction unless you can prove otherwise. If it's true, it's probably the usual suspects: the resident lefties who despise me. Good. Let them eat cake.

Ummm, the big difference here is that I’m not offering them up as some substantive evidence in this exchange. If I ever do something like that, I’m guilty as charged on the count of relying on mystery men and women for evidence.

And resident lefties? You sure sound a lot like Hillary Clinton and her lashing out at the “vast right wing conspiracy.” Maybe you and Hillary outta think about the fact that if someone’s leveling a legit beef with you, don’t start lamely crying politics.

Ummm, this hasn’t been already covered above . . . try addressing this, jack . . .

I guess this legal talk went way over your head. Let me quote it for you again so you can understand it: "Oh boy. This is a classic case of what lawyers object to as "lacking foundation." First of all, what "analysts" are you talking about? Second, what evidence do you have that they actually rely on this info? Third, what evidence do you have on the issue of, assuming arguendo that they do rely on this info, what degree of reliance they place on it?

I'll be waiting for a response to those questions for you to lay some appropriate foundation, dunce."

This is a point about your failure to provide a sufficient factual predicate for the "experts" you're putting up. You don't come marching in a medical malpractice trial and start reading off some book about a doctor giving an opinion on certain issues in the case. You've got to at the very least state who the doctor is, what his or her qualifications are, and what facts they used in making their opinions. Without that basic information, you can't just point out that there are some NFL "scouts" who've opined something on Samuels.

Until you answer those questions, those "experts" are useless. Dunce.

>>> Already did - The fact that the channels employing the TV analysts subscribe to the Scouts service indicates that they use it to some significant extent. Would you continue subscribing to an expensive news service - say, Lexus-Nexus - if it didn't prove to be valuable and useful? The answers are obvious. Stupid questions, in this case.

What the hell? If the analysts are using Scouts, they outta think it’s valuable. BTW, it’s not “Lexus-Nexus” it’s “LEXIS/NEXIS.”

So, let me get this straight. The PB popularity contest can work for your argument (how convenient), but not mine? Right...

Oh, sweet Jesus. For the millionth time, SOME Pro-Bowl selections are based on popularity and OTHERS aren’t. If you’ve got a guy going for the first time like Moss or the first time in a while like Samuels, those aren’t popularity picks. :insane:

>>>> Mischaracterization. Read again.

There is no mischaracterization. It’s simple syllogistic logic. According to you, the Pro-Bowl is ENTIRELY a popularity contest. Moss was a Pro-Bowl pick. Thus, Moss is the product of a popularly based pick.

Quid erat demonstrandum.

>>>> Really? Where's the link? In court, do you tell the jury, "oh, my dog ate the deposition, but here's what was said." Very funny.

I’m not even going to bother. Ask someone who was following the Marty story on CBS Sportsline. Prisco looked like a complete idiot then for that story and has done a good job at fending off challengers to the Idiot Journalist he seems to occupy every year.

>>> Sure, I do. And I'm sure he'd also love to sit around and debate Chris Samuels all evening long. Don't you think that your attempt to intimidate me with your Harvard references is just a bit over the top ridiculous? Yeah, I can just see you now walking into the HC swinging a hard copy of this thread, saying "hey, guys, look at this internet debate that I'm engaged in. Cool, huh?" Yeah, they'd probably kick you the F out or relegate you to the "his dad's name is in on the bldg, and that's how he got in" corner.

Uh huh. Sure you know who Tribe is. LOL. And trust me, you don’t go to that God forsaken place other than to do a few things. Also, my dad’s name wouldn’t be on any building associated with Harvard. And neither would mine. If you despise lefties, try hanging around Cambridge for a couple of weeks.

>>> Me too. The record doesn't clearly support you. To be fair, it doesn't completely support my position either. But, of course, that doesn't mean that you've won anything.

Well, looks like I won then. You’ve always been pining away at Samuels for this and that. Thus, it’s your burden to carry in proving your point about Samuels. If in fact the evidence is, as you just noted, balanced, I win.

Thanks, I knew you’d come around.

>>> Evidence? You mean conjecture and fallacious arguments (for the most part). But you're right about one thing, Art has convinced me (not in this thread) to atleast keep an open mind about it by offering ....drum roll.... empirical evidence, and not false appeals to authorities that are subject to question, fans, etc. My reply? Let CS keep it up (remember, my gripe is consistency and value) thru the playoffs and next year, and he'll make a believer out of me.

Here’s a little bit of advice. That appeal to authority is comically inane. Drop it. And your gripe has evolved from Samuels being the next coming of Wilbert Brown to someone who’s consistency and value is falling short.

:doh:

Oh well.

Jumbo · December 28, 2005

What are you guys doing? Where is everyone? Is this one of those thread thingys?

OaktonSkins/BushFan · December 28, 2005

Goodness gracious... ok, I tried to stay away, but I've got to set the record clear..

Quote:

>>>> You've tried to admonish me several times for using, in your OPINION, sources which are superflous. Funny, you've already admitted that they are not experts, but you keep representing them as such in so far as you're willingness to constantly beat your chest whilst singing their praises. Like I said before, next time you're in court, why don't you try dragging in some non-expert witnesses and tell the jury that they are simply part of a "larger argument". Good luck with that. Get it? Please, be consistent for once.

Ummm, try understanding the point here, buddy. My point is that the posters are simply a component of an overall point I’m making. (No, they wouldn’t generally be useful as experts a trial but it is possible to qualify a lay witness as an expert.) I’m also using them for the general “Village Idiot” point.

>>> Then go ahead and "qualify them as experts." Otherwise, leave them out of it because it's immaterial to the debate.

Quote:

>>> And JKC also has three SBs, remember? The point is simple: the fact that scouts -like anyone in any profession - are imperfect does not preclude them from being successful as a whole. Using your logic, we can also say that the scouts employed by Scouts, Inc. are suspect. Afterall, due to their imperfect nature, they must have failed at some point as well. And hey, when you can see that some of them are retreads from the XFL, CFL, etc - not the NFL, the world's premier (American) football league which is the league we're talking about in the first place, maybe we should question Scouts instead. But go ahead with your claim that TSN is employing (for their PB mysteries article) a bunch of team personnel's relatives.

Once again, you’re completely missing the boat. My point isn’t about whether people are imperfect or other extant issues such as that, it’s a more fundamental one: IF YOU’VE GOT UNDISCLOSED SOURCES, THERE’S SIMPLY NO WAY TO MAKE AN INFORMED JUDGMENT AS TO MERITS OF HOW THEY ARRIVED AT THEIR CONCLUSIONS. THIS IS NOTHING DIFFERENT THAN “BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ.” THIS IS ALSO NOTHING DIFFERENT THAN IF YOU WERE SUING A DOCTOR FOR MALPRACTICE AND THAT DOCTOR WERE TO OFFER UP AN EXPERT TO TESTIFY THAT HE DID NOTHING WRONG IN HIS SURGERY. IF THE DOCTOR REFUSED TO DISCLOSE THE EXPERT’S NAME, CREDENTIALS, AND FACTUAL ASSUMPTIONS HE OR SHE USED IN FORMING HIS OPINION, THERE’S A LITTLE PROBLEM WITH THAT, CAPICHE?

>>> I'm not sure if this translates well into American jurisprudence, but look at the Iraqi witnesses in the Saddam trial. All of them remain anonymous for fear of retribution. The same can be said for current NFL team scouts which may one day find themselves scouting for the same team of a player they previously criticized, etc. WE may not know their names or whic team they belong to, but we do know that they are current NFL scouts working for teams representing each division. Forgive me if I fail to buy into a wholesale conspiracy theory that ALL media outlets and journalists are biased. Now, if you have some proof that TSN has a demonstrable history of questionable reporting or outright lying, then please offer it here.

Quote:

>>> It is because this is not a courtroom. You cannot expect current NFL team scouts to disclose their identities. It's that simple. With that said, is there a chance that they could be biased for one reason or another? Sure. Just like the PB vote. Just like non-expert fans.

No, it’s not a courtroom, but a lot of courtroom principles can apply. And if you’re hiding behind undisclosed sources, you might as well be relying on Mother Goose.

>>> see above

Quote:

>>> So, now you're obviating the need to be an expert or reputable source? Nice. You are as consistent as CS himself. Enough said.

OMG. An expert or reputable source become who they are because they are RELIABLE. Who cares where they came from or what they’ve done? If they’re RELIABLE, that’s what counts.

>>> Do you have any empirical evidence to support your claim of reliability beyond indulging your CS fetish? Wouldn't you rather listen to scouts with a track record in the same league that they're opining about?

Quote:

>>> You mean the conjecture, right? Because until there is unimpeachable proof that said NFL analyst is XYZ (with XYZ being how Art characterized him), then your point is simply fraught with fallacy. I believe that lawyers are supposed to employ such methods in the courtroom - you know, debunking expert witnesses? Sound familiar? It should, but too bad you've done little of that here.

HUH?! WHAT?!

>>> Come off it already. Art's characterization is devoid of any substantation; it's opinion.

Quote:

>>> You sure do. Let's recap. They are: ex-XFL, CFL, AFL scouts/coaches; sell their analysis to TV analysts (which you deride); market to NFL fans via ESPN. Okey dokey...

Ummmm . . . okay. Whatever your point is, those guys are still reliable period. Perhaps this is best answered in another section below.

>>> see above - "where's the beef"?

Quote:

>>> Read the article I referenced earlier regarding this year's PB.

If that article prattles on about how the entire Pro-Bowl is a popularity contest, we’ve discussed that fallacy at length.

>>> No, the article discusses the selection of Ogden despite his apparently less than stellar year.

Quote:

>>>> Oh, that anonymous thing again - you know the "undisclosed sources" stuff. Funny how that can actually work against you as well. It's fiction unless you can prove otherwise. If it's true, it's probably the usual suspects: the resident lefties who despise me. Good. Let them eat cake.

Ummm, the big difference here is that I’m not offering them up as some substantive evidence in this exchange. If I ever do something like that, I’m guilty as charged on the count of relying on mystery men and women for evidence.

>>> Sure you have... your "larger authority" thing. In addition, you claim that a multitude of ES members have been PMing you to show support. Well, to borrow from your previous statement about the undisclosed, I might as well believe "mother goose", as you put it.

And resident lefties? You sure sound a lot like Hillary Clinton and her lashing out at the “vast right wing conspiracy.” Maybe you and Hillary outta think about the fact that if someone’s leveling a legit beef with you, don’t start lamely crying politics.

>>> It's well known that I've taken many of these Leftists to task over on the Tailgate. So maybe it's them. Maybe it's not, of course, assuming that all of this is true. I have little respect for people that hide behind PMs.

Ummm, this hasn’t been already covered above . . . try addressing this, jack . . .

I guess this legal talk went way over your head. Let me quote it for you again so you can understand it: "Oh boy. This is a classic case of what lawyers object to as "lacking foundation." First of all, what "analysts" are you talking about? Second, what evidence do you have that they actually rely on this info? Third, what evidence do you have on the issue of, assuming arguendo that they do rely on this info, what degree of reliance they place on it?

I'll be waiting for a response to those questions for you to lay some appropriate foundation, dunce."

This is a point about your failure to provide a sufficient factual predicate for the "experts" you're putting up. You don't come marching in a medical malpractice trial and start reading off some book about a doctor giving an opinion on certain issues in the case. You've got to at the very least state who the doctor is, what his or her qualifications are, and what facts they used in making their opinions. Without that basic information, you can't just point out that there are some NFL "scouts" who've opined something on Samuels.

Until you answer those questions, those "experts" are useless. Dunce.

>>> covered above and previously .... ad infinitum...

Quote:

>>> Already did - The fact that the channels employing the TV analysts subscribe to the Scouts service indicates that they use it to some significant extent. Would you continue subscribing to an expensive news service - say, Lexus-Nexus - if it didn't prove to be valuable and useful? The answers are obvious. Stupid questions, in this case.

What the hell? If the analysts are using Scouts, they outta think it’s valuable. BTW, it’s not “Lexus-Nexus” it’s “LEXIS/NEXIS.”

I knew it was a vowel. :laugh: Anyway, that's my point. It if it's of some value, then why bother with such questions?

Quote:

So, let me get this straight. The PB popularity contest can work for your argument (how convenient), but not mine? Right...

Oh, sweet Jesus. For the millionth time, SOME Pro-Bowl selections are based on popularity and OTHERS aren’t. If you’ve got a guy going for the first time like Moss or the first time in a while like Samuels, those aren’t popularity picks.

>>> We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Quote:

>>>> Mischaracterization. Read again.

There is no mischaracterization. It’s simple syllogistic logic. According to you, the Pro-Bowl is ENTIRELY a popularity contest. Moss was a Pro-Bowl pick. Thus, Moss is the product of a popularly based pick.

Quid erat demonstrandum.

>>> Wrong. I said that the human element involved taints the results. I never entirely dismissed the PB. Rather, I said to take it with a grain of salt. You, on the other hand, seemingly are putting all of your eggs in that basket.

Quote:

>>> Sure, I do. And I'm sure he'd also love to sit around and debate Chris Samuels all evening long. Don't you think that your attempt to intimidate me with your Harvard references is just a bit over the top ridiculous? Yeah, I can just see you now walking into the HC swinging a hard copy of this thread, saying "hey, guys, look at this internet debate that I'm engaged in. Cool, huh?" Yeah, they'd probably kick you the F out or relegate you to the "his dad's name is in on the bldg, and that's how he got in" corner.

Uh huh. Sure you know who Tribe is. LOL. And trust me, you don’t go to that God forsaken place other than to do a few things. Also, my dad’s name wouldn’t be on any building associated with Harvard. And neither would mine. If you despise lefties, try hanging around Cambridge for a couple of weeks.

>>> Yes, isn't he a notorious plagarist? LOL Oh, I get it - it's a vanity club? You invite guests over in a silly attempt to bash them? Sounds incredibly mature. LOL

Quote:

>>> Me too. The record doesn't clearly support you. To be fair, it doesn't completely support my position either. But, of course, that doesn't mean that you've won anything.

Well, looks like I won then. You’ve always been pining away at Samuels for this and that. Thus, it’s your burden to carry in proving your point about Samuels. If in fact the evidence is, as you just noted, balanced, I win.

Thanks, I knew you’d come around.

>>> Oh here, let me pull out my Staples Guide to Logical Fallacies. Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). The fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition. Sorry, but your appeals to questionable authorities and non-expert fans hasn't won the day for you.

Quote:

>>> Evidence? You mean conjecture and fallacious arguments (for the most part). But you're right about one thing, Art has convinced me (not in this thread) to atleast keep an open mind about it by offering ....drum roll.... empirical evidence, and not false appeals to authorities that are subject to question, fans, etc. My reply? Let CS keep it up (remember, my gripe is consistency and value) thru the playoffs and next year, and he'll make a believer out of me.

Here’s a little bit of advice. That appeal to authority is comically inane. Drop it. And your gripe has evolved from Samuels being the next coming of Wilbert Brown to someone who’s consistency and value is falling short.

>>> Wrong again - read ALL of my posts. I've said from the beginning that consistency is a component of value. I'm lookiing for consistent performance before I'm sold (again) on CS.

prophet · December 28, 2005

I do think sammuels is overrated, but he did have a better season than his last 3.

making the probowl nowadays is a joke. see larry allen, vick... didn't emmitt smith make it this year as well :doh: ?

goldenster95 · December 28, 2005

>>> Then go ahead and "qualify them as experts." Otherwise, leave them out of it because it's immaterial to the debate.

You do know what I mean by “qualifying” them as experts. And they’re hardly immaterial. When you’ve got as many that have come out and as one-sided as it’s been, they can be used as a part of the overall argument supporting my view.

>>> I'm not sure if this translates well into American jurisprudence, but look at the Iraqi witnesses in the Saddam trial. All of them remain anonymous for fear of retribution. The same can be said for current NFL team scouts which may one day find themselves scouting for the same team of a player they previously criticized, etc. WE may not know their names or whic team they belong to, but we do know that they are current NFL scouts working for teams representing each division. Forgive me if I fail to buy into a wholesale conspiracy theory that ALL media outlets and journalists are biased. Now, if you have some proof that TSN has a demonstrable history of questionable reporting or outright lying, then please offer it here.

That’s lame in the Saddam trial (and that’ll be assailed by liberals who’ll claim he got robbed of the fundamental right to confront adverse witnesses) and it’s even lamer with the scouts. And this has NOTHING to do with conspiracy or lying, it’s a question of due process. If you’re offering some anonymous survey and I’ve got no idea what the survey is relying on, that’s as bogus as it comes. Yes, there may very well be some compelling reasons to cloak the sources with anonymity, but that’s no answer to a claim that the anonymity resultantly creates some problems of weight of the proof being offered up.

>>> Do you have any empirical evidence to support your claim of reliability beyond indulging your CS fetish? Wouldn't you rather listen to scouts with a track record in the same league that they're opining about?

Once again, what scouts are you talking about? Oh yeah, those guys behind the curtain, right? To adduce that type of evidence is incredibly bogus. American courts will make reporters, under pain of contempt and incarceration, to pony up “anonymous” sources that relate to issues in a trial they’re testifying in. Why? Confrontation and proof issues. If you don’t know who’s alleging things against you, there are huge problems with that.

>>> Come off it already. Art's characterization is devoid of any substantation; it's opinion.

No, it’s a FACT that he offered that opinion. If you’d like to attack Art’s credentials or the factual bases for that opinion, be my guest. But even you stated that you respected his opinion, thus making him, at least according to you, a very credible individual to offer opinions such as those he had on Samuels and the Pro-Bowl.

>>> No, the article discusses the selection of Ogden despite his apparently less than stellar year.

Once again, you’re completely missing the issue. It’s not whether Ogden or another o-lineman are more or less susceptible to being popularity picks. It’s whether players with successive selections to the Pro-Bowl are voted in because of their reputation. In way too many cases, that’s true. On the other hand, it can’t be said that someone who’s made his first Pro-Bowl (like Moss) or his first Pro-Bowl in a number of years (like Samuels) is there because of some popularity contest.

>>> Sure you have... your "larger authority" thing. In addition, you claim that a multitude of ES members have been PMing you to show support. Well, to borrow from your previous statement about the undisclosed, I might as well believe "mother goose", as you put it.

Like I said before, you’re free to do that. Anonymity is done for many reasons, some of which are, as here, to protect identities of those who wish to offer some candid and comical opinions of you. To be fair to you, I can’t – and haven’t – used them as part of my case regarding Samuels.

>>> It's well known that I've taken many of these Leftists to task over on the Tailgate. So maybe it's them. Maybe it's not, of course, assuming that all of this is true. I have little respect for people that hide behind PMs.

Good for you. I don’t know what goes on there, but you again are sounding a lot like Hillary Clinton.

>>> We'll just have to agree to disagree.

You can say that till year blue in the face. You can’t deny the fact that when someone gets voted in his first time or his first time in a while, that’s clearly not the product of popularity. That’s just a simple truth, so if you’d like to disagree with that, be my guest in suggesting that Samuels’ first selection in a while to go to the Pro-Bowl was a result of his reputation.

Clearly, it’s not.

>>> Wrong. I said that the human element involved taints the results. I never entirely dismissed the PB. Rather, I said to take it with a grain of salt. You, on the other hand, seemingly are putting all of your eggs in that basket.

See above. I’m not putting all my eggs in one basket. And when someone votes you in as a STARTER in addition to the fact that you’ve not gotten to the Pro-Bowl in the past few years, the possibility of any error is about none.

>>> Yes, isn't he a notorious plagarist? LOL Oh, I get it - it's a vanity club? You invite guests over in a silly attempt to bash them? Sounds incredibly mature. LOL

Riiight. Look up Tribe on the ‘Net.

>>> Oh here, let me pull out my Staples Guide to Logical Fallacies. Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). The fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition. Sorry, but your appeals to questionable authorities and non-expert fans hasn't won the day for you.

And you’ve offered nothing to suggest that other than some anonymous sources and your own opinion. I’ve offered authority that’s hardly questionable – in fact, as you noted, it’s used by journalists, a Pro-Bowl selection that’s clearly based on merit, and an avalanche of other well-respected posters who’ve offered the same opinions. You can describe my evidence however you’d like. One thing is clear, however, and that’s the fact it overwhelms yours. As such, it’s a pretty damn easy conclusion who prevailed here, especially given the fact that it’s your burden of proof to support a proposition you’ve been squawking about here forever.

>>> Wrong again - read ALL of my posts. I've said from the beginning that consistency is a component of value. I'm lookiing for consistent performance before I'm sold (again) on CS.

You did mention consistency at a later time. If you take a look at your earlier posts, you were a lot more extreme in your view of Samuels. With the points I’ve raised in addition to the others, your view has evolved from the one you first advocated to one where you actually now admit that your evidence doesn’t completely support your position. Again, because you have the burden of proof, and because you’ve admitted that your evidence doesn’t completely support your position, you’ve lost.

Game. Set. Match.

goldenster95 · December 28, 2005

I do think sammuels is overrated, but he did have a better season than his last 3.
making the probowl nowadays is a joke. see larry allen, vick... didn't emmitt smith make it this year as well :doh: ?

Some Pro-Bowl selections are a joke, others are not. Yes, Larry Allen and Mike Vick were stupid choices. However, when you're talking about someone making it for the first time or the first time in years, that's a whole different story. For instance, Santana Moss made the Pro-Bowl for the time in his career. Was that selection a joke?

OaktonSkins/BushFan · December 28, 2005

Some Pro-Bowl selections are a joke, others are not. Yes, Larry Allen and Mike Vick were stupid choices. However, when you're talking about someone making it for the first time or the first time in years, that's a whole different story. For instance, Santana Moss made the Pro-Bowl for the time in his career. Was that selection a joke?

I'm not going to bother responding to the other post. We can both go back and forth with the same arguments, and you'll not be any closer to the truth. Here's what I'm willing to concede: CS has put on a remarkable performance over the past two games, and critical games at that. Yes, he stepped up the plate. The question is, will he shed his inconsistency and continue to perform to that level in the playoffs and throughout next season? We'll see.

Oh, and the Tribe thingy...

http://thecrimson.harvard.edu/article.aspx?ref=503493

OaktonSkins/BushFan · December 28, 2005

Some Pro-Bowl selections are a joke, others are not. Yes, Larry Allen and Mike Vick were stupid choices. However, when you're talking about someone making it for the first time or the first time in years, that's a whole different story. For instance, Santana Moss made the Pro-Bowl for the time in his career. Was that selection a joke?

Oh, look someone else that agrees with me. Why don't you deride him as well? :laugh:

Sammuels haters! How many sacks did he give up?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived

Recently Browsing 0 members