Packers fan comments on ST during ESPN "Winners" chat...

[ffxdrummer]

Even though Sean dropped three possible INTs, he still will get credit for three passes defended on the play. I didn't give him credit for those, so, I'll raise my grade to a B.

I agree with the grade. I think if he holds onto one more pick and doesn't do that ridiculous lateral to Rocky on the 2nd pick (I can't believe I haven't seen that mentioned more), then I give him an A. But a very solid B.

2 or 3 dropped ints is no good, great for passes defended, horrible for getting us what could have been game-changing field position. ST is a game-changer, no doubt, but he still hasn't reached his full potential.

[Henry]

NFL OCs are pretty good at what they do and they aren't going to make it easy on the defense. Against most safeties, they can design a play that will leave a window of some size open for the QB. Well, ST's range shrinks that window considerably. So, yeah, a great throw will beat him. But it better be a great throw.

There you go. That's what I was trying to say, but you said it much better.

Oldfan, I think you could pick apart the performance of every safety in the league like you've done here. I do think Taylor relies more on talent than technique at this point in his career. Most young guys do. Darrell Green did. So did Sanders. Rod Woodson did. When they get older the great ones get cagey. We can judge Taylor's ability to make up for his waning talent when his talent wanes. Until then, he's just a great safety.

[jrfriedm]

Is anyone really surprised by those comments? Did they say anything that we didn't already know?

[Henry]

Is anyone really surprised by those comments? Did they say anything that we didn't already know?

Apparently.

[Oldfan]

There you go. That's what I was trying to say, but you said it much better.

Oldfan, I think you could pick apart the performance of every safety in the league like you've done here. I do think Taylor relies more on talent than technique at this point in his career. Most young guys do. Darrell Green did. So did Sanders. Rod Woodson did. When they get older the great ones get cagey. We can judge Taylor's ability to make up for his waning talent when his talent wanes. Until then, he's just a great safety.

Flashy and overrated, Henry:D

If you took Ed Reed or Troy Polamalu out of your lineup, your D would suffer a big blow. Bob Sanders makes a big difference when he's healthy and playing for the Colts. I just don't think Sean makes that much difference.

I will admit to this bias: I prefer smart athletes with solid techniques to the amazing athletes who don't have those attributes. I'd trade Sean's big hits to get Landry's sure tackling ability.

[phutfut]

I'd trade Sean's big hits to get Landry's sure tackling ability.

like the one at the LOS on Brian Westbrook in Philly?

[Henry]

If you took Ed Reed or Troy Polamalu out of your lineup, your D would suffer a big blow. Bob Sanders makes a big difference when he's healthy and playing for the Colts. I just don't think Sean makes that much difference.

If you re arguing that Taylor is not one of the very very best safeties in the entire league ... that there are three or four better than him, well, I agree. I didn't think anyone was suggesting Taylor's the best there ever was. Just that he's darn good.

I will admit to this bias: I prefer smart athletes with solid techniques to the amazing athletes who don't have those attributes.

So do I. But I'll take the freak of nature if I have to.

I'd trade Sean's big hits to get Landry's sure tackling ability.

Is having both so wrong?

[Siven]

I agree with the grade. I think if he holds onto one more pick and doesn't do that ridiculous lateral to Rocky on the 2nd pick (I can't believe I haven't seen that mentioned more), then I give him an A. But a very solid B.

2 or 3 dropped ints is no good, great for passes defended, horrible for getting us what could have been game-changing field position. ST is a game-changer, no doubt, but he still hasn't reached his full potential.

Scary to think about. Sean Taylor was phenomenal when you compare him against what other safeties can do. But for his own level of talent and athleticism he was just good, or maybe very good. By his own standards and ability, he's not there yet completely.

About being in a position to change games, I bet you Sean wasn't overly pleased by his performance. He's not thinking, "I made two interceptions, good day of work for me", he's thinking "I dropped three interceptions"

For instance, I can be in a soccer game, and score three goals, but if I miss one I know I should have sank into the back of the net, that's the one i'll think about and work on and improve.

[Siven]

Flashy and overrated, Henry:D

If you took Ed Reed or Troy Polamalu out of your lineup, your D would suffer a big blow. Bob Sanders makes a big difference when he's healthy and playing for the Colts. I just don't think Sean makes that much difference.

I will admit to this bias: I prefer smart athletes with solid techniques to the amazing athletes who don't have those attributes. I'd trade Sean's big hits to get Landry's sure tackling ability.

Doesn't make much of a difference?

No deep passes completed on the Skins through 5 games. Remember, that football is a game of 11 players. Sean is responsible for shutting down the deep ball. That's what he is intended to do. He's responsible for being the last line of defense. That's what he is intended to do. We have not given up a single deep pass this entire season, Sean has stopped the one short pass that went long (Green Bay), and almost stopped Burress' catch and run, when it was error by Rocky McIntosh and Carlos Rogers.

You take Sean Taylor out of our defense, and it'll fall to shambles. If you perfer smart athletes, you probably shouldn't like Landry, considering his yapping at the opposing team is going to get him flagged for taunting, especially when it is a pretty boneheaded thing for him to do.

You're argument that Sean doesn't make that much of a difference is swill. You haven't backed it up at all because you can't, because you're wrong. Taylor making two interceptions out of the five he should have had is still making a difference. Shutting down the deep ball and serving as the last line of defense, WHICH HE HAS DONE, is making a difference.

The only way you'd ever give Taylor credit and respect is if he was perfect, but not even being perfect would be good enough, you'd want him to be better than perfect. You're the kind of person that would complain if Taylor stopped a runningback in the backfield for loss of 3 yards and say "He should've stopped him for a loss of 4 yards".

[Oldfan]

If you re arguing that Taylor is not one of the very very best safeties in the entire league ... that there are three or four better than him, well, I agree. I didn't think anyone was suggesting Taylor's the best there ever was. Just that he's darn good.

I gave you examples of safeties who make a big impact. This whole debate started in the other thread when I opposed the portrayal of Sean Taylor as a feared, impact player at his position.

A player picked #5 in the first round should be a grade A, All-Pro caliber type. Taylor has phenomenal athletic ability, but his performances so far have not lived up to his potential.

We will find out what Gregg Williams and the Redskins actually think of him when it's time to negotiate a new contract.

Is having both so wrong?

I wasn't offering that option. I was trying to have you understand my bias since we are talking about a subjective judgment.

[EnFoRcEr_uPu]

Man, when I posted this I didn't expect a 110 post 5-star thread, LOL.

[TheGreek1973]

No matter what please lock him up for the next 10 years. Then start work on locking up JC. Those two simply can't be seen with another uniform on. I swear most of us skins fans would go into depression if this happens.

[ffxdrummer]

About being in a position to change games, I bet you Sean wasn't overly pleased by his performance. He's not thinking, "I made two interceptions, good day of work for me", he's thinking "I dropped three interceptions"

Excellent point, that's what makes a good player.

[Oldfan]

The only way you'd ever give Taylor credit and respect is if he was perfect, but not even being perfect would be good enough, you'd want him to be better than perfect. You're the kind of person that would complain if Taylor stopped a runningback in the backfield for loss of 3 yards and say "He should've stopped him for a loss of 4 yards".

This common logical fallacy is called an "ad hominem" argument. If you're unfamiliar with the term, you can look it up on your favorite search engine. Essentially, if you can't make a logical argument to attack your debate opponent's position, attack your opponent.

[Mr. Sinister]

]']Not if we keep hyping him up. Instead' date=' he'll just turn into a shut down Safety. After about 6, people won't throw on his half.

One of two things will happen, then. Either they'll A) under estimate his range and throw too close to his territory, or refuse to throw in anywhere near his direction, inevitably sealing off at least 20% of their offensive potential.[/quote']

What the hell are you talking about? Sean Taylor plays wherever the ball is going, he does'nt play one side of the field. :doh:

[Siven]

This common logical fallacy is called an "ad hominem" argument. You can look it up on your favorite search engine.

Essentially, if you can't make a logical argument to attack your debate opponent, attack your opponent.

This is a common problem with people. It's called "failure to read", I attacked your argument, I backed my points up with evidence, and then I pointed out a flaw in your evaluation of Taylor. My point was that you have unrealistic expectations and no matter what he does it won't be good enough. AFTER I had made my argument and backed it up.

I was attacking the foundation of your argument that Sean Taylor doesn't do enough. Essentially, through your posts here, you have illuminated the fact that Taylor's performance Sunday, who everyone who knows anything about football would regard it as a good to great performance, especially considering the conditions on the field, wasn't that good. You want Sean to be more than perfect if you are going to respect him as a football player. That's the foundation of your argument, he will never perform at a level that you deem acceptable and your argument is based on that.

You yourself can look up "ad hominem" in your favorite search engine. You completely avoided the points I made and then attacked me for making a bad argument which you never made a rebuttal for the points I made.

I'd also suggest looking up "donkey" in your favorite dictionary.

[Om]

I have said that Sean Taylor sometimes takes bad angles, often uses poor tackling techniques, misses some tackles in the open field, and often needs to use his extraordinary talent just to catch up and make the ordinary plays in pass defense. You have implied that I'm all wet, but you haven't specifically challenged anything I've said. So, which of the foregoing observations are not valid in your opinion?

You want a serious answer, ask a serious question. That one is so full of subjective qualifiers I wouldn't know where to start.

[Veretax]

we need to lock up taylor in perpetuity now!

[Oldfan]

Siven -- This is a common problem with people. It's called "failure to read", I attacked your argument, I backed my points up with evidence, and then I pointed out a flaw in your evaluation of Taylor. My point was that you have unrealistic expectations and no matter what he does it won't be good enough. AFTER I had made my argument and backed it up.

There is no conceivable way that you could make a valid argument proving my expectations are unrealistic. We are talking about subjective judgments.

I was attacking the foundation of your argument that Sean Taylor doesn't do enough. Essentially, through your posts here, you have illuminated the fact that Taylor's performance Sunday, who everyone who knows anything about football would regard it as a good to great performance, especially considering the conditions on the field, wasn't that good.

Is this your idea of a logical argument? It's a subjective judgment. I have my opinion. You have yours. I explained at some length, how I arrived at mine.

You want Sean to be more than perfect if you are going to respect him as a football player. That's the foundation of your argument, he will never perform at a level that you deem acceptable and your argument is based on that.

Horse puckey.

[Oldfan]

You want a serious answer, ask a serious question. That one is so full of subjective qualifiers I wouldn't know where to start.

How is asking for your subjective judgments on a topic involving subjective judgments not a serious question?

I don't think you can answer my question because you can't disagree without appearing to be unaware of Sean's shotcomings as a player.

[sk1ns]

he finally has a player next to him, and doesnt have to play both ss and fs

[CRobi21]

I just don't think Sean makes that much difference.

:doh:

[Henry]

How is asking for your subjective judgments on a topic involving subjective judgments not a serious question?

I don't think you can answer my question because you can't disagree without appearing to be unaware of Sean's shotcomings as a player.

Actually, it's real easy to disagree in this case.

Om (or I) can just say "I disagree with you" and then whatever you say after that say "are you trying to prove a subjective arguement? Horse puckey."

[Om]

How is asking for your subjective judgments on a topic involving subjective judgments not a serious question?

I don't think you can answer my question because you can't disagree without appearing to be unaware of Sean's shotcomings as a player.

The question you asked was full of subjective qualifiers, OF. Don't play dumb--you know what those are, how they framed the question and why I noted them.

Only reason we're talking in this thread is 1) in follow-up to your earlier (in my subjective opinion) silliness about his not being a player other teams have to account for, and 2) the contention you've now backtracked on that he deserved a "C" grade for his performance against GB.

If you're now asking me for my broad assessment of Sean Taylor at this point in his career, independent of your leading questions, fine, I'll write something up and post it when it's done and there's a context for it.

I'm sure I'll see you there.

[XxSpearheadxX]

I'm not trying to be critical here, I believe us to be a top 5 defense, no doubt about it. All I was trying to point out is that there are times I've held my breath and sighed with relief that a play wasn't made on us, but it wasn't because we stopped it. I just wonder how we'll do against really good offenses, that's all, because I don't think we've truly been tested in the running game / play action game yet.

Okay.... though the eagles have a pretty good play action game, and I'd say the NYG have a top 5 playaction passing - maybe top 3 - 2 of our worst games for sure, defensively.

I have to ask this to you and Old Fan - what pretend standard do you hold NFL teams too. Do you guys watch other games? Do you see how a team like the Ravens still is caught out of position?

Do you REALIZE that we get so many dropped passes by WRs because they are scared ****less that if Los and Springs don't drop their butts, here comes Laron Landry, or GOD FORBID Sean Taylor who hits like nobody I have EVER seen.

We excel against big physical WRs because they are used to being bullies, it is part of their skill set being stronger than the guys covering them - bust on Rogers all you want, but he gets in the chinstrap of guys like Roy Williams again and again and is a pain.

How many freak WRs have you seen rubbing their backs and looking sad after a drive ended because ST eviscerated their souls at the 50 yard line?

How about Randy Moss, T.O., Larry Fitzgerald, Roy Williams, Calvin johnson to name a few - in fact I have a huge amount of respect for Plex because he is one of the few guys in this mold that seems to take a hit and keep on ticking against our defense.

PS. One of the reasons Sean had a "down" year last year because QB's just didn't throw near him. There were others, but that is one rarely spoke of.