The Fans Shift In Thinking - Or not

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I want an organization that could displace the Patriots at the top. I doubt that Mike has what it takes to do that. On the other hand, I doubted that he would do as well as he has in using free agency to rebuild. So far, he's proving me wrong, and it feels good.

I haven't kept up with this thread since the floodgates opened. OF, do you believe the organization is doing a good job of adding relatively long-term pieces via free agency?

[Oldfan]

I haven't kept up with this thread since the floodgates opened. OF, do you believe the organization is doing a good job of adding relatively long-term pieces via free agency?

With the exception of the old folks at the WR position, they're doing what I wanted them to do. So, sure, I'm pleased and surprised so far, TDW.

[The Tris]

I think there are a lot of people pleasantly surprised at the FA period (and the offseason as a whole) thus far.

I am still waiting to see what we do with the rest of our cap space, but at this point, I would say this is the best offseason under Dan Snyder's ownership, ever.

Should we continue to build for the long haul next year, I might just reconsider what Mike Shanahan means when he says "We're going to build the right way."

[pimpumd]

.

pimpumd:

Okay, I’ll sum up too.

Rather than admit your original position was wrong, and in contradiction with your opinion on Shanahan’s intent, you engaged in some artful wordplay.

Rather than admit your position was wrong and basically argumentative nonsense, you continued to try twisting my argument into something it wasn't just so you could prove me wrong. The thing is, you saying you're right and I'm wrong is pretty stupid and proves nothing. If you noticed when I summed up the position, I wrote things like "In my opinion" and "in your opinion," but when you summed it up you say things like "rather than admit you were wrong" and accuse me of using "artful wordplay." You are a character.

You made the mind-boggling assertion that the roster being "devoid of talent" means the same thing as “needing to make rebuilding moves..”

It's only "mind-boggling" if you don't have a solid grasp of the English language. Being competitive and possibly having a winning season is entirely different than going 14-2 and competing for championships annually.

And, after that wordplay was exposed for what it was, you try to recover with more wordplay:

It isn't "wordplay" as you claim if what I've said falls in line with accepted English language definitions. When you have to reach and say that I'm using "wordplay" as a way to support your position, you really should know it's time for you to quit because now you're just being silly. Wordplay? Are you serious?

“...It might contradict with whatever your definition of "competitive" might be, but it does not conflict with the standard definition of the word "competitive."

Here, you want to ignore the fact that we infer meaning from context. And, since every NFL team can beat another on any given Sunday, to say that a team is “competitive” surely implies more than that in this context.

Um, this is more argumentative nonsense. Being competitive does not mean "there's a chance for a win each week." That isn't what I said. If they'd played each other last year, the Panthers probably would have had a .005% (or something equivalent) of beating the Patriots. That clearly isn't being "competitive." You are inferring things that aren't there once again.

Here is what I actually said (Post 104):

It was certainly possible to compete with optimal play from McNabb and luck in our favor. IMO, with those two factors 9-7 or 10-6 would be the best possible result. However, I think every fan strives for significantly more, i.e. annual championship possibilities, and thus the need for significant improvement in talent everywhere.

Notice how I referenced winning records as being competitive, which is in complete opposition to your assertion that I was really saying "competitive" just means a chance at winning each week.

Here's another (Post 168, on this same page which I guess you just chose to ignore):

IMO, Mike Shanahan thought, if he got elite play from his borderline HOF QB and had some good luck, the team would be competitive (not competing annually for championships and blowing teams out each week, but having a legitimate shot to win each week).

Notice how I use the word "legitimate" to describe a competitive's teams' chances of winning each week. I'm not talking about just getting lucky or "any given Sunday"-type stuff, despite you saying that's what I really meant.

Please stop saying my words means something they don't and inferring what you'd like them to mean. How can anyone have an honest debate with you if you change the meanings of their own words based on what you want them to mean? Pretty ridiculous.

But, the funny thing is that your attempt to wiggle out of one contradiction only dumps you into another.

If, all along, you were using “competitive” to mean “possible to have a shot at winning each week,” then you had the chance to realize and correct my misunderstanding when I offered the poll of season predictions. Instead, you have attacked the poll for what you see as its flaws compared to a professionally done poll.

No contradiction there. I've been correcting your many misinterpretations this entire thread. Now you want me to correct all the errors in your illogical arguments in a time frame specified by you?

The fact of the matter is, I told you from the beginning that IMO Shanahan thought we could compete (with optimal play from his QB and luck on our side) and possibly achieve a 9-7 or 10-6 record. That was what I originally deemed competitive, and that also falls in line with having a legitimate shot at winning each week (see above).

Rhetorical question: Why challenge only the structure of a poll of season predictions if by “competitive” you did not mean that the team should have a good chance of having a winning season?

Now you are simply lying as to my definition of "competitive." See above. In post 104 and 108 I clearly referenced 9-7 and 10-6 (both winning seasons) as being competitive. This is just a flat out lie and once again you have misrepresented my position because you insist on being argumentative.

For the third time now, if all you want to do is quote me, misrepresent what I say, and make stupid claims about "wordplay" please PM me rather than litter this thread with such trash.

[Mahons21]

I think there are a lot of people pleasantly surprised at the FA period (and the offseason as a whole) thus far.

I am still waiting to see what we do with the rest of our cap space, but at this point, I would say this is the best offseason under Dan Snyder's ownership, ever.

Should we continue to build for the long haul next year, I might just reconsider what Mike Shanahan means when he says "We're going to build the right way."

Glad to hear it.

BTW did you see the contract D. Joseph signed? Like 7 years 53 mil.

Also I was searching but couldn't find anything, does anyone know how much $ was guaranteed in Chris C contract?

[The Tris]

BTW did you see the contract D. Joseph signed? Like 7 years 53 mil.

Also I was searching but couldn't find anything, does anyone know how much $ was guaranteed in Chris C contract?

Way too much. I had cooled on him considerably even before it started becoming apparent he was going to command so much.

Of course, TB is showing just what happens when you are forced to spend money: Michael Koenen (Punter) signed a six-year deal worth $19.5 million, including $6.5 million guaranteed.

I had thought that it was like $6 MM guar for Chester, but couldn't find it.

[Oldfan]

pimpumd ~ For the third time now, if all you want to do is quote me, misrepresent what I say, and make stupid claims about "wordplay" please PM me rather than litter this thread with such trash.

You summed up. I summed up. I thought this was over, until you continued it. But, if it is to continue, I prefer to keep our exchange public so that any readers interested can make up their own mind on who is making the better argument.

It's only "mind-boggling" if you don't have a solid grasp of the English language. Being competitive and possibly having a winning season is entirely different than going 14-2 and competing for championships annually.

You shifted away from the point. Being competitve and possibly having a winning season are not relevant to your mind-boggling assertion that the roster being "devoid of talent" means the same thing as “needing to make rebuilding moves..”

It isn't "wordplay" as you claim if what I've said falls in line with accepted English language definitions.

“Wordplay,” the shifts in meaning that you achieved by moving from one phrase to another (like moving from “devoid of talent” to “needing to make rebuilding moves”) are easily formed using words as defined in the dictionary.

Now you are simply lying as to my definition of "competitive."

My “lie” was based on this quote:

pimpumd [168] Second of all, it's not a contradiction because it's possible to be "competitive" (meaning possible to have a shot at winning each week) with best play from your borderline HOF QB and good luck despite having a "roster devoid of talent."

The fact of the matter is, I told you from the beginning that IMO Shanahan thought we could compete (with optimal play from his QB and luck on our side) and possibly achieve a 9-7 or 10-6 record. That was what I originally deemed competitive, and that also falls in line with having a legitimate shot at winning each week (see above).

Your final line is a virtual admission that you have defined “competitive” two different ways in your posts to deny contradictions. Wordplay.

[pimpumd]

You summed up. I summed up. I thought this was over, until you continued it. But, if it is to continue, I prefer to keep our exchange public so that any reader interested can make up their own minds on who is making the better argument.

I'd agree if you were making new arguments. You are not.

You shifted away from the point. Being competitve and possibly having a winning season are not relevant to your mind-boggling assertion that the roster being "devoid of talent" means the same thing as “needing to make rebuilding moves..”

Argumentum ad nauseum. You do not think a roster that is "devoid of talent" needs to make "rebuilding moves." That's your opinion and I disagree. Nothing left to say here.

“Wordplay,” the shifts in meaning that you achieved by moving from one phrase to another (like moving from “devoid of talent” to “needing to make rebuilding moves”) are easily formed using words as defined in the dictionary.

Argumentum ad nauseum. You've offered nothing new here and failed to show how I've shifted the meaning of any words or statements.

My “lie” was based on this quote:

Your final line is a virtual admission that you have defined “competitive” two different ways in your posts to deny contradictions. Wordplay.

Wrong. No "wordplay" whatsoever. I've consistently said being competitive means having a "legitimate" shot at winning each week and potentially reaching a 9-7 or 10-6 record.

It looks like you are quibbling because I said this in Post 168:

it's possible to be "competitive" (meaning possible to have a shot at winning each week)

You honed in on that one phrase, presumably because I did not ascribe a percentage or some adjective to define the chance of a team winning each week, to imply I meant the word "competitive" only meant that a team had a chance (however minute it might be) to win each week. However, in the same post, I said this:

IMO, Mike Shanahan thought, if he got elite play from his borderline HOF QB and had some good luck, the team would be competitive (not competing annually for championships and blowing teams out each week, but having a legitimate shot to win each week.

Notice how I further narrowed my use of the word "competitive" to mean a "legitimate" chance to win each week--not simply lucking out but having a realistic shot to win every week. I specifically narrowed the meaning of "competitive" by doing so. You intentionally left that out in order to make my meaning of "competitive" appear to be something other than potentially having a winning record.

We all know you are a fan of context, because you said this in Post 170:

Here, you want to ignore the fact that we infer meaning from context.

So, reading Post 104:

It was certainly possible to compete with optimal play from McNabb and luck in our favor. IMO, with those two factors 9-7 or 10-6 would be the best possible result. However, I think every fan strives for significantly more, i.e. annual championship possibilities, and thus the need for significant improvement in talent everywhere.

and Post 168:

IMO, Mike Shanahan thought, if he got elite play from his borderline HOF QB and had some good luck, the team would be competitive (not competing annually for championships and blowing teams out each week, but having a legitimate shot to win each week).

Second of all, it's not a contradiction because it's possible to be "competitive" (meaning possible to have a shot at winning each week)

you get a clear definition of how I've used the term "competitive" throughout this discussion--a legitimate shot to win each week with a chance at winning record.

There is absolutely no contradiction in any of my posts regarding the term "competitive" despite you saying my "final line [was] a virtual admission" to such. A team that has a legitimate shot to win each week can certainly end up with 9-7 or 10-6 record.

Again, you have presented nothing new. You've simply quoted me and said I've contradicted myself with no evidence whatsoever. For the fourth time and because you feel this is now over, please PM if you have nothing new to add and just want to be argumentative.

[Oldfan]

pimpumd ~ you get a clear definition of how I've used the term "competitive" throughout this discussion--a legitimate shot to win each week with a chance at winning record.

Very clever. I see you took your original definition (winning season) and your second version (week-to-week) and combined them into a composite. It's a shame you didn't think of that right off the bat. If you had you wouldn't have gotten yourself pinned to those contradictions.

[55yrSkinsFan]

I just saw the name "Pork Chop Womack" as a guard free agent for Cleveland. Man, we gotta get a real hog for the line, even if it is just his name. Never really paid any attention to him, but with a name like that he should be a skin.

HTTR

[55yrSkinsFan]

I just saw the name "Pork Chop Womack" as a guard free agent for Cleveland. Man, we gotta get a real hog for the line, even if it is just his name. Never really paid any attention to him, but with a name like that he should be a skin.

HTTR

[pimpumd]

Very clever. I see you took your original definition (winning season) and your second version (week-to-week) and combined them into a composite. It's a shame you didn't think of that right off the bat. If you had you wouldn't have gotten yourself pinned to those contradictions.

Translation: I cannot refute any of what you just said so I'll just throw out this nonsensical quip about a "composite definition."

First of all, there was never an "original definition" of the term "competitive." The defining of terms began when you claimed there was some sort of contradiction.

Second of all, you must not know what a contradiction is. The way in which I've used the term "competitive" has not once been contradicting. A legitimate chance to win each week in no way contradicts with the potential to go 9-7 or 10-6. I don't know what world you live in where those two "definitions" contradict with one another.

BTW--I thought you were done. PM me if you'd like to continue being argumentative

[TD_washingtonredskins]

With the exception of the old folks at the WR position, they're doing what I wanted them to do. So, sure, I'm pleased and surprised so far, TDW.

Cool...I've learned to put stock in your opinions. I would wait to see who actually makes the roster at WR, but I too would have preferred that they leave it to the rookies, second year guys, and maybe brought in a younger FA.

[s0crates]

Regarding the concerns about our FA wideouts, it sounds like Gaffney looked good today. Interesting tidbit about this guy, in 2009 when #1 WR Brandon Marshall was injured, Gaffney had 14 catches for 219 yards. Not saying this guy is the savior, but he could be good.

He is 30, and he has posted 700-800 yards the last two years, his best as a pro. So I do not see him as much more than a depth player, but for what we paid for him, he could spice up the competition at that position.

Kelly, Hankerson, Gaffney, Banks, Austin, Paul, and Robinson competing for three or four roster spots. I actually like it.