Poll: How Long Does Marty Have?

[TooDeep]

Art,

You dance around more than Michael Jackson dodging a warrant for his arrest for child molestation.

The fact is Norv was headed again to the play-offs last year and was fired. The team caved after that.

And I would be willing to put a crisp $100.00 bill on how much football I have kept up with over the years. I was at the Cotton Bowl for the first home game of the Dallas Cowboys in 1960. Furthermore, I attended home games of the Dallas Texans when Abner Hayes was the runningback in the late 50's. You might know that franchise in their current city. It was the one Marty previously coached.

I can read and have read your posts along with other Redskin fans. The questioning of the head coach starts quicker on your board than any other.

Whether you wish to admit it or not. Two games into his tenure and the poll is already up.

Further, since you don't read my posts, as evidenced by your comments about me looking at my team, I'd suggest you chase them down.

I am perhaps the most analytical Cowboy fan posting. I have questioned many moves they have done this season and posted for all to see that I didn't feel this team would win 5 games this year. I posted that since April.

So while you enjoy speaking from some position of knowledge, you obviously haven't done enough research on this subject to speak intelligently.

And again, when you take the post out of context, you can make f*rting sound like a symphony. So don't paraphrase me and then apply your meaning to my words.

If you would reread with comprehension, you will see that I was comparing potential and qathleticism and nothing mopre when discussing the rookie crop of QB's. Don't add your caveat to what I think and then claim it is part of my comment, please.

And one more thing, sport, I believe my guts have never been in question since the day I returned from a year in Viet Nam. Understand, puppy.

[Larry]

TooDeep:

The fact is Norv was headed again to the play-offs last year and was fired. The team caved after that.

I think your claim is, to say the least, debatable. All you can say for certain is that "Norv hadn't quite been mathmatically eliminated".

And, your point that this subject is posted after only two games (I guess the fact that we stank in exactly the same way for 4 preseason games doesn't give any explanation as to why people might be getting worried) might be countered by looking at the responses people're giving: I haven't seen one poster who isn't willing to stick with this plan if we go "oh-fer" this season and at least half of the next.

Utah,

One of my fondest memories of a professor was in Thermo 1, when the instructor is doing his "welcome to the class" routine, points to an equation on the board, and says that it's the First Law of Thermodynamics. It's a long equation, but all it realy says is that "energy is conserved", and all of you have been taught that before, anyway. This class is 16 weeks long, and for the first 12, all we're going to do is learn this one equation. (In the last four weeks, we're going to learn a second equation). That's all we're going to do, is plug numbers into this equation and solve for the unknowns.

Then he pointed to a student, and said "You had this class with me last year, that's all we're going to do, right?". And proceeded to say "Hi" to several others who he also recognized from last year.

Great motivator, that was.

[Art]

In Too Deep,

I possess the highest respect for vets of this country's military conflicts. Despite that, I'll tell you I feel for those of you who have returned from Vietnam and have had a hard time settling back into a normal life, such as yourself. I believe there are treatment programs you should start taking advantage of. Please let us help you on this.

As to your football comments here, if you have watched much football you could not say the Redskins were heading to the playoffs when Norv was fired. In fact, the team quit on Norv the week before against Philly and the Giant game was more depressing than any game any of us have ever seen, because Norv so badly wanted to lose and the team so badly wanted him gone, it was painful to witness. Please allow people who've watched the game explain these things to you so you don't appear so slipshod in your estimations.

The poll on Marty is a reasonable question to ask. NO coach can lose games 67-3 and not expect a revolt from the players and the fans. Some of us feel he'll be given time to right the ship. Others, likely those who never liked him, want to see him gone and a bright young mind brought in. There's merit to that thought, but, it's too early to give it any serious meaning.

Again though, you see just how honestly and real we view our football team here. We can even question a coach who is the 12th winningest coach in the history of the league. We are so honest we can even see flaw in a proven success like Marty, who just three years ago led a team to a 13-3 record. Meanwhile, I don't paraphrase you when you write specifically that Carter is the true stud of the draft. You wrote it.

Directly. You wrote how Vick had more questions about him and how Carter had fewer questions about him, and therefore Carter is the true gem in this draft. Yet, you continue to have difficulty answering the truism that had Carter not escaped Georgia for the draft and his certain fifth-round draft selection, he'd have been on the bench watching someone else play QB for the Bulldogs and he'd have been an undrafted free agent next year. Of course, either way, I'm sure you guys would have pulled the trigger on him in the second round. That's your way.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[TooDeep]

You assume:

I have not had a hard time settling in. But thanks for your concern. You assume you know when clearly you don't.

Then you have the gall to actually take the wavering shakes of indecisions and disloyalty by the horde at extremeskins.com and call it honestly viewing your team. Your classmates cower at the first sign of trouble. And after the paragraphs you wrote to me about the discipline Marty will bring, even you should have the sour taste of irony in your mouth.

Now you bring up a question about Carter that wasn't even in this discusion. Just like you Art. When one tact doesn't work, you guys are so flexible in changing subjects and positions, you trek off into a completely new direction. Speaks to the above wavering confidence in your team.

1. Carter stated publically that he'd rather pass than run. Vick is primarily a runner first, passer second. (Not to say he doesn't have passing skills, I can see you starting to put words in my mouth already) I have long held the theory that when a quarterback is a runner first, he looks at himself as a weapon with his feet. He limits the possibilities by deciding to gain yards himself instead of throwing the ball. Overlooking developing situations that would ultimately be of more gain to take the glory train by the horns and be the hero. While Steve Young did win a Super Bowl with this style, I suggest there were extenuating circumstances that came into play. More like the injuries to Dallas that season than anything Young did. Randall Cunningham had right at 1000 yards rushing in a year when he had one of the most fearsome defenses to ever play the game. Yet his penchant for pulling the ball down and taking off harmed his offense more than helped it. (I will also admit that Randall was not the greatest quarterback when he had to make short and intermiadiate passes. This contributed to his lack of success in the play-offs. Plus, and I only surmise here, that he had a mental state wherein he was waiting for the collapse instead of the Brett Favre mindset of looking for the loophole for success.) Favre scrambles to by time for his receivers more than he does to gain yardage. But the same logic applies when Favre believe he can create something out of nothing with his arm and therefore throws interceptiomns. You witnessed one last Monday night when your corner, Shade snatch a poorly thrown and ill-timed pass. The same principle applies to running. Hence my questions about Vick. If he believes he is all that as a runner, then he has questions as a quarterback. Hardly the cloak and daggar stuff you seem to think it is.

2. While you enjoy projecting some notion that QC would have been the bench player, no amount of ouija board football expertise can actually make that claim with certainty. You just don't know for a fact that he would not have beaten out the current starter in Georgia's training camp. You can not support with any authority as fact a supposition that has no results to back it up. Likewise, I can not say with certainty that he would have started. But the major differtence is, you are trying to support your side with conjecture posed as fact. That doesn't fly and you would be calling me out on that if I tried to back that up myself. I expect more from you, Art.

3. Your constant comments about me and my football expertise are a shallow dodge for your weak and unsupported positions.You try to rewrite history and further dig yourself into this hole. I don't believe it is reading comprehension, but more the ire from meeting someone that doesn't tremble at the verbose barbs you toss out as if they were proclaimed by the Burning Bush. You're a pretty smart guy, but hardly this stinging mind for the prosecution others find you to be.

You laid claim to Marty's discipline and yet article after article speak to the team rejecting his style. Discipline has an inherent core that people follow it. Tha natives are restless, Art.

You told me I had no clue, yet here we go with others on this board asking if the game past Marty by. Funny how when I made the statement you spent untold minutes typing paragraphs to defend him, and yet when I come back and see your clan discussing same, you write paragraphs shooting at me for bringing it back up. Glossing it under the guise that you and yours are realists and above the great unwashed.

Art, if it wasn't true two weeks ago, then why is it acceptable when your troops ask the same question I posed?

Are you trying to straddle the fence, Art? Attempting to be right on both sides of this issue?

You have no answer because to you this is Redskins vs. Cowboys and your manhood is called into question.

This is further exemplified by your position at one point that Banks could be the future of the team and then within a week you write a post where the real future is with George.

You squat on both sides of an issue so when you later have to defend your position, you can claim you were right.

This is so media-like, Art. Tons of words saying nothing but convoluting the issue so later you can't be held accountable.

You amuse me. Else I wouldn't spend a Saturday afternoon engaged in this banter.

Your serve.

[Art]

This outta be fun. Ru, can you please show up so I work up a sweat?

In Too Deep, you wrote....

"You assume:

I have not had a hard time settling in. But thanks for your concern. You assume you know when clearly you don't."

I'm sure you do fine when on your medication and speaking with your doctor. You've just shown lately that you've stopped doing what he suggests, so, get back on the program Palooka.

"Then you have the gall to actually take the wavering shakes of indecisions and disloyalty by the horde at extremeskins.com and call it honestly viewing your team."

It is honesty in viewing the team In Too Deep. It doesn't have to be factual, but, it is honest. Some people are upset with how the team has done and some feel this is Marty's fault. I tend to see a lot of logic in what they are saying, but, I know it's far too early to reach a level of change. We certainly could reach that level and saying so is very simply honest. Unlike you and your boys trying to find the silver lining to being 0-2, we prefer to look at it as less than acceptable and we talk about it being so. I don't think any fan critical of Marty and the Redskins can be faulted when the team has been outscored 67-3. They have a point, whether others agree with it or not.

"Your classmates cower at the first sign of trouble. And after the paragraphs you wrote to me about the discipline Marty will bring, even you should have the sour taste of irony in your mouth."

The opening games of the season have been lost due to Marty's inability to allow the offense to succeed. This is totally fair and people are not cowering at the trouble. In fact, unlike Cowboy fans who are accepting and embracing trouble in Big D, Redskin fans here are taking trouble head on and tackling the issues that are limiting the team. I believe Marty will succeed in Washington. I could be right on that. So far, I've been wrong, but, I'm not sure I expected to be right after two games. It'll take time to rework the organization, as has been said repeatedly by many of us here. Whether he succeeds or not is not yet known.

"Now you bring up a question about Carter that wasn't even in this discusion. Just like you Art. When one tact doesn't work, you guys are so flexible in changing subjects and positions, you trek off into a completely new direction."

Actually, your points on Carter were at issue, because you took Redskin fans to task for being honest and realistic. It is solid data to present that you said Carter was the best QB in the draft and had fewer questions than Michael Vick. You wrote that. That shows how dishonest you are about your team and I'm not sure people who are honest about theirs should expect to be understood by someone like yourself, who can't honestly analyze a situation and can't fairly judge his team. That you are blinded by the faltering star is your problem. And, it deserves to be mentioned when you are worrying over someone else and how they view their team, when you can't even admit the failings of the players on your own team.

"Speaks to the above wavering confidence in your team."

We've been outscored 67-3. You'd expect confidence to not waiver? Are you that stupid In Too Deep? Oh, wait, you're about to explain how Carter, a guy not even good enough to start at his college team this year is somehow the best QB in the NFL as a rookie now. You are precisely that stupid.

"1. Carter stated publically that he'd rather pass than run."

Damn fine thing your coaching staff heard him then and installed the option.

"Vick is primarily a runner first, passer second. (Not to say he doesn't have passing skills, I can see you starting to put words in my mouth already)"

No he isn't. Vick just happens to be a good runner and Carter isn't, so when Vick runs, it makes an impact on the game and when Carter runs for 2.4 yards a carry as a college player, it makes the team pass more. Vick is very patient and more accurate when healthy than Carter has ever been. Hell, Vick led the NATION in passer rating. I know you don't base your statements on facts, but, you really ought to try it some time.

"I have long held the theory that when a quarterback is a runner first, he looks at himself as a weapon with his feet. He limits the possibilities by deciding to gain yards himself instead of throwing the ball."

Yawn. Put down Football for Dummies and tell us something we don't know. Vick's problem isn't that he's a runner, it's that he takes the weight of the team on his shoulders and he frequently tries to force the issue. That's his biggest knock. He does have to learn to be patient and let his team help him. But, he's model pretty compared to the warts on Carter, the Georgia backup QB this year. I'm not even pasting the rest. You start with a premise that isn't known in the slightest and you try to extrapolate it out to fit your belief that somehow Quincy Carter is draft gold.

Hell, want to hear me tell you that Mario Monds is the best defensive tackle prospect in the draft? Oh, wait, we cut him. I'll pick another player then, and the point will be the same. You're dreaming.

"2. While you enjoy projecting some notion that QC would have been the bench player, no amount of ouija board football expertise can actually make that claim with certainty."

No, but, it's a certainty when the coaching staff and PR staff in Georgia say it. Sorry, but the reason he came out is because he was told he was probably not going to start as a senior and he wasn't willing to work for it. He never figured he'd luck into the Cowboy starting job without earning it, and without the support of the players or the coaches. Good break for him.

"You just don't know for a fact that he would not have beaten out the current starter in Georgia's training camp."

Yep. Kind of like you know he is the best rookie QB. Except, since we're discussing how he'd have done at Georgia as a bench player, it makes my point sound feasible and your point sound idiotic.

"You can not support with any authority as fact a supposition that has no results to back it up. Likewise, I can not say with certainty that he would have started."

The fact is I don't have to state with a certainty he wouldn't have started. The point is he left before it was clear he wouldn't have, and certainly before we knew if he would have. The very fact that he was seriously in question as the starter of his COLLEGE team ought to answer your thought about whether he's the best QB prospect in the draft. Sorry chief, but, this is a fact. If it's up in the air whether you are even capable of starting in college, it's not really up in the air that you are better than anyone else coming into the pros. Is that so hard for you to latch onto? Or are you continuing your repeated dishonesty and acceptance of your team's poor play?

"But the major differtence is, you are trying to support your side with conjecture posed as fact. That doesn't fly and you would be calling me out on that if I tried to back that up myself. I expect more from you, Art."

This is a hoot. You said you don't know if Carter would have started at Georgia. However, you said you do know he's the stud of the rookie QBs and has fewer questions than Vick. And, you are supporting your point with something other than blind fan conjecture? Sorry Palooka, but, that dog don't hunt my boy.

"3. Your constant comments about me and my football expertise are a shallow dodge for your weak and unsupported positions."

Could be. Save for the fact that I've repeatedly drilled you in every conversation and debunked everything you've ever said. Mostly, my comments about your football knowledge are based upon the fact that you seem to know so precious little and I seem, therefore, to know so incredibly much. Everything you've ever posted here as a negative about the Redskins I've posted before you. You aren't even a good heckler. You are very slow on the uptake Palooka. Fat, punch drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son.

"You try to rewrite history and further dig yourself into this hole. I don't believe it is reading comprehension, but more the ire from meeting someone that doesn't tremble at the verbose barbs you toss out as if they were proclaimed by the Burning Bush."

You keep saying this like it's a point In Too Deep. You keep saying you aren't afraid of me. But, in fact, you are scared to death of me. You can't stop thinking about me. You scream in festering rage every time I spank your ruby red bottom. You hate it and obsess about that which you aren't. It's clear my boy. But, at no point do I even consider you a challenge. Ru is at least a challenge because he'll bypass a good point against him and switch the debate to something he's on different, if not better ground with. You acknowledge the points against you and you try very hard to stand firm, thinking that makes you seem like you aren't trembling, when it really just makes you seem pathetic. But, I know, you've represented your thoughts on Carter honestly.

First, you say you never said it. I then post your words and you say you didn't mean it. I post your words again and you say, "Ok, I said it, but, here's why I say it." And here, you don't even get it. The off the cuff remark that Carter wouldn't even have started at Georgia is a deal breaker for you Cowboy fans, because it doesn't have to be true to be a limiting factor in what Carter is. That he is a very limited, very soft, very average to below average college QB who is now thrust into a starting role on a team he hasn't played well enough to earn that role, is what he is. Congrats.

"You're a pretty smart guy, but hardly this stinging mind for the prosecution others find you to be."

I'll address this when you are able to figure out your own meaning. Try stringing together words into a sentence so that you understand them first, and worry about the rest of us later.

"You laid claim to Marty's discipline and yet article after article speak to the team rejecting his style. Discipline has an inherent core that people follow it. Tha natives are restless, Art."

The fact that team veterans may, or may not, be rejecting Marty's discipline does not mean Marty isn't bringing and instilling discipline. It merely means the possibility exists that some players don't like it. It happens to remain uncontroverted and totally true that Marty is a disciplined coach who attempts to bring that style to his team. I've written on this board MONTHS ago that it's possible he won't work here, but, he doesn't have to succeed here in terms of victory to succeed here overall. He merely has to get the team to take on a different mindset than the underachieving loose ship Norv ran for seven years. If the wins come, it augments his resume. I don't pretend to know whether he'll succeed or not. But, what I said is true. And, it's so clearly true that he's bringing discipline to the team that you are now hearing some vets saying they don't like it.

Some folks here think it's a shame they don't. Some folks here think it's too bad they don't, and they need to deal with it. And all of us here think 67-3 is a poor showing and the cause of that outcome is directly related to the present coaching style that isn't taking with the team. For MONTHS many of us have said this is a known danger with Marty here.

"You told me I had no clue, yet here we go with others on this board asking if the game past Marty by. Funny how when I made the statement you spent untold minutes typing paragraphs to defend him, and yet when I come back and see your clan discussing same, you write paragraphs shooting at me for bringing it back up. Glossing it under the guise that you and yours are realists and above the great unwashed."

In Too Deep, when you write the game has passed Marty by when the fact is three years ago he was 13-3, you seem very dim. When Al writes it, he seems dim. I've told him he's wrong. It's simply an assessment not supported by the facts. Marty's system may not work with the present players on this team, but his system has worked and does work with today's players as he's demonstrated. If Gibbs came back and was 0-2 with a 67-3 score, you could say the game has passed him by. He's been out a while. Marty hasn't and he has produced a 13-3 record three years ago. Unless you think the clock struck 2000 and the whole world changed, you can't support this ignorant and baseless statement. Not only can you not support it, but no one saying it can.

"Art, if it wasn't true two weeks ago, then why is it acceptable when your troops ask the same question I posed?"

It's still not true In Too Deep. It's always been acceptable for anyone to post anything they like here. Your post on this point was acceptable too. It just got drilled. Al's point is acceptable here too. It's just not true. Me thinks you are a tad obsessive and you don't seem to realize that it's not all about you. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not at all about you.

"Are you trying to straddle the fence, Art? Attempting to be right on both sides of this issue?"

Do you even know what you are talking about?

"You have no answer because to you this is Redskins vs. Cowboys and your manhood is called into question."

Ahh, I see, you don't have any idea what you are talking about. This has nothing to do with the Redskins versus the Cowboys. There's very little Cowboy talk on this board. In fact, for you, witnessed by the fact that you post what this board says on the Cowboy board, you do appear obsessed with the Redskins and incapable of discussing sports if the Redskins are a factor in the discussion. What you are doing here is called projection. You are attempting to project your flaws on others so you don't feel so bad. But, you should feel bad. It's a weak attempt, but, thanks for playing.

"This is further exemplified by your position at one point that Banks could be the future of the team and then within a week you write a post where the real future is with George."

Again In Too Deep, if you have difficulty understanding what you read, just ask about it and I'll explain it. I have never written that George is the future of the team because I felt his contract was too great to be the future. However, I did say a solid performance this year and the possibility remained that we would negotiate with him.

With Banks, I have written that he has the physical ability to win games, and that Marty and every fan of the team had better pray he can be a late bloomer, because if not, we have serious QB issues in the future. Banks is presently a Top 3 free agent QB next year. If he plays poor football and causes us to look elsewhere, it won't be pretty. At 28, if he proves a late bloomer, he could salvage the team. I think I've been pretty up front that Banks is our wing and a prayer.

Your wing and a prayer is a rookie QB not good enough to nail down the starting job at his college. I'll take my chances on this competition.

"You squat on both sides of an issue so when you later have to defend your position, you can claim you were right."

When I'm right, I say it. With you, I've never been wrong. When I'm wrong, I say it. With you, I've never been wrong. An example is I was wrong on George being able to play for the Redskins and succeeding for us. Sadly you never had a conversation about that. So, with you, I'm still batting 1000, and, even on things stating opinion, I'm wrecking you.

"This is so media-like, Art. Tons of words saying nothing but convoluting the issue so later you can't be held accountable."

In Too Deep, my words are searched for on this page by typing the search button and putting my name in the username field. I've never backed away from being wrong and I've never backed away from being right. You get some correct and you miss on others. Again though, with you, I've never missed.

"You amuse me. Else I wouldn't spend a Saturday afternoon engaged in this banter."

I'm glad I amuse you. You continue creating your Art shrine and spending your days worried about me, and I'll continue throttling you in every conversation you present. It'll be like a game. You aren't very good at a game in which you compete, much like your team, but, like your acceptance of that lack of success, you don't care about competing, just playing. So, keep it up little buddy.

"Your serve."

Ace, game at love.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[TooDeep]

I once again schooled you and you then sidestepped and talked around issues until you were blue in the face. Then have the nerve to claim that you won. Art, you should change your nick to Artful Dodger.

Here we go, strap on your helmet.

Direct Art Quote:

It is honesty in viewing the team In Too Deep. It doesn't have to be factual, but, it is honest.

That should have eliminated anything you said after it because it has no basis in logic. Which is the point I think I have been expressing about you. Your logic is flawed.

Your second quote: (and one of my favs, Arty ole boy)

So far, I've been wrong, but, I'm not sure I expected to be right after two games.

So let's review. I said I thought Shottsy is done. You wrote the equivolent of War and Peace telling me how wrong I was. Now you claim you are wrong but you're not sure that you expected yourself to be right after two games.

Art, cut yourself some slack there buckaroo. I mean don't be so hard on yourself. Sheesh. You have skewered yourself with your own words twice in the first part of the Greater Area New York Phone Book that you wrote.

Third quote:

It is solid data to present that you said Carter was the best QB in the draft and had fewer questions than Michael Vick.

I said he has as much upside as anyone. He has as many tools. Far cry from your rewording.

Fourth quote:

That shows how dishonest you are about your team and I'm not sure people who are honest about theirs should expect to be understood by someone like yourself, who can't honestly analyze a situation and can't fairly judge his team.

Now I know you are posturing for the messageboard and all, but really Art, when I stated both here and there that I didn't think Dallas has enough horses to win 5 games this year. And have been saying it since April. That is pretty disingenuous of you to characterise it any other way than how I have elaborated. Then you added this tidbit early which contradicts this statement.

"Unlike you and your boys trying to find the silver lining to being 0-2, we prefer to look at it as less than acceptable and we talk about it being so."

Although you try to have it both ways you just can't. I'd even be inclined to give you both sides of the fence out of sheer shame that I am debating someone that really talks so frequently out of both sides of their mouth, as you do. But fair is fair.

Fifth quote:

We've been outscored 67-3. You'd expect confidence to not waiver?

I expect you to hang out longer than two games before putting up a poll when he will be fired. But that is your history.

Sixth quote:

"1. Carter stated publically that he'd rather pass than run." This one was mine with your reply below.

Damn fine thing your coaching staff heard him then and installed the option.

You don't get it and this shows that fact.

Seventh quote:

No he isn't. Vick just happens to be a good runner and Carter isn't,

I guess you didn't see the 18 yard run where he broke tackles and dodged defensive backs against Tampa Bay. I'll give you credit here because you were probably watching your own game. Your point, to say the least, is inaccurate.

Eighth quote:

Yawn. Put down Football for Dummies and tell us something we don't know.

You express what you think I said. You don't quote me but in slices to support a point that you really don't have. I give you a thourough example of why I think this, and then you insult me. This isn't a debate, it's Art's usual load of caca. When you don't have a poiunt you keep talking trash.

Ninth quote:

No, but, it's a certainty when the coaching staff and PR staff in Georgia say it.

Funny thing is what they say after the player left and what could have possibly transpired is up for grabss. I guess the fact that there is no fact here at all and you wish not to acknowledge it shows you aren't as factual or honest as you pretend.

Tenth quote: Here is the body slam bucko...

The fact is I don't have to state with a certainty he wouldn't have started. The point is he left before it was clear he wouldn't have, and certainly before we knew if he would have

Yet you stated it as fact in the last post. There was no room for conjecture. You claimed it was fact and now you try to weasel your way out by making new rules.

Honesty: 1. free from deception. 2. Trustworthy.

You missed on both counts on this. Nice crawfishing.

Eleventh quote:

This is a hoot. You said you don't know if Carter would have started at Georgia. However, you said you do know he's the stud of the rookie QBs and has fewer questions than Vick. And, you are supporting your point with something other than blind fan conjecture? Sorry Palooka, but, that dog don't hunt my boy.

Once again you have taken my words and changed them to suit your means. You missed here and didn't even hit the dirt behind the target.

Twelfth quote:

Could be. Save for the fact that I've repeatedly drilled you in every conversation and debunked everything you've ever said.

No could be to it. You have yet to score a point, Art. You skew the truth, try desperately to assign meaning to my statements and when I illuminate, you don't acknowledge it you make fun of me. Because you don't have a salient response.

Thirteenth quote:

But, in fact, you are scared to death of me. You can't stop thinking about me.

Sorry, I had to wipe the tears from my eyes. Laughing uncontrollably does that. It's your self assigned status as the defender of the faith and how you lace your commentary with this ego laden glorification on how you waylaid this poster or that that I respond to. Because I know that regardless what I post, you can't help yourself but post back. You have to answer it.

Fourteenth quote:

First, you say you never said it. I then post your words and you say you didn't mean it. I post your words again and you say, "Ok, I said it, but, here's why I say it."

This is your stock in trade. Obsfucation. I explained my position. You have yet to accept my position and continually accredit my words with your meaning. Your bad, not mine.

Fifteenth quote: I love this one...

I'll address this when you are able to figure out your own meaning. Try stringing together words into a sentence so that you understand them first, and worry about the rest of us later.

A non-reply. Just words to attack me without a scintilla of substance. Art, your blowhard status is showing, my friend.

Sixteenth quote:

The fact that team veterans may, or may not, be rejecting Marty's discipline does not mean Marty isn't bringing and instilling discipline.

If you didn't understand it, why didn't you just ask. I would have explained it to you. He is lossing the team with this bootcamp horse sh*t. You understand it, else you would not have posted a comment that perhaps Marty should just clean house. Skewered by your own words again.

Seventh quote:

In Too Deep, when you write the game has passed Marty by when the fact is three years ago he was 13-3, you seem very dim.

You fans are now writing it. Saying it. And frankly, his hiatus apparently hurt his closeness with the game where he comes in and doesn't try to win the team over but creates such a furor that he has vets talking to the press about him. You are in denial.

Eightenth quote:

"Are you trying to straddle the fence, Art? Attempting to be right on both sides of this issue?" Mine

Yours

Do you even know what you are talking about?

Yes see the fourth quote where you try this on another subject.

Nineteenth quote:

Mine

You have no answer because to you this is Redskins vs. Cowboys and your manhood is called into question."

Yours

Ahh, I see, you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

It is because I am a Cowboy fan and you are defending your turf. I would suspect with the vocabulary you have that you would have gotten this analogy.

Twentieth quote:

Again In Too Deep, if you have difficulty understanding what you read, just ask about it and I'll explain it.

You were the one that posted Banks could be the future. Then you posted again under another topic that George was the future. Your words, not mine.

Twnety first quote:

When I'm right, I say it. With you, I've never been wrong.

Insert belly laugh here.

Last quote:

Ace, game at love.

Now we see that not only do you have a problem with this honesty you elude to, but you don't know how to score the match.

You danced, dodged, created, obsfucated, and generally avoided the issues. But you do a wonderful job of typing. Wish I had that skill.

This reminds me of a ring. There is no beginning nor end.

But there damn sure is a pouint in this that deep down you know you have been playing patty fingers with the truth.

Which is a shame, Art.

[Art]

I'm not sure it's possible to reply within this one, but, we'll give it a shot.

"I once again schooled you and you then sidestepped and talked around issues until you were blue in the face. Then have the nerve to claim that you won. Art, you should change your nick to Artful Dodger."

The issues in this conversation, to this point, have been a conversation on your stance on Carter, in which you have no basis of possible discussion, and your stance that fans on this board being critical of Marty as something less than honest, which, again, has been demonstrated to be the case. In both instances, you've been badly beaten. There have been some secondary discussions, in which you've demonstrated a lack of comprehension, and in all cases you're turned back by simply reading my posts.

It's no claim of victory, In Too Deep. The two major issues in this thread have been:

You: Carter is the stud rookie QB with fewer questions than Vick.

Me: You're nuts.

I win this because you said what you said .

And two:

You: People here are cowardly and in a panic after two games.

Me: People here are honest about where there team presently is.

I win this, because, you don't know what an honest assessment of your team is, based upon your continuing stance on Carter.

"Direct Art Quote:

It is honesty in viewing the team In Too Deep. It doesn't have to be factual, but, it is honest.

That should have eliminated anything you said after it because it has no basis in logic. Which is the point I think I have been expressing about you. Your logic is flawed."

In Too Deep, there's no flawed logic little buddy. People don't have to be correct in making an assessment they believe in. They aren't making factual judgements. They are making observations based upon what's been happening and asking what it means. These are honest feelings and an honest assessment of how an individual feels about the team at present. It doesn't have to be factual, in that it's not factual -- to the point that it has not happened -- that Marty would be fired in season. Asking if he should be fired, or would be or could be fired is an honest question. It isn't factual that he is, should be or could be. It's just an honest assessment of how that fan felt. I'm sure you better understand now where you failed in the first read.

"Your second quote: (and one of my favs, Arty ole boy)

So far, I've been wrong, but, I'm not sure I expected to be right after two games.

So let's review. I said I thought Shottsy is done. You wrote the equivolent of War and Peace telling me how wrong I was. Now you claim you are wrong but you're not sure that you expected yourself to be right after two games."

No, In Too Deep. You wrote that Marty has never been successful and that the game has passed him by. I wrote that he's been highly successful as the facts and record support, and that three years ago he was 13-3 which validates that the game hasn't passed him by. I've said for several weeks that I felt the team would have difficulty starting off very well. I felt the changes in staff and on the roster would lead to a questionable start. And, I've written for weeks that in a worst case scenario in which we struggle out of the gate badly, we could see the dissent against Marty's style taking us down to a very poor season. Just go read what I've written if you are confused. It's all on this board chief.

"Art, cut yourself some slack there buckaroo. I mean don't be so hard on yourself. Sheesh. You have skewered yourself with your own words twice in the first part of the Greater Area New York Phone Book that you wrote."

In Too Deep, the simply fact you do not grasp what's being said isn't a slight agaisnt me. It's a condemnation against you. Pay attention. Read the words in front of you. It's pretty hard to say I said blue when I said green. You keep trying though.

"Third quote:

It is solid data to present that you said Carter was the best QB in the draft and had fewer questions than Michael Vick.

I said he has as much upside as anyone. He has as many tools. Far cry from your rewording."

You wrote, "But the real stud at this position, this year was Carter." After discussing how Vick had limitations and Brees had a weak arm and was short, you wrote that Carter was the real stud and had the size and arm strength that no other prospect had. You wrote it In Too Deep. I'm not rewording it, I'm taking it precisely from YOU.

"Fourth quote:

That shows how dishonest you are about your team and I'm not sure people who are honest about theirs should expect to be understood by someone like yourself, who can't honestly analyze a situation and can't fairly judge his team.

Now I know you are posturing for the messageboard and all, but really Art, when I stated both here and there that I didn't think Dallas has enough horses to win 5 games this year. And have been saying it since April. That is pretty disingenuous of you to characterise it any other way than how I have elaborated. Then you added this tidbit early which contradicts this statement."

In Too Deep, you are incapable of honesty when viewing your team because you don't question Carter as he so dutifully and rightfully should be. In fact, you write he's the best rookie QB with the fewest questions in his game. You don't ask how the guy who played the worst of the other QBs in camp could be starting for your team. You don't address that even the players on your team support another QB even now, yet Carter starts. On this board, our fans would tear that situation to shreds. We'd question it. Wonder about it. Mull it over. You guys just take it and embrace it and make it a positive where it's not. That's dishonesty. Here, we'd rake that bad boy over the coals. Because that's what we do.

---------

"Unlike you and your boys trying to find the silver lining to being 0-2, we prefer to look at it as less than acceptable and we talk about it being so."

Although you try to have it both ways you just can't. I'd even be inclined to give you both sides of the fence out of sheer shame that I am debating someone that really talks so frequently out of both sides of their mouth, as you do. But fair is fair."

Ummm, huh? In Too Deep, have you just talked yourself out of a point? You and your boys find some beauty in your 0-2. The folks here don't think it's acceptable to be 0-2. We talk about that. You guys say, "hey, it wasn't so bad." This isn't duplicity, this is focused on your dishonesty as a Cowboy fan and our honesty as Redskin fans.

"Fifth quote:

We've been outscored 67-3. You'd expect confidence to not waiver?

I expect you to hang out longer than two games before putting up a poll when he will be fired. But that is your history."

It might have been missed by your keen eye, but, I didn't put a poll up. I answered what I felt the answer should be in the poll. And, since you didn't seem to understand the poll, let me refresh you. The poll was, "How long does Marty have?" It didn't ask if he should be fired. It asked when should he be fired. Those are two different questions. It put out for conversation what Marty's window of opportunity is. If we were 2-0 and Bulldog asked, "How long does Marty have to win the SB" it would be much the same. Simply asking a question. Your inability to understand the words you see may be related to a head injury you suffered in the war. Whatever it is, perhaps you should read more closely so you aren't embarrassed when you show you don't understand what's being discussed.

"Sixth quote:

"1. Carter stated publically that he'd rather pass than run." This one was mine with your reply below.

Damn fine thing your coaching staff heard him then and installed the option.

You don't get it and this shows that fact."

I don't get it. Carter is the best rookie QB in the game, and he is a pure passer, which is why your coaching staff put in the option. Right. I don't get it. Either he is a passer first, or he's not. If he's a passer, your staff is making a mistake trying to make him a runner. If he's a runner, as he's smiled and grinned and slurred words in speaking about how happy he is with the ball in his hands, then it's not a bad move. Either you don't get it or your staff doesn't. It's got nothing to do with me.

"Seventh quote:

No he isn't. Vick just happens to be a good runner and Carter isn't,

I guess you didn't see the 18 yard run where he broke tackles and dodged defensive backs against Tampa Bay. I'll give you credit here because you were probably watching your own game. Your point, to say the least, is inaccurate."

Oh my. Carter had an 18-yard run did he? Wow, you are so right. Wait, why would he run when he's a passer? Oh, wait, Vick is the runner so he'd run. Or, wait, is it Carter is the runner. Oh, I can't figure it out In Too Deep.

Actually, I can, but you can't. Carter had a career 2.4 rushing average in college. You wrote that he's a passer first and not a runner, based somewhat on those numbers. You wrote that Vick was a runner first and not a passer because he had better numbers. And in this thread I wrote that Vick happens to be a good runner and Carter isn't. This was answered out by their college performances and in no way do we know what either one of them will be in the pros. But, given Carter's limited success as a runner in college and your belief he's a passer first, he's simply not going to be a good runner and you should be happy about that. I see you are arguing the point though. Odd. It's almost like you are trying to make a different point.

"Eighth quote:

Yawn. Put down Football for Dummies and tell us something we don't know.

You express what you think I said. You don't quote me but in slices to support a point that you really don't have. I give you a thourough example of why I think this, and then you insult me. This isn't a debate, it's Art's usual load of caca. When you don't have a poiunt you keep talking trash."

In Too Deep, in case you missed it, and judging from here, you did, I didn't cut and paste because what you wrote wasn't objectionable. In fact, I wrote here, "Tell us something we don't know." It is elementary football conversation to discuss this thread as you have. I stopped discussing it because you went into a diatribe on the history of football that may or may not be well written, but it has no basis in fact as it relates to Vick or Carter. When I don't find anything objectionable in a series of words, I write that I'm skiping by it and here I wrote that it was very first grade stuff so you can get away with writing it. You are awfully touchy.

"Ninth quote:

No, but, it's a certainty when the coaching staff and PR staff in Georgia say it.

Funny thing is what they say after the player left and what could have possibly transpired is up for grabss. I guess the fact that there is no fact here at all and you wish not to acknowledge it shows you aren't as factual or honest as you pretend."

They said it while Carter was still there. During the second semester of the school year. Not after he left school. But, it's irrelevant. The fact that Carter wasn't even the starter on his own team is. The fact is Carter wasn't the starter. No one was. He could have been. He could not have been. But, for the best rookie QB in the draft, you'd think he would have been. You see, Vick was the starter on his team. Had he returned, it wasn't up for grabs. With Carter, it was.

"Tenth quote: Here is the body slam bucko...

The fact is I don't have to state with a certainty he wouldn't have started. The point is he left before it was clear he wouldn't have, and certainly before we knew if he would have

Yet you stated it as fact in the last post. There was no room for conjecture. You claimed it was fact and now you try to weasel your way out by making new rules. "

In Too Deep, it is a fact that he wasn't the starter at Georgia. It may also be a fact that no one else was. It could be a fact Carter could have won the job as the starter after an open competition. The fact remains he left the team in an status as something less than the starter. In this debate, I don't have to prove he was on the bench, I just have to prove he wasn't the starter, and we know he wasn't, because we all know he would have had to win the job in a competition. Therefore, he wasn't even the starter for Georgia as a senior. My point remains. For you to counter it you have to prove he was the starter. That he was named the starter. That there was no competition for the job. You can't because his status was in question and no one was the starter.

"Eleventh quote:

This is a hoot. You said you don't know if Carter would have started at Georgia. However, you said you do know he's the stud of the rookie QBs and has fewer questions than Vick. And, you are supporting your point with something other than blind fan conjecture? Sorry Palooka, but, that dog don't hunt my boy.

Once again you have taken my words and changed them to suit your means. You missed here and didn't even hit the dirt behind the target."

Your words, again, were, "But the real stud at this position, this year was Carter." You wrote this after questioning Vick's size and Brees' arm. You wrote this after saying Vick was too much of a runner and Carter was a true passer because, well, because Carter says so. I know you'd like to hide from the words. But you wrote them. Them being, "But the real stud at this position, this year was Carter." That's not a twist. That is directly what you wrote. You wrote this, again, so you don't forget, "But the real stud at this position, this year was Carter." You see, no matter how many times I type what you wrote, it doesn't become what I wrote, because, what you wrote was, "But the real stud at this position, this year was Carter." The more you see it the more you laugh. I know I do .

"Twelfth quote:

Could be. Save for the fact that I've repeatedly drilled you in every conversation and debunked everything you've ever said.

No could be to it. You have yet to score a point, Art. You skew the truth, try desperately to assign meaning to my statements and when I illuminate, you don't acknowledge it you make fun of me. Because you don't have a salient response."

I make fun of you because you are Palooka. You don't even know how badly you are being destroyed. It's quite hysterical. Just promise you never leave.

"Thirteenth quote:

But, in fact, you are scared to death of me. You can't stop thinking about me.

Sorry, I had to wipe the tears from my eyes. Laughing uncontrollably does that. It's your self assigned status as the defender of the faith and how you lace your commentary with this ego laden glorification on how you waylaid this poster or that that I respond to. Because I know that regardless what I post, you can't help yourself but post back. You have to answer it."

Totally untrue. If you were to post good information and solid football talk, I'd not answer it. I only answer, though answer is wrong here, since you are answering me as I'm the one who engaged you in this thread, when there's total idiocy. It may seem I answer you a lot because of that. But, there's a lot of that idiocy to answer. Like, "But the real stud at this position, this year was Carter."

"Fourteenth quote:

First, you say you never said it. I then post your words and you say you didn't mean it. I post your words again and you say, "Ok, I said it, but, here's why I say it."

This is your stock in trade. Obsfucation. I explained my position. You have yet to accept my position and continually accredit my words with your meaning. Your bad, not mine."

Actually, In Too Deep, you wrote, "But the real stud at this position, this year was Carter." When I posted on this board that you said Carter was the stud QB, you wrote that you never did, and you said if you did I'd have posted it. I then posted it, catching you in a lie, because, you did write, "But the real stud at this position, this year was Carter." And, you've explained it by saying Carter is taller than Vick and has a stronger arm than Brees, so he's the best there is in this draft. Talk about a tortured point. No wonder I don't accept your position. Accepting it would require I have a lobotomy.

"Fifteenth quote: I love this one...

I'll address this when you are able to figure out your own meaning. Try stringing together words into a sentence so that you understand them first, and worry about the rest of us later.

A non-reply. Just words to attack me without a scintilla of substance. Art, your blowhard status is showing, my friend."

Right. Written just to attack you. Your words were not critical to the debate, so, I just attacked you. That's precisely what I did. Do you feel better figuring that out all by yourself?

"Sixteenth quote:

The fact that team veterans may, or may not, be rejecting Marty's discipline does not mean Marty isn't bringing and instilling discipline.

If you didn't understand it, why didn't you just ask. I would have explained it to you. He is lossing the team with this bootcamp horse sh*t. You understand it, else you would not have posted a comment that perhaps Marty should just clean house. Skewered by your own words again."

I've written for weeks that Marty runs the risk of losing the team with his style, especially if the worst start possible happened. It has, and it's possible Marty will lose part of the team because of it. But, again, the fact that he is losing part of the team doesn't mean he isn't bringing the discipline we're talking about. In fact, he is. Which further proves the point that he is. What are you so confused about?

"Seventh quote:

In Too Deep, when you write the game has passed Marty by when the fact is three years ago he was 13-3, you seem very dim.

You fans are now writing it. Saying it. And frankly, his hiatus apparently hurt his closeness with the game where he comes in and doesn't try to win the team over but creates such a furor that he has vets talking to the press about him. You are in denial."

The vets are doing that with Holmgren in Seattle. They are doing it and have done it with Coughlin in Jacksonville. They have done it with Fassel in New York. They've done it with Parcells. They did it in St. Louis with Vermeill. Marty took two years off and worked as a football analyst. He wasn't very far from the game. Holmgren and Coughlin have been coaching and you here worse coming out of their teams. Having players complain about your style isn't a sign you've been passed by the game. It's a sign some of the players you have don't like it. The very fact that Marty has so many guys from his past indicates how closely these guys follow him and believe in him. I'm in denial now for stating all these facts. Yet, I'm twisting your words when I point out you wrote, "But the real stud at this position, this year was Carter." I see. Think happy thoughts In Too Deep.

"Nineteenth quote:

Mine

You have no answer because to you this is Redskins vs. Cowboys and your manhood is called into question."

Yours

Ahh, I see, you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

It is because I am a Cowboy fan and you are defending your turf. I would suspect with the vocabulary you have that you would have gotten this analogy."

I'm not defending my turf. I'm upsetting your rotten cart of apples. It's got nothing to do with you being a Cowboy fan. It has everything to do with you posting ignorance and month-old topics as if you are on to something.

"Twentieth quote:

Again In Too Deep, if you have difficulty understanding what you read, just ask about it and I'll explain it.

You were the one that posted Banks could be the future. Then you posted again under another topic that George was the future. Your words, not mine."

Again, totally untrue. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Unlike where you are upset with me using your words, I actually have your words. Like, "But the real stud at this position, this year was Carter." All you have to do is search and you can find my words.

Again though, you shouldn't need to. All I've ever said on Banks is that he is capable of winning games and that as Redskin fans we better hope he can take over the job because if not, we could be in trouble. You go find where I wrote Banks is the future, or where I wrote George is the future and perhaps you'll even be enlightened by the facts of the situation.

I realize In Too Deep that you are obsessed with what you think I wrote, so desperate you are to prove yourself right. But, you may rely on me to tell you when you are so you don't have to torture yourself with such painful arguments that have no grasp of what's actually being or has actually been said.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[Utah]

YEAH what ART said.

------------------

"He has a confidence born of demonstrated ability."<IMG SRC="http://www.ideaspot.net/nfl/NFC_East/medium/wash2-med.gif" border=0>

[Fitz]

I agree that Marty gets at least through the 2002 season before Snyder would dare consider axing him. But if this season continues to be an exercise in futility, Snyder might do as Wilbon suggested and insist on bringing in a GM. Would Marty walk if he did this? Maybe, maybe not. If it was presented as a move to enable Marty to fully concentrate on coaching, rather than as a condemnation of his personnel moves, it might be easier for him to swallow.

EDIT: Gee, I posted this after reading only the first page. I didn't realize that this had turned into another "Art spanks In Too Deep" thread. My bad, please carry on...

[ by Fitzman on September 30, 2001.]