Fans for DL

[kskboys]

There was not the landscape with multiple TV networks covering the draft and the web. There was basically Buschbaum who had a very small mailing list not privy to the public so much.

You don't get to speak for them or Zimmer or anyone else but yourself.

You did.

Man, you either have some mental issues or are very young.

 

[kskboys]

So your proof is unprovable. I don't find you credible in the least.

Oh thank gawd, I take that as a compliment.

All proof is unprovable. We are on a website where we give opinions and share what we know. Except you, you appear to just blather on and disagree even when you have been proven unequivocally wrong. Carry on, youngster.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh geeeez, you just cannot be this lame.


Listen closely. Comp picks originated in 1994. Maryland was drafted in 1991.

There is a huge difference between "the comp pick" and "a comp pick". This is simple stuff, dude, gotta read.

Saying that "he was what was left" is the same thing as saying "the comp pick".

Sure one speaks of a specific case of a comp pick while the other speaks of them generally. It doesn't fit in either case.

If you are going to tell some to learn to read, learn what articles actually imply and what a compensation pick in the NFL is.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh thank gawd, I take that as a compliment.

All proof is unprovable. We are on a website where we give opinions and share what we know. Except you, you appear to just blather on and disagree even when you have been proven unequivocally wrong. Carry on, youngster.

there are plenty of sources on the web and in print or similar recording where we can show Zimmer saying things.

then we have you.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You did.

Man, you either have some mental issues or are very young.

You just stated that pundits supposed consensus was Maryland was something. I have spoken for no pundits or the like. I think you are translating what you hear into what you can understand. It's not the same thing.

 

[kskboys]

Sure one speaks of a specific case of a comp pick while the other speaks of them generally. It doesn't fit in either case.

If you are going to tell some to learn to read, learn what articles actually imply and what a compensation pick in the NFL is.

That is funny coming from someone who didn't even know that there were no comp picks in 1991.

Oh, and for you to tell someone to learn to read is just a riot.

Listen closely, little boy. It is a "compensatory pick". A compensation pick is clearly an entirely different matter. Sorry I used big words so you couldn't understand.

Why are you so obtuse and offensive? Is that just the way you are? Maybe discussions just aren't your thing.

 

[kskboys]

there are plenty of sources on the web and in print or similar recording where we can show Zimmer saying things.

then we have you.

More spew. Go away. You're not bright enough to understand pretty much anything.

 

[kskboys]

You just stated that pundits supposed consensus was Maryland was something. I have spoken for no pundits or the like. I think you are translating what you hear into what you can understand. It's not the same thing.

That doesn't make sense. Are you ESL by any chance?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That is funny coming from someone who didn't even know that there were no comp picks in 1991.

Oh, and for you to tell someone to learn to read is just a riot.

Listen closely, little boy. It is a "compensatory pick". A compensation pick is clearly an entirely different matter. Sorry I used big words so you couldn't understand.

Why are you so obtuse and offensive? Is that just the way you are? Maybe discussions just aren't your thing.

Just curious, what do you see the Cowboys being compensated for? Their not speaking with Ismail's agent? Or is it leaving multiple HoF on the board with their pick? Is that the compensation?

 

[kskboys]

Just curious, what do you see the Cowboys being compensated for? Their not speaking with Ismail's agent? Or is it leaving multiple HoF on the board with their pick? Is that the compensation?

Compensation definition: "the action or process of awarding someone money or recompense for a loss, injury, or suffering."

In this case the recompense we received for losing Ismael was Maryland.

Simple stuff, dude.

There are always multiple HOF picks left on the board. I'm not even saying he was the right pick, I'm only saying that he turned out to be a good player. You haven't been able to look past the fact that we paid too much to get there.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Compensation definition: "the action or process of awarding someone money or recompense for a loss, injury, or suffering."

In this case the recompense we received for losing Ismael was Maryland.

Simple stuff, dude.

There are always multiple HOF picks left on the board. I'm not even saying he was the right pick, I'm only saying that he turned out to be a good player. You haven't been able to look past the fact that we paid too much to get there.

Generally speaking, in communication when you are using a word that has multiple meaning and a commonly used alternate meaning, you should make note of that in your discussion. Expecting you to have the presence of mind to do that in real time is likely a bit much.

Further, did the premises of my questions assume a return on loss?

Indeed, it is simple reasoning. At the same time it makes little sense that a 2 down 1T would be adequate recompense for the first overall plus a lot more.

 

[gtb1943]

I remember reading an article about Buschbaum. Bellicek really took his evaluations seriously; checked them out if Buschbaum graded them highly.
When buschbaum was buried, the only mourner there, in a snowstorm, was BB.
So I have never been able to hate him like some do.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

So you label mine a post mortem analysis when no one is dead and every analysis will be on past events. Of course there is no significance other than you think that your crappy two liner at the end is equivalent which is basically you ignoring my arguments to repeat yourself: 'That team won the Super Bowl a couple years later so everything they did is gold.'

If anything it would not be post mortem it would be a trend analysis. I am guessing you are translating what I said into something you can understand without actually understanding it. If you want to pretend that trading up to #1 overall for a 1T is not a 'gamble' then you go right ahead.

I guess you are not familiar with the term post mortem, often used in many businesses and organizations as an after the fact analysis. you are taking it a little too literally, but I get it. you have to feel offended. just do a google and you will learn.

and yes it is gold. because it sounds like you want instant satisfaction (Gen Z?) vs. make a plan and work the plan and adjust as you go and focus on the end goal......
You completely ignore the fact, the most important aspect of the argument that there was a lot of questions around that draft. you again, post mortem (haha) say we should have drafted X or Y...at the time, X or Y was unknown, risky.....high risk, high reward situation which for a team like Cowboys was not necessary. Johnson had taken other high risks, high rewards choices, specially earlier on.

so this draft may have some knowns and unknowns. lets get some names you want to pick and trade for..... as opposed to come around in 5 years and say, we should have done this instead and what we did was wrong...as they say hindsight is 20/20

and I am not translating anything. you have selected a very specific case and making argument over that one single piece 30 years after the fact. I am looking at the whole and the rewards thereof, rather an individual action and rewards of that single action in a silo, which in your view considered a failure because Maryland as #1 pick didn't become a HOF player.......... you can't see the forest because of the trees.

and like I said, everything is a gamble. and you keep completely ignoring the other statements I have said, which is Maryland was a better known quantity than others. it was well known and Johnson said it himself, he wasn't the HOF type, but his floor was high and he was going to be productive. he fit a piece in the puzzle and the plan johnson had. he decided not to gamble and go with a sure thing as possible. so the risk was smaller than others. although, yes, reward was going to be smaller. it was a calculated gamble...now, 30 years later you are questioning it, and completely...completely ignoring the fact that it worked out....again, focusing for the reward from a single action as oppose to the combination of actions and results there of. no player in that draft was going to singularly put the cowboys over the top. and again, perhaps the players you loved so much, would have helped us beat the bills by another 7 points and help us score 62 as opposed to 52!!!!!

and if you want to focus on individual moves and its rewards, then also focus on Johnson picking Emmitt Smith, a RB, who didn't have speed, nor great size, nor great power in the first round and poeple at the time said it wasn't a good pick or a good move, yet Johnson thought it was. a Risk that obviously paid off, in both the overall picture and individual reward of the pick onto itself. Johnson Picked a QB with the first pick of the supplemental draft, a high risk as they had already taken Aikman, the consensus #1 player in his draft. and yeah, it paid off by making it into three picks..... again lets look at the whole and stop whining about a single pick, which in the end it worked out anyway!!!!

done!

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I guess you are not familiar with the term post mortem, often used in many businesses and organizations as an after the fact analysis. you are taking it a little too literally, but I get it. you have to feel offended. just do a google and you will learn.

and yes it is gold. because it sounds like you want instant satisfaction (Gen Z?) vs. make a plan and work the plan and adjust as you go and focus on the end goal......
You completely ignore the fact, the most important aspect of the argument that there was a lot of questions around that draft. you again, post mortem (haha) say we should have drafted X or Y...at the time, X or Y was unknown, risky.....high risk, high reward situation which for a team like Cowboys was not necessary. Johnson had taken other high risks, high rewards choices, specially earlier on.

so this draft may have some knowns and unknowns. lets get some names you want to pick and trade for..... as opposed to come around in 5 years and say, we should have done this instead and what we did was wrong...as they say hindsight is 20/20

and I am not translating anything. you have selected a very specific case and making argument over that one single piece 30 years after the fact. I am looking at the whole and the rewards thereof, rather an individual action and rewards of that single action in a silo, which in your view considered a failure because Maryland as #1 pick didn't become a HOF player.......... you can't see the forest because of the trees.

and like I said, everything is a gamble. and you keep completely ignoring the other statements I have said, which is Maryland was a better known quantity than others. it was well known and Johnson said it himself, he wasn't the HOF type, but his floor was high and he was going to be productive. he fit a piece in the puzzle and the plan johnson had. he decided not to gamble and go with a sure thing as possible. so the risk was smaller than others. although, yes, reward was going to be smaller. it was a calculated gamble...now, 30 years later you are questioning it, and completely...completely ignoring the fact that it worked out....again, focusing for the reward from a single action as oppose to the combination of actions and results there of. no player in that draft was going to singularly put the cowboys over the top. and again, perhaps the players you loved so much, would have helped us beat the bills by another 7 points and help us score 62 as opposed to 52!!!!!

and if you want to focus on individual moves and its rewards, then also focus on Johnson picking Emmitt Smith, a RB, who didn't have speed, nor great size, nor great power in the first round and poeple at the time said it wasn't a good pick or a good move, yet Johnson thought it was. a Risk that obviously paid off, in both the overall picture and individual reward of the pick onto itself. Johnson Picked a QB with the first pick of the supplemental draft, a high risk as they had already taken Aikman, the consensus #1 player in his draft. and yeah, it paid off by making it into three picks..... again lets look at the whole and stop whining about a single pick, which in the end it worked out anyway!!!!

done!

That 4th paragraph, the largest of your content, was a cool story. Perhaps you are going to tell me that you are friends with Johnson's cousin and had a conversation at the liquor store?

Post mortem in a buisness sense still requires a cessation of organization, product, or anything else that you want to analyze in order to for the term to be apt. In my case, I was discussing the behavior of an ongoing organization over the past 35 years to predict future outcomes of drafting and signing DL. That is known as trend analysis.

As for instant gratification, I am going once again with you translating what I am writing into something you can understand. I am looking at a particular trade outcome. You are insisting that outcomes two years later are all that matters and more importantly insisting that the whole be viewed only as such. That is a reductionist analysis as opposed to a wholistic insistence. Child is as child does.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

That 4th paragraph, the largest of your content, was a cool story. Perhaps you are going to tell me that you are friends with Johnson's cousin and had a conversation at the liquor store?

Post mortem in a buisness sense still requires a cessation of organization, product, or anything else that you want to analyze in order to for the term to be apt. In my case, I was discussing the behavior of an ongoing organization over the past 35 years to predict future outcomes of drafting and signing DL. That is known as trend analysis.

As for instant gratification, I am going once again with you translating what I am writing into something you can understand. I am looking at a particular trade outcome. You are insisting that outcomes two years later are all that matters and more importantly insisting that the whole be viewed only as such. That is a reductionist analysis as opposed to a wholistic insistence. Child is as child does.

I have lunch with Jimmy once a month down in miami....loves boating. loves deep sea fishing too.

https://vault.si.com/vault/1991/04/...he-nfl-draft-and-took-all-the-right-prisoners

and excerpt since you don't seem like to read much...

"Indeed, other teams turned to Dallas to make deals, and the Cowboys turned the league on its ear. Last Friday, Dallas traded up for the No. 1 pick in the draft, giving the New England Patriots the 11th overall pick, a second-round pick and three players, none of whom were likely to start in 1991. The Cowboys wanted Miami defensive tackle Russell Maryland, not Ismail, and they would have swapped places with Atlanta, which owned the third pick, if they could have been assured of landing Maryland at No. 3, and the Falcons could have been assured of signing Ismail. Neither event was certain, so Dallas kept the top pick and selected Maryland with it."

the article talks about all the activities and talks and trades that took place....it may help you a bit with your utterly flawed post mortem analysis

https://playactionpast.wordpress.co...rafted-the-foundations-for-a-dynasty-in-1991/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/1991...ont-call-chicagos-maryland-a-mistake-anymore/

and you just confirmed what I said....and I am quoting you...."...I am looking at a particular trade outcome."...that's measuring success of a single action as opposed the overall plan. exactly what I said you are doing and thanks for comfirming..... measuring the success in a silo without understanding how it fits into the overall plan....do that and you end up with Jerry jones. making a bunch of moves. calling it a success, but overall failure because the whole thing doesn't fit together.... your thought process is highly flawed.

and you are accusing me of focusing on outcomes 2 years later...what!!!!, yet you are making statements about outcomes of a single draft pick 30 years later without knowing at the time what the outcome would have been for that player selected!!!!...what gives? OK, nostradamous...tell us who the HOFers are in this draft so we can trade and pick them.

and yes, I focus on the whole...the forest, not the single tree in the forest. because the whole is supposed to be good with the outcome of winning a superbowl. that's the whole point of football TEAM....
a HOFer on a team might be great for that individual but the whole failed. that's like celebrating because Tyron Smith got into HOF and calling it a victory, in the meantime Dallas never got to the CCG!!! its assinine.

yes, I agree. the child is as child does...absolutely...perhaps you were looking into the mirror when you said that.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have lunch with Jimmy once a month down in miami....loves boating. loves deep sea fishing too.

https://vault.si.com/vault/1991/04/...he-nfl-draft-and-took-all-the-right-prisoners

and excerpt since you don't seem like to read much...

"Indeed, other teams turned to Dallas to make deals, and the Cowboys turned the league on its ear. Last Friday, Dallas traded up for the No. 1 pick in the draft, giving the New England Patriots the 11th overall pick, a second-round pick and three players, none of whom were likely to start in 1991. The Cowboys wanted Miami defensive tackle Russell Maryland, not Ismail, and they would have swapped places with Atlanta, which owned the third pick, if they could have been assured of landing Maryland at No. 3, and the Falcons could have been assured of signing Ismail. Neither event was certain, so Dallas kept the top pick and selected Maryland with it."

the article talks about all the activities and talks and trades that took place....it may help you a bit with your utterly flawed post mortem analysis

https://playactionpast.wordpress.co...rafted-the-foundations-for-a-dynasty-in-1991/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/1991...ont-call-chicagos-maryland-a-mistake-anymore/

and you just confirmed what I said....and I am quoting you...."...I am looking at a particular trade outcome."...that's measuring success of a single action as opposed the overall plan. exactly what I said you are doing and thanks for comfirming..... measuring the success in a silo without understanding how it fits into the overall plan....do that and you end up with Jerry jones. making a bunch of moves. calling it a success, but overall failure because the whole thing doesn't fit together.... your thought process is highly flawed.

and you are accusing me of focusing on outcomes 2 years later...what!!!!, yet you are making statements about outcomes of a single draft pick 30 years later without knowing at the time what the outcome would have been for that player selected!!!!...what gives? OK, nostradamous...tell us who the HOFers are in this draft so we can trade and pick them.

and yes, I focus on the whole...the forest, not the single tree in the forest. because the whole is supposed to be good with the outcome of winning a superbowl. that's the whole point of football TEAM....
a HOFer on a team might be great for that individual but the whole failed. that's like celebrating because Tyron Smith got into HOF and calling it a victory, in the meantime Dallas never got to the CCG!!! its assinine.

yes, I agree. the child is as child does...absolutely...perhaps you were looking into the mirror when you said that.

I am the King of Sheba.

You found a quote that basically asserts that Eugene Lockhart would not start. Everything else comports. You then grandstand with far too many words. I am skimming your posts at this point because you typically have nothing new or interesting to say.

As for Lockhart, there is the fact that he started where he went and we ended up having to draft a MLB while teams continued to run over us the following year. That would seem a misevaluation and not a good thing.

A reductionist states that you need to look at all constituent parts to evaluate the whole. I am trying to look at all the DL moves we have made over 35 years. You are trying to whitewash an instance because of something that happened years later. You just don't understand where I am coming from and are a huge fan of Jimmy Johnson.

You seem upset and as I stated this conversation is going nowhere. Ciao, for now.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I am the King of Sheba.

You found a quote that basically asserts that Eugene Lockhart would not start. Everything else comports. You then grandstand with far too many words. I am skimming your posts at this point because you typically have nothing new or interesting to say.

As for Lockhart, there is the fact that he started where he went and we ended up having to draft a MLB while teams continued to run over us the following year. That would seem a misevaluation and not a good thing.

A reductionist states that you need to look at all constituent parts to evaluate the whole. I am trying to look at all the DL moves we have made over 35 years. You are trying to whitewash an instance because of something that happened years later. You just don't understand where I am coming from and are a huge fan of Jimmy Johnson.

You seem upset and as I stated this conversation is going nowhere. Ciao, for now.

so its painfully obvious that you don't like to read, as you just skimmed over it and picked out one name...you are probably a Gen Zer since everything has to be in 15 second bytes, else your eyes just gloss over...sorry, I will make a note and won't use big words, and too many words tend to confuse you....

and please, lets not talk about reductionist, since you are painfully trying to make the entire focus on a single one draft pick, labeling it as a failure...not sure the reasons behind your insistance and what you are trying to accomplish with all of that....the one fact that doesn't change is we won 3 superbowls...end of story. nothing else matters and everything else is just fodder for complainers like yourself, because they are just misreable....

and I am not upset...you lost this argument at get go, due to its very nature of being meaningless complaint....

bah bye

 

[kskboys]

Generally speaking, in communication when you are using a word that has multiple meaning and a commonly used alternate meaning, you should make note of that in your discussion. Expecting you to have the presence of mind to do that in real time is likely a bit much.

Further, did the premises of my questions assume a return on loss?

Indeed, it is simple reasoning. At the same time it makes little sense that a 2 down 1T would be adequate recompense for the first overall plus a lot more.

Awwwwwwwwww, you poor little thing, didn't know the difference between compensatory and compensation.

So, we have to explain every word we use to you? Geeez, dude, I thought you were 15, I guess it's more like 12. You poor abused little brat.

Bolded: No one has stated that it was a good deal, certainly not me. I think you are having problems smoking too much wackyweed or something, I mean this is just weird.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Awwwwwwwwww, you poor little thing, didn't know the difference between compensatory and compensation.

So, we have to explain every word we use to you? Geeez, dude, I thought you were 15, I guess it's more like 12. You poor abused little brat.

Bolded: No one has stated that it was a good deal, certainly not me. I think you are having problems smoking too much wackyweed or something, I mean this is just weird.

Mike drop post....

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Awwwwwwwwww, you poor little thing, didn't know the difference between compensatory and compensation.

So, we have to explain every word we use to you? Geeez, dude, I thought you were 15, I guess it's more like 12. You poor abused little brat.

Bolded: No one has stated that it was a good deal, certainly not me. I think you are having problems smoking too much wackyweed or something, I mean this is just weird.

Interesting. Here I am 2 days ago, explaining how you don't deny my points but talk around them.

I am talking about the move in and of itself. You at no point deny that the move was awful. You just want to talk around the issue.

Generally speaking making moves like that is awful. For example, we gave up much less for Claiborne and that was widely regarded as one of the worst transactions the team has made the past few decades.

In the context of today by no means whatsoever should the Cowboys trade up for a 1T.

This was at the point where I started making the assumption that you were unable to understand what I was writing but instead translating it into something you can understand.

I am guessing you are translating what I said into something you can understand without actually understanding it. If you want to pretend that trading up to #1 overall for a 1T is not a 'gamble' then you go right ahead.

the best part is that it took the both of you 2 days to finally catch up and you think that 'accomplishment' meaningful enough to pat the other account's back.

Mike drop post....