For OTAs, your favorite S is still starting

[LACowboysFan1]

This fallacy needs to die. It's always the comeback when defending our mediocre players.

And it's always putting words in someone's mouth when they don't agree with them.

Please note I did not defend Heath, I said he was no Woodson or Renfro. He's listed at 6-1 and 212 lbs. Is that not good size for a safety? The much heralded Ed Reed was 5-11 and 205. Harrison Smith of the Vikings is on some lists as the top NFL safety, and he's a grand total of 1 inch and 3 lbs heavier. Heath was timed in college at 4.48 in the 40, is that not good time for a safety?

So obviously you feel if Heath the starter come season's beginning the Cowboys are doomed to a dismal season.

The point of my post was NOT to "defend Heath". You chose to make it so. My point was that EVEN IF Heath isn't that good, then it's not the death knell for the season, or the defensive backfield, or the defense as a whole. Your dislike of Heath blinds you, try comprehending comments before attacking the poster...

 

[TrailBlazer]

Jeff Heath can play. He's not a great player. But you know what your getting. He lead the team in interceptions twice. You can do a lot worse.

 

[Sydla]

And it's always putting words in someone's mouth when they don't agree with them.

Please note I did not defend Heath, I said he was no Woodson or Renfro. He's listed at 6-1 and 212 lbs. Is that not good size for a safety? The much heralded Ed Reed was 5-11 and 205. Harrison Smith of the Vikings is on some lists as the top NFL safety, and he's a grand total of 1 inch and 3 lbs heavier. Heath was timed in college at 4.48 in the 40, is that not good time for a safety?

So obviously you feel if Heath the starter come season's beginning the Cowboys are doomed to a dismal season.

The point of my post was NOT to "defend Heath". You chose to make it so. My point was that EVEN IF Heath isn't that good, then it's not the death knell for the season, or the defensive backfield, or the defense as a whole. Your dislike of Heath blinds you, try comprehending comments before attacking the poster...

You were the one who introduced the argument that you can’t have stars at every position. That’s a a fallacy because no one has suggested they want a star at every position.

Playing an inferior player might not be a death blow but your rolling the die hoping that player doesn’t cost you an important game along the way.

 

[Sydla]

Jeff Heath can play. He's not a great player. But you know what your getting. He lead the team in interceptions twice. You can do a lot worse.

You also probably do better.

There is no worse an argument than defending a player or coach by saying it could be worse.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

ou were the one who introduced the argument that you can’t have stars at every position. That’s a a fallacy because no one has suggested they want a star at every position.

Picking on one player as you constantly certainly is suggesting you want a star at every position, and even if it's not, you STILL are dodging the point of my post, which is ONLY that ONE player being subpar doesn't doom the season. That's ALL I was saying, but you insist on trying to be "right", which isn't the reason for this site, it's to give your OPINION on things, but you and others try to make it out to be a "I'm right and you're wrong" situation.

Okay, then let me put the question to you directly:

If Heath is one of the starting safeties this year, can the Cowboys still be successful? Whatever that means to you, be it a SB win, SB appearance, NFC championship game appearance, 2 playoff wins or whatever.

That's as simple and direct as it gets, if you can't answer a yes or no don't blather on about how poor Heath is, or who's defending him, or whatever. That's the ENTIRE point of my post, see if you can focus on one thing for once...

 

[links18]

We resigned Woodson?

 

[LACowboysFan1]

We resifned Woodson?

Gracious no, Heath's not in his league (if that's what you're saying pardon me if I missed your point).

Woodson's a HOF-level player, imho, Heath's been here long enough to show that if he's that good, and he hasn't...

 

[Sydla]

Picking on one player as you constantly certainly is suggesting you want a star at every position, and even if it's not, you STILL are dodging the point of my post, which is ONLY that ONE player being subpar doesn't doom the season. That's ALL I was saying, but you insist on trying to be "right", which isn't the reason for this site, it's to give your OPINION on things, but you and others try to make it out to be a "I'm right and you're wrong" situation.

Okay, then let me put the question to you directly:

If Heath is one of the starting safeties this year, can the Cowboys still be successful? Whatever that means to you, be it a SB win, SB appearance, NFC championship game appearance, 2 playoff wins or whatever.

That's as simple and direct as it gets, if you can't answer a yes or no don't blather on about how poor Heath is, or who's defending him, or whatever. That's the ENTIRE point of my post, see if you can focus on one thing for once...

Again, a fallacy. Heath is arguably the worst starter in defense (or Awuzie). Why in the world wouldn’t you want to upgrade that spot?

And you didn’t need a star to do that.

And no, I don’t think this defense can be an elite defense with such poor play out of their SS.

 

[Hennessy_King]

Do you have evidence of this, bro or are you making stuff up?

https://www.thetoptens.com/worst-safeties-2018-nfl-season/

I didn't see the mans name on the list, bro.

I mean PFF had him graded 81st out of like 90 guys.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

Again, a fallacy. Heath is arguably the worst starter in defense (or Awuzie). Why in the world wouldn’t you want to upgrade that spot?

And you didn’t need a star to do that.

And no, I don’t think this defense can be an elite defense with such poor play out of their SS.

My post had NOTHING to do with whether or not Heath needs to be upgraded, again, you add things to my post that wasn't there.

But you did answer my question, though I didn't say the defense could be "elite" (whatever that is defined as), I said "successful, what ever that means to each separate person, I will assume your definition of successful is an "elite" defense, and that you answer no to my question.

Whew, that took a lot of work and words to get to!

As Bill O'Reilly used to say on his show, I'm a simple man, a simple yes or no would have sufficed....

 

[INCowboysFan]

I'm sure he looks just great in drills that prohibit tackling. Besides, it helps Tony Pollard look awesome!

Win-win!

You don't seem to mind that the offense looks so dangerous without tackling, but you are quick to take shots at Heath. I don't like Heath much either, but at least be consistent.

 

[Sydla]

My post had NOTHING to do with whether or not Heath needs to be upgraded, again, you add things to my post that wasn't there.

But you did answer my question, though I didn't say the defense could be "elite" (whatever that is defined as), I said "successful, what ever that means to each separate person, I will assume your definition of successful is an "elite" defense, and that you answer no to my question.

Whew, that took a lot of work and words to get to!

As Bill O'Reilly used to say on his show, I'm a simple man, a simple yes or no would have sufficed....

What was the point of that post where you said you don't need stars at every position other than to defend Heath and suggest we don't need to upgrade the spot?

You seem to be a guy that says something and then when questioned try to argue that's not what you really meant.

 

[Stash]

You don't seem to mind that the offense looks so dangerous without tackling, but you are quick to take shots at Heath. I don't like Heath much either, but at least be consistent.

I have a career's worth of data and performances on Jeff Heath, in actual games. Now compare that to what we're talking about here and tell me how any of it is remotely "consistent"?

Swing and a bad miss...

 

[LACowboysFan1]

What was the point of that post where you said you don't need stars at every position other than to defend Heath and suggest we don't need to upgrade the spot?

You seem to be a guy that says something and then when questioned try to argue that's not what you really meant.

I can't simplify it any more. You don't understand my post, can't help you there. It's very clear, narrow in focus, but you don't "get it". Your issue, not mine.

End of subject...

 

[cern]

heath will remain until someone beats him out for the position. we're not going to spend 14 million on aging safeties like Thomas.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

heath will remain until someone beats him out for the position. we're not going to spend 14 million on aging safeties like Thomas.

At least I hope not...

 

[cern]

I mean PFF had him graded 81st out of like 90 guys.

it's not like he was dead last.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

it's not like he was dead last.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

I'm sure they'd like to upgrade Heath, but Jerry is a "war daddy" kind of guy, safety is probably pretty far down his list of favorite positions on the team...

 

[Sydla]

I can't simplify it any more. You don't understand my post, can't help you there. It's very clear, narrow in focus, but you don't "get it". Your issue, not mine.

End of subject...

Why can't you answer the question? Why did you make the comment about not having stars at every position? The only real implication there is that you don't believe we need to upgrade Heath.

I think we do/did and we could have done so for fairly cheap as there were SS options out there that ended up signing relatively cheap contracts.