Multiple things can be true at once

• Mike McCarthy has done an excellent job so far this year of overall coaching and improving much about the culture. He also has had clock and game management issues. It’s possible to believe both are true without being “anti-McCarthy” or “Pro-McCarthy”.
• Tony Pollard’s increased number of touches has helped the running game get better. Does that mean I “hate” Zeke Elliott and want Pollard to get the majority of carries? No. We need both.
  
• Anthony Brown has blown some plays and he’s also made some big plays. If you point out either or both, does that mean you’re either a “hater” of AB or a defender of AB? Can’t you say both are true?
• Our defense has been greatly improved. But if someone says they believe we still have some issues and point some out for improvement, that’s not “hate”. Conversely, if someone loves the improvement and the increased turnovers they been getting, it doesn’t mean they’re “drinking the kool aid.”

J-man said:

Wise and dignified or wishy washy? Or, are both true?

Click to expand...

Bobhaze said:

Not every issue on these forums are “either/or”…or always this and never that…or if you say this, then you must mean that.

We’ve all seen dust ups happen here over an idea that two people actually mostly agree on. Or we often see “camps” spring up around a certain criticism of a certain player then a horse swoops in and says, “You obviously hate” said player.

Actually multiple things can be true about a player or a coach, or even about our team. Not everything is black and white. Here’s some examples of what I mean:

• Mike McCarthy has done an excellent job so far this year of overall coaching and improving much about the culture. He also has had clock and game management issues. It’s possible to believe both are true without being “anti-McCarthy” or “Pro-McCarthy”.
• Tony Pollard’s increased number of touches has helped the running game get better. Does that mean I “hate” Zeke Elliott and want Pollard to get the majority of carries? No. We need both.
  
• Anthony Brown has blown some plays and he’s also made some big plays. If you point out either or both, does that mean you’re either a “hater” of AB or a defender of AB? Can’t you say both are true?
• Our defense has been greatly improved. But if someone says they believe we still have some issues and point some out for improvement, that’s not “hate”. Conversely, if someone loves the improvement and the increased turnovers they been getting, it doesn’t mean they’re “drinking the kool aid.”

My point is simple: Multiple things can true about a player, coach, or the team. Not everything about this team an either/or proposition.

Click to expand...

ESisback said:

Exactly! Great post, Hazey! I’ve asked the question for years. Where’s the middle ground? Why must it always be either/or? I can usually see both sides, and for me, most things happen because of multiple variables.

Click to expand...

JoeKing said:

Seeing this team doing so well while also seeing so many ways they can improve is just encouraging to me for the future.

Click to expand...

Bobhaze said:

Not every issue on these forums are “either/or”…or always this and never that…or if you say this, then you must mean that.

We’ve all seen dust ups happen here over an idea that two people actually mostly agree on. Or we often see “camps” spring up around a certain criticism of a certain player then a horse swoops in and says, “You obviously hate” said player.

Actually multiple things can be true about a player or a coach, or even about our team. Not everything is black and white. Here’s some examples of what I mean:

• Mike McCarthy has done an excellent job so far this year of overall coaching and improving much about the culture. He also has had clock and game management issues. It’s possible to believe both are true without being “anti-McCarthy” or “Pro-McCarthy”.
• Tony Pollard’s increased number of touches has helped the running game get better. Does that mean I “hate” Zeke Elliott and want Pollard to get the majority of carries? No. We need both.
  
• Anthony Brown has blown some plays and he’s also made some big plays. If you point out either or both, does that mean you’re either a “hater” of AB or a defender of AB? Can’t you say both are true?
• Our defense has been greatly improved. But if someone says they believe we still have some issues and point some out for improvement, that’s not “hate”. Conversely, if someone loves the improvement and the increased turnovers they been getting, it doesn’t mean they’re “drinking the kool aid.”

My point is simple: Multiple things can true about a player, coach, or the team. Not everything about this team an either/or proposition.

Click to expand...

Bobhaze said:

Not every issue on these forums are “either/or”…or always this and never that…or if you say this, then you must mean that.

We’ve all seen dust ups happen here over an idea that two people actually mostly agree on. Or we often see “camps” spring up around a certain criticism of a certain player then a horse swoops in and says, “You obviously hate” said player.

Actually multiple things can be true about a player or a coach, or even about our team. Not everything is black and white. Here’s some examples of what I mean:

• Mike McCarthy has done an excellent job so far this year of overall coaching and improving much about the culture. He also has had clock and game management issues. It’s possible to believe both are true without being “anti-McCarthy” or “Pro-McCarthy”.
• Tony Pollard’s increased number of touches has helped the running game get better. Does that mean I “hate” Zeke Elliott and want Pollard to get the majority of carries? No. We need both.
  
• Anthony Brown has blown some plays and he’s also made some big plays. If you point out either or both, does that mean you’re either a “hater” of AB or a defender of AB? Can’t you say both are true?
• Our defense has been greatly improved. But if someone says they believe we still have some issues and point some out for improvement, that’s not “hate”. Conversely, if someone loves the improvement and the increased turnovers they been getting, it doesn’t mean they’re “drinking the kool aid.”

My point is simple: Multiple things can true about a player, coach, or the team. Not everything about this team an either/or proposition.

Click to expand...

Bobhaze said:

If I say the Cowboys are an up and coming team that hasn’t had much playoff success in a long time…are both true? Is it “half hate”? Lol!

Click to expand...

Bobhaze said:

Not every issue on these forums are “either/or”…or always this and never that…or if you say this, then you must mean that.

We’ve all seen dust ups happen here over an idea that two people actually mostly agree on. Or we often see “camps” spring up around a certain criticism of a certain player then a horse swoops in and says, “You obviously hate” said player.

Actually multiple things can be true about a player or a coach, or even about our team. Not everything is black and white. Here’s some examples of what I mean:

• Mike McCarthy has done an excellent job so far this year of overall coaching and improving much about the culture. He also has had clock and game management issues. It’s possible to believe both are true without being “anti-McCarthy” or “Pro-McCarthy”.
• Tony Pollard’s increased number of touches has helped the running game get better. Does that mean I “hate” Zeke Elliott and want Pollard to get the majority of carries? No. We need both.
  
• Anthony Brown has blown some plays and he’s also made some big plays. If you point out either or both, does that mean you’re either a “hater” of AB or a defender of AB? Can’t you say both are true?
• Our defense has been greatly improved. But if someone says they believe we still have some issues and point some out for improvement, that’s not “hate”. Conversely, if someone loves the improvement and the increased turnovers they been getting, it doesn’t mean they’re “drinking the kool aid.”

My point is simple: Multiple things can true about a player, coach, or the team. Not everything about this team an either/or proposition.

Click to expand...

Bobhaze said:

Not every issue on these forums are “either/or”…or always this and never that…or if you say this, then you must mean that.

We’ve all seen dust ups happen here over an idea that two people actually mostly agree on. Or we often see “camps” spring up around a certain criticism of a certain player then a horse swoops in and says, “You obviously hate” said player.

Actually multiple things can be true about a player or a coach, or even about our team. Not everything is black and white. Here’s some examples of what I mean:

• Mike McCarthy has done an excellent job so far this year of overall coaching and improving much about the culture. He also has had clock and game management issues. It’s possible to believe both are true without being “anti-McCarthy” or “Pro-McCarthy”.
• Tony Pollard’s increased number of touches has helped the running game get better. Does that mean I “hate” Zeke Elliott and want Pollard to get the majority of carries? No. We need both.
  
• Anthony Brown has blown some plays and he’s also made some big plays. If you point out either or both, does that mean you’re either a “hater” of AB or a defender of AB? Can’t you say both are true?
• Our defense has been greatly improved. But if someone says they believe we still have some issues and point some out for improvement, that’s not “hate”. Conversely, if someone loves the improvement and the increased turnovers they been getting, it doesn’t mean they’re “drinking the kool aid.”

My point is simple: Multiple things can true about a player, coach, or the team. Not everything about this team an either/or proposition.

Click to expand...

Bobhaze said:

Not every issue on these forums are “either/or”…or always this and never that…or if you say this, then you must mean that.

We’ve all seen dust ups happen here over an idea that two people actually mostly agree on. Or we often see “camps” spring up around a certain criticism of a certain player then a horse swoops in and says, “You obviously hate” said player.

Actually multiple things can be true about a player or a coach, or even about our team. Not everything is black and white. Here’s some examples of what I mean:

• Mike McCarthy has done an excellent job so far this year of overall coaching and improving much about the culture. He also has had clock and game management issues. It’s possible to believe both are true without being “anti-McCarthy” or “Pro-McCarthy”.
• Tony Pollard’s increased number of touches has helped the running game get better. Does that mean I “hate” Zeke Elliott and want Pollard to get the majority of carries? No. We need both.
  
• Anthony Brown has blown some plays and he’s also made some big plays. If you point out either or both, does that mean you’re either a “hater” of AB or a defender of AB? Can’t you say both are true?
• Our defense has been greatly improved. But if someone says they believe we still have some issues and point some out for improvement, that’s not “hate”. Conversely, if someone loves the improvement and the increased turnovers they been getting, it doesn’t mean they’re “drinking the kool aid.”

My point is simple: Multiple things can true about a player, coach, or the team. Not everything about this team an either/or proposition.

Click to expand...