TheProphet;1397591 said:
If our "great" drafts translate into no playoff wins in 10 years, then yeah I guess ole Jerry has done a bang-up job. LOL. Quit defending the indefensible. Believe it or not Jerry's capable of many bonehead decisions in his role as playing GM. Wake up for pete's sake.
TheProphet;1397608 said:
BP's drafts were okay at best. Superpunk seem to imply with his response to Philo that ole Jerry has done a mighty fine job on draft day. To this I say poppycock.
This is what you would call a strawman argument, and it is something that can generally be expected from those who are uneducated, those unfamiliar with simple logical progression, or infants.
What you have done, is set up an auxillary argument, attribute it to me, scoff at it, and pretend that it is a logical retort to my argument. This happens to be, not only pointless, but stupid as well.
Your buddy philo was unable to back his position, so it is admirable that you would attempt to play the knight in shining armor role - but you might have opted to do it on something a bit more than a 2nd grade level of logic. You see, I responded to your buddy philo's initial post, which said
It seems to happen every single year, we make a mess out of the draft. With JJ running the show again, I'm really scared of what we'll do. We always seem to try & get "cute" in some way, which usually backfires. We also seem to lose focus in the later rounds. Will this year be different? Can we actually have a great draft from start to finish? Please, no Quincy Carter type reaches! We often seem to do better with UFAs than we do with our draft picks.
Now - while he did express some angst over Jerry having a larger part in the draft, he did not distinguish clearly which years he was talking about, that influenced that angst. Rather, he opted for that route of the weak-mind, wherein you can only speak in absolutes, which is also what really screws him on this one. "Every single year" and "We always try to get cute" suggest exactly what they say, and that is that these things always occur.
So I asked your buddy a simple question - interestingly I knew what his answer would be, and had the Patriots example all dialed up. My argument addressed (and destroyed) EVERY single one of his suggestions, by a comparative analysis of the team he admires, with the team he is arguing against. In every aspect (getting cute, headscratchers, losing focus in later rounds) we (the Cowboys) come out ahead of the Patriots. This, effectively exposes philo's adorable little rant for what it is - a baseless, useless, poorly-thought-out notion that, judging by his response to my well-thought out response, he had no intention (or means) of legitimately defending. You, as well, have no means of defending his indefensible postition, which is why you took the route of the weak-minded, opting for logical fallacy over legitimate argument.
And that, in a nutshell, is what makes me - me, and you - well......you. You and Q-T-Pie have my sympathy.