Anyone but skin homers really think

[superpunk]

I agree, they are better, not by leaps and bounds, but better none the less.

However, can you objectively say that your 3-5 recievers are superior to Randle El, Patten and Thrash?

I can objectively say it's irrelevant.

 

[Renesis]

I can objectively say it's irrelevant.

Maybe in the 2 TE offense, but not in the Saunders offense. Which makes comparing recieving corps pretty useless considering they will be used in completely ways.

Edit: Sonofa***** I got my threads mixed up. You're right, it is completely irrelevent to the thread topic.

 

[Hostile]

On paper it would certainly seem that way. Considering what Lloyd did to you guys last season with a crappy QB/team it's safe to say he could do just that and more with a better team/QB and a surrounding cast of better players including oline, and RB.

No, it isn't "safe to say." Show me one example of a player who always destroys the another team when his team plays them. Either side of the ball. Every single time.

He had a good game. The next time he faces that team they will have different personnel and he could have an off day.

Don't go overboard in your excitement over Lloyd.

Plus, Lloyd is still a young, widely unproven talent, still looking up to many potentially productive years in the league.

You just contradicted your previous statement. Now he's unproven. Yet also a talent. There's an oxymoron for you. "Unproven talent."

Sure, Owens is a great player on the field. Nobody can argue that. It's the damage he does in the locker room that is sure to hurt your team.

Absolutely true. I bet you think we haven't heard this before or didn't already know it.

I can understand why the Skins are ranked above the Cowboys on PAPER because that's all it is: Paper.

Some people take offense at pre season rankings. They think it's evidence of bias or no love. I could give a flying fig about them.

 

[Hostile]

Maybe in the 2 TE offense, but not in the Saunders offense. Which makes comparing recieving corps pretty useless considering they will be used in completely ways.

This is a curious statement. You blurted it out like it's some kind of irrefutable fact.

Would you mind telling me the 3 through 5 WRs who have flourished in Saunders sytem in the past?

I mean since it is relevant and all that surely you have some names to wow me.

 

[Vintage]

Hostile, don't lie.

You give a flying fig.

 

[Renesis]

This is a curious statement. You blurted it out like it's some kind of irefutable fact.

Would you mind telling me the 3 through 5 WRs who have flourished in Saunders sytem in the past?

I mean since it is relevant and all that surely you have some names to wow me.

It's not. Was reading through, and forgot what the original topic was about, and thus my comment was useless.

Although, I doubt that a 3-5 reciever has ever as you say "flourished" regardless of offensive scheme.

 

[superpunk]

Renesis - not a bad dude.

I fortunately saw the edit before I could respond, with tales of irrelevancy.

 

[Hostile]

Hostile, don't lie.

You give a flying fig.

True. I actually throw figs to watch them fly.

 

[Hostile]

It's not. Was reading through, and forgot what the original topic was about, and thus my comment was useless.

Although, I doubt that a 3-5 reciever has ever as you say "flourished" regardless of offensive scheme.

Brandon Stokley in 2004 was the 3rd WR behind Harrison & Wayne. I'd say he flourished.

When the Rams were the "Greatest Show on Turf" Az Hakim flourished behind Bruce & Holt.

Might be before your time but Air Coryell had Wes Chandler behind John Jefferson and Charlie Joiner.

It happens that some 3rd WRs do make some spalshes and flourish a little. Rarely does a 4th WR do too much and I don't remember when a 5th WR ever did more than an occasional catch.

Having said all that, isn't it time for Skins fans to drop the Patten & Thrash commentary? I doubt anyone is too terribly impressed at your 4 and 5 deep WR sets. The top 3 are good enough to stand on their own.

 

[illone]

No, it isn't "safe to say." Show me one example of a player who always destroys the another team when his team plays them. Either side of the ball. Every single time.

He had a good game. The next time he faces that team they will have different personnel and he could have an off day.

Don't go overboard in your excitement over Lloyd.

You just contradicted your previous statement. Now he's unproven. Yet also a talent. There's an oxymoron for you. "Unproven talent."

Do you know what an adverb is? I didn't say unproven talent, I said widely unproven. You might want to get that right before correcting me next time.

Shmuck.

I can name a player who consistently has good games against one team: Santana Moss. Throughout his entire career even with the Jets he has owned you guys. Next question.

 

[SultanOfSix]

You said "widely unproven talent." It's in the thread and quoted by Hos as well as another individual.

 

[Hostile]

Do you know what an adverb is? I didn't say unproven talent, I said widely unproven. You might want to get that right before correcting me next time.

Oh troll, you didn't want to go there. I've got a degree in English. You want a lesson I will oblige you. You "didn't say unproven talent" huh?

Plus, Lloyd is still a young, widely unproven talent, still looking up to many potentially productive years in the league.

FYI, the purpose of an adverb is to amplify a verb, adjective, or another adverb. Therefore your use of the adverb "widely" merely amplifies my point because the word it is modifying is the adjective "unproven."

So I had it right before correcting you.

No charge for the initial lesson.

Shmuck.

Take a close look at the title under my username. Then go read our Guidelines.

Here's the Link. If you had called any other member on this forum that name other than me you'd be trying to log in right now and finding out you can't.

I can name a player who consistently has good games against one team: Santana Moss. Throughout his entire career even with the Jets he has owned you guys. Next question.

Really?

Post the links to every game he has played against us, including with the Jets. Then prove it means it will happen every time. I bet I have a lot more evidence to support my stance, but then trolls rarely good for facts.

 

[illone]

Wow, I'm explaining what widely unproven talent means to a cowboys admin/english teacher.

Amazing.

Let me make this real simple for you. I meant widely (largely, or not 100%) unproven. A talent that has yet to show 100% what or who he is.

That's what I meant. Your spin on my comments left out the most important word, which was widely. Come down off your soapbox and read it again. You don't need to threaten me or kick me off the board, just ask me to leave and I will.

Not sure why you are trying to spin my comments into something they are not. I'm not being argumentative. I stated a fact about Lloyd and you felt the need to correct me for no reason. You were wrong, not me.

Is this how to treat all the Skins fans around here?

 

[illone]

Here are his game stats:

09/19 @DAL W 14-13 5 159 31.8 70 2
12/18 DAL W 35-7 2 73 36.5 42 0
09/28 Dallas L 6-17 5 65 13.0 38 0 (Jets)

12 catches, 297 yards, 24.75 avg, 2 scores.

 

[DragonCowboy]

Here are his game stats:

09/19 @DAL W 14-13 5 159 31.8 70 2
12/18 DAL W 35-7 2 73 36.5 42 0
09/28 Dallas L 6-17 5 65 13.0 38 0 (Jets)

12 catches, 297 yards, 24.75 avg, 2 scores.

Look at those stats. One of those games is not like the others, can you find out which?

Yes, the game on September 19, that's the one! There's 159 yards in one game. That affects the stats for his whole career vs. Dallas, and makes them very, very misleading.

Not counting the September 19 game, he's had 69 yards per game. That's not "owning" a team. Three games is hardly enough to say that he owns a team. One great game totally affects the rest of the stats, making them misleading, and your argument useless.

P.S.: Get out. Now. Leave.

 

[illone]

Yea, doesn't look as impressive without that monday night game in there.

Still glad to have him.

 

[DragonCowboy]

Yea, doesn't look as impressive without that monday night game in there.

Still glad to have him.

o...k...

You said he's the guy who constantly owns us. Now that you're agreeing your argument has no base, it's obvious to me that you were just saying that to troll.

 

[Vintage]

Yea, doesn't look as impressive without that monday night game in there.

Still glad to have him.

So...you are backtracking?

Probably a good idea.

Because 5 catches for 65 yards and 0 TD's isn't really owning anyone.
Neither is 2 catches for 73 yards and 0 TD's.

Though, he did have a good final 2:00 in the MNF game. He made Aaron Glenn his little *****.

But you factor that out, and the first 58 minutes, Moss has 3 catches for 40 yards or so.

So....Moss has owned the Cowboys for a grand total of two minutes out the 180 minutes he has played us.

Unfortunately, those two minutes cost us a game....

 

[illone]

o...k...

You said he's the guy who constantly owns us. Now that you're agreeing your argument has no base, it's obvious to me that you were just saying that to troll.

?

Ok, you win. Moss sucks.

Happy now?

 

[illone]

So...you are backtracking?

Probably a good idea.

Because 5 catches for 65 yards and 0 TD's isn't really owning anyone.
Neither is 2 catches for 73 yards and 0 TD's.

Though, he did have a good final 2:00 in the MNF game. He made Aaron Glenn his little *****.

But you factor that out, and the first 58 minutes, Moss has 3 catches for 40 yards or so.

So....Moss has owned the Cowboys for a grand total of two minutes out the 180 minutes he has played us.

Unfortunately, those two minutes cost us a game....

Look, I'm not trying to argue with anybody. Moss has had decent games against the Cowboys, and one great game. Let's leave it at that. I was wrong to say 'owned' the way I did.