Anyone but skin homers really think

[DragonCowboy]

?

Ok, you win. Moss sucks.

Happy now?

edit// I just read your last post. That's what I was getting at.

 

[Hostile]

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.

Doesn't look like he's owned us every time his team has played the Cowboys to me. Looks to me like he had 1 great game and 2 fair ones.

It also doesn't prove that he can do it every time, which is part of your contention. Remember the Lloyd comment is where this started.

 

[Hostile]

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

Amazing.

I didn't say I was an English teacher, I said I have a degree in English. I gave you a lesson in English. Slight difference that reading comprehension would solve.

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.

Let me make it real simple for you. What you "meant" and what you posted are not the same thing. I read what you posted. I am not omnicient to determine what you "meant."

My commentary on what you posted was spot on. My apologies if it got your panties in a wad.

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.

Sigh.

Read the link to what an adverb is. All it does is modify the adjective. It doesn't redefine it. Here's an example.

She's a pretty girl.

Now let's add an adverb that modifies the adjective "pretty."

She's a very pretty girl.

You're trying to tell me that the meaning changes. Uh, no it doesn't. It modifies or amplifies the adjective. Therefore my joke about "unproven talent" being an oxymoron should not have hurt your widdle feewings and illicited the schmuck remarks.

You don't need to threaten me or kick me off the board, just ask me to leave and I will.

If you were really being threatened I'd have done it in a PM, not on the open forum. I gave you good advice to read the Guidelines. If you want to play drama queen some more, be my guest.

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.

No I wasn't. If you still don't get it I'd suggest High School English.

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

No, just ones who come on here insulting people and acting like they own the place when in fact they are a visitor here.

You shot your mouth off. Don't blame me for the powder burns.

 

[illone]

I didn't say I was an English teacher, I said I have a degree in English. I gave you a lesson in English. Slight difference that reading comprehension would solve.

Let me make it real simple for you. What you "meant" and what you posted are not the same thing. I read what you posted. I am not omnicient to determine what you "meant."

My commentary on what you posted was spot on. My apologies if it got your panties in a wad.

Sigh.

Read the link to what an adverb is. All it does is modify the adjective. It doesn't redefine it. Here's an example.

She's a pretty girl.

Now let's add an adverb that modifies the adjective "pretty."

She's a very pretty girl.

You're trying to tell me that the meaning changes. Uh, no it doesn't. It modifies or amplifies the adjective. Therefore my joke about "unproven talent" being an oxymoron should not have hurt your widdle feewings and illicited the schmuck remarks.

If you were really being threatened I'd have done it in a PM, not on the open forum. I gave you good advice to read the Guidelines. If you want to play drama queen some more, be my guest.

No I wasn't. If you still don't get it I'd suggest High School English.

No, just ones who come on here insulting people and acting like they own the place when in fact they are a visitor here.

You shot your mouth off. Don't blame me for the powder burns.

Nowhere did I act like I owned the place. If calling you a shmuck really hurt you that bad then I apologize. My wife is italian, saying shmuck is kinda like saying hello friend, haha.

 

[illone]

Anyways, let's just drop that and stick with the initial topic at hand. Receivers.

Looking at what Glenn has done in his career he's better right now than Lloyd. I won't argue that at all. However, Randle El is better than Crayton.

Let me back track for a second. Looking at your depth chart I would imagine Dallas to be:

Owen 1
Glenn 2
Crayton 3
Cooper 4
Witten TE

Skins 'should' look like this:

Moss 1
Lloyd 2
Randle El 3
Patten 4
Cooley TE

Owens is slightly better than Moss, and Glenn is maybe a tick better than Lloyd right now in his career. However, Randle El and Patten are head and shoulders above Crayton and Cooper. Cooley and Witten are a break even. This is why we rank above you guys on paper.

This could all change once the season starts but as of right now, today, we're the better overall unit.

 

[DragonCowboy]

Anyways, let's just drop that and stick with the initial topic at hand. Receivers.

Looking at what Glenn has done in his career he's better right now than Lloyd. I won't argue that at all. However, Randle El is better than Crayton.

Let me back track for a second. Looking at your depth chart I would imagine Dallas to be:

Owen 1
Glenn 2
Crayton 3
Cooper 4
Witten TE

Skins 'should' look like this:

Moss 1
Lloyd 2
Randle El 3
Patten 4
Cooley TE

Owens is slightly better than Moss, and Glenn is maybe a tick better than Lloyd right now in his career. However, Randle El and Patten are head and shoulders above Crayton and Cooper. Cooley and Witten are a break even. This is why we rank above you guys on paper.

This could all change once the season starts but as of right now, today, we're the better overall unit.

Nope.

1. Owens
2. Glenn
1. Witten (TE)
2. Fasano (TE)

Owens > Moss
Glenn > Lloyd
Witten is slightly better than Cooley
Fasano is worse than Randle El

so, its

3-1, or, if Witten = Cooley, 2-2.

For Dallas, we'll most likely have atleast one TE out there at all times, most of the time 2 TE's, so our #4 doesn't matter really, and our #3 matters little.

This all depends on the schemes being run. Since ESPN doesn't know about the schemes each team runs, they basically pick one scheme, and see which receivers fit that scheme the best. I wouldn't imagine the 2 TE set to be their scheme.

 

[Hostile]

Nowhere did I act like I owned the place. If calling you a shmuck really hurt you that bad then I apologize. My wife is italian, saying shmuck is kinda like saying hello friend, haha.

Again, saying it to me earns you a pass. How you can construe that to my feelings being hurt is just silly.

It's our Guidelines. I gave you the advice as a new guy here, to read them. Had you been warned that advice would have been via PM and the wording would have been much sterner.

You'll find (if you stick around or last very long) that I joke around a lot. Especially when people throw out stuff like it is a fact. An oxymoron doesn't mean you got called dumb. So why you felt insulted and came back with the response you did is beyond me. An oxymoron means 2 consecutive words or phrases seemingly contradict each other.

"Proven Talent"

"Jumbo Shrimp"

"Commanders Intelligance"

It has nothing whatsoever to do with your intelligence. It is a quirk of the English language that makes it humorous. Provided of course that you have a sense of humor to begin with.

Thus my first post to you was in no way insulting you. You took it as such and responded poorly. I responded in kind. Either you're man enough to handle it or you aren't. That isn't up to me.

 

[illone]

Nope.

1. Owens
2. Glenn
1. Witten (TE)
2. Fasano (TE)

Owens > Moss
Glenn > Lloyd
Witten is slightly better than Cooley
Fasano is worse than Randle El

so, its

3-1, or, if Witten = Cooley, 2-2.

For Dallas, we'll most likely have atleast one TE out there at all times, most of the time 2 TE's, so our #4 doesn't matter really, and our #3 matters little.

This all depends on the schemes being run. Since ESPN doesn't know about the schemes each team runs, they basically pick one scheme, and see which receivers fit that scheme the best. I wouldn't imagine the 2 TE set to be their scheme.

Yea, but see the ESPN crew is comparing pass catchers as a whole as well as depth. You're changing it into something that it never was. We can talk about who has a better group on the field if you want, but that's a different topic all together. We're talking about pass catchers in general and depth. That's how it was suggested by the ESPN crew and that's what I based my post on.

Has Fasano signed? I hadn't checked on his status yet, which is why I left him off.

Skins still have better depth than the Cowboys. It's not too difficult a topic.

 

[illone]

"Commanders Intelligance"

Oh the irony, HAHA.

 

[Gibbs II]

Moss has had one great year; Owens has had many. That alone should give Owens the edge. Glenn has the edge over Lloyd as well. Whether RL is better then Clayton remains to be seen- both should be pretty much equal now. Witten is better and has done more longer. So clear edge there.
Anyway you try and look at it the Boys have a better set.

Moss has had a few great years.

In 03 he got 1100 yards and 10TDs. To say he is better than TO would be questionable I think, but they may end up having similar years. But, i would give the advantage to TO because he is TO.

Glenn i would say has an edge simply because he has been in the league longer and has played with some good QBs. Lloyd is pretty raw but has the potential to be a great WR. I mean, he caught 733 yards and 5 TDs with san fran for christ's sake. Plus, he does have a good YPC at 15.3.

But, if you look at glenn's career, he has only had 3 "good" seasons and has had missed some serious time to what i presume to be injuries. But i still give him the benefit of the doubt.

ARE and crayton. Because ARE is more versitile ill give him the benefit of the doubt, plus ARE has more experience.

Witten and Cooley. Both are coming into their own. They had very similar seasons last year, and to definitely say one is better than the other would be a reach.

Patten and fasano. I mean how many backup TEs get that much recognition in the passing game? But, it depends on how they are used. Fasano could be a mike sellers type where he gets about 8 rec. and have 5 TDs. But given the fact he is a rookie, #2 TE, and Patten is a proven "ok" WR, ill give the nod to patten.

Obviously its pretty close, but because of pure depth i think the skins have the edge.

 

[Hostile]

Anyways, let's just drop that and stick with the initial topic at hand. Receivers.

Looking at what Glenn has done in his career he's better right now than Lloyd. I won't argue that at all. However, Randle El is better than Crayton.

Let me back track for a second. Looking at your depth chart I would imagine Dallas to be:

Owen 1
Glenn 2
Crayton 3
Cooper 4
Witten TE

Might be, but we probably won't run many 4 WR sets and with Skyler Green looking to be the return guy here he might edge out everyone else for the 4th WR spot.

Skins 'should' look like this:

Moss 1
Lloyd 2
Randle El 3
Patten 4
Cooley TE

I'd agree.

Owens is slightly better than Moss, and Glenn is maybe a tick better than Lloyd right now in his career.

I just don't see this at all. I don't believe there's a GM anywhere that wouldn't take Owens and Glenn over Moss and Lloyd. But you guys keep trying to sell this slightly better angle.

However, Randle El and Patten are head and shoulders above Crayton and Cooper.

Probably so, but again the 4th WR won't be widely used so why is it even a topic? Because it's vital to "balancing" the ledgers?

Cooley and Witten are a break even.

Again, I don't agree.

This is why we rank above you guys on paper.

No, it isn't.

The reason why you rank ahead of us on paper as a passing attack is because your OL is far superior to ours at pass blocking.

You also have a better RB than we do so defenses have to play you more honest.

This could all change once the season starts but as of right now, today, we're the better overall unit.

If it changes it means that our OL came together and our RB stayed healthy and finally lived up to his "unproven talent."

 

[BigDFan5]

Moss has had a few great years.

Really? he passed 1000 yards twice and a "few" is usually 3 or more his first 1k yard season was 1100 yards, so i assume you think Glenn had a "great" year last year as well?

But, if you look at glenn's career, he has only had 3 "good" seasons

LOL thats what I thought

and has had missed some serious time to what i presume to be injuries.

Presume? Come on study up, I bet you will be surprised

ARE and crayton. Because ARE is more versitile ill give him the benefit of the doubt, plus ARE has more experience.

Versatility has nothing to do with being a WR

Witten and Cooley. Both are coming into their own. They had very similar seasons last year, and to definitely say one is better than the other would be a reach.

Except for its not a reach Witten IS better than Cooley right now

Patten and fasano. I mean how many backup TEs get that much recognition in the passing game? But, it depends on how they are used. Fasano could be a mike sellers type where he gets about 8 rec. and have 5 TDs. But given the fact he is a rookie, #2 TE, and Patten is a proven "ok" WR, ill give the nod to patten.

Fasano will be starting not a backup

 

[Gibbs II]

Probably so, but again the 4th WR won't be widely used so why is it even a topic? Because it's vital to "balancing" the ledgers?

Maybe so, but the fact is with more options, usually, comes a more potent pass offense. The only other variables are QB and OLine, but when the avg drop back is 2.5 seconds, the more options, the better.

 

[Hostile]

Maybe so, but the fact is with more options, usually, comes a more potent pass offense. The only other variables are QB and OLine, but when the avg drop back is 2.5 seconds, the more options, the better.

Tell that to the Detroit Lions.

The only variable I didn't include in my straight line anylsis of what you guys want to discuss is QB. I brought up OL and RB and gave you credit.

We're building our offense around a 2 TE set. Notice I didn't even bring Fasano (already projected as a starter) up. I stuck with the original premise and comparison. Even though I find it faulty and a bit arrogant.

If you want me to I will gladly break this down for you.

Little attempts at logic twists simply don't work with me. I actually know what kind of offesne both teams will run and where the actual comparisons between them will be adequate and where they won't.

The 4 WR set comparison is a joke. Period.

 

[peplaw06]

Looking at your depth chart I would imagine Dallas to be:

Owen 1
Glenn 2
Crayton 3
Cooper 4
Witten TE

Skins 'should' look like this:

Moss 1
Lloyd 2
Randle El 3
Patten 4
Cooley TE

Owens is slightly better than Moss, and Glenn is maybe a tick better than Lloyd right now in his career. However, Randle El and Patten are head and shoulders above Crayton and Cooper. Cooley and Witten are a break even. This is why we rank above you guys on paper.

The #s 3 and 4 WRs shouldn't count the same as the #s 1 and 2, because they don't see the field as often or near as many passes. You have to give more weight to the fact that our #s 1 and 2 are better than yours. Think about it like this...

For simplicity's sake I'll use nice round numbers. Let's say your first option gets 40% of the looks, #2 gets 30%, #3 gets 20% and #4 gets 10%. If our #1 and 2 are better than your #1 and 2, that's 70% of our passing game that's better than yours.

Owens > Moss
Glenn > Lloyd
Witten > Cooley
Randle El > Crayton/Fasano (Fasano's unproven, so I'll give you this, but I'm not completely sold on the fact that Randle El will have as big an impact as Fasano). Still that's 10% of your passing game.

Even if you call Cooley a push and say split that 20%, that's 10% per side. So it's what 80% to 20%??

Reminder, this is a rough formula. I realize Owens isn't ALWAYS better than Moss... I'm trying to keep it simple.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

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

he's also looking at many potentially, average years in the league too...

just because he has potential doesn't mean that it's a sure bet he'll fulfill it, so to throw his potential into an argument doesn't leave you w/ much to stand on

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I'd still say that the Skins are better on paper. On the field, that has yet to be proven.

I'll give you the Oline, RB, and FS, but where else are you more talented on paper?

but yes, let's wait till we see the results on the field 1st

 

[cowboyuptx]

Terry Glenn is alot closer to Santana Moss............

Than Santana is to Owens!!!

Brandon Lloyd? Tell me when he has a 1000 yard season.

ARE, is an overpaid punt returner. We drafted a similar player in Skyler Green.

Patrick Crayton is a more physical and better blocking WR, than either ARE or Lloyd.

Cooley and Witten are close, but a slight edge has to go to Witten. Add Fasano to the mix and it's no contest!

The Skins are better in a few areas, but recieving threats isnt one of them.

 

[CowboyWay]

You can't say Chis Cooley is even comparable to Witten. They play different positions. The game is completly different from the TE position rather than the H back position. So this year will be telling since he should be playing the TE position.

BINGO !!!!

I"ve been saying the same thing. Coming out of the H-back position is alot easier than coming out of a true TE set.

We'll see if Cooley is the real deal or not this year.

 

[Tio]

Not garcia but Young as his QB. BTW Garcia did made the pro bowl, we wasnt a great qb but he did gave Owens his fair share of yards.

My point is, comparing owens stats to moss isnt that big of a difference. you guys just overblown owen worth.

owens was also playing next to a guy named Jerry Rice