Calling Out the Price haters.
- Thread starter DallasDomination
- Start date
blindzebra
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 12,560
- Reaction score
- 4,451
Juke99 said:It's the new me....I'm being more lenient.
But...I just wanted to remind everyone to play nice...
You are such a tease.
First you show revulsion at my friskiness and now this blatant come on.
Juke99
...Abbey someone
- Messages
- 22,279
- Reaction score
- 126
Mike 1967 said:
I didn't notice your name mentioned in the title of the thread.
In addition, I was simply saying that as things were in this thread, I was ok...But I wanted to remind people to not escalate beyond this.
I am not directing anything toward you.
ghst187
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 15,722
- Reaction score
- 11,572
Hostile said:
I, also, haven't heard nor remember any Price haters. I think the vast majority here were all supportive of the signing, esp with Glenn's documented fragility. The only apprehension I even remember being posted was that several worried Price would take time from Crayton. I definitely like Price a lot and look for him to get more catches also. However, he's the 4th best passing option we have when he's on the field...after Key, Glenn, and Witten. And when Crayton is healthy, Price is our 4th best WR. I think that much is all pretty clear.
Crayton better compliments our offense right now and Price needs some time to get comfy and the offense comfy with him in order to get more touches.
DallasDomination
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 11,791
- Reaction score
- 6,205
lspain1 said:
The man has a point.
junk
I've got moxie
- Messages
- 9,294
- Reaction score
- 247
:laugh2:
I love the theory that Parcells won't play a guy because he 1) isn't his guy 2) doesn't like him 3) didn't scout him or pick him.
Ridiculous. I am pretty sure Parcells would outfit his grandma with shoulder pads and send her out if he thought it would get him a win.
Parcells doesn't play guys because either there are better guys in front of them or they will make mistakes that lead to losses.
I love the theory that Parcells won't play a guy because he 1) isn't his guy 2) doesn't like him 3) didn't scout him or pick him.
Ridiculous. I am pretty sure Parcells would outfit his grandma with shoulder pads and send her out if he thought it would get him a win.
Parcells doesn't play guys because either there are better guys in front of them or they will make mistakes that lead to losses.
Hostile
The Duke
- Messages
- 119,565
- Reaction score
- 4,544
Similar to yesterday's debate on Zimmer. How would I know you felt you were being called out by the thread author? Minus a signature line detailing your beliefs on every coach or player, I don't see how anyone can assume you and your stances are being addressed.Mike 1967 said:
ravidubey
Active Member
- Messages
- 4,879
- Reaction score
- 20
I've come to trust Parcells' judgement on many things except when it comes to using WR's to open up the passing game. You can talk about needing WR's who can block, needing a roster spot for this or that special teams role-player, etc.-- but the bottom line is BP just does not work WR's into his game plan.
Terry Glenn you'll argue. Well if you'll recall Terry Glenn was essentially forced down BP's throat. He wanted no part of Terry during the 1996 draft, and the circumstances behind Glenn's selection were a major part of why BP left the Patriots.
Keyshawn Johnson, you'll argue. Nope. Played him two seasons in a limitred role as a glorified TE and then traded him for two first round picks used to grab two of Shaun Ellis, John Abraham, Chad Pennington, and Anthony Becht. Let's analyze these selections-- they passed on Plaxico Burress who they liked to take 3-4 End, 3-4 End/LB hybrid, Limp Puppet "decision-making" QB, and blocking TE-- sounds like ball control and defense to me. Oh yeah, they drafted Laverneous Coles in the third round and got lucky because they found a guy who could run the cross-- the only play a BP "game managing" QB can throw-- and turn it into big yardage.
BP passed at times New England because he had no running game and because Drew Bledsoe demanded it-- but he did not pursue "marquee" receivers. Michael Timpson, Ultimate Brisby, Troy Brown-- these were the utility guys Bledsoe had to work with. Bledsoe and Parcells squared off repeatedly on opening up the passing game. Heck he still is doing that. Bledsoe even ditched play calls from Parcells to heave the ball 50 yards downfield and make completions-- which he succeeded at far more than BP liked. I also think Bledsoe was a part of why Bill left New England-- he couldn't control him. I like how Bledsoe has matured and how BP has learned to trust Terry Glenn.
But adding a "non-BP" guy like Galloway or Price? No way-- they make far better decoys and bench-warmers. Sheesh, under Gruden, Galloway has 12 TDs in twelve games (counting his PR) and is running every kind of pattern under the sun and is 39/648 for a 16.6 average. This is with Brian Griese and Chris freaking Simms. Price had 1200+ yards and nearly a 100 catches as a Bill when they actually let him play.
Not going to happen here, I wondered why they even bothered.
Terry Glenn you'll argue. Well if you'll recall Terry Glenn was essentially forced down BP's throat. He wanted no part of Terry during the 1996 draft, and the circumstances behind Glenn's selection were a major part of why BP left the Patriots.
Keyshawn Johnson, you'll argue. Nope. Played him two seasons in a limitred role as a glorified TE and then traded him for two first round picks used to grab two of Shaun Ellis, John Abraham, Chad Pennington, and Anthony Becht. Let's analyze these selections-- they passed on Plaxico Burress who they liked to take 3-4 End, 3-4 End/LB hybrid, Limp Puppet "decision-making" QB, and blocking TE-- sounds like ball control and defense to me. Oh yeah, they drafted Laverneous Coles in the third round and got lucky because they found a guy who could run the cross-- the only play a BP "game managing" QB can throw-- and turn it into big yardage.
BP passed at times New England because he had no running game and because Drew Bledsoe demanded it-- but he did not pursue "marquee" receivers. Michael Timpson, Ultimate Brisby, Troy Brown-- these were the utility guys Bledsoe had to work with. Bledsoe and Parcells squared off repeatedly on opening up the passing game. Heck he still is doing that. Bledsoe even ditched play calls from Parcells to heave the ball 50 yards downfield and make completions-- which he succeeded at far more than BP liked. I also think Bledsoe was a part of why Bill left New England-- he couldn't control him. I like how Bledsoe has matured and how BP has learned to trust Terry Glenn.
But adding a "non-BP" guy like Galloway or Price? No way-- they make far better decoys and bench-warmers. Sheesh, under Gruden, Galloway has 12 TDs in twelve games (counting his PR) and is running every kind of pattern under the sun and is 39/648 for a 16.6 average. This is with Brian Griese and Chris freaking Simms. Price had 1200+ yards and nearly a 100 catches as a Bill when they actually let him play.
Not going to happen here, I wondered why they even bothered.
Mike 1967
New Member
- Messages
- 2,767
- Reaction score
- 2
Hostile said:
There is no way you would know....only I would know that.
I am not a Price Fan....this guy was calling out people who don't think Price is a major contributor.
I also made a personnal comment when I made the post stating "are you on medication".
Juke rightfully reminded everyone to keep it from getting personal....which I was already guilty of.
I was banging my head because this guy already made it personal...before you changed the title
Juke was not specifically pointing me out...nor was the originator of the thread. But in both cases, I fell within the target audience.
Same with the other post you are mentioning....I fell within the target audience. Last year I was upset about the defense...wanted a major change..and was projecting that frustration on Zimmer.
Lastly...I frequent these forums because I like to argue/debate.
And there is no better opportunity for debate than when somebody makes a strong "call-out" on a position that you hold to or have argued in favor of. Which is the other similiarity behind these posts.
But...if people are not comfortable with that...then they should not paint with such a broad brush when they start a thread slamming an opposing view.
But the ironic thing is....at the end of the day....most of the major contributors are here because they also like to argue. It is the nature of the beast.