Cowboys, oh Cowboys, where for art thou Cowboys....?

[ScipioCowboy]

Did you, since Shakespeare appears to be a popular association, realize that the Greek intelectuals-who developed articulated associations of discussion and philosophy, were ALSO by inclination, homosexual as well?

The presentation origin was of groups of accomplished NFL quarterbacks that were chatergorized on observable tendencies. That doesn't require some mechanic's listings of torque settings, compression readings, or even horserpower amplitudes to be able to tell if a car is running well.

Just by implying sophistication as to standard, doesn't remove the quality of observing and making valid judgements above the stat sheet...by the way, at a game, do YOU take a slide ruler to see just how good a quarterback is doing, and then apply a stop watch? Duh....as if talent evaluators carry extensive tables to determine if play on the field compares.

What is happening here, is the selection of a specific aspect in presentation, and then forcing topic area to comply with a single observation...but WITHOUT approaching topic presented. How so very metropolitan of you...

Speaking of irony...

Earlier, you chided Adam for a perceived lack of reading skills. And, here, your comment about torque settings, compression readings, and slide rules reveals a similar deficiency in you; I never required or even asked for a quantitative measure of quarterback play. I simply requested an explanation of your methodology.

Even in fields of study that rely on purely qualitative measures, researchers are still compelled to explain their methodologies so that others may repeat the study. Even if your "observables" are not reducible to numerical values, you still must have some way of comparing and ranking them across the entire observed population.

If you're unable to explain how you derived your rankings, why should we even consider them?

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Observable tools aren't as complex as you would indicate, or ignore strengths of other statements. If QB ratings over a specifcied period of time, which has not been denoted by yourself, and hence, an abstract concept to begin with...were the only tool for evaluation of quarterbacks, then money spent on them would be in DIRECT correlation to the numbers YOU are using. Nope, there is much MORE to coaching and even talent evaluations than that ALL KNOWING and preferenced indicator that STILL doesn't address the topic on thread.

What HAS been presented wasn't even a QB rating for a player, but a specified and restricted application to wit. That being very generalized in it's specific use...including BOTH first and second half inclusion of data for compilation of final indicators. Here, it is obvious through casual observation in the NFL...that things change dramaticly from the first half to second halves and thus, the validitiy of those very stats as an indicator even for final two minute considerations are from the start, very diluted in direct correlation. Point, match, set....

False dichotomy.

The fact that one indicator may have flaws does not automatically validate your indicator, which you have yet to explain.

 

[CCBoy]

False dichotomy.

The fact that one indicator may have flaws does not automatically validate your indicator, which you have yet to explain.

You still haven't made it to base...substituting wit for purpose. Then ignoring volumn of topic to develop your perspective. You have offered nothing, added nothing, and yet, arrived at a conclusion. Never touching upon what was plainly presented, and then IGNORED by yourself.

1. I went gathering from a published article, by The Sporting News, current evaluations of winning attributes in today's NFL quarterbacks. That alone would have been a wealth for discussion. This I DID the labor and care to first take from a magazine, and then bring to site, AFTER typing up the information for your benefit.

2. I then, for discussion benefits, brought to this thread a specific application of THAT information. As a general indicator which had been established -

that there was, not DUE to Tony Romo being included on one specified topic of strength, a GENERAL value of many eyes observing the actual play and accomplishments this season. They already applied a value interpretation that WAS brought to the table. Not to look smart or prove ANYTHING....but to show that there were reasons WHY Tony Romo had been floundering when all the direction of this very Dallas Cowboy team had been set about HIS shoulders to carry and lead. Go back to the initial posting and look over what strengths were NOT top of the line as observed in game conditions. Now stat sheets are handing, by relying on them solely is WHY those previous Cowboys disappeared in a game such as Philadelphia last season.

3. This does NOT imply that discussion of a single affecting attribute is without value. That is relevant, but has to be incorporated into a broader and referenced subject group...which the initial posting touched base with.

That would first require discussion...but involves developing up a thread's topic, and not merely trouble shooting to look smart on a specific aspect of debate. I never breached the positive or negative aspects in my initial queries touching thread topic up until now.

4. I even added that how Tony Romo is handled and directed by Wade Phillips, and subsequently by Jason Garrett is very relavent in the now. This can well be SEEN by fans in how the team goes about business and progresses from here to the end of THIS season.

That is VERY relevant, and never once touched upon by yourself...as you are too busy trying to look smart and not shouldering the burden of establishing perspectives, got THAT concept yet? I have touched upon perspective as thread development progresses...and why Adam tried to poop on my initial post. He came bearing a 'glorius' stat, that really didn't dominate the topic that I initially laid out....direction! Adam is a fine poster, with years of credability...but here, he came to a galant defense of Tony Romo and against what he was perceiving as a negative poster here to stir waters. He was wrong...as I was going to general observation and attempting to provide discernable insights developed through dialogue, to ease the tendency for some fans and media to push their own time tables and agendas of acceptability.

5. The story of this Dallas Cowboys' team is far from written. The Cowboys at their present record are as credable as any of the other contenders in the NFC East. One of these teams WILL be in the playoffs. People have tended to over analyze any and everything concerning them, and not realisticly debated and discussed the directions of development that have been and continue to be sources of direction and strength for this team. Not all is an ill advised step child fawned by Jerry Jones and directed by a cupcake and sugar induced insulin depleted Wade Phillips. There have been and continue to be many things of a positive nature going on and around this team.

I wasn't attempting to reach nirvahna, as you proclaim, but going directly to debate, and discussion to develop a thread's topic. Although a single view of a specific aspect has been produced, and then strained continually to approach sophistication of futility, the topic still deserves insight and continued perspective over time.

6. I took the topic directly to Tony Romo, and to the fundamental accountability of him, then Wade Phillips, and ultimately Jerry Jones included, in an analytical basis.....right there!

The team was adapted to maximize the potential of Tony Romo.

7. Now, it remains to see how that goes....

8. AdamJT13 bringing in a very interesting group of statistics, NOWHERE breaches the topic presented and slowly developed. It itself, did not approach what it was presented to defend, but DID point out a strength of Romo. That can THEN be used to develop a realistic and MEASUREABLE direction of conduct...but NOT limited to that single indicator. That type of indicator is good ONLY when associated with a group of indicators, if one is considering present team direction.

9. If I WERE to make an assessment independent of what was presented as being the publications view, and then put into perspective by myself, to gain a potential direction...WITH discussion and debate, then I would say that Tony is STILL growing within the constraints of this Dallas Cowboy team. He is a strong quarterback, that has shown, as when he went for a glitzy girlfriend, that he makes personal mistakes in his role. That isn't good, but can be recovered from. He was TOLD by Bill Parcells of the tripfalls in making BAD habits. Bad habits have to be stopped, then REPLACED. The evaluations that were presented, SHOW that the end result is NOT where this team hopes and even anticipates will be the end result. That IS shown, and was done quite adequately by my additions of discussion. No, that wasn't dribble and misdirection, by concise and applied direction, trying NOT to dominate a potential for debate and discussion, as was EXPRESSED in my first added post.

To take this back to the criteria of a site strong posting:

This team is growing through having to address and be challenged by very good offenses, and then more recently, by this year's very dominant defenses. That is a growth process, but the team still has succeeded by having gained control of the NFC East.

This is not a minor achievement at the halfway mark in the season. That establishes a credability, whether it is acknowledged as such or not. That IS part of the analytical process, and not just APPLICATION of a cherry picked stat grouping. Stat sheets can be offered all day, but would continue to be dry and uninteresting reads...ultimately time consuming and missing the mark due to sustained direction, and not doing what I try to do...arrive at conclusion on topic, not style and people involved in the process.

Back to subject, Tony has shown that he is resiliant and up to here, never shunned listening, studying, and continuing to work his posterior anatomical body part off, to change. Well, it's time again.

Kurt Warner had to gain his sophisticated skills, by drilling both quickness in delivery and also accuracy. When completely focused, as with the all or nothing adrenaline situations, Tony is able to, when his mental process is clear, to pin point and deliver on target and timely throws. He is successful in a generalized direction at leadership. He has been successful, except in high pressure games. He has YET to put that aspect on the carpet and make it more than wishful anticipation on the part of fans. He still has THAT part of the road to walk through.

Well guess what? That part of the journey is about to commence, following the final bridge of transitioning, Thursday against the Raiders. He has one more 'dress rehearsal' from which to establish his own sense of proportion, direction, and strength from which to attack and survive what is approaching afterwards. He will be facing teams with BOTH very strong defenses AND very strong offenses, going into the black and blue month of December.

What does this mean...this, the gate of opportunity is NOW opening. We have full view of potential. Who can affect HOW Tony responds and develops through this gate. He has a lot of strengths from which to draw, and a lot of skill himself....but as the past denotes...the product is NOT finished yet.

 

[CCBoy]

Speaking of irony...

Earlier, you chided Adam for a perceived lack of reading skills. And, here, your comment about torque settings, compression readings, and slide rules reveals a similar deficiency in you; I never required or even asked for a quantitative measure of quarterback play. I simply requested an explanation of your methodology.

Even in fields of study that rely on purely qualitative measures, researchers are still compelled to explain their methodologies so that others may repeat the study. Even if your "observables" are not reducible to numerical values, you still must have some way of comparing and ranking them across the entire observed population.

If you're unable to explain how you derived your rankings, why should we even consider them?

Here you miss completely on application of cross comparisons, which included application of underlying principals for comparison. Gee, horses can come in different colors without confusing sight...

 

[PBJTime]

Go-go gadget wall-of-text!

Ah man, I just don't have the time to finish this novel in the time it takes to drink my cup of coffee before work.

But, I will actually add some relevant content. You appear to have a negative slant on Romo, despite your assertions that this is merely a topic for discussion. You keep bringing up the two passes to Hurd, as if that game, that specific time frame, summarizes Romo's entire career. I don't hear you harping on the beautiful TD passes he's thrown or the games that he's been exceedingly accurate.

You can bring up any QB in that list, and people can bring up plenty of, "What the hell was he thinking?" moments in their respective careers.

You have posted a list of seemingly very subjective data, and asked people to discuss (more like refute) it, but nobody is allowed to interpret actual objective data in doing so. Like someone has posted before me, if you could actually provide the methodology used for determining these lists, then there would be much more out there for discussion. As it stands, I won't be discussing much of anything when a list of "leadership" is supposed to be what I'm basing my discussion on.

 

[Zaxor]

You still haven't made it to base...substituting wit for purpose. Then ignoring volumn of topic to develop your perspective. You have offered nothing, added nothing, and yet, arrived at a conclusion. Never touching upon what was plainly presented, and then IGNORED by yourself.

1. I went gathering from a published article, by The Sporting News, current evaluations of winning attributes in today's NFL quarterbacks. That alone would have been a wealth for discussion. This I DID the labor and care to first take from a magazine, and then bring to site, AFTER typing up the information for your benefit.

2. I then, for discussion benefits, brought to this thread a specific application of THAT information. As a general indicator which had been established -

that there was, not DUE to Tony Romo being included on one specified topic of strength, a GENERAL value of many eyes observing the actual play and accomplishments this season. They already applied a value interpretation that WAS brought to the table. Not to look smart or prove ANYTHING....but to show that there were reasons WHY Tony Romo had been floundering when all the direction of this very Dallas Cowboy team had been set about HIS shoulders to carry and lead. Go back to the initial posting and look over what strengths were NOT top of the line as observed in game conditions. Now stat sheets are handing, by relying on them solely is WHY those previous Cowboys disappeared in a game such as Philadelphia last season.

3. This does NOT imply that discussion of a single affecting attribute is without value. That is relevant, but has to be incorporated into a broader and referenced subject group...which the initial posting touched base with.

That would first require discussion...but involves developing up a thread's topic, and not merely trouble shooting to look smart on a specific aspect of debate. I never breached the positive or negative aspects in my initial queries touching thread topic up until now.

4. I even added that how Tony Romo is handled and directed by Wade Phillips, and subsequently by Jason Garrett is very relavent in the now. This can well be SEEN by fans in how the team goes about business and progresses from here to the end of THIS season.

That is VERY relevant, and never once touched upon by yourself...as you are too busy trying to look smart and not shouldering the burden of establishing perspectives, got THAT concept yet? I have touched upon perspective as thread development progresses...and why Adam tried to poop on my initial post. He came bearing a 'glorius' stat, that really didn't dominate the topic that I initially laid out....direction! Adam is a fine poster, with years of credability...but here, he came to a galant defense of Tony Romo and against what he was perceiving as a negative poster here to stir waters. He was wrong...as I was going to general observation and attempting to provide discernable insights developed through dialogue, to ease the tendency for some fans and media to push their own time tables and agendas of acceptability.

5. The story of this Dallas Cowboys' team is far from written. The Cowboys at their present record are as credable as any of the other contenders in the NFC East. One of these teams WILL be in the playoffs. People have tended to over analyze any and everything concerning them, and not realisticly debated and discussed the directions of development that have been and continue to be sources of direction and strength for this team. Not all is an ill advised step child fawned by Jerry Jones and directed by a cupcake and sugar induced insulin depleted Wade Phillips. There have been and continue to be many things of a positive nature going on and around this team.

I wasn't attempting to reach nirvahna, as you proclaim, but going directly to debate, and discussion to develop a thread's topic. Although a single view of a specific aspect has been produced, and then strained continually to approach sophistication of futility, the topic still deserves insight and continued perspective over time.

6. I took the topic directly to Tony Romo, and to the fundamental accountability of him, then Wade Phillips, and ultimately Jerry Jones included, in an analytical basis.....right there!

The team was adapted to maximize the potential of Tony Romo.

7. Now, it remains to see how that goes....

8. AdamJT13 bringing in a very interesting group of statistics, NOWHERE breaches the topic presented and slowly developed. It itself, did not approach what it was presented to defend, but DID point out a strength of Romo. That can THEN be used to develop a realistic and MEASUREABLE direction of conduct...but NOT limited to that single indicator. That type of indicator is good ONLY when associated with a group of indicators, if one is considering present team direction.

9. If I WERE to make an assessment independent of what was presented as being the publications view, and then put into perspective by myself, to gain a potential direction...WITH discussion and debate, then I would say that Tony is STILL growing within the constraints of this Dallas Cowboy team. He is a strong quarterback, that has shown, as when he went for a glitzy girlfriend, that he makes personal mistakes in his role. That isn't good, but can be recovered from. He was TOLD by Bill Parcells of the tripfalls in making BAD habits. Bad habits have to be stopped, then REPLACED. The evaluations that were presented, SHOW that the end result is NOT where this team hopes and even anticipates will be the end result. That IS shown, and was done quite adequately by my additions of discussion. No, that wasn't dribble and misdirection, by concise and applied direction, trying NOT to dominate a potential for debate and discussion, as was EXPRESSED in my first added post.

To take this back to the criteria of a site strong posting:

This team is growing through having to address and be challenged by very good offenses, and then more recently, by this year's very dominant defenses. That is a growth process, but the team still has succeeded by having gained control of the NFC East.

This is not a minor achievement at the halfway mark in the season. That establishes a credability, whether it is acknowledged as such or not. That IS part of the analytical process, and not just APPLICATION of a cherry picked stat grouping. Stat sheets can be offered all day, but would continue to be dry and uninteresting reads...ultimately time consuming and missing the mark due to sustained direction, and not doing what I try to do...arrive at conclusion on topic, not style and people involved in the process.

Back to subject, Tony has shown that he is resiliant and up to here, never shunned listening, studying, and continuing to work his posterior anatomical body part off, to change. Well, it's time again.

Kurt Warner had to gain his sophisticated skills, by drilling both quickness in delivery and also accuracy. When completely focused, as with the all or nothing adrenaline situations, Tony is able to, when his mental process is clear, to pin point and deliver on target and timely throws. He is successful in a generalized direction at leadership. He has been successful, except in high pressure games. He has YET to put that aspect on the carpet and make it more than wishful anticipation on the part of fans. He still has THAT part of the road to walk through.

Well guess what? That part of the journey is about to commence, following the final bridge of transitioning, Thursday against the Raiders. He has one more 'dress rehearsal' from which to establish his own sense of proportion, direction, and strength from which to attack and survive what is approaching afterwards. He will be facing teams with BOTH very strong defenses AND very strong offenses, going into the black and blue month of December.

What does this mean...this, the gate of opportunity is NOW opening. We have full view of potential. Who can affect HOW Tony responds and develops through this gate. He has a lot of strengths from which to draw, and a lot of skill himself....but as the past denotes...the product is NOT finished yet.

So in other words you are basing your theory on nothing but your own opinion with no hard residual facts that can be shared and than want people to try and discredit it.

That is really rather lame.... don't you think?

 

[PBJTime]

I'll add a few more things and then I have to go, so forgive me if I don't respond until later.

You pointed to Eli as an example of a leader of his team, yet if it wasn't for Tyree's circus catch (which was thrown high), then he may likely not be the "leader" he now apparently is.

Meanwhile, we are also a Crayton drop away from not having this conversation either.

These are merely just two thoughts to consider.

Lastly, your posts ARE very meandering, whether you realize it or not. Being concise can be a very effective way of getting your points across.

 

[CosmicCowboy]

Geez, and I thought if Romo had two 'good' wideouts his efficency rating would be up. silly me!:

 

[PBJTime]

I'll add a few more things and then I have to go, so forgive me if I don't respond until later.

You pointed to Eli as an example of a leader of his team, yet if it wasn't for Tyree's circus catch (which was thrown high), then he may likely not be the "leader" he now apparently is.

Meanwhile, we are also a Crayton drop away from not having this conversation either.

These are merely just two thoughts to consider.

Lastly, your posts meander, whether you realize it or not. Being concise can be a very effective way of getting your points across.

 

[CCBoy]

So in other words you are basing your theory on nothing but your own opinion with no hard residual facts that can be shared and than want people to try and discredit it.

That is really rather lame.... don't you think?

No, I didn't repeat aspects concerning Herd and that was included to show recent lack of relevance to a dynamic and all empowering quality to the QB rating of 103 two minutes from the end of a half, and that unsubstantiated by A point of reference in season.

When you stated that you didn't even BOTHER to read explanation ONLY explains why you DON'T understand direction of intent and application. You failed to achieve first, a base of comparison, and then failed to glean attempt...no, that makes your attempt a failure in it's start, without addressing negative aspect and indicators that show direction. No, you went directly to such elevating an aspect, as popularity and a one sentence covering of everything in your kitchen.

You first discount a publication such as The Sporting News, which is on par as to credability as would Pro Football Weekly...and as to opinion, compared to a stat sheet....the simplicity of this total NON argument can be concisely paralled with demonstrated retention ability:




Put any number of pieces of papers, filled with stats up against the perspective of Bill Parcells and weep!


And go figure why people cry and weep in unison after the repeating of a stereotype of rose colored. Great insights there....

as to meandering, if I wanted to comprise an article, then that would be presented in completeness and presented as such. I brought imput of a lengthy article in The Sporting News. I then added a perspective to approach a topic.

1. Problems in performances in FOUR games by Romo this season. He has learned to limit the extremes of bad performance, but has still shown a present tendency to lose focus and deliver a poor ball many times a game. That is an indicator, that can be viewed over times, as the both the team and he adjust to correct that.

2. I further added that how Romo and this offense progresses, is a value that CAN be realisticly used in a later appraisal of Wade Phillips at the conclusion of this season. It will tell us fans, just how effective a coach he is at the head of an organization. That is due to the present situation demonstrated in lack of top performance by the passing offense. I think that WELL involves negative aspects directly related to the function of Tony Romo. That is plain and simplly, the cause of the problem, affected by many other factors. After all is said and done, he throws the ball. In the current mix of Dallas offense, throwing the ball is about 60 % of play. Then, when total effect is seven whole points a game for two consecutive games...that doesn't require a neat stat, and using an oriental expression: Som ting wong!

No, I wasn't meandering, I presented what was provided, as a reference, and then added my part to that discussion. I touched upon things affecting the fans of this team, and their continual assault and bombardment with doom and gloom and generalized name callings and cherry type of stats thrown for immediate effect, and without perspective. Perspective is a gut feeling that is arrived at, and not dependent upon a specific point at discussion.

If more were thrown directly at topic, then more would have appeared to have been relevant. I almost solely have carried a discussion, except for the addition by AdamJT, WHICH still hasn't been addressed and developed in a rational fashion beyond stereotype. That not hitting mark or direction...hey, that is what it was.

If getting a social label is all of what discussion involves...I'll now pass that social sophistication.Not into the labeling game. Just wanted to talk some good 'ol fashioned and real football....guess a stat is the only view for football? Ha....played it, and still don't live and breath numbers and astericks. I love a good open field tackle, a neat run, and Marion Barber dancing after eight yards.

 

[CCBoy]

Geez, and I thought if Romo had two 'good' wideouts his efficency rating would be up. silly me!:

Go figure, maybe stats will prove your point...

 

[PBJTime]

No, I didn't repeat aspects concerning Herd and that was included to show recent lack of relevance to a dynamic and all empowering quality to the QB rating of 103, and that unsubstantiated by A point of reference. When you stated that you didn't even BOTHER to read explanation ONLY explains why you DON'T understand direction of intent and application. You failed to achieve first, a base of comparison, and then failed to glean attempt...no, that makes your attempt a failure in it's start, without addressing negative aspect and indicators that show direction. No, you went directly to such elevating an aspect, as popularity and a one sentence covering of everything in your kitchen.

You first discount a publication such as The Sporting News, which is on par as to credability as would Pro Football Weekly...and as to opinion, compared to a stat sheet....the simplicity of this total NON argument can be concisely paralled with demonstrated retention ability:




Put any number of pieces of papers, filled with stats up against the perspective of Bill Parcells and weep!


And go figure why people cry and weep in unison after the repeating of a stereotype of rose colored. Great insights there....

I'm guessing this was really directed at me?

And, before I go any further (as you seem intent on belittling people who don't have the time for you long-winded approach), for the love of Jeebus, get the little things right. It's credibility. It's been bugging me since your first post.

Now, you are simply repeating what I've said. You used that one instance to discredit the 103 QB rating. You said it yourself. There are always exceptions to a rule, and that is all you've really proven.

I didn't fully discredit anybody, but I don't care if it's the President of the United States, an opinion is still just an opinion. A list of the best QB leaders from them is no more relevant than one from me. Eyes can deceive and that's where interpreting objective data and stats can be beneficial. Also, a group mentality can greatly influence perception of a player, no?

Look, you write such long-winded, meandering posts, that all of your words and points lose value. I'm not sure too many people know exactly what your point is, so people will pick and choose from the wide variety that you have offered. You need to be more concise, plain and simple, especially when communicating through text.

 

[CCBoy]

I'll add a few more things and then I have to go, so forgive me if I don't respond until later.

You pointed to Eli as an example of a leader of his team, yet if it wasn't for Tyree's circus catch (which was thrown high), then he may likely not be the "leader" he now apparently is.

Meanwhile, we are also a Crayton drop away from not having this conversation either.

These are merely just two thoughts to consider.

Lastly, your posts meander, whether you realize it or not. Being concise can be a very effective way of getting your points across.

See, your additions were 'non descriptive' and without statistic...where's the beef....

No, the discussion is relevant as what you reference was parts of a different team's past...and everything in this NFL revolves around a yearly clock. This year has some problems that have to be overcome..and rushing to an accumulation of previous year's statistics NOWHERE approaches the real deal for this year. Observations DO get to the meet more quickly, when principals are applied, and there you go again...to the information provided by the initial thread. That is where things are for THIS season...ignore it if you wish. Understand them if you want to know what are the functional and transitional parts...but enjoy the Cowboys.

That does NOT involve individual worth or relevance at any point...

 

[CCBoy]

I'm guessing this was really directed at me?

And, before I go any further (as you seem intent on belittling people who don't have the time for you long-winded approach), for the love of Jeebus, get the little things right. It's credibility. It's been bugging me since your first post.

Now, you are simply repeating what I've said. You used that one instance to discredit the 103 QB rating. You said it yourself. There are always exceptions to a rule, and that is all you've really proven.

I didn't fully discredit anybody, but I don't care if it's the President of the United States, an opinion is still just an opinion. A list of the best QB leaders from them is no more relevant than one from me. Eyes can deceive and that's where interpreting objective data and stats can be beneficial. Also, a group mentality can greatly influence perception of a player, no?

Look, you write such long-winded, meandering posts, that all of your words and points lose value. I'm not sure too many people know exactly what your point is, so people will pick and choose from the wide variety that you have offered. You need to be more concise, plain and simple, especially when communicating through text.

I'm sorry, I thought part of the function here was discussion of elements...and my purpose HAS been established for this thread. You want a complete blow by blow imput of observed clarity on a broad spectrum of things...and when YOU miss the humor of the expressed credability...and your focus on subject is lost. I expressed in terms of talk. Not the format of a lecture or even a defined article. I added my perspective...which IS the start of a discussion. That there is refusal to approach the real topic lines does not discredit subject matter...and when the sole reference of credibility is presentation format and NOT validity of subject...then you are expressing a class filled stereotype instead of exchange of information. I'm not a ring tapper and don't attempt to comply with that ease of convenience. I don't have any such problem in associating directly to topic and evolving my thought process to dealing with subject and NOT format...sorry you have so many hangups. I'm NOT a ring tapper...don't like the message, ignore it. As to insulting others...nope, sorry, addressed specific issues as expressed. Nope, didn't include sterotyped association as to means of presentment as well. Don't like finished thoughts in conflict, search out the perfect world that expresses directly in compliance with your desires, not discussion.

To point, football was directly addressed by myself...and it's NOT my job to go out and seek and fetch stats and underlying information that you yourself don't offer for comparative value. That is more atuned to Dog, go fetch...sorry...not into a Kennel Ration routine. Try another dog...

plenty of football was offered, and if non-acceptance of a single stat and style of expression is YOUR stumbling block, go into public education...and then establish your credabilities as such. I don't give up my sense of expression due to format. This still is America, and I happen to be a fan who weathered the Cowboys becoming America's team...sorry. Talk football, or I'll just quit with the thread. Your football, so prove YOUR point. For the record, I finished college as well as a career both in the Army and in public service...but I'm NOT a preppie in compliance.

 

[Stautner]

I'm sorry, I thought part of the function here was discussion of elements...and my purpose HAS been established for this thread. You want a complete blow by blow imput of observed clarity on a broad spectrum of things...and when YOU miss the humor of the expressed credability...and your focus on subject is lost. I expressed in terms of talk. Not the format of a lecture or even a defined article. I added my perspective...which IS the start of a discussion. That there is refusal to approach the real topic lines does not discredit subject matter...and when the sole reference of credibility is presentation format and NOT validity of subject...then you are expressing a class filled stereotype instead of exchange of information. I'm not a ring tapper and don't attempt to comply with that ease of convenience. I don't have any such problem in associating directly to topic and evolving my thought process to dealing with subject and NOT format...sorry you have so many hangups. I'm NOT a ring tapper...don't like the message, ignore it. As to insulting others...nope, sorry, addressed specific issues as expressed. Nope, didn't include sterotyped association as to means of presentment as well. Don't like finished thoughts in conflict, search out the perfect world that expresses directly in compliance with your desires, not discussion.

To point, football was directly addressed by myself...and it's NOT my job to go out and seek and fetch stats and underlying information that you yourself don't offer for comparative value. That is more atuned to Dog, go fetch...sorry...not into a Kennel Ration routine. Try another dog...

plenty of football was offered, and if non-acceptance of a single stat and style of expression is YOUR stumbling block, go into public education...and then establish your credabilities as such. I don't give up my sense of expression due to format. This still is America, and I happen to be a fan who weathered IT'S becoming America's team...sorry. Talk football, or I'll just quit with the thread. Your football, so prove YOUR point.

Now this is funny. It's rambling. sometimes jibberish and damn near impossible to follow, but it's funny.

 

[Vtwin]

Now this is funny. It's rambling. sometimes jibberish and damn near impossible to follow, but it's funny.

Actually,

It's one of the best posts I've ever read here and sums up the nature of this forum to a T.


Good topic CC. Your initial post is spot on. Let's hope Tony gets it and works hard to complete his development into a championship caliber QB.

I have faith that he will.

 

[superpunk]

This thread reminds me of a typical high-school college term paper, which trades in the use of large, cumbersome words for actual content, simply because the instructor has demanded a 20 page essay, front and back in 12 point Arial, and the student needs filler material.

The paper really has nothing to say, but it must take a long time saying it.

Sheezus.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

In the immortal words of George Elliot...

"Blessed is the man who having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence to the fact."

 

[Vtwin]

"The colossal misunderstanding of our time is the assumption that insight will work with people who are unmotivated to change. Communication does not depend on syntax, or eloquence, or rhetoric, or articulation but on the emotional context in which the message is being heard. People can only hear you when they are moving toward you, and they are not likely to when your words are pursuing them. Even the choicest words lose their power when they are used to overpower. Attitudes are the real figures of speech."


Edwin H Freidman

 

[PBJTime]

See, your additions were 'non descriptive' and without statistic...where's the beef....

No, the discussion is relevant as what you reference was parts of a different team's past...and everything in this NFL revolves around a yearly clock. This year has some problems that have to be overcome..and rushing to an accumulation of previous year's statistics NOWHERE approaches the real deal for this year. Observations DO get to the meet more quickly, when principals are applied, and there you go again...to the information provided by the initial thread. That is where things are for THIS season...ignore it if you wish. Understand them if you want to know what are the functional and transitional parts...but enjoy the Cowboys.

That does NOT involve individual worth or relevance at any point...

What would be the point of me taking the time to look up and interpret statistics if you're simply going to dismiss them based on your belief in a few guys' opinions? You've already proven you will easily do that after Adam provided his input.