Twitter: D Law message to Tyrone Crawford

[MyFairLady]

No one in NFL history made more money for less production that Crawford. He got paid around 2 million dollars per solo tackle the last 2 years. And people wonder why the defense stinks. It is no surprise that Mr contract year himself chimes in to defend his hot boy buddy. These clowns are historically bad and they don't even care.

 

[Stash]

How much money/resources/draft capital was wasted on the names I mentioned? You're missing the point.

“ Gregory. Byron. Taco. Jaylon. Escobar. Chaz.”

Only Jaylon got a second big money contract. You can probably add them all together and it wouldn’t equal what was wasted on Crawford.

I’m not “missing” anything. Your attempted point is a poor one.

This isn't a defense of Crawford, it's putting him in perspective. You talk as though it's his contract that has held this team back. They've got bigger issues.

No, it’s a poor attempt at minimizing a colossal blunder by pointing at other mistakes.

And with a fixed salary cap and tens of millions totally wasted? It most certainly held this team back. His presence, cost, and lack of impact was a huge detriment to this team.

 

[MyFairLady]

Wasting all the money was insanity and giving Jaylon money but not Byron is insanity. The team constantly makes moves that are insane. Moves are clearly made all the time based on emotion and relationships. This thing is Jerrys play toy. He is gonna keep on playing with it like a toy wether you like it or not.

 

[Haimerej]

“ Gregory. Byron. Taco. Jaylon. Escobar. Chaz.”

Only Jaylon got a second big money contract. You can probably add them all together and it wouldn’t equal what was wasted on Crawford.

I’m not “missing” anything. Your attempted point is a poor one.

You're making my point while it flies over your head. Those were guys they used premium picks on and most aren't even with the team anymore. It’s not about, "second contracts." It’s about a waste of resources. You can't blame Crawford's contract for those decisions.

No, it’s a poor attempt at minimizing a colossal blunder by pointing at other mistakes.

Not minimizing, putting in perspective. It's really quite amusing to see you say Crawford's second contract was more harmful than signing Taco with a 1st rd pick.

And with a fixed salary cap and tens of millions totally wasted? It most certainly held this team back. His presence, cost, and lack of impact was a huge detriment to this team.

You're still arguing a strawman. I get that's what you do, but it still needs to be said.

His second contract wasn't as detrimental as throwing away all those premium picks. Not as detrimental as hiring Rob Ryan, Richard, or McCarthy and his cronies. What about bringing in Hardy? Melton? Paying Zeke? Benching Romo? Playing an old and busted Witten instead of developing younger guys? Last seasons entire FA class? "WR by committee." Going into a season with Joseph Randle as the starting RB. This is still just player acquisition stuff. We haven't even got to in game decisions.

If all we had was your rhetoric about Crawford, you'd think signing him was a bigger error than anything else.

 

[Stash]

You're making my point while it flies over your head. Those were guys they used premium picks on and most aren't even with the team anymore. It’s not about, "second contracts." It’s about a waste of resources. You can't blame Crawford's contract for those decisions.

I don’t. It’s a separate issue. One the you’re trying in vain to connect.

Not minimizing, putting in perspective. It's really quite amusing to see you say Crawford's second contract was more harmful than signing Taco with a 1st rd pick.

One doesn’t excuse the other. Sad attempt.

You're still arguing a strawman. I get that's what you do, but it still needs to be said.

Don’t try to use words you clearly don’t grasp.

His second contract wasn't as detrimental as throwing away all those premium picks. Not as detrimental as hiring Rob Ryan, Richard, or McCarthy and his cronies. What about bringing in Hardy? Melton? Paying Zeke? Benching Romo? Playing an old and busted Witten instead of developing younger guys? Last seasons entire FA class? "WR by committee." Going into a season with Joseph Randle as the starting RB. This is still just player acquisition stuff. We haven't even got to in game decisions.

More attempted deflection. Nobody buying what you’re selling.

If all we had was your rhetoric about Crawford, you'd think signing him was a bigger error than anything else.

One of the biggest mistakes the team has ever made. Despite your sad attempts to minimize it.

 

[BigStar]

Think some of the "anger" is he is representative of why we don't sign any good FAs...we overpay for our own avg players than play dumb why all the money is spent. Someone early pointed out, we paid for a Tomlinson but got Crawford, and didn't shake the cage on that signing bc of this past mess, etc. Don't overpay to keep your own just to do it, and he's exactly that personified.

 

[Haimerej]

I don’t. It’s a separate issue. One the you’re trying in vain to connect.

Sigh...

Of course it's separate. My point is those decisions were more harmful.

One doesn’t excuse the other. Sad attempt.

Attempt at what? What am I excusing? Are you this dense or do I just bring it out of you?

Don’t try to use words you clearly don’t grasp.

Your inability to comprehend isn't my failure.

More attempted deflection. Nobody buying what you’re selling.

To quote you- "don’t try to use words you clearly don’t grasp." Citing examples of mistakes that were bigger than giving Crawford a second contract isn't, "deflection." It’s called evidence.

One of the biggest mistakes the team has ever made. Despite your sad attempts to minimize it.

What's, "sad," is your inability to deal with differing opinions.

 

[blueblood70]

can any of you fans not be miserable pos negative Nancys at any time? Dlaw was trying to give props to TC and all 75% of the responses are diarrhea mouth attitudes toward TC or Dlaw..

get over yourselves allow some positivity in here. Bunch of depressing negative fans around here..

 

[Stash]

Sigh...

Of course it's separate. My point is those decisions were more harmful.

My point is that nobody cares! Tell yourself whatever you need to in order to apply salve to the wound. Pointing to other mistakes doesn't erase this one.

Attempt at what? What am I excusing? Are you this dense or do I just bring it out of you?

Your attempted points just suck that bad.

Your inability to comprehend isn't my failure.

I have no problem comprehending valid points when they're presented (hint).

To quote you- "don’t try to use words you clearly don’t grasp." Citing examples of mistakes that were bigger than giving Crawford a second contract isn't, "deflection." It’s called evidence.

"Evidence" of what? That you want to try to distract from this mistake by pointing to others? That's just sad.

What's, "sad," is your inability to deal with differing opinions.

It's my bull**** detector. And people passing off nonsense as "opinion". This isn't an opinion, it's an attempted excuse. And a poor one at that. People have the right to opinions, not revisionist history.

 

[Haimerej]

My point is that nobody cares! Tell yourself whatever you need to in order to apply salve to the wound. Pointing to other mistakes doesn't erase this one.

So the answer is, "yes," you really are this dense. Show me where I attempted to, "erase," the mistake. I'll even quote my first response and bold some points you clearly missed-

Monumental? That's where you seemingly jump the shark. I'm sure if we thought for a bit we could come up with 20+ mistakes more monumental than re-signing him. They drafted him the same year they traded up for Claiborne. Just look at the drafts since- Gregory. Byron. Taco. Jaylon. Escobar. Chaz.

That's 7 worse (at best comparable) decisions and we haven't even talked FA yet.

You realize I came at this in the context of it being a mistake, right?

Your attempted points just suck that bad.

Grade school banter ftw.

I have no problem comprehending valid points when they're presented (hint).

You actually do. Remember before when you said I was deflecting? Your, "response," here is a perfect example. Can't wait for you to get all huffy and run away. "Say when..."

"Evidence" of what? That you want to try to distract from this mistake by pointing to others? That's just sad.

Evidence that there were mistakes made that were more detrimental than giving him a second contract. But you probably know that. You're just muddying the waters trying to save face. (It’s not working)

It's my bull**** detector. And people passing off nonsense as "opinion". This isn't an opinion, it's an attempted excuse. And a poor one at that. People have the right to opinions, not revisionist history.

What are you even talking about here? Revisionist history? It's like you retained a few buzz words and just throw them up when you can't deal with what's being said.

Do you understand that scaling mistakes doesn't mean they aren't mistakes?

 

[Stash]

So the answer is, "yes," you really are this dense. Show me where I attempted to, "erase," the mistake. I'll even quote my first response and bold some points you clearly missed-

I didn;t say erase, I said you attemoted to minimize it. There's the actual strawman argument you tried to bring up earlier. A fine example on your part here.

You realize I came at this in the context of it being a mistake, right?

Is that some sort of a concession on your part? Admitting the obvious?

You actually do. Remember before when you said I was deflecting? Your, "response," here is a perfect example. Can't wait for you to get all huffy and run away. "Say when..."

As long as there are homers trying to downplay the Crawford debacle, I'm not "running away" anywhere. I'm happy to continue to help you look stupid.

Evidence that there were mistakes made that were more detrimental than giving him a second contract. But you probably know that. You're just muddying the waters trying to save face. (It’s not working)

Yay! More "projection"! Your go-to approach. The guy attempting (and failing miserably) to "muddy the waters" is the guy trying to point to other mistakes in a vain attempt to minimize this one. Still not working!

What are you even talking about here? Revisionist history? It's like you retained a few buzz words and just throw them up when you can't deal with what's being said.

Do you understand that scaling mistakes doesn't mean they aren't mistakes?

Do you realize that nobody else cares? Other mistakes don't erase this one. That's the point that you refuse to get.

 

[Haimerej]

I didn;t say erase, I said you attemoted to minimize it. There's the actual strawman argument you tried to bring up earlier. A fine example on your part here.

I've got you so cornered you can't even remember your last post.

Pointing to other mistakes doesn't erase this one.

This must be embarrassing for you.

Is that some sort of a concession on your part? Admitting the obvious?

No. It was an attempt to help you comprehend what I said. You obviously need it.

As long as there are homers trying to downplay the Crawford debacle, I'm not "running away" anywhere. I'm happy to continue to help you look stupid.

I assume you were looking in a mirror when you typed that last sentence.

Yay! More "projection"! Your go-to approach. The guy attempting (and failing miserably) to "muddy the waters" is the guy trying to point to other mistakes in a vain attempt to minimize this one. Still not working!

You obviously don't understand scaling. At least you're being exposed as hysterical.

Do you realize that nobody else cares? Other mistakes don't erase this one. That's the point that you refuse to get.

I realize that you're desperate to avoid coming to grips with your reflexive tendency to disagree with me, but it's hilarious you started this EXACT post by saying I strawmanned your argument because you didn't say, "erase," then end the same post by saying I'm trying to erase it.

Have another drink.

 

[Stash]

I've got you so cornered you can't even remember your last post.

Hardly. Don't flatter yourself. You're now reduced to playing word games to continue to try to deflect from the actual points of the conversation.

This must be embarrassing for you.

Not in the least. I'm not the goof trying to downplay $45 million wasted.

No. It was an attempt to help you comprehend what I said. You obviously need it.

I need zero help to comprehend the lame, sad, excuse making attempts.

I assume you were looking in a mirror when you typed that last sentence.

Nope, directly at you. Point again at some other mistake to excuse this one.

You obviously don't understand scaling. At least you're being exposed as hysterical.

"Scaling" now? Once again, nobody cares! Keep trying!

I realize that you're desperate to avoid coming to grips with your reflexive tendency to disagree with me, but it's hilarious you started this EXACT post by saying I strawmanned your argument because you didn't say, "erase," then end the same post by saying I'm trying to erase it.

Have another drink.

Stuck on this now? More attempted deflection?

 

[MyFairLady]

can any of you fans not be miserable pos negative Nancys at any time? Dlaw was trying to give props to TC and all 75% of the responses are diarrhea mouth attitudes toward TC or Dlaw..

get over yourselves allow some positivity in here. Bunch of depressing negative fans around here..

If these clowns want to pat themselves on the back for sucking balls they can go right ahead. I am here for the reality check. If they want a pat on the back from me they gotta do better than 1 tackle for every 2 million bucks.

 

[kskboys]

He was a solid DT. Overpaid, upgradable? Yes, but solid.

+ the Cowboys did him no favors moving him from DT to DE a million times.

Crawford is so much better than most realize. As soon as we overpaid him, he couldn't win. Because it was impossible to play up to his salary.

 

[blueblood70]

Crawford is so much better than most realize. As soon as we overpaid him, he couldn't win. Because it was impossible to play up to his salary.

pretty much every player on a new big contract..they become targets

 

[MyFairLady]

pretty much every player on a new big contract..they become targets

Yeah sure the guy who made two million per tackle the last 2 years is being unfairly targeted.

 

[Haimerej]

Hardly. Don't flatter yourself. You're now reduced to playing word games to continue to try to deflect from the actual points of the conversation.

Quoting you is word games? Keep digging. I'm sure that'll get you out of the hole.

Not in the least. I'm not the goof trying to downplay $45 million wasted.

No. You're the goof who thinks signing Crawford was-

One of the biggest mistakes the team has ever made.

I guess we can add a lack of historical knowledge to your bag.

I need zero help to comprehend the lame, sad, excuse making attempts.

So you're just trolling? Nah. That's giving you too much credit. You still need help. For example-

Nope, directly at you. Point again at some other mistake to excuse this one.

This is an opportunity to define another term you struggle to understand.

A strawman is when you mischaracterize someone's argument because you can't handle it, e.g. all your attempts at saying I'm excusing the Crawford contract.

"Scaling" now? Once again, nobody cares! Keep trying!

It was scaling from the get go. You're just now catching on because it had to be spoon fed to you.

Stuck on this now? More attempted deflection?

Pointing out your inconsistent arguments isn't deflection. It's showing your inability to have an honest conversation. I know it's hard, but try to keep up.

 

[Stash]

Quoting you is word games? Keep digging. I'm sure that'll get you out of the hole.



No. You're the goof who thinks signing Crawford was-

I'm the guy who knows.

I guess we can add a lack of historical knowledge to your bag.

Not getting distracted. Focusing on the topic at hand.

So you're just trolling? Nah. That's giving you too much credit. You still need help. For example-



This is an opportunity to define another term you struggle to understand.

A strawman is when you mischaracterize someone's argument because you can't handle it, e.g. all your attempts at saying I'm excusing the Crawford contract.



It was scaling from the get go. You're just now catching on because it had to be spoon fed to you.



Pointing out your inconsistent arguments isn't deflection. It's showing your inability to have an honest conversation. I know it's hard, but try to keep up.

Tell you what, I'm done wasting time chasing after nonsense and diversion tactics. If you want to get back to the actual topic, let me know.

 

[Haimerej]

I'm the guy who knows.

Hope you're wearing waders.

Not getting distracted. Focusing on the topic at hand.

Definitely easier than trying to defend your idiotic claim.

Tell you what, I'm done wasting time chasing after nonsense and diversion tactics. If you want to get back to the actual topic, let me know.

Run along. I'd hope you learned something this time but that doesn't appear to be your style.