Twitter: Darren Woodson Snubbed for HOF Again

[OmerV]

I’m on my phone and don’t see post numbers. I haven’t read most of your posts, I’ve only glossed over them. You’re just wasting time rambling on with lengthy posts that are going unread. You have an agenda!

lol, so you are going to claim it isn't there despite me being able to provide exactly where it is located in the thread. Nice ….!

 

[KJJ]

lol - so, again, what was it I said that you objected to? Forget what came later for a minute, and go to the outset of this. What was it about my original comment to you about cumulative INT stats that you had a problem with?

Post a quote where I said a DB that has more career INT’s is automatically better than a DB that had fewer.

 

[KJJ]

lol, so you are going to claim it isn't there despite me being able to provide exactly where it is located in the thread. Nice ….!

Copy and paste it and stop wasting time.

 

[KJJ]

What was it about my original comment to you about cumulative INT stats that you had a problem with?

Are you saying cumulative INT stats isn’t one of the criteria’s for a DB being voted into the Hall of Fame? You don’t think career INTs play an important role in gaining Hall of Fame votes?

 

[OmerV]

Post a quote where I said a DB that has more career INT’s is automatically better than a DB that had fewer.

You used that as a stand alone argument when talking about Charles and Darren Woodson. You didn't say that it showed Charles was better in that particular area, or that it was a key factor, you merely used it as a stand alone argument.

 

[OmerV]

Copy and paste it and stop wasting time.

HERE IT IS … I quoted you, and you backed off what you were saying after I printed this, although you won't admit it.


So, it's your contention that Everson Walls was a better player than Cliff Harris, Troy Polamalu, Steve Atwater and Brian Dawkins.

Hell, even with an apples to apples position comparison you are telling me Everson Walls was a better player than Deion Sanders, Darrell Green, Champ Bailey, Ty Law and Mike Haynes.

So, you want to talk about the HOF ….? Every player I listed above is in the HOF except Walls, and every one of them has fewer INTs than Walls.

Which means the HOF does not share your opinion that a DB with more INTs is automatically a better player than one with fewer INT's.

Face it, it is not the infallible standard you make it out to be, either for judging who is better, or who the HOF will take.

The fallacy you are hanging your hat on is that cumulative stats are as much a function of longevity as they are of quality play. It's a combination of the two things, not just the quality as you suggest.

 

[OmerV]

Are you saying cumulative INT stats isn’t one of the criteria’s for a DB being voted into the Hall of Fame? You don’t think career INTs play an important role in gaining Hall of Fame votes?

No, I never said that. You are grasping at straws.

I only said that cumulative INT stats aren't a stand alone stat, and that they are flawed because longevity is a factor, and the difference between a CB and a Safety is a factor.

In short, I never say INT's weren't a big factor as well, I just said you can't prove who is better with cumulative INT stats without considering other factors

You had the chance to say "that's a valid point, but I still think Charles is better than Darren", and if you had I would have said "I agree", and it would have been done.

 

[KJJ]

You used that as a stand alone argument when talking about Charles and Darren Woodson. You didn't say that it showed Charles was better in that particular area, or that it was a key factor, you merely used it as a stand alone argument.

I did not use that as a stand alone argument when talking about Charles and Darren Woodson. That’s your spin! The argument when comparing Charles and Darren Woodson revolve around career INT’s, career TDs and career return yards. Charles Woodson is one of the few players in NFL history to play all three positions in the secondary.

 

[KJJ]

HERE IT IS … I quoted you, and you backed off what you were saying after I printed this, although you won't admit it.


So, it's your contention that Everson Walls was a better player than Cliff Harris, Troy Polamalu, Steve Atwater and Brian Dawkins.

You won’t find a quote from me saying Everson Walls was a better player than Cliff Harris, Troy Polamalu, Steve Atwater and Brian Dawkins. You continue to post BS!

 

[OmerV]

I did not use that as a stand alone argument when talking about Charles and Darren Woodson. That’s your spin! The argument when comparing Charles and Darren Woodson revolve around career INT’s, career TDs and career return yards. Charles Woodson is one of the few players in NFL history to play all three positions in the secondary.

Here is your exact comment …

Charles Woodson was a lot better than Darren Woodson and it’s not even close. Charles Woodson had 62 career INT’s with 11 TDs compared to 23 INT’s and 2 TDs for Darren Woodson. Some of you need to take off your homer caps.

I don't see how this considers other factors - do you?

 

[KJJ]

No, I never said that. You are grasping at straws.

I only said that cumulative INT stats aren't a stand alone stat, and that they are flawed because longevity is a factor, and the difference between a CB and a Safety is a factor.

I asked you a question. Career INTs are critical to a DB making the Hall of Fame but it’s not the only criteria. A players longevity also plays a part in being voted into the Hall of Fame. It takes a great player to last 18 years in the secondary.

 

[OmerV]

You won’t find a quote from me saying Everson Walls was a better player than Cliff Harris, Troy Polamalu, Steve Atwater and Brian Dawkins. You continue to post BS!

So ….

If I were to falsely say the sun is the biggest planet in the solar system ...

Then you argued Jupiter is bigger than the Earth

I could then say that I never claimed the Earth was bigger than Jupiter because I didn't use those words and never mentioned Jupiter at all.

I see how this works ….

 

[KJJ]

Here is your exact comment …

Charles Woodson was a lot better than Darren Woodson and it’s not even close. Charles Woodson had 62 career INT’s with 11 TDs compared to 23 INT’s and 2 TDs for Darren Woodson. Some of you need to take off your homer caps.

I don't see how this considers other factors - do you?

I also pointed out career touchdowns. Charles Woodson also had almost double the return yards that Darren Woodson had.

 

[KJJ]

So ….

If I were to falsely say the sun is the biggest planet in the solar system ...

Then you argued Jupiter is bigger than the Earth

I could then say that I never claimed the Earth was bigger than Jupiter because I didn't use those words and never mentioned Jupiter at all.

I see how this works ….

And you’re accusing me of rambling on?

 

[OmerV]

I asked you a question. Career INTs are critical to a DB making the Hall of Fame but it’s not the only criteria. A players longevity also plays a part in being voted into the Hall of Fame. It takes a great player to last 18 years in the secondary.

His longevity also plays a part in building those cumulatve stats.

A point I made was that a player with a shorter career can be a better player than one with a longer career, but because he had a shorter career he didn't accumulate that same career stat totals.

That was one of the flaws I pointed out in career stat totals. You didn't accept that before.

And you also didn't accept that safety and CB have different standards before.

You are trying to ease your way into common sense while denying your opposition to it before.

 

[OmerV]

And you’re accusing me of rambling on?

4 very short sentences is rambling on?

I guess we now know the problem. You have no attention span.

You probably just read the first half sentence of my first post to you and decided to argue without even understanding the point that was made.

 

[KJJ]

Which means the HOF does not share your opinion that a DB with more INTs is automatically a better player than one with fewer INT's.

Provide a quote where I said a DB with more INT’s is automatically a better player than one with fewer INT’s. You’ll never find one because I never said it! Lol

 

[KJJ]

4 very short sentences is rambling on?

Go look at the length of some of your posts. You’re putting in a lot of work for only a few sentences in return. lol

 

[OmerV]

Provide a quote where I said a DB with more INT’s is automatically a better player than one with fewer INT’s. You’ll never find one because I never said it! Lol

Again, you made it a stand alone argument without regard for other factors, and when I said there were other factors you argued with that.

As fascinating as this exploration of the bipolar mind has been, I'm dropping out of this. I can't talk to someone that argues without even being able to say what he disagreed with.

 

[KJJ]

Again, you made it a stand alone argument without regard for other factors, and when I said there were other factors you argued with that.

Again, provide a quote where I said a DB with more INT’s is automatically a better player than one with fewer INT’s. Stop diverting and let’s see it!