Dear Wade Philips

[zrinkill]

He didn't say he would not get in the HOF guy, in fact he said the contrary. I notice a pattern with you - insult and provoke any and all who disagree with you. You really are pathetic. Have you contributed anything to this thread other than your usual insulting BS?

Quite frankly, BP's failure to deliver anything significant in Big D probably hurts his chances. He probably will get in eventually. Time will tell.

When the question is if George Siefert is gettin in the Hall ...... I will ask your opinion kid.

 

[TheProphet]

And...just where did I say that he won't get in?

Randy, one thing you will notice about this board is that a few guys around here do nothing but attempt to insult and provoke anyone who thinks outside the company line. They post very few opinions themselves, but only attack other folks opinions relentlessly. I think you are already figuring out who they are.

While I disagree with you about BP being the reason JuJones is middling, you have expressed your opinion in a respectful manner.

 

[zrinkill]

And...just where did I say that he won't get in?

I know you did not say he would not get in ....... but you said it was not a lock .... and we both know that it is ....

Anyway I am at work so my original post sounded more abbrasive than I meant for it too.

 

[TheProphet]

When the question is if George Siefert is gettin in the Hall ...... I will ask your opinion kid.

That's fine with me...punk. Mighty tough and provoking talk coming from a guy who is hiding safely behind a computer monitor in the cellar of his momma's house. Shouldn't you be in school, or is reading and writing not too high on your priority list?

 

[TheProphet]

I know you did not say he would not get in ....... but you said it was not a lock .... and we both know that it is ....

Anyway I am at work so my original post sounded more abbrasive than I meant for it too.

:laugh1:

 

[randy932]

It has nothing to do with being all-knowing.

It has everything to do with having little tolerance for crap that is completely made up, just because of personal feelings about a player or coach (see trade Roy Williams thread for examples). So, things are embellished to make them sound more condemnatory. It also has a little to do with not being interested in having exchanges like this;

"Person X said this, so we know that he feels this way."

"He never said that."

"Yes he did, he totally did."

"Prove it."

"I can't be troubled to prove that."

If you can't prove something, don't bring it up. And if you're going to bring something up, don't embellish it so that it supports your stance, and then dance when asked to back your claim up.

BS. I did not "totally make it up and you know it. I repeated it as close as exact as I remember it and the meaning was not changed one bit. I suggest that you either become a little more tolerant, or, you practice what you preach. If you think someone has "totally made something up" then, using your logic, you should prove it.

I really don't give a rat's behind what you will "tolerate". You can go butt a stump for all I care. Bottom line is you jumped in the middle of a conversation and basically called me a liar. You are wrong. The words may have been slightly off, but the meaning wasn't. Were you assigned the position of "Semantic Sherriff" or did you just self-proclaim it? Bottom line is Parcells himself said that he reined in Julius. I feel that he might be a better back if he was "unreined". Nothing you say can change my mind about that.
You already have your mind made up that Julius will not be a good back under Wade Phillips. You have nothing to base that on, since you have never seen Julius play under Wade Phillips' coaching. I haven't either, but I am eager and willing to wait and see. You have already made your mind up. Yep, way to have no tolerence for "made-up crap."

 

[zrinkill]

My take on this whole thing is this ....

I do not believe Parcells "ruined" JJ ...... but I do think he had JJ running in a style that did not match his skills .....

Parcells always tried to make a player fit the system ...... not make the system fit the player ....

JJ could never create anything in Parcells offense because he was asked to do a certain thing.

Will JJ get better with a new offensive system ? I dont know .... but I think we should try him at least one more year to find out ....

 

[superpunk]

BS. I did not "totally make it up and you know it. I repeated it as close as exact as I remember it and the meaning was not changed one bit. I suggest that you either become a little more tolerant, or, you practice what you preach. If you think someone has "totally made something up" then, using your logic, you should prove it.

I really don't give a rat's behind what you will "tolerate". You can go butt a stump for all I care. Bottom line is you jumped in the middle of a conversation and basically called me a liar. You are wrong. The words may have been slightly off, but the meaning wasn't. Were you assigned the position of "Semantic Sherriff" or did you just self-proclaim it? Bottom line is Parcells himself said that he reined in Julius. I feel that he might be a better back if he was "unreined". Nothing you say can change my mind about that.
You already have your mind made up that Julius will not be a good back under Wade Phillips. You have nothing to base that on, since you have never seen Julius play under Wade Phillips' coaching. I haven't either, but I am eager and willing to wait and see. You have already made your mind up. Yep, way to have no tolerence for "made-up crap."

More blustering, and still no proof.

"Parcells didn't say that"

"He totally did. I remember it.Nothing you can say will change my mind about that "

"Prove it."

"No."

And that's where we are. You declaring that something is so without a shred of proof. Whoopee. Then, you finish up with some diatribe about how I've already made up my mind, despite my expressed hope that Julius can somehow become more than the average back he has been if we stick with him. But you already know how I feel about it, unequivocally.

Right. :jerk:

 

[zrinkill]

Oh my...yet more tough talk. No doubt you live in the fanciest trailor on the park right? Of course you would not post a phoney address just to appear like a tough guy, now would you??? Punk.

No need to pull up Philo's account, he's his own man, just as I am...unlike what you apparantly are.

Ok kid ...... keep being a coward ....... now get on phillo and tell youself "Large"

 

[TheProphet]

Ok kid ...... keep being a coward ....... now get on phillo and tell youself "Large"

Coward? Who's being the coward? I'm not the one insulting, provoking and namecalling while safely tucked away behind a computer monitor in his momma's house. Quite the contrary in fact.
No punk, the coward is the guy who antagonizes while safely hiding behind his mother's skirt. :laugh2: Your game is easy to figure out.

 

[zrinkill]

Coward? Who's being the coward? I'm not the one insulting, provoking and namecalling while safely tucked away behind a computer monitor in his momma's house. Quite the contrary in fact.
No punk, the coward is the guy who antagonizes while safely hiding behind his mother's skirt. :laugh2: Your game is easy to figure out.

Thats all you and your alter ego do kid ..... start threads to start arguments

Now I said we should continue this somewhere else but if you are to much of a coward ...... well? I guess thats just you .....

Oh by the way ..... you could use either username you wanted to .....

 

[randy932]

More blustering, and still no proof.

"Parcells didn't say that"

"He totally did. I remember it.Nothing you can say will change my mind about that "

"Prove it."

"No."

And that's where we are. You declaring that something is so without a shred of proof. Whoopee. Then, you finish up with some diatribe about how I've already made up my mind, despite my expressed hope that Julius can somehow become more than the average back he has been if we stick with him. But you already know how I feel about it, unequivocally.

Right. :jerk:

Semantics. It's always there when your argument stinks. I have a shred of proof. maybe not much more than a shred, but, it is more than you have brought to the table. i have the testimony of 5stars. You have...semantics.

Once again, I ask, is "Semantics Sherriff" an assigned mantle, or is it merely self-proclaimed?

As I mentioned earlier, I feel that you may find that you would be more effective if you tried to point out their mistakes, instead of your attempts to bully someone into submission(I guess some people just get off on that stuff). You tell me I must prove that my statements are a verbatim repeat of the exact words used in the PC, yet, you assert that your argument has no need to have to meet the same criteria. lmao. My argument has as much, or more, merit as yours does. I was not talking to you. You jumped in and basically said I was a liar. Prove it.

 

[superpunk]

Semantics. It's always there when your argument stinks. I have a shred of proof. maybe not much more than a shred, but, it is more than you have brought to the table. i have the testimony of 5stars. You have...semantics.

Once again, I ask, is "Semantics Sherriff" an assigned mantle, or is it merely self-proclaimed?

As I mentioned earlier, I feel that you may find that you would be more effective if you tried to point out their mistakes, instead of your attempts to bully someone into submission(I guess some people just get off on that stuff). You tell me I must prove that my statements are a verbatim repeat of the exact words used in the PC, yet, you assert that your argument has no need to have to meet the same criteria. lmao. My argument has as much, or more, merit as yours does. I was not talking to you. You jumped in and basically said I was a liar. Prove it.

My argument is "Prove that what you said is true."

I don't even think you can measure the merit of that statement.

You would prefer to take the easy way out, and not prove anything. That's fine. Have fun with this discussion.

 

[randy932]

My take on this whole thing is this ....

I do not believe Parcells "ruined" JJ ...... but I do think he had JJ running in a style that did not match his skills .....

Parcells always tried to make a player fit the system ...... not make the system fit the player ....

JJ could never create anything in Parcells offense because he was asked to do a certain thing.

Will JJ get better with a new offensive system ? I dont know .... but I think we should try him at least one more year to find out ....

That's pretty much my take on the whole thing too.

 

[zrinkill]

That's pretty much my take on the whole thing too.

Hopefully we will see the second half of his rookie year jj more this year than the last 2

 

[5Stars]

BS. I did not "totally make it up and you know it. I repeated it as close as exact as I remember it and the meaning was not changed one bit. I suggest that you either become a little more tolerant, or, you practice what you preach. If you think someone has "totally made something up" then, using your logic, you should prove it.

I really don't give a rat's behind what you will "tolerate". You can go butt a stump for all I care. Bottom line is you jumped in the middle of a conversation and basically called me a liar. You are wrong. The words may have been slightly off, but the meaning wasn't. Were you assigned the position of "Semantic Sherriff" or did you just self-proclaim it? Bottom line is Parcells himself said that he reined in Julius. I feel that he might be a better back if he was "unreined". Nothing you say can change my mind about that.
You already have your mind made up that Julius will not be a good back under Wade Phillips. You have nothing to base that on, since you have never seen Julius play under Wade Phillips' coaching. I haven't either, but I am eager and willing to wait and see. You have already made your mind up. Yep, way to have no tolerence for "made-up crap."

Give it up, Randy932, and move on...it's not worth the hassle. I know what Parcells said, and I sure as hell am not going to spend 3 hours trying to find something for someone that if they want to refresh their memory, can find it themselves.

I could care less if Julius is released in the next 5 minutes, but what Parcells alluded to and what you are saying is the same thing...even for those that don't want to hear...

Carry on...

 

[5Stars]

My take on this whole thing is this ....

I do not believe Parcells "ruined" JJ ...... but I do think he had JJ running in a style that did not match his skills .....

Parcells always tried to make a player fit the system ...... not make the system fit the player ....

JJ could never create anything in Parcells offense because he was asked to do a certain thing.

Will JJ get better with a new offensive system ? I dont know .... but I think we should try him at least one more year to find out ....

Well said...

 

[superpunk]

Give it up, Randy932, and move on...it's not worth the hassle. I know what Parcells said, and I sure as hell am not going to spend 3 hours trying to find something for someone that if they want to refresh their memory, can find it themselves.

When you say something, you should be able to back it up.

My apologies if this standard of debate is foreign to you, and you feel it's fine to just spout off with no backing evidence - and when asked for proof demand that others find it for themselves.

That is incredibly lame. I know I can find it, and it sure as heck won't take me 3 hours. The burden of proof is not on me, as it is not my point to back up.

This is incredibly simple stuff.

 

[5Stars]

This is incredibly simple stuff.

thanks, big guy! If it's that simple, then you go find it!

See how that works? It's nothing but a circle jerk...

Carry on...

:laugh2:

 

[superpunk]

thanks, big guy! If it's that simple, then you go find it!

See how that works? It's nothing but a circle jerk...

Carry on...

You're either unfamiliar of the accepted rules for debate, or you are incapable of understanding them.