Give Wade a chance for pete's sake.

[mschmidt64]

so nasically its your opinion on Phillips that matters when it comes to deciding if Phillips is quality or not?

Of course I'm using my opinion.

Who else's opinion would I use?

I've come to the conclusion, as has most of the league, that Wade Phillips is great as a coordinator but somewhat mediocre as a head coach.

and since you say he is not then some imaginary man out there is better?

Not imaginary.

Look, it's really simple.

To horrendously water this down, think of it this way (and keep in mind, this is an extreme simplification):

We all recognize there are good and bad coaches right?

So if I put Wade Phillips in the "bad" category, we've already agreed that "good" exists.

I don't need to prove who is good; it's simply a given that good exists.

What we are debating is whether Phillips is "good" or "bad."

Hence my refusal to fall into the trap that asks me "who is better."

It's a straw man argument. People are trying to get me to set up a false premise so they can tear it down.

 

[BigDFan5]

Of course I'm using my opinion.

Who else's opinion would I use?

I've come to the conclusion, as has most of the league, that Wade Phillips is great as a coordinator but somewhat mediocre as a head coach.



Not imaginary.

Look, it's really simple.

To horrendously water this down, think of it this way (and keep in mind, this is an extreme simplification):

We all recognize there are good and bad coaches right?

So if I put Wade Phillips in the "bad" category, we've already agreed that "good" exists.

I don't need to prove who is good; it's simply a given that good exists.

What we are debating is whether Phillips is "good" or "bad."

Hence my refusal to fall into the trap that asks me "who is better."

It's a straw man argument. People are trying to get me to set up a false premise so they can tear it down.

You are not the person who gets to decide who is good and who is bad.

Nobody is setting a trap for you, we are looking for a logical argument of who is better, you cant make one so you keep on with this imaginary man schtick

 

[mschmidt64]

You are not the person who gets to decide who is good and who is bad.

Obviously not.

Thus, that is what we are debating.

We have all agreed that good coaches exist.

Therefore, if Phillips is bad, as I have suggested, it's a given that we can do better.

If Phillips is good, as others maintain, then maybe we can't do better.

But the argument, as I've said numerous times now, is whether he is good or bad.

Hence it's irrelevant that I name names.

 

[BigDFan5]

Obviously not.

Thus, that is what we are debating.

We have all agreed that good coaches exist.

Therefore, if Phillips is bad, as I have suggested, it's a given that we can do better.

If Phillips is good, as others maintain, then maybe we can't do better.

But the argument, as I've said numerous times now, is whether he is good or bad.

Hence it's irrelevant that I name names.

and talking about phillips is irrelevant because your mind is made up

So the only way to continue is for you to say who and why a certain coach is better

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

That's not circular logic.

It all follows rationally.

If I think Wade is subpar.... and I think that quality candidates exist...

... then it's a given that there are candidates who are better than Wade.

There's nothing circular there.

The debate is whether Phillips is good or bad.

You say Wade is poor quality, you say that there is better quality out there, but you refuse to name said better quality because someone will pick on you for your view of that better said quality.

Circular.

You don't think wade is quality. No problem with that.

You say there is better quality out there but refuse to name who.

Kind of silly to me.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

and talking about phillips is irrelevant because your mind is made up

So the only way to continue is for you to say who and why a certain coach is better

Circular logic.

 

[JPM]

If the Giants, Commanders or Eagles had hired Wade would we have been impressed?
Case closed.

I'd be worried about Romo's saftey when we played them....

 

[BigDFan5]

Circular logic.

 

[mschmidt64]

You say Wade is poor quality, you say that there is better quality out there, but you refuse to name said better quality because someone will pick on you for your view of that better said quality.

Circular.

That's not circular logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_logic

I'm not providing drawing a conclusion that is the disputed part of the argument.

Ie, I believe the Bible, therefore, the Bible is true. That's circular, because someone could dispute belief in the Bible.

I'm saying... we all agree that quality coaches exist. There's no dispute that quality coaches exist out there.

The debate is whether Wade is quality.

You don't think wade is quality. No problem with that.

You say there is better quality out there but refuse to name who.

Kind of silly to me.

If I assume -- and this assumption is the source of the debate -- that Wade is bad, then it only follows that there is good out there, and that such good would be an improvement.

That's not circular.

I don't want to talk about who is better because it's not relevant to my point.

Once the debate over whether Phillips is quality or not is over, we can move onto that.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

That's not circular logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_logic

I'm not providing drawing a conclusion that is the disputed part of the argument.

Ie, I believe the Bible, therefore, the Bible is true. That's circular, because someone could dispute belief in the Bible.

I'm saying... we all agree that quality coaches exist. There's no dispute that quality coaches exist out there.

The debate is whether Wade is quality.



If I assume -- and this assumption is the source of the debate -- that Wade is bad, then it only follows that there is good out there, and that such good would be an improvement.

That's not circular.

I don't want to talk about who is better because it's not relevant to my point.

Once the debate over whether Phillips is quality or not is over, we can move onto that.

:laugh1:

But that is my whole point.

You say in your opinion he is not quality.
You say that since you feel he is not quality than that means there is better quality out there.

Yet when pressed to say which is better quality you refuse to say.

Which brings us full circle to you just saying the same thing but giving no evidence of the better quality.

Circular.

"I don't want to talk about who is better because it's not relevant to my point."

But that is exactly the point...you say one thing, but will not back it up with examples of these mysterious better options.

 

[mschmidt64]

You say in your opinion he is not quality.
You say that since you feel he is not quality than that means there is better quality out there.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I didn't say that SINCE he's not quality that means there are better out there. Such reasoning would be circular, but that's not what I'm saying.

Do you agree that quality coaches exist? That there are some out there? Yes or no?

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I didn't say that SINCE he's not quality that means there are better out there. Such reasoning would be circular, but that's not what I'm saying.

Do you agree that quality coaches exist? That there are some out there? Yes or no?

Sure there are quality coaches out there.

I would have been ok with Rivera.

I don't think I could qualify that the ones available out there are better though.

So if I rank him rivera as tied for the best of the ones I seen available than I can not complain much about what was available and who was taken.

Now if you think there are quality coaches out there available that you would like better...name him. I may not agree with you but at least throw your name out there instead of refusing to do so.

If you want coaches that are not available or would take multiple picks...than it really is not fair to compare because...they were not available.

I mean who would not like to have Little Bill from the pats or some of the other coaches. But that is like crying about not getting an item that you do not have the money to get, it is just a waste of time.

At the end of the day if you don't like him that is cool, that is your opinion and we are all entitled to that.

I just think it would be a little more genuine if you would give who YOU think would be better.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

If the Giants, Commanders or Eagles had hired Wade would we have been impressed?


Case closed.

Was anybody impressed with the Eagles when they hired Andy Reid?

Was anybody impressed with the Skins when they hired Spurrier and then Gibbs?

Two different impressions wound up getting two different results.



YAKUZA

 

[NoDak Cowboy]

If I think Wade is subpar.... and I think that quality candidates exist...

... then it's a given that there are candidates who are better than Wade.

Ooohhh. Now we get it. If YOU think he is subpar and YOU think that quality candidates exist, then IT IS A GIVEN there are better coaches we could have hired. Ok. Gotcha.

Ok. That's all I have to say, Schmitty. I'll let you get back to being pwned by Brainpaint.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Ooohhh. Now we get it. If YOU think he is subpar and YOU think that quality candidates exist, then IT IS A GIVEN there are better coaches we could have hired. Ok. Gotcha.

Ok. That's all I have to say, Schmitty. I'll let you get back to being pwned by Brainpaint.

Not being owned...I just think it is circular and we disagree.

BUT...we are all entitled to our opinions.

 

[mschmidt64]

Sure there are quality coaches out there.

Ok then.

So then, assume also, for arguments sake, that we both agreed that Wade Phillips was a bad choice. Not that you think that.... just for this demonstration, assume we agreed on that point.

If we DID agree on that.... then we could easily draw the conclusion that there were better coaches out there. There's nothing circular about such a conclusion.

We agree that Phillips is bad. We agree that so-and-so (again, for argument's sake, say Ron Rivera) is good.

It just follows. It's not circular.

Now, I know we don't agree on that.

But the point we don't agree on is whether Wade is bad or not. We both agree that there are good options out there.

As such, I see no reason to argue about who. We already agree that there are good coaches there.

Our point of contention is how good Wade is.

I would have been ok with Rivera.

I would have too.

I don't think I could qualify that the ones available out there are better though.

Yes, but not because you don't think they are good. It's just you think that Wade Phillips is at the same level.

My disagreement with people here is that Phillips is on the level with other "good" coaches. Whoever they are, whatever form they come in.

Now if you think there are quality coaches out there available that you would like better...name him. I may not agree with you but at least throw your name out there instead of refusing to do so.

If you want coaches that are not available or would take multiple picks...than it really is not fair to compare because...they were not available.

I mean who would not like to have Little Bill from the pats or some of the other coaches. But that is like crying about not getting an item that you do not have the money to get, it is just a waste of time.

That's a fair request, but it does not make my argument circular.

I personally liked Rivera. I also liked Rex Ryan. I also liked Josh McDaniels. Among college coaches, I liked Kirk Ferentz.

But who I liked doesn't really matter, because no matter who I name, I know there are good coaches out there. Whether the ones I liked were available or not.

I just happen to think Phillips is not in the "quality" category. Therefore anybody who we could agree on that is "quality" would have been an upgrade, IMO. There are plenty of other assistants out there.... I'm sure some of them that were available we could have agreed were good quality.

And again, keep in mind, this is only for argument purposes. Of course I am not insinuating the Cowboys need to appease me in any way to uphold their duty.

 

[mschmidt64]

Ooohhh. Now we get it. If YOU think he is subpar and YOU think that quality candidates exist, then IT IS A GIVEN there are better coaches we could have hired. Ok. Gotcha.

No, that's not what I meant.

If we agree that he's subpar, and we agree that there is quality, then it's a given that there are better coaches.

But we don't agree on all that. We disagree that Phillips is qualified or not.

So that's the issue. Whether Phillips is quality.

 

[NoDak Cowboy]

Ok then.

So then, assume also, for arguments sake, that we both agreed that Wade Phillips was a bad choice. Not that you think that.... just for this demonstration, assume we agreed on that point.

If we DID agree on that.... then we could easily draw the conclusion that there were better coaches out there. There's nothing circular about such a conclusion.

We agree that Phillips is bad. We agree that so-and-so (again, for argument's sake, say Ron Rivera) is good.

It just follows. It's not circular.

Now, I know we don't agree on that.

But the point we don't agree on is whether Wade is bad or not. We both agree that there are good options out there.

As such, I see no reason to argue about who. We already agree that there are good coaches there.

Our point of contention is how good Wade is.



I would have too.



Yes, but not because you don't think they are good. It's just you think that Wade Phillips is at the same level.

My disagreement with people here is that Phillips is on the level with other "good" coaches. Whoever they are, whatever form they come in.



That's a fair request, but it does not make my argument circular.

I personally liked Rivera. I also liked Rex Ryan. I also liked Josh McDaniels. Among college coaches, I liked Kirk Ferentz.

But who I liked doesn't really matter, because no matter who I name, I know there are good coaches out there. Whether the ones I liked were available or not.

I just happen to think Phillips is not in the "quality" category. Therefore anybody who we could agree on that is "quality" would have been an upgrade, IMO. There are plenty of other assistants out there.... I'm sure some of them that were available we could have agreed were good quality.

And again, keep in mind, this is only for argument purposes. Of course I am not insinuating the Cowboys need to appease me in any way to uphold their duty.

Dang. That was a polite, concise way to explain your side of it. How come you aren't calling the people who support Phillips here idiots that obviously don't understand what they are seeing?

Oh, yeah. Right. Not a mod here.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Ok then.

So then, assume also, for arguments sake, that we both agreed that Wade Phillips was a bad choice. Not that you think that.... just for this demonstration, assume we agreed on that point.

If we DID agree on that.... then we could easily draw the conclusion that there were better coaches out there. There's nothing circular about such a conclusion.

We agree that Phillips is bad. We agree that so-and-so (again, for argument's sake, say Ron Rivera) is good.

It just follows. It's not circular.

Now, I know we don't agree on that.

But the point we don't agree on is whether Wade is bad or not. We both agree that there are good options out there.

As such, I see no reason to argue about who. We already agree that there are good coaches there.

Our point of contention is how good Wade is.



I would have too.



Yes, but not because you don't think they are good. It's just you think that Wade Phillips is at the same level.

My disagreement with people here is that Phillips is on the level with other "good" coaches. Whoever they are, whatever form they come in.



That's a fair request, but it does not make my argument circular.

I personally liked Rivera. I also liked Rex Ryan. I also liked Josh McDaniels. Among college coaches, I liked Kirk Ferentz.

But who I liked doesn't really matter, because no matter who I name, I know there are good coaches out there. Whether the ones I liked were available or not.

I just happen to think Phillips is not in the "quality" category. Therefore anybody who we could agree on that is "quality" would have been an upgrade, IMO. There are plenty of other assistants out there.... I'm sure some of them that were available we could have agreed were good quality.

And again, keep in mind, this is only for argument purposes. Of course I am not insinuating the Cowboys need to appease me in any way to uphold their duty.

See...you could have easily said from the start that you think so and so is a better choice and it would have been done, at least by me.

But it was like pulling teeth to get a name out of you.

It is ok to disagree, that was not my problem. It was the idea that you wanted to say something but not back it up with WHO you thought was better.

 

[mschmidt64]

It is ok to disagree, that was not my problem. It was the idea that you wanted to say something but not back it up with WHO you thought was better.

Because I don't think who is relevant to my argument.

We all agree good exists.

I just don't agree that Phillips is good. That should be the concentration of the debate.