Hill: 10 Thoughts from Wednesday’s Cowboys practice

[burmafrd]

Meh. This is boring. Your quotes are all there in the thread, I don't need to go round with you about what the meaning of words are. It's obvious to anybody who reads it.

You can't say that people weren't complaining about the OL during the rebuild when you were complaining the entire time and I can supply ready examples of you doing so. In the one post I provided, you clearly *were* complaining about the existing OL talent up to that point. An OL that included Travis Frederick and three other OL starters already on the roster. That, my friend, is about as far as you're going to get from 'spot on.' You were spot off.

This is not a comprehension error on my part. This is you complaining about the OL talent--still--more than four fifths of the way through the rebuild. Coach, LT, LG, C, RT and our current key interior backup were on the roster and you're saying we're hoping on longshots to avoid a repeat disaster. Meanwhile, we weren't.

as someone that had lots of posts arguing with you I quite have to LAUGH at your claim to not have been championing Costa and the other Jags we had at the time. YOU were one of those BADLY wrong about Costa and company but never admitted it.

 

[Idgit]

as someone that had lots of posts arguing with you I quite have to LAUGH at your claim to not have been championing Costa and the other Jags we had at the time. YOU were one of those BADLY wrong about Costa and company but never admitted it.

Find the posts. I'll own anything I ever said about him, or I'll say so if I think it ended up being wrong. But I'm not going to play the game where you make an unsupported claim and tell me you laugh about it and I'm supposed to back off from the debate because of it.

If I disagree with what I remember a poster saying in the past, like I did with visionary and with EGG here in this thread, I take the time to confirm that what I remember debating with them was accurate. When it is, I say so, when it's not, I don't.

But, honestly, as much as I've been right about the direction of the franchise the last several years under Jason Garrett, I'm surprised some of you are still arguing about it. This stuff like EGG, saying nobody was complaining about the OL the last several offseasons....give me a break. It's not like the entire community had a sudden brainfart and can't remember what we've discussed each of the last four offseasons all of a sudden. We all remember.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

Find the posts. I'll own anything I ever said about him, or I'll say so if I think it ended up being wrong. But I'm not going to play the game where you make an unsupported claim and tell me you laugh about it and I'm supposed to back off from the debate because of it.

If I disagree with what I remember a poster saying in the past, like I did with visionary and with EGG here in this thread, I take the time to confirm that what I remember debating with them was accurate. When it is, I say so, when it's not, I don't.

But, honestly, as much as I've been right about the direction of the franchise the last several years under Jason Garrett, I'm surprised some of you are still arguing about it. This stuff like EGG, saying nobody was complaining about the OL the last several offseasons....give me a break. It's not like the entire community had a sudden brainfart and can't remember what we've discussed each of the last four offseasons all of a sudden. We all remember.

I'm enjoying these strawmen you've built,,, really.

Just in case the concept is foreign to you:

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Wikipedia
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

 

[Idgit]

I'm enjoying these strawmen you've built,,, really.

Just in case the concept is foreign to you:

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Wikipedia
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

This post would make more sense if I were using a straw man rather than one of your own explicit arguments, but kudos for looking up the definition of a common type of unrelated fallacy for us.

 

[DandyDon52]

Not that I think Vaughn has a future here in Dallas but this is the second season for a UDFA. Romo would've surely been cut his second season if Quincy Carter didn't do what he did.

wade wilson started here in 2007 as qb coach.
Romo developed under someone else not sure who.

 

[Idgit]

wade wilson started here in 2007 as qb coach.
Romo developed under someone else not sure who.

David Lee is probably who you're thinking of. Romo was a big fan of his.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

We drafted Phil Costa in 2010.

wanna try that again?

 

[ElGatoGrande]

This post would make more sense if I were using a straw man rather than one of your own explicit arguments, but kudos for looking up the definition of a common type of unrelated fallacy for us.

"and there was no complaining when they finally started adding worthy OL, just that they did it one player at a time each of the last 4 years. Hello? McFly? ever hear of a window? "

Please, youre trying to suggest that this is a statement claiming all complaints about the OL stopped when they added Tyron when an honest and correct comprehension would be that there were no complaints about the addition of these worthy OL, just that the additions were coming too slowly. There's your twist and there's your strawman.

next!

 

[Idgit]

"and there was no complaining when they finally started adding worthy OL, just that they did it one player at a time each of the last 4 years. Hello? McFly? ever hear of a window? "

Please, youre trying to suggest that this is a statement claiming all complaints about the OL stopped when they added Tyron when an honest and correct comprehension would be that there were no complaints about the addition of these worthy OL, just that the additions were coming too slowly. There's your twist and there's your strawman.

next!

Except that's not what I suggested with your quote. Tyron. Frederick. Leary. Free. Bernadeau. Callahan. They we're all on board, and you were still complaining about the talent deficit.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

Except that's not what I suggested with your quote. Tyron. Frederick. Leary. Free. Bernadeau. Callahan. They we're all on board, and you were still complaining about the talent deficit.

That's exactly what you suggested AND Free had a horrible 2012 and Leary was the long shot I mentioned still on the freaking practice squad! and now you're trying to sneak a coach into the conversation about players? weak,,, freaking weak...

 

[mattjames2010]

Love in the face of facts, people still try to argue.

 

[Idgit]

That's exactly what you suggested AND Free had a horrible 2012 and Leary was the long shot I mentioned still on the freaking practice squad! and now you're trying to sneak a coach into the conversation about players? weak,,, freaking weak...

Gah! The argument is already here in the thread. Everyone can see it. Enough with the pretense already.

If you don't want to own your earlier opinions, don't. It's enough that you said it and I was able to prove my exact point as a result. We don't need you to agree that you said it, because all of us can read.

 

[Stash]

A 2009 first round draft pick just completed his 6th year and his 3rd team. Doesn't inspire confidence.

At one point, Josh Freeman was considered an up-and-comer and one of the next young stars in the league. And he put up good numbers to support that belief. The same hasn't and never will be said about Brandon Weeden.

I think that if Freeman is a 'has been', Weeden would be a 'never was'.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

Gah! The argument is already here in the thread. Everyone can see it. Enough with the pretense already.

If you don't want to own your earlier opinions, don't. It's enough that you said it and I was able to prove my exact point as a result. We don't need you to agree that you said it, because all of us can read.

lmao,,, I embrace my earlier opinions as stated and they are there for the world to see and interpret with intellectual honesty or not. I believe you're rationalizing your failed stances from the Costa, Livings, Bernie days,,, tsk, tsk,,,