How Do Owens And Roy Williams Stack-Up Against Other Top WR'S?

J.Allen69U;2344798 said:
Sure thing.
Roy Williams and TO are potentially the best WR tandem in the NFL, and if they are not potentially the best than they are the best.

Not even close.

CC stated, "potentially, it is very close if not better."

The adverb potentially modifies the entire sentence.

In essence, he's saying, it is potentially very close if not potentially better.
 
Semantics I suppose, or just twisting english and grammar to disagree with a fan from a rival team.
 
ScipioCowboy;2344806 said:
Not even close.

CC stated, "potentially, it is very close if not better."

The adverb potentially modifies the entire sentence.

In essence, he's saying, it is potentially very close if not potentially better.

Exactly. And nothing like J. Allen's revised sentence a few posts above.

This reminds me of those standardized test questions.
 
J.Allen69U;2344811 said:
Semantics I suppose, or just twisting english and grammar to disagree with a fan from a rival team.

Or you came in here with an agenda, ready to call us homers and might have unfairly attacked a poster who likely was not trying to puff his chest out and say we undeniably have the league's best receiving tandem.

I don't see anyone in this thread declaring victory, that the trophy must be handed to us now and that every passing record known to man is about to fall. We're more objective, rational and ready for a good conversation than you might expect. Just bring a decent argument -- and not come running in screaming fire -- and we'd love to engage in a good, healthy debate with you.
 
RainMan;2344814 said:
Or you came in here with an agenda, ready to call us homers and might have unfairly attacked a poster who likely was not trying to puff his chest out and say we undeniably have the league's best receiving tandem.

No agenda just looking for conversation regarding the NFL.
 
J.Allen69U;2344811 said:
Semantics I suppose, or just twisting english and grammar to disagree with a fan from a rival team.

The study of semantics deals with word meanings. We're discussing sentence structure and syntax. You're trying to rearrange CC's sentence in order to create a meaning that was never intended.
 
J.Allen69U;2344817 said:
No agenda just looking for conversation regarding the NFL.

What's the heart of your argument then? That we can't be called the best WR tandem yet? I think we all agree with you there. This thing could certainly flop. Or are you saying that there's no chance Owens-Williams reaches that level? There, we most certainly would disagree.
 
ScipioCowboy;2344819 said:
The study of semantics deals with word meanings. We're discussing sentence structure and syntax. You're trying to rearrange CC's sentence in order to imply a meaning that was never intended.

Look at you with them fancy words. :laugh2:
 
J.Allen69U;2344817 said:
No agenda just looking for conversation regarding the NFL.
so go find another topic since this one is to be determined
 
RainMan;2344821 said:
What's the heart of your argument then? That we can't be called the best WR tandem yet? I think we all agree with you there. This thing could flop, who knows. Or are you saying that there's no chance Owens-Williams reaches that level? There, we most certainly would disagree.

That they are not the best yet and they have not played togther yet so you cannot say they are the best.
 
J.Allen69U;2344827 said:
That they are not the best yet and they have not played togther yet so you cannot say they are the best.

So, I return to my initial question this thread: Who has asserted the Williams/Owens tandem is the best?
 
J.Allen69U;2344793 said:
Thanks pal, but the part where it says "if not" cancells out the word potentially. Thanks the the english lesson.
I really hope you don't teach English. Crazy Cowboy clearly wrote "potentially," to mean show that he wanted to convey that Owens-Williams had the potential to be close to the best and had the potential to be the best. Also, when you decide to try to give an English lesson, you might have a little more credibility if you spelled all of your words correctly.

The way you took Crazy Cowboy's words out of context, you should be a politician. I'm sure our two unworthy candidates could use another spin doctor to fight for their cause.
 
ScipioCowboy;2344830 said:
So, I return to my initial question this thread: Who has asserted the Williams/Owens tandem is the best?


I interpreted a posters comments as stating that.
 
RainMan;2344824 said:
Look at you with them fancy words. :laugh2:

Ah, yes.

My degree finally pays off...on an Internet message forum of all places! Money well spent, I say!

:laugh2:
 
AtlCB;2344832 said:
I really hope you don't teach English. Crazy Cowboy clearly wrote "potentially," to mean show that he wanted to convey that Owens-Williams had the potential to be close to the best and had the potential to be the best. Also, when you decide to try to give an English lesson, you might have a little more credibility if you spelled all of your words correctly.

The way you took Crazy Cowboy's words out of context, you should be a politician. I'm sure our two unworthy candidates could use another spin doctor to fight for their cause.

I do not and I hope you don't either.
 
J.Allen69U;2344827 said:
That they are not the best yet and they have not played togther yet so you cannot say they are the best.

Gotcha. And I agree with you.

Let me take the conversation one step further.

Do you think there's a chance they could reach, say, top-3 tandem status? Why or why not?

I would say yes, for these reasons: Williams independently was a quality player for a bad team with bad quarterbacks. He averaged 1,035 yards per 16 games played and made a Pro Bowl. He's young to boot. He enters a system that is already pretty darn prolific. We're not asking him to take us from mediocre to elite status. His objective is to present a threat superior to the non-threat that is Crayton. My hope, and maybe even my belief, is that Williams gives us a guy that can exploit coverage and go off for 120 yards any week if teams focus too much on Owens and Witten. Crayton was consistently good for about 55-60 yards in such circumstances.

With that said, I understand the argument that this could fail. Too many egos, and maybe Williams ends up not being an ideal complement stylistically. You know, like in basketball you don't want a bunch of dribbling, lane-penetrating scorers. You need your role players or you're the failed Dream Team of years past.

But I think ultimately, the potential of throwing Owens and Williams on the field together, given their talent, outweighs the possibility of just getting some one-dimensional speed threat to complement TO.
 
J.Allen69U;2344834 said:
I interpreted a posters comments as stating that.

You did so by rearranging his sentence, not by employing possible alternate meanings of his actual words.
 
ScipioCowboy;2344844 said:
You did so by rearranging his sentence, not by employing possible alternate meanings of his actual words.

J. Allen isn't an English teacher. He's one of those guys who splices (and butchers) quotes for ESPN. :laugh2:
 
RainMan;2344843 said:
Gotcha. And I agree with you.

Let me take the conversation one step further.

Do you think there's a chance they could reach, say, top-3 tandem status? Why or why not?

I would say yes, for these reasons: Williams independently was a quality player for a bad team with bad quarterbacks. He averaged 1,035 yards per 16 games played and made a Pro Bowl. He's young to boot. He enters a system that is already pretty darn prolific. We're not asking him to take us from mediocre to elite status. His objective is to present a threat superior to the non-threat that is Crayton. My hope, and maybe even my belief, is that Williams gives us a guy that can exploit coverage and go off for 120 yards any week if teams focus too much on Owens and Witten. Crayton was consistently good for about 55-60 yards in such circumstances.

With that said, I understand the argument that this could fail. Too many egos, and maybe Williams ends up not being an ideal complement stylistically. You know, like in basketball you don't want a bunch of dribbling, lane-penetrating scorers. You need your role players or you're the failed Dream Team of years past.

But I think ultimately, the talent of throwing Owens and Williams on the field together outweighs the possibility of just getting some one-dimensional speed threat.

I agree that they could be top 3 or even number 1 in a year or two, but not immediately. Williams will be good a taking underneath passes and breaking tackles for long gaines. TO pulls coverage his way on every play and Witten demands a lot of attention as well so it is kind of a pick your posion type deal. Cover Witten and let Williams beat you or the other way around. If Roy Williams stays healthy and produces at the level that he is capable of then this team could score at will and it wont matter how poorly the secondary plays/ is coached. They will beat you.
 

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
465,839
Messages
13,900,383
Members
23,793
Latest member
Roger33
Back
Top