Owen Schmitt

[zrinkill]

You're skipping a few highly picked FB's there, I looked this stuff up myself early in the day.

I just named the ones who this kid reminds me of.

Most high picked draft picks at each position do not become Superstars ..... so that argument works no matter what position you are picking.

 

[zrinkill]

i had the same thought when we drafted Fasano. Unfortunately the thought faded away.

Do not know why ...... I think Fasano would be a starter on 25 other teams in this league.

 

[Hostile]

I grasp how completely idiotic it would be to reach for a FB in the 3rd round

but dream on, Led

Leave it alone Hos, leave it alone.

Who said that? Oh right. I did.

 

[Stash]

Do not know why ...... I think Fasano would be a starter on 25 other teams in this league.

Hopefully Parcells and the Dolphins feel that way.....

ray:

 

[silver]

Hopefully Parcells and the Dolphins feel that way.....

ray:

Fasano for Jason Taylor straight up? they woudn't.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Who else would come in as a 3rd round pick that would get as much playing time?

Steve Slaton
Jamaal Charles
Mike Hart
Andre Caldwell
Harry Douglas
Donnie Avery
Jonathon Goff
Charles Godfrey
Justin King

Any other player at RB, ILB, or CB that drops to that spot or we could package picks to move up in the third for.

Schmitt might beat out Hoyte for short yardage; he might not. Youre assertion that hes just going to come in from UWV's offense and be in our offense with our coaches is based on nothing but wishes.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So your argument boils down to you thinking he only played those 4 snaps at TE. Brilliant.

No my argument boisl down to thats all that this proves. Youre not arguing the point that he obviously didnt get the preponderance of the plays at that position at those games and really all that the blurb proves is that he played 4 plays. Nothing more.

Its called refutation of your argument.

 

[Rampage]

is this whole thread about a freakin fullback?

 

[theogt]

Steve Slaton
Jamaal Charles
Mike Hart
Andre Caldwell
Harry Douglas
Donnie Avery
Jonathon Goff
Charles Godfrey
Justin King

Any other player at RB, ILB, or CB that drops to that spot or we could package picks to move up in the third for.

This is assuming that we don't picka RB or CB in the first 3 picks. That's a pretty big assumption.

Schmitt might beat out Hoyte for short yardage; he might not. Youre assertion that hes just going to come in from UWV's offense and be in our offense with our coaches is based on nothing but wishes.

No, it's based on the fact that he's a better blocker and more athletic than either Anderson or Hoyte.

No my argument boisl down to thats all that this proves. Youre not arguing the point that he obviously didnt get the preponderance of the plays at that position at those games and really all that the blurb proves is that he played 4 plays. Nothing more.

Its called refutation of your argument.

You think that's all that it proves. But the reality is that unless you're trying to argue that those 4 starts were his only 4 snaps at TE, then it proves much more.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Maybe I could resort to calling you a 13 year old. Or is that not childish enough? Could you really be any more of a hypocrite at this point?

Im not resorting to anything. You will notice that my arguments dont depend on me saying such things.

I asked for some proof that National Scouting provided data that they dont collect directly. I actually googled "national scouting" and there is no organization listed on the net with that name. there is the "national scouting combine" and i gave you the benefit of the doubt that you werent that clueless, so i browsed their site and looked up their example player profile pages and it had no such information on it.

The bottomline in all of this as i pointed out: in argumentation it is not up to me to prove your point. The only presumption that youre always right comes from yourself. You said you could quote email messages. You never did. You showed nothing from anyone or anything anywhere that this was the case.

The only one resorting to anything at that point is you with your 'scared' rhetoric.

I at that point called it like i see it. I tutored high school kids at high schools just a couple of years ago and that type of response from a teenager is so common its cliche. Its a typical peer pressure play. You also exhibit the typical insecurity that you see in teenage boys in that you feel that being found wrong somehow lessens you as a human being. I am not the first nor will I be the last to see and comment on that behavior from you.

It is what it is but when you went so far as to try to use the 'scared' rhetoric it just fit like a glove.

When i say youre acting like a teenager there are reasons why i say that and it has nothing to do with trying to win the argument. I have helped worked on debate teams and worked as a judge. Its very well known that if you cannot provide evidence of your assertions on things that are not prima facia then that point is worthless and no further refutation is needed. i dont need to discredit something that doesnt exist.

I think you know that as well and thats why you went into 13 year old mode because youre so deathly afraid of being proven wrong especially by me. Youre ego couldnt take it.

 

[dadymat]

is this whole thread about a freakin fullback?

.............

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is assuming that we don't picka RB or CB in the first 3 picks. That's a pretty big assumption.

No, it's based on the fact that he's a better blocker and more athletic than either Anderson or Hoyte.

You think that's all that it proves. But the reality is that unless you're trying to argue that those 4 starts were his only 4 snaps at TE, then it proves much more.

Actually a start means that you played the first play at that position. You saying that is anything more than that cannot be proven from the context of the statement. Add into that how the site youre referencing also uses the term occasionally to describe the frequency it mitigates your presumption even more.

And who knows what positions were going to pick up where but Id rather see two CB, WR or RB picked because we NEED those more then a FB which we plainly dont need and might fall to our spot in the fourth.

 

[TheCount]

is this whole thread about a freakin fullback?

No, it's all about egos and people unwilling to see any other point of view but their own. :

 

[Rampage]

No, it's all about egos and people unwilling to see any other point of view but their own. :

:laugh2: what's new?

 

[theogt]

Im not resorting to anything. You will notice that my arguments dont depend on me saying such things.

You resorted to name-calling because you had lost the argument. You had nothing left, so you "resorted" to it.

I asked for some proof that National Scouting provided data that they dont collect directly. I actually googled "national scouting" and there is no organization listed on the net with that name. there is the "national scouting combine" and i gave you the benefit of the doubt that you werent that clueless, so i browsed their site and looked up their example player profile pages and it had no such information on it.

The bottomline in all of this as i pointed out: in argumentation it is not up to me to prove your point. The only presumption that youre always right comes from yourself. You said you could quote email messages. You never did. You showed nothing from anyone or anything anywhere that this was the case.

Sorry, I searched for the e-mails and can't find them. I must have deleted them. You can e-mail them and find out, though. Or you can call me a liar, but if you do, be sure to prove it by e-mailing them and showing that I'm wrong. Otherwise, don't attempt to make a claim you can't prove or else you'll be *gasp* a hypocrite.

The only one resorting to anything at that point is you with your 'scared' rhetoric.

I at that point called it like i see it. I tutored high school kids at high schools just a couple of years ago and that type of response from a teenager is so common its cliche. Its a typical peer pressure play. You also exhibit the typical insecurity that you see in teenage boys in that you feel that being found wrong somehow lessens you as a human being. I am not the first nor will I be the last to see and comment on that behavior from you.

It is what it is but when you went so far as to try to use the 'scared' rhetoric it just fit like a glove.

You don't even want to attempt to refute my argument. You just try to attack my source and won't even take the necessary steps to do that. This is a weak debating tactic. And the only way it can hold water is if you're willing to outright call me a liar. And if you are, prove it. There's a very simple way to prove that I'm laying. But you won't even go through the steps. I wonder why that is.

When i say youre acting like a teenager there are reasons why i say that and it has nothing to do with trying to win the argument. I have helped worked on debate teams and worked as a judge. Its very well known that if you cannot provide evidence of your assertions on things that are not prima facia then that point is worthless and no further refutation is needed. i dont need to discredit something that doesnt exist.

I think you know that as well and thats why you went into 13 year old mode because youre so deathly afraid of being proven wrong especially by me. Youre ego couldnt take it.

This is more of the same from you. More crying and more name-calling. You haven't proven squat in this thread. You haven't even attempted to prove squat. You have no point. You have no argument. You're just throwing around mindless rhetoric. You've got nothing. And when that's pointed out, you resort to name calling.

Actually a start means that you played the first play at that position. You saying that is anything more than that cannot be proven from the context of the statement. Add into that how the site youre referencing also uses the term occasionally to describe the frequency it mitigates your presumption even more.

Of course it doesn't prove that he had more than 4 snaps. It is evidence that he played more than 4 snaps at TE. The only refutation to that evidence is if you're attempting to argue his 4 snaps as TE all just happened to be during the first play of the game. That's an incredibly weak argument.

 

[Hostile]

No, it's all about egos and people unwilling to see any other point of view but their own. :

I see the other points of view. I just don't happen to agree with them. Last time I checked that was legal.

 

[theogt]

Here's a few mentions of National Scouting that turned up on a google search:

http://www.draftinsiders.com/node/256

http://www2.jsonline.com/packer/sbxxxiii/news/pack60998.stm

The second mentions National Scouting and Blesto. I believe the two companies have since combined (the story is from 1998). It also mentions that the company charged $134k to teams for its services.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You resorted to name-calling because you had lost the argument. You had nothing left, so you "resorted" to it.

Sorry, I searched for the e-mails and can't find them. I must have deleted them. You can e-mail them and find out, though. Or you can call me a liar, but if you do, be sure to prove it by e-mailing them and showing that I'm wrong. Otherwise, don't attempt to make a claim you can't prove or else you'll be *gasp* a hypocrite.

You don't even want to attempt to refute my argument. You just try to attack my source and won't even take the necessary steps to do that. This is a weak debating tactic. And the only way it can hold water is if you're willing to outright call me a liar. And if you are, prove it. There's a very simple way to prove that I'm laying. But you won't even go through the steps. I wonder why that is.

This is more of the same from you. More crying and more name-calling. You haven't proven squat in this thread. You haven't even attempted to prove squat. You have no point. You have no argument. You're just throwing around mindless rhetoric. You've got nothing. And when that's pointed out, you resort to name calling.

Of course it doesn't prove that he had more than 4 snaps. It is evidence that he played more than 4 snaps at TE. The only refutation to that evidence is if you're attempting to argue his 4 snaps as TE all just happened to be during the first play of the game. That's an incredibly weak argument.

Here's a few mentions of National Scouting that turned up on a google search:

http://www.draftinsiders.com/node/256

http://www2.jsonline.com/packer/sbxxxiii/news/pack60998.stm

The second mentions National Scouting and Blesto. I believe the two companies have since combined (the story is from 1998). It also mentions that the company charged $134k to teams for its services.

Im not going to do the line by line thing because its lame.

i dont have to call you a liar and you could still be wrong. Youre not infallible and could have misremembered or whatever. The fact that you claim that they use a defunct scouting service is a prima facia indication that you are mistaken on some level.

Its been established that National Scouting cannot provide 40 times previous to the annual workouts because National Scouting no longer exists.

Thats it theo, the argument is over.

 

[theogt]

i dont have to call you a liar and you could still be wrong. Youre not infallible and could have misremembered or whatever.

No, I didn't "misremember." They get their pre-combine numbers from National Scouting. I e-mailed back and forth with them about this for awhile because of the whole Stanback 40 time.

The fact that you claim that they use a defunct scouting service is a prima facia indication that you are mistaken on some level.

They're not defunct.

Its been established that National Scouting cannot provide 40 times previous to the annual workouts because National Scouting no longer exists.

That has not been established. And they do provide 40 times prior to the combine. According to the e-mail exchange I had, college teams often have junior/sophomore pro days where players run 40 times or they might run 40s in Spring camp. That's where National Scouting comes in. Since teams don't have enough scouts to be in every place at all times when this is done, the teams pay for the service.

Thats it theo, the argument is over.

You'd love for it to be after you got your *** handed to you. It'd do you some good if you just stayed out of conversations where you're in over your head.

 

[theogt]

Nice article on National and Blesto for anyone that is interested:

http://www.draftdaddy.com/features/blesto.cfm

From the article: "As scouts evaluate the current class of seniors visiting schools' pro days, they often work out underclassmen for future draft years."