QB Brad Johnson is probably our new Holder

[Hostile]

Sorry, but you are wrong. Don't be like The Fonz, unable to say the word.

I don't have that problem.

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1439776&postcount=5

When I am wrong, I fess up.

In this case, I am not wrong.

 

[silver]

(Yes I skipped to the end of thread... and its a good thing too cuz I missed all the argument)

Put me down for wanting Patrick Crayton to hold. He's got great hands and athleticism to potentially make something happen on a failed snap.

Jay Novacek held for FG's in the early 90's... and had at least 1 very nice fake FG run. With Brad Johnson holding there is NO potential for a fake FG... with Crayton holding, the defense has to be aware that we have a good athlete holding and on their toes for a fake rather than just going ALL out to block the FG.

i too skipped the argument and agree with you on crayton. he's by far more agile than both romo and johnson and could make things happen on a bobbled snap. he could also be a threath for a fake on field goal tries.

 

[superpunk]

Believe what you will guy. I'm done attempting to defend myself to your slander.

You never got started, dear. Nothing you've said has made you look any less the fool - unfortunately for you. It's pitiable that the two of you need fabrication to feel good about yourselves (on the internet, no less!), but I think most of us are beyond "pity" stage with you two lovers.

 

[Doomsday101]

Think so do you? LOL. Johnson is old and done.

I know so Johnson has proved himself what has Ricky Ray proved? he can't cut it in the NFL and has tried twice but you would sign him. Jeff George? I would take Johnson over him, being a QB does is not all about arm strenght but then there seems to be alot that you don't know about the game of football given some of the dumb remarks you throw around.

 

[TheProphet]

You never got started, dear. Nothing you've said has made you look any less the fool - unfortunately for you. It's pitiable that the two of you need fabrication to feel good about yourselves (on the internet, no less!), but I think most of us are beyond "pity" stage with you two lovers.

Like I said, run along and hide behind the skirts of "others". The board can view the facts for what they are and not rely on the slander of some punkish kid attempting to discredit and run with the big dogs. Now scat.

 

[superpunk]

i too skipped the argument and agree with you on crayton. he's by far more agile than both romo and johnson and could make things happen on a bobbled snap. he could also be a threath for a fake on field goal tries.

Has he ever done it before?

I mean, just because he's a former QB doesn't mean he's going to be familiar with handling the ball off the snap like a backup QB.

Also, the backup QB is generally the best option because he can take snaps with the ST unit (LS, K, holder) while others are doing other things. Do we want to take Crayton away from his work with WRs (of which he is a prominent part) to work with the ST unit?

 

[Hostile]

My gosh it's Nors all over again with the slander stuff. I honestly think people enjoy the word and have no idea what it means.

 

[zrinkill]

The board can view the facts for what they are and not rely on the slander of some punkish kid attempting to discredit and run with the big dogs. No scoot along.

The entire board thinks you and your alter ego are a joke .....

 

[superpunk]

Like I said, run along and hide behind the skirts of "others". The board can view the facts for what they are and not rely on the slander of some punkish kid attempting to discredit and run with the big dogs. No scoot along.

The facts are right there - you're darn right the board can view them as I've directly quoted you both.

You can't slander in print, doll-face.

 

[TheProphet]

My gosh it's Nors all over again with the slander stuff. I honestly think people enjoy the word and have no idea what it means.

I know darn well what it means. However the right term is libel.

li·bel lahy-buh

l]noun, verb, -beled, -bel·ing or (especially British

) -belled, -bel·ling.
–noun 1.Law. a.defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures. b.the act or crime of publishing it. c.a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge. 2.anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents. –verb (used with object) 3.to publish a libel against. 4.to misrepresent damagingly. 5.to institute suit against by a libel, as in an admiralty court

 

[superpunk]

My gosh it's Nors all over again with the slander stuff. I honestly think people enjoy the word and have no idea what it means.

I know darn well what it means.

slan·der /ˈslæn

dər/
–noun 1.defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander. 2.a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name. 3.Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc. –verb (used with object) 4.to utter slander against; defame. –verb (used without object) 5.to utter or circulate slander

lmao @ this little exchange...

 

[Hostile]

I know darn well what it means.

slan·der /ˈslæn

dər/
–noun 1.defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander. 2.a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name. 3.Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc. –verb (used with object) 4.to utter slander against; defame. –verb (used without object) 5.to utter or circulate slander

Apparently you don't.

No charge for the lesson.

 

[MrMom]

:laugh2:

This thread is greatness. Thanks for making my workday a lot less boring, fellas.

 

[TheProphet]

Apparently you don't.

No charge for the lesson.

Apparently, you missed my edit.

 

[TheProphet]

lmao @ this little exchange...

Sucking up again tough guy?

 

[Hostile]

Apparently, you missed my edit.

So, are you man enough to admit I was right and you were crying slander when there was none?

Oh, it isn't libel either, but that's beside the point.

 

[TheProphet]

So, are you man enough to admit I was right and you were crying slander when there was none?

Oh, it isn't libel either, but that's beside the point.

Sure, I incorrectly used the word "slander". Thanks for correcting.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Bledsoe holding wouldn't have been any better and no one else on the roster had the experience.

Evidently the Cowboys did not feel confident enough in their other options to take care of the duty. I do agree that I don't want to see our starting QB holding on snaps but I do think they did what they felt was in the best interest of the team last season by having him do it.

Anyone could have dropped that ball in Seattle BUT... I would have rather have had Crayton holding since Romo became starter.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

RR is a full twelve years youger than Johnson. All Ray needs is a legit opportunity, the rest will take care of itself.

Ricky Ray

SUCKS! get that through your trollish head

 

[superpunk]

Sucking up again tough guy?

When you get owned, you get owned.

You provide enough material for quite alot of laughter. Like this time, when you insisted you were slandered, insisted that you knew what it meant, posted the definition for it - which contradicted what you THOUGHT it meant, and then edited your post to the definition of libel.

It's pure comedy, at your ridiculous expense.

FWIW, Hostile sucks up to me. I am this site's owner. Tread lightly.