The workout warrior

[theogt]

Did you even read my previous post?


It IS possible to make a good play every now and then and STILL be lost. Did you not catch my Lavar Arrington example?

This guy made the post somewhere about the 3rd or so drive of the game. Lawson made the INT on the 1st drive. Sure you can make one good INT over the course of your career but lost for the rest of it, but in that limited span it's hardly reasonable to say someone looks lost after that play. It was a stupid thread. No sense trying to defend it.

 

[Rack]

This guy made the post somewhere about the 3rd or so drive of the game. Lawson made the INT on the 1st drive. It was a stupid thread. No sense trying to defend it.

So that 1 int cancels out everything that has happened before the int and everthing that happened after?

 

[2much2soon]

Lawson made a very good play on an INT. This guy posts that he looks lost just a little while later. I'm not saying he's great or horrible, either, but I think it's safe to say this was a dumb thread.

Dude, are you actually watching Lawson?
I missed the first series or two of the game where he made the int.
If it was a fantastic int, I'll give him that.
But from what I have seen the guy is getting handled on most of the plays. The people that were pumping Lawson on this board had me expecting a helluva lot more than what I have seen today.

 

[theogt]

So that 1 int cancels out everything that has happened before the int and everthing that happened after?

Well, he hasn't even looked "lost" to begin with has he? Even if he did, I'd take 2-3 drives of looking lost to 1 INT any time.

 

[Rack]

Dude, are you actually watching Lawson?
I missed the first series or two of the game where he made the int.
If it was a fantastic int, I'll give him that.
But from what I have seen the guy is getting handled on most of the plays. The people that were pumping Lawson on this board had me expecting a helluva lot more than what I have seen today.

Hey! He got an int so he MUST not be lost. It's not possible to be lost, yet make a great play every now and then!

 

[Rack]

Well, he hasn't even looked "lost" to begin with has he? Even if he did, I'd take 2-3 drives of looking lost to 1 INT any time.

And you'd end up with Lavar Arrington. Congratulations.

 

[theogt]

And you'd end up with Lavar Arrington. Congratulations.

I'd take 4-5 INTs per game. When the guy posted, that's what he was on pace for. Defend this thread to the death if you'd like. It just foolish.

 

[Rack]

I'd take 4-5 INTs per game. When the guy posted, that's what he was on pace for. Defend this thread to the death if you'd like.

It just foolish.

Yes, thinking Lawson was on pace for 4-5 ints per game is foolish.

 

[ghst187]

I think the jury is still out on Reggie Bush.
He's a phenomenal athlete but he's looking less and less like he's even capable of being a change of pace back.
It looks like NO used the number two pick of the draft for a utility and gimmick player. Punt returner and marginal WR.
I'm exaggerating a little but for the #2 pick overall.....if we had drafted him there...people here would be callling for Ireland's head.

 

[theogt]

Yes, thinking Lawson was on pace for 4-5 ints per game is foolish.

Of course he wasn't going to get 4-5 INTs. That would be foolish to think that. It wasn't my point, which always seem to ignore.

 

[rexrobinson]

ugh this is a bad bad subject.

I let this debate die on draft day when they didn't pick my guy and since I cant change who was picked I just root for the guy we do have...and I know the two guys in this thread who also backed the other guy have let it die.

 

[Rack]

Of course he wasn't going to get 4-5 INTs. That would be foolish to think that. It wasn't my point, which always seem to ignore.

So you said he was on pace for 4-5 ints per game, but that wasn't your intent?

 

[theogt]

So you said he was on pace for 4-5 ints per game, but that wasn't your intent?

It wasn't a prediction if you're trying to say that. Who on earth would I predict that? I thought it was painfully obvious that I mean he was "on pace" for that. That's way I said he was "on pace." Sometimes you expect people to read your words and comprehend them, but often this is too tall a task.

 

[Rack]

It wasn't a prediction if you're trying to say that. Who on earth would I predict that? I thought it was painfully obvious that I mean he was "on pace" for that. That's way I said he was "on pace." Sometimes you expect people to read your words and comprehend them, but often this is too tall a task.

So you make an idiotic statement, and you - indirectly - call me an idiot cuz I didn't understand your idiotic statement?


Not to mention you said "per game". Even if he got 4-5 ints IN TODAY'S GAME, it still wouldn't mean he's on pace for 4-5 PER GAME.


Whatever dude, you made yourself look foolish. Don't try and put me down cuz you put your foot in your mouth.

 

[theogt]

So you make an idiotic statement, and you - indirectly - call me an idiot cuz I didn't understand your idiotic statement?


Not to mention you said "per game". Even if he got 4-5 ints IN TODAY'S GAME, it still wouldn't mean he's on pace for 4-5 PER GAME.


Whatever dude, you made yourself look foolish. Don't try and put me down cuz you put your foot in your mouth.

You misunderstood my post because you're trying to play the "I got you" game. It's pointless even talking to you on here.

I'll boil this all down for you in very simple words. The original poster stated that he looked "lost." In the 3+ series that were available for evaluation up to that point he had made at least one great play (the INT). Even if he was non-existent in the rest of the plays, it is foolish to say he looked lost, since he had already made a spectacular play. You latched on to the "on pace" statement because you misunderstood what I was saying and had already lost the argument. Yeah, I'd say it's pretty foolish how you've acted.

 

[Rack]

You misunderstood my post because you're trying to play the "I got you" game. It's pointless even talking to you on here.

I'll boil this all down for you in very simple words. The original poster stated that he looked "lost." In the 3+ series that were available for evaluation up to that point he had made at least one great play (the INT). Even if he was non-existent in the rest of the plays, it is foolish to say he looked lost, since he had already made a spectacular play. You latched on to the "on pace" statement because you misunderstood what I was saying and had already lost the argument. Yeah, I'd say it's pretty foolish how you've acted.

I'm not playing any games. You stated something idiotic and now you're trying to call me the idiotic cuz I pointed out how idiotic your statement was.

 

[theogt]

I'm not playing any games. You stated something idiotic and now you're trying to call me the idiotic cuz I pointed out how idiotic your statement was.

Was he not "on pace" for 4-5 INTs? How is that idiotic? If I had predicted him to do so, it would have been idiotic. Someone doesn't know how to read.

 

[Rack]

Was he not "on pace" for 4-5 INTs? How is that idiotic? If I had predicted him to do so, it would have been idiotic. Someone doesn't know how to read.

No, he wasn't. You said "per game". Even if he had gotten 5 ints that game, he wouldn't be on pace for 4-5 per game.


You said it. It was YOUR idiotic statement, not mine.