What's the Difference between a "Key" Player Loss and a "Regular" Player Loss?

[Vintage]

the 10 LB's is possible with Coach Parcells

they might not be listed as OT but im sure we have players that can play other positions

Well, Tucker proved he couldn't play G.

So what other position would he play?

Fabini is a backup swing tackle. Columbo has only played OT at college and the NFL. No guard experience for him.

Pettiti is a RT and played LT in college. I am pretty sure he will only be playing Tackle.

And Adams was a Pro Bowl LT. I think that will be his only position.

So, keeping Tucker would amount to 5 OT that only play OT.

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

Oops.

Wait ... off-topic tomfoolery by these two posters is justifiable?!

Ding, ding, ding, ding ...they've just hit the DAILY DOUBLE ...! Ok, you're the boss WG.

 

[Vintage]

Wait ... off-topic tomfoolery by these two posters is justifiable?!

Ding, ding, ding, ding ...they've just hit the DAILY DOUBLE ...! Ok, you're the boss WG.

Whats the difference between off topic tomfoolery and your on topic buffoonery?

Seems to me, its just semantics.

 

[the kid 05]

Well, Tucker proved he couldn't play G.

So what other position would he play?

Fabini is a backup swing tackle. Columbo has only played OT at college and the NFL. No guard experience for him.

Pettiti is a RT and played LT in college. I am pretty sure he will only be playing Tackle.

And Adams was a Pro Bowl LT. I think that will be his only position.

So, keeping Tucker would amount to 5 OT that only play OT.

hes a big boy...nose tackle? maybe he can play Center in a running scheme.

Fabini maybe able to play guard we dont know (unless you do)

Columbo has to worry about being healthy, maybe hes more suited for a passing team and play guard?

Pettiti is our RT and Adams is our LT, so the way i see it we have 2 OT that are OT and a possiblity of 3 multi-positional players

 

[WoodysGirl]

Wait ... off-topic tomfoolery by these two posters is justifiable?!

Ding, ding, ding, ding ...they've just hit the DAILY DOUBLE ...! Ok, you're the boss WG.

Threads are hijacked everyday on this board. Yours is not the first nor will it be the last. Don't be so sensitive.

Actually Reality is the boss, I just get to beat up on Yeager since he's still the rookie Mod. :

 

[the kid 05]

whos hijacking?

 

[Stash]

Dayam ...that's a great question ...I'm so glad you asked it.

In some instances trimming down a roster could actually mean loosing a player that may have key characteristics or as a result of the roster loss/trim down the impact has an indirect domino effect.

For example ...Tucker's loss may not necessarily be viewed as a direct key loss to the team, but may be a key loss to the OL (e.g., depth, rotation, back ups to solidify a position during a cintingency situation).



My answer is not necessarily. How could you possibly know what Impact (direct or otherwise) Tucker's removal from the roster, will have on the OL?
Time will tell.

Yet more double-talk and nonsense from the fountain of misinformation.

This act is truly getting old.........

 

[Vintage]

hes a big boy...nose tackle? maybe he can play Center in a running scheme.

Fabini maybe able to play guard we dont know (unless you do)

Columbo has to worry about being healthy, maybe hes more suited for a passing team and play guard?

Pettiti is our RT and Adams is our LT, so the way i see it we have 2 OT that are OT and a possiblity of 3 multi-positional players

Nose Tackle? Are you serious? Are we just throwing out stuff? Owens is tall. And he can catch. And he has speed. He'd make a good zone FS. While we are at it....Ferguson is big and fat. I bet he can play LG. Allen was big and fat too.

And why would we play Tucker at Center? What has he shown to suggest he is capable of it? We rip on Gurode for mental mistakes at the center spot. Imagine Tucker!

Fabini and Columbo, to the best of my knowledge, have never played G. Seems foolish to count on them to be able to do so.

 

[WoodysGirl]

whos hijacking?

Actually nobody. But the term was in response to his "off-topic tomfoolery" comment. PT just doesn't like getting tagged similar to his boy, TO.

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

A "key" loss is a superstar player or a solid player who the drop off to who replaces him is big.

For example, Flozell Adams was a "key" loss because of the drop off from him to Tucker.

Roy Williams would be a "key" loss because he is a legitimate superstar. Terrell Owens from the Eagles in 2004 and then again in 2005 was a "key" loss. They battled through it in 2004, it and the "key" loss of a healthy Donovan McNabb sunk them in 2005.

A "regular" loss is one where the backup comes in and plays just as well, or even better. The Packers lost Don Majkowksi and in the process discovered Brett Favre. The Patriots lost Drew Bledsoe and in the process discovered Tom Brady.

That's good enough for me.

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

PT, in case you missed it...

How could I miss what I created?

...Vintage Refusing to Let PT Ignore This

That's called stalking in some circles!

Phoenix-Talon [allegedly]Trying to Desperately Change Topic[/B]

Makinng a mature observation that sometimes it's probably Best to not respond if all you can say is in ...emoticonbonics!

Originally Posted by Vintage Pwns PT

You really showed me!

 

[Funxva]

That's good enough for me.

Just made me think of the Great Cookie Monster.

"C" is for "Cookie" that's good enough for me! Hey!


Sing along!

Seriously though:

Losing Tucker is a boon to the OL, we can't possibly get anyone worse than him on the team.

I could Lie down on the ground and block better than he did.

 

[Vintage]

PT, you are hilarious.

You can't even admit you were wrong. Every thread lately, that you have created, you have been proven wrong.

And you resort to petty little games in hopes of coming out smelling like roses, or saving some face.

You. Are. Wrong. Again.

This keeps on growing.

It started out as "TO is bad for the team" to "Owens will clash with Parcells" to "team chemistry." Then it became "Allen and Cortez" which was really a metaphor for "Owens and the rest of the team chemistry" which evolved into "losing our best OL in Allen." That of course became "losing two key OL"....then morphed into "Tucker was a key OL"....then it became "what is the definition of a key loss.."

Every time you are wrong, you simply change the scope of the arguement.

I wonder what it will be next time.

 

[Stash]

PT, you are hilarious.

You can't even admit you were wrong. Every thread lately, that you have created, you have been proven wrong.

And you resort to petty little games in hopes of coming out smelling like roses, or saving some face.

You. Are. Wrong. Again.

This keeps on growing.

It started out as "TO is bad for the team" to "Owens will clash with Parcells" to "team chemistry." Then it became "Allen and Cortez" which was really a metaphor for "Owens and the rest of the team chemistry" which evolved into "losing our best OL in Allen." That of course became "losing two key OL"....then morphed into "Tucker was a key OL"....then it became "what is the definition of a key loss.."

Every time you are wrong, you simply change the scope of the arguement.

I wonder what it will be next time.

The positive in all of this is that his ruse has been exposed.

The cat is out of the bag.

No more feigning ignorance or claiming innocence.

The agenda has been clearly defined over and over again.

Better to slink back to the Eagles' board and pine for the good 'ol days of NFC mediocrity where your Eagles were the best of the worst.

There's not much to look forward to this year in Philadelphia.

And despite your best efforts, hopes, and dreams, the Cowboys are in a much better place than the Eagles.

:trophy:

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

Whats the difference between off topic tomfoolery and your on topic buffoonery? Seems to me, its just semantics.

Not quite ...

buf·foon·er·y Verb Definition: Clowning - Silly Behaviortom-fool-ery
Adjective
Definition: silly statement

 

[Cowboys&Caps]

like losing TO to your divisional rivals ??

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

Actually nobody. But the term was in response to his "off-topic tomfoolery" comment. PT just doesn't like getting tagged similar to his boy, TO.

OW! Stop it!

 

[Vintage]

Not quite ...

buf·foon·er·y Verb Definition: Clowning - Silly Behaviortom-fool-ery
Adjective
Definition: silly statement

You asked how our off topic tomfoolery was justifiable.

I asked what was the difference between that and your on topic buffoonery. Meaning, both are not proactive in promoting thoughtful discussion on the boards.

And the semantics part I included was reffering to how you define what is justifiable to the board and what isn't.

------

Let's try to stick to the topic, no mattered how flawed it is and how wrong you are.

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

like losing TO to your divisional rivals ??

Thta was no loss ...that was disposal!

 

[Vintage]

Thta was no loss ...that was disposal!

Oh.

So disposing of Owens will have less of an impact to your team, seeing as how he was your #1 WR....

than us, losing our 5th OT on the depth chart, who would have likely been cut...?

Riiiiight.

Your agenda is "oh-so-apparent" in every thread.

You still haven't answered me. What is so "key" about losing a OT that would have been 5th on depth charts, probably been cut anyway, and gave up 12.5 sacks in 10 games?

What is so key about that loss?