Zeke only got 23 touches

[Dodger12]

3 1/2 weeks of rest and he gets 23 touches. Linehan needs to answer. I don't care if 13 guys are in the box, make them prove they can stop it before to stop it yourself.

The int was supposedly a run/pass option call, and Dak checked out to the pass because 8 guys were in the box. Sometimes running into 8 is a win with Zeke.

We have to save him for the latter part of his career. No need to over use him this early.

 

[tyke1doe]

I started our conversation incorrectly? You started it on some tangent that wasn't related to the point that I made, as if that tangent was somehow an argument against what I said.

Actually, you asked a question based on the comments of another poster. I offered my opinion. And the tangent was already established because someone brought Romo into a thread discussing Zeke's carries.

The strawman came several posts in. You can bring up all of those old Romo arguments all you want, but it is not a valid response or an argument against what I said (And it was an argument against what I said, though I'm sure you'll try to claim otherwise - and your claim was lacking in logic as well, "It stands to reason...blah blah." No, it didn't stand to reason.).

Actually, I was responding to the Romo comment that was interjected into a thread about Zeke. If one wants to postulate that Romo would have shredded the Packers defense, I can postulate that I don't think Romo would have made a difference based on the arguments made about him in previous discussions regarding the playoffs.
And, yes, it DOES stand to reason. You just don't like my reasoning.

I did not try to show my argument was more logical.

Yeah, because a strawman isn't defined as a logical fallacy. If someone is trying to argue that his opponent (in this case me) is employing a strawman, then by definition of the term strawman he is asserting that his position is beyond the use of a strawman, and, thus, is more logical.
Maybe you don't know the meaning of terms, but I do.

I tried to show that you weren't even talking on the same point I was making, thus your quote was off base.

You asked a question. I offered an answer to your question based on my opinion. This is a running discussion. Just as you asked a question and made a position based on the poster you were questioning, I did the same to you.

I don't think you have an understanding of my points and are trying to talk about different things, and THAT is why I have a problem. I even said that having the other opinion was perfectly fine and reasonable and that in no way changes the validity of the other opinion.

Oh, I understand your point, and I responded. You didn't like my response so you cry "strawman" and here we are.
Let's simplify this: You believe Romo would have shredded the Packers defense. I believe whether he would or wouldn't, it wouldn't have made any difference in the final results. Why? Because the defense didn't show any consistency in stopping Aaron Rodgers. That likely would not have happened had Romo been in the game. Thus, the failure of Romo and Dak would have been because of the defense - the same arguments/excuses made for Romo in the past.

I missed your words "have to" apparently. My bad on that. It's still an irrelevant point. We're not talking about some absurd hypothetical that isn't a logical one. It is a very logical and common hypothetical, and the opinion is based on history (at least mine would be), an analysis of the ability of the players and teams involved, etc. Those are reality based components.

And all that is well and good. It is your opinion. I'm not saying that it isn't a logical opinion. It's just unproven and cannot be proven. It is a hypothetical that cannot be tested or verified. In that sense, it isn't relevant to this discussion, especially since this is a discussion about Zeke's carries.

Now you're going onto other tangents with scientific hypothesis and "law" etc. It's how you do things. You always go to absurd tangents.

They're only absurd if you don't understand them. I'm explaining to you what a hypothetical is and isn't. I'm sorry I'm detailed that way.

Hypotheticals can be and ARE based on reality without being tested and proven. There are designs, strategies, plans, etc. developed on hypotheticals that cannot be tested in the real world.

Then they aren't real, my friend. Maybe the word "real" is what is tripping us up. When I use the term real I'm using the dictionary definition - being or occuring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence. Since Romo was not involved in the Packers game, any speculation of what he would have done is not real and does not comport to reality - the quality or state of being actual or true.

Let's get to the point (which you have ignored)...

I didn't ignore it. You sidetracked this discussion with your rant about the logic of my point. But, yes, let's continue.

Is the opinion that Romo would have shredded the GB defense a ridiculous one?

No, it is not.

Is this something that is completely far-fetched and extremely unlikely had he played?

No, it is not.

So let me ask now:
It has been often said that the reason Romo couldn't deliver the Cowboys a Super Bowl is because he never had a complementary defense. Have you not heard this around this form? Do you agree?
Assuming you agree, do you believe we had a Super Bowl-caliber defense?
Based on the fact that it has been argued Romo couldn't take us where we wanted to go because of our weak/weaker defenses, and based on this game (like 2014) being decided because our defense couldn't stop Rodgers, isn't it reasonable to assume that even if Romo had been in the game we wouldn't have won the Green Bay game?

 

[tyke1doe]

See, why even bring this up when trying to counter the idea that Romo could have shredded the Packer's D? The Cowboys have had bad defenses (and OLs, and other problem areas) in the past, and it has been the biggest factor for the most part for the TEAM not advancing in the playoffs. The same was true on Sunday. The defense was the biggest factor. Nobody said otherwise. You are trying to argue a different discussion. Then your "stands to reason" is not based on logic.

So let me ask you a simple question: What is the conclusion of the phrase "Romo would have shredded the Packers defense"? Are you saying he would have shredded the defense and we would have won? Or are you saying he would have shredded the Packers defense and we would have loss?

The failures of past teams or Sunday's does not dictate what Romo would have done on THIS Cowboys team against THIS Packer's defense.

But Romo's successes in the past (which you used as "evidence" for your opinion) dictate what he would have done in THIS game, i.e., shredding the Packers defense?

With all due respect, it sounds like you're trying to validate your hypothetical and dismiss mine. But the same underlying argument you use to support your claim I'm using to support mine.

The question is: Would he have shredded the defense? That was the only thing posed.

But you didn't just say that. Later you said you believe he would based on his past performance.
Well, I did the same thing. I said I don't think he would have significant enough to lead us to victory based on past factors also.

But if you want to, you could go further and say he did shred them and ask if it could or would have made a difference. That's another discussion to have after the first. I would say that yes, it's certainly possible he could have done well enough to make a difference in the outcome.

But why raise the question of whether Romo could have shredded this defense if the conclusion isn't by shredding the defense, the Cowboys would have won? It makes this hypothetical argument that much more ridiculous, IMO.

Let me give you an example. A man drowns. The lifeguard trying to save him swims out to get him but he arrives late. An observer says, "Well, the other lifeguard would have reached him faster."
Okay? And? What is the purpose of making such a statement?
The implication is that by swimming faster to the victim, the victim would have been saved. The statement simply doesn't make sense if it's just an opinion without a conclusion.

Did he play well? Are you trying to say that it's impossible that someone could have played better than Tony did that day? Are you saying it's his fault they lost? What exactly is your point here? Another "argument" that doesn't really seem to have a place in this discussion.

So you all get to change the topic of the thread, engage in hypotheticals, but I don't?
I answer this question in the other thread.

Okay, you finally did get to it. I honestly stopped reading this post after the first couple parts because it was too ridiculous to finish. So he "may have 'carved' the Packers defense up. Thank you. So you agree with me that someone having that opinion is not ridiculous. That's all you had to say.

And maybe you could have clarified your position instead of declaring that a response to your questions in which I gave my opinion was a strawman.

 

[EPL0c0]

I think getting down 21-3 in a blink of an eye had more to do with the limited touches than the game plan. And as far as his int goes.. that was just a very awful pass, Looked to me like he missed his target by several feet, like he was throwing to Dez but Dez was the blocker.. the WR was behind Dez. That was just an awful play by Dak.

Agreed.

BUT where they should have run him was that drive toward the end of the 1st half.

1st & 10 from GB15 (1:19): 3 straight pass attempts killed just :19 and gained 0yds. Their Dline was looked to be sucking a bit of wind at that point. If they run at least 2 times, at worst Dallas could have still settled for a FG, at best, Zeke breaks into the endzone.

Dallas settled for the FG and did get lucky that with 1:00, Rodgers didn't roll them downfield for a late FG.

it was little decisions like that that could have made a difference in the game. Of course, there were other little mistakes that all added up in the end.

 

[Q_the_man]

Frankly Dak (and we) were lucky he didnt throw 2 or 3 more picks, GB dropped them. He cannot exploit a secondary like Romo.

He's a rookie, for example no way runs in for 2 to tie game. Penalties killed us early and late.

 

[Kevinicus]

Actually, you asked a question based on the comments of another poster. I offered my opinion. And the tangent was already established because someone brought Romo into a thread discussing Zeke's carries.

I did ask a question. Your response was not related to what I said.

Actually, I was responding to the Romo comment that was interjected into a thread about Zeke. If one wants to postulate that Romo would have shredded the Packers defense, I can postulate that I don't think Romo would have made a difference based on the arguments made about him in previous discussions regarding the playoffs.
And, yes, it DOES stand to reason. You just don't like my reasoning.

You can postulate that you don't think he would have made a difference. You should have quoted the person who expressed that opinion, not me. My comment was in regards to the "ridiculousness" of that opinion, not whether or not it was true.

Yeah, because a strawman isn't defined as a logical fallacy. If someone is trying to argue that his opponent (in this case me) is employing a strawman, then by definition of the term strawman he is asserting that his position is beyond the use of a strawman, and, thus, is more logical.
Maybe you don't know the meaning of terms, but I do.

Just because I point out that you are using a logical fallacy does not mean I am attempting to compare the logical veracity of the arguments. This is especially true with the strawman argument (as it isn't really about the use of logic, but more about manipulation of the "debate").

You asked a question. I offered an answer to your question based on my opinion. This is a running discussion. Just as you asked a question and made a position based on the poster you were questioning, I did the same to you.

You did offer an answer, and I pointed out that part of it was irrelevant to what I had said, and used poor examples. Then you went all haywire with what has been debated about for Romo in the past...all irrelevant.

Oh, I understand your point, and I responded. You didn't like my response so you cry "strawman" and here we are.
Let's simplify this: You believe Romo would have shredded the Packers defense. I believe whether he would or wouldn't, it wouldn't have made any difference in the final results. Why? Because the defense didn't show any consistency in stopping Aaron Rodgers. That likely would not have happened had Romo been in the game. Thus, the failure of Romo and Dak would have been because of the defense - the same arguments/excuses made for Romo in the past.

You know, not once did I say Romo would have shredded the defense. That was another poster remember? As to the rest of that, that's a fair opinion. There are definitely arguments to make against it.

And all that is well and good. It is your opinion. I'm not saying that it isn't a logical opinion. It's just unproven and cannot be proven. It is a hypothetical that cannot be tested or verified. In that sense, it isn't relevant to this discussion, especially since this is a discussion about Zeke's carries.

First...again...the title was changed. It was originally just called "Zeke." It was about the use of Zeke in the game. Funny thing about football is that it's all interconnected, so the QB and the impact they have is a viable point of discussion. Of course, it is all opinion and can't be proven. Ninenty-nine percent of what goes on here is opinion and can't be proven. That's football. That's sports. That's life. Nobody suggested it could be. Opinion is perfectly relevant in discussion. That's what the thread and forum is for.

They're only absurd if you don't understand them. I'm explaining to you what a hypothetical is and isn't. I'm sorry I'm detailed that way.

I understand them. I know what a hypothetical is. It's absurd because it's not related. It derails the discussion.

Then they aren't real, my friend. Maybe the word "real" is what is tripping us up. When I use the term real I'm using the dictionary definition - being or occuring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence. Since Romo was not involved in the Packers game, any speculation of what he would have done is not real and does not comport to reality - the quality or state of being actual or true.

If someone speculates, the speculation is "real." The speculation is based on "real" history. I think the world "context" might be what is tripping us (you) up. Maybe the word "based" as well.

I didn't ignore it. You sidetracked this discussion with your rant about the logic of my point. But, yes, let's continue.

I missed it because your sidetracking made me stop reading.

No, it is not.

No, it is not.

So let me ask now:
It has been often said that the reason Romo couldn't deliver the Cowboys a Super Bowl is because he never had a complementary defense. Have you not heard this around this form? Do you agree?
Assuming you agree, do you believe we had a Super Bowl-caliber defense?
Based on the fact that it has been argued Romo couldn't take us where we wanted to go because of our weak/weaker defenses, and based on this game (like 2014) being decided because our defense couldn't stop Rodgers, isn't it reasonable to assume that even if Romo had been in the game we wouldn't have won the Green Bay game?

So you never disagreed with my questioning of that other poster.

I don't agree with the notion you present of a player delivering a team. But yes, poor defense has been listed as a major reason for the team's failures. Do I think the team had a Superbowl caliber defense this year? I don't really believe much in the idea of defining the caliber of on half of the team. A team is super-bowl caliber or it is not. A poor defense can make it difficult, as can a poor offense (ask Houston). But neither ensures the team as a whole cannot make it. The defense was definitely the biggest weakness of this team this year, but I would still suggest the team overall is of superbowl caliber.

I don't believe that is a reasonable assumption. It's a reasonable opinion to have, but not a reasonable assumption.

So let me ask you a simple question: What is the conclusion of the phrase "Romo would have shredded the Packers defense"? Are you saying he would have shredded the defense and we would have won? Or are you saying he would have shredded the Packers defense and we would have loss?

I didn't say that. However, I would say the conclusion is...Romo would have shredded the Packer's defense. That neither guarantees a win or a loss. I would suppose that the poster probably felt it would have given the team a better chance, but I can't speak for him/her. I won't put words in their mouth.

But Romo's successes in the past (which you used as "evidence" for your opinion) dictate what he would have done in THIS game, i.e., shredding the Packers defense?

Romo's entire body of work, his play, is evidence of the quality of player Romo is. Factoring in that with other factors, such as the quality of the other guys on the team, and the quality of the other team is used for the basis of an opinion. You are not talking about Romo's successes. You are trying to use the team's success/failure. You can use poor play from Romo as evidence as well, though cherry picking a few games would not be very wise IMO, especially if that is the only factor you use.

With all due respect, it sounds like you're trying to validate your hypothetical and dismiss mine. But the same underlying argument you use to support your claim I'm using to support mine.

Not the same underlying argument at all. Not my hypothetical either.

But you didn't just say that. Later you said you believe he would based on his past performance.
Well, I did the same thing. I said I don't think he would have significant enough to lead us to victory based on past factors also.

In my opinion, based on everything I know of Romo, the Cowboys team this year, and the Packers this year, right now, yes, I think it could have made a difference. Do I know it would have? No. I would never claim that.

The problem is, the past factors you want to focus on are the arguments people have had over him. You can look at the GB game in 2014 as evidence if you like, but I don't think it supports your position. It supports the position of Romo being a good player, but the teams are different, the game would be different. But hey, if that's how you want to look at football, knock yourself out.

But why raise the question of whether Romo could have shredded this defense if the conclusion isn't by shredding the defense, the Cowboys would have won? It makes this hypothetical argument that much more ridiculous, IMO.

Let me give you an example. A man drowns. The lifeguard trying to save him swims out to get him but he arrives late. An observer says, "Well, the other lifeguard would have reached him faster."
Okay? And? What is the purpose of making such a statement?
The implication is that by swimming faster to the victim, the victim would have been saved. The statement simply doesn't make sense if it's just an opinion without a conclusion.

I can't speak for the other poster. Is it ridiculous to think Romo could have made a difference if he had shredded their defense? That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. If the team scores more early, the complexion of the game changes, and who knows what happens. Maybe they win 45-38. Maybe they win 38-31. Maybe they lose 38-35. Maybe it's 27-24 one way or the other. Either way, it doesn't seem ridiculous to me.

So you all get to change the topic of the thread, engage in hypotheticals, but I don't?
I answer this question in the other thread.

Nobody changed the topic of the thread until people started calling opinions ridiculous. And if that's what you want to do, go for it. Just don't quote me asking a legitimate question unless you're going to deal with that question and not with some other argument you want to have.

And maybe you could have clarified your position instead of declaring that a response to your questions in which I gave my opinion was a strawman.

How could I have been any clearer? Pretty much every post I have gone back to the question of whether or not it was ridiculous to say Romo would have shredded the defense. There was nothing else to clarify. Is that difficult for you to understand? I said exactly what I meant in clear English.

 

[tyke1doe]

I'm going to only respond to portions of your post because this is getting too long.

I did ask a question. Your response was not related to what I said.

Actually, you asked a question. What was said preceded you. And what was said that caused you to respond was the poster saying that Romo would have shred the Packers' defense. If the door is open to discuss Romo in a thread talking about Zeke, how can you then determine what I said was not relative to the tangential conversation. I didn't introduce the Romo conversation. Another did. I just elaborated with my own commentary.

You can postulate that you don't think he would have made a difference. You should have quoted the person who expressed that opinion, not me. My comment was in regards to the "ridiculousness" of that opinion, not whether or not it was true.

Translation: it's okay for you to start a conversation based on another's comments but I can't start a conversation based on your post.

You did offer an answer, and I pointed out that part of it was irrelevant to what I had said, and used poor examples. Then you went all haywire with what has been debated about for Romo in the past...all irrelevant.

First, you didn't offer anything other than questions. I posed an opinion based on your question, and springboarded into the tangential topic which has diverted this thread, namely, what Romo would have done. If that has become the topic, my hypothetical is very much relevant - unless you're willing to offer that the entire discussion of Romo in a thread about Zeke is relevant. But you don't get to determine what we can discuss about Romo now that the topic has gone there.

You know, not once did I say Romo would have shredded the defense. That was another poster remember? As to the rest of that, that's a fair opinion. There are definitely arguments to make against it.

Fair enough.

First...again...the title was changed. It was originally just called "Zeke." It was about the use of Zeke in the game. Funny thing about football is that it's all interconnected, so the QB and the impact they have is a viable point of discussion. Of course, it is all opinion and can't be proven. Ninenty-nine percent of what goes on here is opinion and can't be proven. That's football. That's sports. That's life. Nobody suggested it could be. Opinion is perfectly relevant in discussion. That's what the thread and forum is for.

And yet you've spent pages arguing that the point I raised is irrelevant.
Well, thank you for acknowledging that opinion is perfectly relevant in a discussion and that it's okay to divert the topic of Zeke's carries to Romo's performance in a game in which he didn't play. I guess that means it's equally relevant to discuss whether Romo would have had success against the Packers and whether that success would have led to a Cowboys win.

I understand them. I know what a hypothetical is. It's absurd because it's not related. It derails the discussion.

Says the man who just acknowledged that it's okay to derail a thread about Zeke carries with conversation about what Romo would have done if he were playing in Sunday's game.

If someone speculates, the speculation is "real." The speculation is based on "real" history. I think the world "context" might be what is tripping us (you) up. Maybe the word "based" as well.

Speculation which cannot be proven is not real. It's not actual. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a speculation.
You're just arguing to be arguing now.

So you never disagreed with my questioning of that other poster.

Why would I need to disagree with your questioning of the other poster? I saw your questions and used them as a springboard. I don't see why that bothered you when you just finished saying that this is a forum for discussion.

I didn't say that. However, I would say the conclusion is...Romo would have shredded the Packer's defense. That neither guarantees a win or a loss.

Then, it's a meaningless statement to make if it doesn't have a conclusion. See my example about the life guard.

Romo's entire body of work, his play, is evidence of the quality of player Romo is. Factoring in that with other factors, such as the quality of the other guys on the team, and the quality of the other team is used for the basis of an opinion. You are not talking about Romo's successes. You are trying to use the team's success/failure. You can use poor play from Romo as evidence as well, though cherry picking a few games would not be very wise IMO, especially if that is the only factor you use.

Romo's success is because of the team. Romo's quality of play is because of the team. Football is a team sport.
Second, success in the playoffs is determined by a win. In another thread, a poster argued that Dak's stats were better than Rodgers' implying that Dak played better than Rodgers because his stats were slightly better. I said that doesn't mean Dak was more successful than Rodgers because Rodgers' team won and Dak's team lost.

I can't speak for the other poster. Is it ridiculous to think Romo could have made a difference if he had shredded their defense? That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. If the team scores more early, the complexion of the game changes, and who knows what happens. Maybe they win 45-38. Maybe they win 38-31. Maybe they lose 38-35. Maybe it's 27-24 one way or the other. Either way, it doesn't seem ridiculous to me.

I don't think it's unreasonable either. I never said it was. However, I was noting what others have said about Romo and why he couldn't deliver a victory, i.e., he never had a great defense. I don't think it's relevant to point out that Romo would have shredded the Packers defense unless the intent of the comment is the conclusion that the Cowboys would have won. What difference does it make if Romo shreds the Packers defense and they lose? That doesn't make sense. But if the hypothetical is followed through to its natural conclusion (Romo would have shredded the Packers defense and the Cowboys would have won) then my discussion about the Cowboys poor defense makes perfectly good sense.

Nobody changed the topic of the thread until people started calling opinions ridiculous.

But that's what you did.

How could I have been any clearer? Pretty much every post I have gone back to the question of whether or not it was ridiculous to say Romo would have shredded the defense. There was nothing else to clarify. Is that difficult for you to understand? I said exactly what I meant in clear English.

Again, see my life guard example. The question of whether Romo could have shredded the Packers defense is irrelevant if it doesn't have a conclusion. I understand English very well. I'm trying to understand the logic in raising a question for which there is no conclusion.

P.S. You can have the last word. I don't need to devote any more attention to this post.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

Wish we could replay this game ;( this is sucks

 

[BAT]

When we passed, our offense had zero penalties, and their defense had two.

When we ran, their defense had zero penalties, and our offense had one (the completely bogus Free hold).

We also committed one dead-ball foul (ha!), and one pre-snap foul on offense.

The rest of our penalties were on our defense, including the PI that should have been def holding that gave them 5 extra yards and allowed them to kick a 56-yard FG.

Butler penalty was also on a pass, or should have been called before play even began.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Dak had a better game than Tony ever has in the playoffs, and some folks are having a hard time coming to grips with it. It's to be expected.

Did we win the game? Last time I checked neither QB has been past the Divisional round.

Putting up stats in a loss means jack, isn't that what you Romo haters said about losing to Denver when Romo had one of the best days a NFL QB has ever had?

 

[Kevinicus]

I'm going to only respond to portions of your post because this is getting too long.


Actually, you asked a question. What was said preceded you. And what was said that caused you to respond was the poster saying that Romo would have shred the Packers' defense. If the door is open to discuss Romo in a thread talking about Zeke, how can you then determine what I said was not relative to the tangential conversation. I didn't introduce the Romo conversation. Another did. I just elaborated with my own commentary.


Translation: it's okay for you to start a conversation based on another's comments but I can't start a conversation based on your post.



First, you didn't offer anything other than questions. I posed an opinion based on your question, and springboarded into the tangential topic which has diverted this thread, namely, what Romo would have done. If that has become the topic, my hypothetical is very much relevant - unless you're willing to offer that the entire discussion of Romo in a thread about Zeke is relevant. But you don't get to determine what we can discuss about Romo now that the topic has gone there.



Fair enough.


And yet you've spent pages arguing that the point I raised is irrelevant.
Well, thank you for acknowledging that opinion is perfectly relevant in a discussion and that it's okay to divert the topic of Zeke's carries to Romo's performance in a game in which he didn't play. I guess that means it's equally relevant to discuss whether Romo would have had success against the Packers and whether that success would have led to a Cowboys win.


Says the man who just acknowledged that it's okay to derail a thread about Zeke carries with conversation about what Romo would have done if he were playing in Sunday's game.




Speculation which cannot be proven is not real. It's not actual. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a speculation.
You're just arguing to be arguing now.



Why would I need to disagree with your questioning of the other poster? I saw your questions and used them as a springboard. I don't see why that bothered you when you just finished saying that this is a forum for discussion.


Then, it's a meaningless statement to make if it doesn't have a conclusion. See my example about the life guard.



Romo's success is because of the team. Romo's quality of play is because of the team. Football is a team sport.
Second, success in the playoffs is determined by a win. In another thread, a poster argued that Dak's stats were better than Rodgers' implying that Dak played better than Rodgers because his stats were slightly better. I said that doesn't mean Dak was more successful than Rodgers because Rodgers' team won and Dak's team lost.


I don't think it's unreasonable either. I never said it was. However, I was noting what others have said about Romo and why he couldn't deliver a victory, i.e., he never had a great defense. I don't think it's relevant to point out that Romo would have shredded the Packers defense unless the intent of the comment is the conclusion that the Cowboys would have won. What difference does it make if Romo shreds the Packers defense and they lose? That doesn't make sense. But if the hypothetical is followed through to its natural conclusion (Romo would have shredded the Packers defense and the Cowboys would have won) then my discussion about the Cowboys poor defense makes perfectly good sense.


But that's what you did.


Again, see my life guard example. The question of whether Romo could have shredded the Packers defense is irrelevant if it doesn't have a conclusion. I understand English very well. I'm trying to understand the logic in raising a question for which there is no conclusion.

P.S. You can have the last word. I don't need to devote any more attention to this post.

Just a quick word of advice. When you use the "Reply" feature to quote someone, keep your comment related to that specific post. If you want to go on your tangents do it in the main course of the thread. It might save you some confusion.

 

[Chuck 54]

23 touches? what's wrong with that?

Are you suggesting that if he'd gotten 25, 28, 30 touches, we would have scored more and or our defense wouldn't have crapped the bed on the final play?