the sequence...
post 13... in response to wood's attempt to correct you that davis is more than just fast... you seem to be insistent on isolating one of his attributes (speed) at the expense of others, instead of taking a holistic view... not too many TEs bench 500 lbs, either... why wouldn't that be a distinguishing attribute separating him from most TEs, as well?
post 26... the same tedious refrain... speed IS his best attribute... because you said so... i don't even know where to start with the rest... i stated that his strength was a differentiating attribute, as well... you went off into a tangent & said that didn't make him a good blocker (i never said he was a good blocker... are gates & gonzo renowned for their crushing blocks?
)... you then proceed to another weak point of remote relevance... because bosworth, mandarich & griffin were good in college & were abyssmal failures in pros... davis could be, too? did any of the three you mentioned break the strength, speed & vertical jump records for their position... TOGETHER? i don't know when the combine started... so hypothetically... if there was a combine then... do you think they could have... you then misread a point where i said that in ONE respect, i thought davis was more dangerous in the open field than gonzo... & you conflated that into thinking i said he was better period...
this seems to be a pattern with your "dialogue" (i use the term loosely) which will be repeated over & over... when someone wants to say that the situation might be a little more complex (ie - maybe there is more than one reason davis is a great prospect)... no, you have to insist it must be solely the attribute YOU think is most important... conversely, in a mirror opposite case, when i tried to make an isolated point, you got confused & weren't sensitive to the context... and you assumed wrongly i was making a blanket generalization when i wasn't...
you then compounded your error by making an absurd connection about the scouts being hasty with winslow... he is a third year player who has been involved in two games... TOTAL... his failure to live up to expectations so far is due to two grisly injuries... are the scouts supposed to be faulted because they weren't psychic & didn't predict he would break his leg & tear up his knee? if those injuries hadn't happened, are you CERTAIN he wouldn't have been as good as advertised? on what basis? i'd really enjoy hearing that explanation...
you then proceed to another formula with the willie mays question... OBVIOUSLY football is not the only sport where a talented player can be MULTITALENTED... and can have several very strong attributes, such that it is hard to disenatngle them & say... THIS ONE is the only important one... the others are incidental & peripheral... clearly you aren't so dull as to be completely devoid of an ability to GENERALIZE... use metaphors & analogies to shed light on a related area... it was a very straightforward point... rather than admit that you had no answer... you responded with a meaningless gesture that you aren't into baseball... refusing to answer a simple question you were perfectly able to address & understand... understood well enough to realize you would have had to concede the point...
post #28... i guess you needed to regroup, because you were seemingly incapable of formulating a coherent response... you reposted #26...
post #30... you seem to repeat your favorite debating trick... pull out something somebody said in isolation... & conflating it with a blanket generalization... because i mentioned that strength could come in handy in swatting away DBs... than surely i must be ruling out any possibility that leg drive could be a factor as well... you again compound the mistake by insisting that leg drive MUST be the ONLY factor in breaking tackles... a complete & utter lack of sensitivity to the complexities of the situation, which you think you "explain" by reducing a myriad of factors to ONE... lets try a thought experiment... lets bolt onto davis' legs the torso of a peewee leaguer who can't even put up one rep of 225 (hey, the kid is 10... what do you expect?
)... which guy is harder to tackle for the DB... the whole davis... or the half davis legs/half peewee leaguer torso creature? in your world... must be the same... because it is obvious that tackle breaking ability ONLY comes from leg drive... that is the only possible place it could come from...
post #32... and now we really get into my favorite part of the debate... you conflate my contention that strength helps in tackle breaking... with your confused interpretation that i said WEIGHT LIFTING helps... you took from this because jim brown never lifted weights, this disproved the point that strength is an important component in tackle breaking...
you painted yourself into a corner further by INSISTING that stiff arms must have nothing to do with upper body strength... but must come from leg drive & TECHNIQUE (there is a magic catch all word)... so again, in your world... some dude with an arm SO WEAK that he couldn't even pick up a milk carton... would all of a sudden be stiff arming guys like jim brown... JUST because he had strong legs & had mastered some secrets of the ancients pertaining to stiff arming.
post #35... again, seemingly at a loss, you resort to trotting out the same baseless assertions you already had before... which was precisely the point in dispute in the first place...
post #38... it seems to be dawning on you that your situation is hopeless... at this point you resort to misrepresenting what i said earlier... that my point is that tackle breaking came SOLELY from upper body strength... i think this is what they technically call crazy making... if one thing is clear during the course of the back & forth here... i have tried repeatedly, in my own thought & language used to express it... to not do violence to a complex situation by attempting to reduce it to some simplistic, single answer... yet clearly, that is your MO... than you accuse me of doing what you have blatantly, self-indulgently done every step of the way.
you seemingly get confused on another part... when i point out the obvious... to say davis is strong, that could also include strong legs (remember, you said strength wasn't an important attribute... it was only speed... whereas i was still focusing on strength IN ADDITION to speed)... the key word here is INCLUDE... include can bring in more than one attribute... i never agreed with you, which you attempted to distort, that leg strength is the SOLE attribute needed for tackle breaking... just that (LIKE UPPER BODY STRENGTH!!!
), it could be viewed as a COMPONENT in a process that is more complex than you are making it out to be... as usual, grossly oversimplifying things.
post #43... you backpedal incoherently on winslow... you claim you never said he didn't have potential... so why earlier take scouts who thought highly of him to task... you completely gloss over here WHY winslow failed to live up to expectations... which i suppose makes sense, as to do so would have refuted your own point.
posts #44 & 46... the tedious refrain of distort & misrepresent so others won't notice that your logic is so hopelessly twisted that it has now become impossible to extricate yourself from it.
i don't really like the tenor or the direction this has taken... but i think you haven't debated in good faith & you have misrepresented my point repeatedly, so i felt the need to clarify my position.
debating you is like debating somebody in quicksand... i make a point about strength helping with tacklebreaking... your rejoinder is appalingly irrelevant rejoinder that jim brown didn't lift weights... as if not lifting weights precluded him from being STRONG.
than fully realizing he is strong, you went on to talk about how he had a good stiff arm... oblivious to the fact that you were making my point for me... strength (not delimited to only the kind gotten from lifting weights... that was YOUR confusion) is a component part, maybe even an important one, in tackle breaking...
nowhere did i EVER i say legs have nothing to do with tackle breaking (that would be absurd)... i started by objecting to YOUR assertion that it was ALL & ONLY about legs & has nothing to do with upper body... every step of the way i have tried to be inclusive & you have been exclusive)... so when i say, sure, legs are a factor... & davis has really strong legs
... that becomes twisted into i am now i am conceding your point...
just to be clear... if your "point" was that leg drive is the ONLY factor in tackle breaking... than i am far from agreeing with you...
in most cases here in shark pool, i appreciate a good debate... especially if both or several parties listen & are open to revising their opinions or thoughts... in your case, you seem to be heavily invested in a rigid position & way of looking things... when it is questioned, you then committ an even bigger expenditure of energy to DEFENDING that position... which wouldn't be so bad if you were right.
the problem is if you aren't right, the explanations that are used to explain the previous untenable ones can become increasingly unmanageable... maybe because they aren't moored or tethered to something real anymore... but completely revolving around your arguments based on confusions & misinterpretations of others stated positions, which you than defend, but then you need to defend your defenses, ad infinitum.
before copernicus & kepler, the ptolemaic view of cosmology held sway that the sun revolved around earth... the problem was, astronomical observation at the time was sophisticated enough that they noticed some wacky discrepancies in the movement of the planets if they were to persist in interpreting the evidence of their senses in such a way to fit into their, still unknown to them at the time... misguided theory...
but they weren't sophisticated enough (for a long time) to look for a more economical theory that explained the evidence better.
so for a while they employed a device called epicycles, which would reconcile the apparent crazy circling of the heavenly bodies with the starting premise that the sun revolved around the earth... but just as it was becoming more untenable to employ increasingly byzantine movements & patterns of epicycles... copernicus & kepler snapped the puzzle pieces into place that reinterpreted the evidence in light of a new premise...
your late in the debate arguments about arguments remind me of epicycles... i hope you find your inner copernicus & kepler...
except that... if you didn't like the willie mays analogy... your probably REALLY not going to like the astronomical one.
Ben Watson. I think we have barely seen what's to come for this guy, and the vacuum at WR after Deion Branch will open a huge opportunity for his numbers to explode this year.
We've just seen the tip of the iceberg with Watson. I'm expecting a big increase in his numbers this year as he becomes a major part of the offense. A Gates-like breakthrough wouldn't surprise me.
Jim Brown never lifted weights and he had one of the best stiff arm's in NFL history...
