Why is my outright refusal to give an assessment of a player curious? I haven't given an assessment of any player in this draft why would I start now. Furthermore, my assessment has nothing to do with your erroneous statements about Thomas. You wanting my assessment is the red herring. Not my taking you to task for your erroneous statements on Thomas.
It's curious because the topic is Jemea Thomas, not Kontradiction's assessment of Jemea Thomas. Given the topic at hand, if you take issue with my assessment, it's logical to assume that you would give your own. Instead, you ducked the question and tossed out the red herring (not sure you understand what this means) in an attempt to distract. What's stopping you from giving that assessment? It's either that you know it's going to be wrong, or that you agree with me. It's really that simple.
Only your complete ignorance
Another logical fallacy here. This one is called Ad Hominem. This is two for you in this post. Don't worry, I'll keep count.
would allow you to think that I agree with you when I haven't made an assessment of the player.
It's only logical to assume that. Otherwise, it's the other alternative that I laid out. And since I strongly doubt that you honestly believe that he's the perfect safety that does everything well, it has to be that you agree with me but just simply wish to argue.
I took issue with your statements that every draft site agreed with you and that he was "STRICTLY an IN-THE-BOX, RUN SUPPORT SAFETY". Both statements were incorrect.
Based on what, exactly? Oh...
I provided a link to a legitimate webstie that didn't claim he was only an in the box safety.
You mean the same website that stated one of his weaknesses was man coverage in the "weaknesses" section, which is pretty much the same thing I said?
And the OP provided the assessment that showed that he wasn't just an in the box safety who couldn't cover anyone.
This is a straw man. So now we're up to three logical fallacies in one post. I never actually said he "couldn't cover anyone". What I said is that man coverage wasn't his strength. Again, I qualified this later on in the post. You either didn't read it, or chose to ignore it and instead attack me based on the perception that I was actually badmouthing Thomas. Now you're oversimplifying my position so you can attack it simply because you're aware that you have no logical basis to attack it for what it actually is.
Umm.. Yes, those hips were so stiff that he put up what in the 3 cone? A 7.03. Yep.. So stiff.
So now we're leaning more heavily on combine measurables instead of evaluating the player on the field. You've blasted people for doing exactly what you just did in the past. Chung reportedly got a 7.11 in the 3-cone, which isn't too far off of Thomas' numbers. Please tell me you think Chung is solid in man coverage.
You talk about Red Herrings, yet you bring up Spikes??? Spikes couldn't cover in Man to Man, period. His interceptions came either off tipped balls or in zone coverage.
Sure he could. He did it all too often while he was here. Sometimes he was successful, other times he wasn't. Spikes wasn't a guy who "couldn't cover at all". He was a guy whose strengths weren't man to man coverage.
BTW, care to read the LAST line of the page that I put up. You know, the part where it says he'll be a good sub-packed DB???? It doesn't say that he'll only be a good run support sub package DB.
I read it. But I also read the part where it says that one of his weaknesses is man coverage. Other scouting reports note that he's adequate in it when he can get his hands on someone at the LOS. Those same reports also note that, when he doesn't, it usually lead to a PI flag because of the lack of top end speed on top of hips that aren't exactly fluid.
No, I didn't. I dismissed a straw man and clarified things. If I was going to outright deny it, I wouldn't have called out JMC again in this thread. Fact is that he, and now you, are tossing this straw man about left and right when that wasn't what I said.
Also, you don't understand the english language the way you believe you do
Another ad hominem. This is four logical falacies in one post.
because when you say someone is "STRICTLY" something, you're saying he can't do anything else.
No you're not. Stephen Gostkowski is strictly a kicker. That doesn't mean he can't play defense and tackle a ball carrier if the kick gets blocked and goes the other way, just to give you another example of how your use of the word is incorrect.
OH, and, btw, JMC didn't mention you directly. He just said "someone". It was your guilty conscience that led you to believe he was talking about you.
No guilty conscience here. I qualified what I said in the original thread. That both of you have ignored it in favor of tossing out a straw man is not my issue.
Actually, you didn't "qualify what you said" unless you believe this blurb of nonsense is some sort of qualification.
You didn’t claim that Thomas struggled in man coverage. You said he made Arrington look like Revis.
And he would if he was asked to be a cover corner in this league. Man coverage is not his strength. That's not the same as saying he can't do it at all. He's better built to line up in-the-box primarily for run support. I would call that a qualification.
You also said he was strictly a run support safety. A guy who is STRICTLY a run support safety can’t cover.
And I've already shown why this is incorrect.
Again, a grasp of the English language seems to elude you.
This is five. But this is basically built off of the other ad hominem.
Only your own ignorance would allow you to believe that you are kicking anyone’s ass.
The bolded is six now. And it's not ignorance. You're getting your ass kicked, plain and simple. Of the two of us, you have been the one tossing the logical fallacies around, not me. You've been the one attempting to go personal, not me. These are all signs of someone that is gradually becoming aware that they're in the losing position of an argument. Further, that you felt the need to bump this back up to the second page is also telling. Like a man who has had too much to drink in a bar room brawl, you need to learn to stay down. Do yourself a favor, dislike the post and move along.
Yes, it IS about you and what you’ve posted.
No, it isn't. The thread is about the player. Not my assessment of him. You decided to take JMC's straw man, turn it personal, and run with it in order to distract from the fact that your position is a terribly weak one. That you decided to go that direction when you could have easily given your own evaluation of the player is, once again, curious. But I'll play along because this is like throwing a stick of dynamite into a barrell of fish.
And no, the link doesn’t actually back you up.
Sure it does, as I have shown in the excerpt I took from the link...
That is just your own ignorance.
There's seven. I almost lost count.
Of course you don’t believe you are spinning anything. That’s because you just can’t accept that you were wrong in your statements.
In a debate, you typically have to show where the person in wrong. Since you obviously disagreed with my assessment regarding Thomas' strengths and weaknesses I asked you to provide your own. You instead chose to dodge that request in favor of dishing out logical fallacies like they were going out of style. Again, that's curious... and telling.
Care to keep trying?
