John Clayton predicts Jason Taylor will sign with the Dolphins

[Sean Pa Patriot]

You are deflecting and backtracking...

Name me one other who gets it as WRONG as Clayton.

Peter King and Clayton are both tied in wrong predictions.. Schefter was the man on the spot, and that is because of his nfl contacts, now that he will be with Espn, his accuracy will be down alot..

 

[PatsBoy12]

I was just curious and I looked it up, Michael Strahan was 36 when he retired. If we could get JT for two or three years than we should be ok. He is not our future though, We need to have another younger option on the team by 2010. Crable or a Draft pick or even a free agent could fill that role in the future.

:agree::agree:

 

[Deus Irae]

You are deflecting and backtracking...

Name me one other who gets it as WRONG as Clayton.

I'm neither deflecting nor backtracking, and you never gave me the name of that sports reporter.

 

[efin98]

I'm neither deflecting nor backtracking, and you never gave me the name of that sports reporter.

Mike Reiss and Chris Gasper. I don't believe I've seen much if any of their work that has been proven false or proven to be speculation that was baseless like Clayton's work has been.

Happy or would you like to rip that apart as well until I find someone that fits your views on reporter standards?

And answer my question about a reporter who gets his stories more wrong than Clayton if you can. I'd be glad to read that list.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

And we care what Clayton thinks exactly...um...ah...because...why...?

 

[mgteich]

And who have we drafted at OLB over the last two years to be a starting OLB other than Crable?

I was just curious and I looked it up, Michael Strahan was 36 when he retired. If we could get JT for two or three years than we should be ok. He is not our future though, We need to have another younger option on the team by 2010. Crable or a Draft pick or even a free agent could fill that role in the future.

 

[Deus Irae]

Mike Reiss and Chris Gasper. I don't believe I've seen much if any of their work that has been proven false or proven to be speculation that was baseless like Clayton's work has been.

Happy or would you like to rip that apart as well until I find someone that fits your views on reporter standards?

And answer my question about a reporter who gets his stories more wrong than Clayton if you can. I'd be glad to read that list.

Check out Reiss on the Cassel situation and get back to me. I don't read enough of Gasper to point anything out off the top of my head. However, Reiss doesn't release anywhere near the volume of 'new' information that Clayton does.

As for reporters who get it wrong, I don't bother making lists of that sort. I'm not the one making the idiotic comments about Clayton, you are, so I don't need to come up with that defense. I don't keep a running tally. It's enough that I point out the ridiculous flaws in your claims.

 

[Deus Irae]

And who have we drafted at OLB over the last two years to be a starting OLB other than Crable?

You're hung up on the "drafted" part of the equation, despite using non-drafted players as the basis for your argument's comparisons.

 

[efin98]

Check out Reiss on the Cassel situation and get back to me. I don't read enough of Gasper to point anything out off the top of my head. However, Reiss doesn't release anywhere near the volume of 'new' information that Clayton does.

Volume doesn't equal quality. Reiss got burned by the Cassel situation but his writing and reports have been among the best and most accurate.

As for reporters who get it wrong, I don't bother making lists of that sort. I'm not the one making the idiotic comments about Clayton, you are, so I don't need to come up with that defense. I don't keep a running tally. It's enough that I point out the ridiculous flaws in your claims.

Answer the question. You called me on naming someone who gets it right, answer who gets it wrong more than Clayton.

 

[Deus Irae]

Volume doesn't equal quality. Burying your wrong information among numerous reports doesn't take away the wrong information reported.

So what? Your claim was not that he's imperfect. Everybody's imperfect. You made a completely idiotic comment. You also relied upon someone's shoddy work while berating Clayton for his, supposedly, shoddy work.

Would at least expect some stories to come true with their lead writer...but too much to expect there.

That comment was just ludicrous.

Deflecting

Answer the question.

You should probably learn what "deflecting" means. While you're at it, you could stop tossing out this red herring.

 

[efin98]

So what? Your claim was not that he's imperfect. Everybody's imperfect. You made a completely idiotic comment. You also relied upon someone's shoddy work while berating Clayton for his, supposedly, shoddy work.

]That comment was just ludicrous.

You should probably learn what "deflecting" means. While you're at it, you could stop tossing out this red herring.

Answer the damn question.

 

[Deus Irae]

Answer the damn question.

Since it has nothing to do with the discussion and I'd only be guessing.....

No.

 

[efin98]

Since it has nothing to do with the discussion and I'd only be guessing.....

No.

You posed the same question to me about someone who gets it right, I'm demanding an answer for who gets it wrong.

Stop deflecting and answer the question.

 

[Deus Irae]

You posed the same question to me about someone who gets it right, I'm demanding an answer for who gets it wrong.

Stop deflecting and answer the question.

Again, I'm not deflecting and you need to consult a dictionary. Again, I could only guess the answer and I'm not going to do that. Again, I posed the question to you because you're the one who made the idiotic statement. My not allowing you to sidetrack the discussion down a different path is NOT deflection, no matter how often you try claiming it is. You keep trying to toss out that red herring to take attention from the fact that you posted something that was absolutely ludicrous.

 

[efin98]

Again, I'm not deflecting and you need to consult a dictionary. Again, I could only guess the answer and I'm not going to do that. Again, I posed the question to you because you're the one who made the idiotic statement. My not allowing you to sidetrack the discussion down a different path is NOT deflection, no matter how often you try claiming it is. You keep trying to toss out that red herring to take attention from the fact that you posted something that was absolutely ludicrous.

Then weasel out and don't answer it. Forget it. If you haven't answered it in the four hours I've been on your case about it you will never bother to answer it

 

[Deus Irae]

Then weasel out and don't answer it. Forget it. If you haven't answered it in the four hours I've been on your case about it you will never bother to answer it

I'm not answering it, and it's not weaseling out. All the smilies in the world won't change that. You made a bonehead statement. Instead of just saying something like "Yeah, that was stupid. I took it too far", you tried to flip the argument around.

Look, I get it. You don't like the Crypt Keeper. That's fine for you. You don't have to get ridiculous in your reasoning and arguments why. Once you do that, you become far less credible than you derisively claim Clayton is. Of course, since you didn't even concede to the irony of quoting an erroneous/misleading post made by a poster trying to point out Clayton errors, there's not a lot of credibility on this subject for you to lose anyway.

 

[PATRIOT64]

SMY in her latest article in ProJo says its all but a done deal that Taylor will become a NE Patriot very soon

 

[slash83]

SMY in her latest article in ProJo says its all but a done deal that Taylor will become a NE Patriot very soon

sounds good to me.

 

[efin98]

I'm not answering it, and it's not weaseling out. All the smilies in the world won't change that. You made a bonehead statement. Instead of just saying something like "Yeah, that was stupid. I took it too far", you tried to flip the argument around.

Look, I get it. You don't like the Crypt Keeper. That's fine for you. You don't have to get ridiculous in your reasoning and arguments why. Once you do that, you become far less credible than you derisively claim Clayton is. Of course, since you didn't even concede to the irony of quoting an erroneous/misleading post made by a poster trying to point out Clayton errors, there's not a lot of credibility on this subject for you to lose anyway.

Enough. You refused. I tried to get you to answer and you still refused. Enough.

 

[Patjew]

.................................................