What's irrational about your argument? Umm.. Everything.. As I've already proven.
In other words, nothing. Please feel free to explain how my argument is IRRATIONAL. I truly don't have a clue why you would say someones opinion of how good a player is (which by the way fits with his career achievements quite nicely) could be described as irrational.
Sorry, Andy. You're wrong. My argument was that he WON the job from Alex Brown, starting all 14 games in 2007 until his injury.
Your specific comment was how can he be bad against the run if he started 14 games in 2007. Do I need to keep going back and pasting in your comments for you to accept what you said?
[quoye]Alex Brown was the starter in 2006. YOU were the one who brought up that Anderson couldn't have been good because the Bears run defense was poor in 2007 in comparison to 2006 and 2008. Sorry, but you cannot, under any circumstances, based the performance of a single player on a team stat like that. [/quote]
OK. Try to follow along.
You said that he couldnt be bad vs the run because he started in 2007. I found that to be a silly comment, and also noticed the Bears run d was bad that year. Where did I base his performance on that? I just stated that your point was silly, in part because of that.
Put it this way. Joe Blow is a starting TE. Therefore he must be a good run blocker or he wouldn't start. Illogical conclusion. If ON TOP OF THAT his team was awful running the ball, it adds to the possibility that while he is out there, maybe he isn't doing a real good job. See, that doesnt say the running game is his fault, it accentuates the ridiculous argument that anyone who starts one year out of 6 must be good at every aspect of his position.
My assessment was that he was SOLID. Not good. not great. SOLID. That's all I've said. Unlike you who is going around comparing him to Derrick Burgess.
That is the first time you have used that word. Capitalizing it doesn't make it go back in time and get retroactively added to your posts.
Did I really compare him to Derrick Burgess? Really?
If you actually look at the post I compared his ROLE to Burgess. When someone mistook that for comparing him to Burgess I IMMEDIATELY cleared up that misconception and 3 times stated I was referring to his role. But you know that, you just can't find anything I've actually posted to fit into your insult pattern, so you need to make one up.
You don't have the foggiest idea what I think because you are too damn busy making asinine assumptions about what have said and defending your opinion than actually reading the words.
I know exactly what you think because you posted it. You said he is closer to Vrabel than Burgess. Now you say you didnt say it?
OH, btw. When Vrabel got here. No one knew what we were getting since Vrabel had been a situational pass rusher in Pittsburgh. And, Vrabel had all of 7 sacks in 4 seasons with Pittsburgh and NO Starts. So, by your thinking, we should have never expected Vrabel to be good against the run or to be able to develop into the great all around player he became for the Pats.
No. We should have assessed Vrabel as the player Vrabel was, and we should assess Anderson as the player Anderson is.
Anderson would be the same player whether Vrabel became a HOF or was cut in his first camp.
Vrabel was not proven to have the deficiencies that Anderson does.
They are different players. They don't even really play the same position. There backgrounds are completed different.
It is moronic to say that Anderson is better than he is because Vrabel turned out better than you thought he was.
