- Joined
- Feb 10, 2005
- Messages
- 33,096
- Reaction score
- 22,715
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Hard to follow when you change what you think you meant to think you said every timeYES. REALLY.
*sigh* I will enumerate for you in hopes that you can follow things better since you can't seem to follow the conversation even when you quote it.
Yes it was, you even quoted that comment from me in your response.1) My research comment was not a direct response to you saying he won't play Vrabel's position.
Right, since I don't agree that after 6 years in the NFL of being off the field against the run, he will miraculously become Carl Banks this year, I don't know anything about the guy.That's why it was a separate paragraph. The direct response to you saying that Anderson wouldn't be playing "Vrabes" was my saying:
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...-sign-de-mark-anderson-page8.html#post2617760
"How do you know he won't be playing the same role as Vrabel?"
2) The research comment was a general one to tell you that you clearly don't know enough about Mark Anderson to be making the comments you are making. You've said absolutely nothing in this thread to lead me to believe you have any idea who Mark Anderson was prior to the signing by the Pats.
You quoted my post that ONLY said he will not play the same role as Vrabel. It said NOTHING ELSE. In that response you said 'do research'.3) The LIE you said was that I told you to research the difference between Mark Anderson and Mike Vrabel. I never said such a thing.
I never implied it.
You said the exact words, in response to my exact words.You are the one who assumed it. Why you assumed it, I haven't the foggiest. Nor do I care, honestly. All I know is that you are attributing something to me that I did not say.
Which is why it is my OPINIONSo sayeth ANDY JOHNSON.
Great. I hope he changes and learns how to play the run. Until then I will have to go with his career to date, which means his role here will be a sitautional pass rusher if he makes the team.I have news for you. People change. People learn. You only have to ask Mike Vrabel and Tedy Bruschi about that. Anderson isn't some 10 year veteran who is set in his ways.
You keep saying this but you refuse to identify what comment I made that is irrational.Seriously, you are being so irrational on this it's pathetic.
Why would I lie about my opinion?
Feel free to disagree, but that is my opinion, and its actually pretty consistent with the facts.
If I knew a damn thing, who you liked when would be pretty far down on that list.
Thats good. Maybe you should have called his coaches who consistently wouldn't put him on the field on running downs.
These were your words:
Originally Posted by DaBruinz
How do you know he won't be playing the same role as Vrabel? Because we, the FANS, have speculated that Anderson is going to be a 3rd down pass specialist
I think my reading comprehension is fine, but you are the first person I've met who needs remedial WRITING COMPEHENSION help.
You insult everyone you speak to. Its tiring. You can state your opinion without making comments like that. It will take a little maturity, but you can do it.
How is my OPINION, which was backed up with facts, IRRATIONAL?
I have said nothing of the sort. I have quoted your exact comments so please return the favor and show me where I have said I am more right than anyone else. Where do I compare what I know to anyone else, aside from countering your claim that YOU do by saying I am quite confident that my abiity to assess the player is at least as good as yours.
You are now, in this thread, doing what you accuse me of (inappropriately) doing, by telling me your opinion is a better one than mine.
Which is it? Is what I am not doing, and you are doing still a bad thing now that you realize that?
I am quite confident that my assessment of Mark Anderson is based upon an equal or greater level of knowledge of his ability that yours. Of course, I decided to not base my opinion on draft reports from 2005.
My performance has been fine. I feel confident that I didn't lie about something another poster said. I feel confident that I didn't cherry pick sentences out of posts. And I feel confident that I said what I meant and meant what I said.Congratulations. You must be proud of your performance in this thread.
A) I have no interest in trying to make myself look smart. I am as smart or dumb as I am and what people on a message board think isn't going to change that.It's amazing how you take something you see and outright LIE in an attempt to make yourself look smart. No where did I say that Anderson starting 14 games was "proof" that he was good against the run.I said it was proof he wasn't BAD. You clearly don't understand that there is something else other than good or bad.
I made that comment because its totally irrelevant. I brought the rankings up in the first place to illustrate how ridiculous it was to use 'he started in 14 games' as a means of assessing his ability.love how you purposely move things around so they can be taken out of context. If you watched ANY of the Bears games you know guys like Harris and Vasher were out there on kick returns the year before. You'd also know that it put the defense in bad positions when the offense turned the ball over on early downs.
Yes. It was flawed. I interpreted that you were using it as proof he was good when you were only using it as proof he was not bad. How can I ever show my face in public?Sorry. But that was your flawed interpretation of what I stated.
No. It wasn't an attempt to call you stupid. If I thought you were stupid, I'd tell it to you. You should know that by now.
Not surprising since you don't even seem to understand your own posts.BTW, the second part of your blathering makes no sense what so ever.
That makes all the difference in the worldNo. I didn't slam myself. And here's why.
1) Anderson's only played in 5 seasons.
There is such a thing as sucking and getting a chance to play sometimes too, isnt there?2) There is such a thing as not being bad, yet other players being better.
Lame. Now your argument is that I can't be right because you disagree.3) There is plenty of proof if you actually had watched Anderson at all. Clearly, you haven't.
Never lied. If you really think that people sit at a computer discussing their opinions on football players and would lie in order to gain so hypothetical advantage in an argument, that is a really poor reflection on your own self-esteem and you may want to find a new hobby.Says the guy who has out-right lied in this thread and purposely ignored relevant facts because they blew up his argument ..
Editting because I missed this part.BTW, Great attempt at back-pedaling, Andy. First you claim that Anderson is bad against the run. Then you claim there isn't enough information because the one time he started, the team was bad against the run. Hell, you even discount the fact that he won the starting job until his injury.
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.
Yeah, but Burgess was over the hill when he got here.He has not been as productive as Burgess:
Derrick Burgess 2006-2010
57 games 27.5 sacks, 148 tackles 6ff
Mark Anderson 2006-2010
77 games 25.5 sacks 133 tackles 5ff
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.
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?
DaBruinz said:If Anderson was so "bad" against the run, why did the Bears make him their starting DE in 2007 opposite Ogunleye? Where Anderson started the first 14 games until he went down with an injury.
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.
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...-sign-de-mark-anderson-page9.html#post2617798AndyJohnson said:http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/785507-pats-sign-de-mark-anderson-page9.html#post2617798
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.
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?
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.
Which is why it is my OPINION
Great. I hope he changes and learns how to play the run. Until then I will have to go with his career to date, which means his role here will be a sitautional pass rusher if he makes the team.
You keep saying this but you refuse to identify what comment I made that is irrational.
Are you saying it is an abandonment of rational thinking to believe that a guy who was a situational pass rusher in Chicago until they RELEASED him during the season, and he went to Houston to be a situational pass rusher, will likely be a situational pass rusher for us, and isn't a lock to make our team, which is better than the one that cut him?
Please explain the irrationality of that take.
A) I have no interest in trying to make myself look smart. I am as smart or dumb as I am and what people on a message board think isn't going to change that.
b) You are right you used that 'fact' to say he wasn't bad rather than he was good. Its still a silly argument.
C) Are you seriously trying to say that me confusing you saying he was good with you saying he was not bad is LYING?
I made that comment because its totally irrelevant. I brought the rankings up in the first place to illustrate how ridiculous it was to use 'he started in 14 games' as a means of assessing his ability.
Yes. It was flawed. I interpreted that you were using it as proof he was good when you were only using it as proof he was not bad. How can I ever show my face in public?
Grow some balls. You said any INTELLIGENT person knows....... and then went on to criticize my comment, or your version of what you thought it meant. It was a clear attempt to call me unintelligent. If you are going to do it, have the balls to own up to it, or stay home.
Not surprising since you don't even seem to understand your own posts.
That makes all the difference in the world
Starting 1 season out of 5 and being injured in one is clearly the resume of a starter while starting 1 of 6 is not.
Yes. But if he sucked so bad, do you really think that he'd have started 14 games in a row for a team that had other run defenders on it?There is such a thing as sucking and getting a chance to play sometimes too, isnt there?
Lame. Now your argument is that I can't be right because you disagree.
I assess him as what he has always been a situational pass rusher. You seem to think he is more than he has ever shown to be, so that means you have been paying attention and I have not?
Why don't his coaches agree with you?
Never lied. If you really think that people sit at a computer discussing their opinions on football players and would lie in order to gain so hypothetical advantage in an argument, that is a really poor reflection on your own self-esteem and you may want to find a new hobby.
Get this straight. I could not care less if you agree with me. Since I have stated my opinion, and you continue to respond with silly arguments, I will respond to correct the errors. But I have absolutely zero concern whether you agree with me or not. I have less than no reason to lie in order to create some kind of image that you appear to have great concerns about.
Lets do this.
I will not post any more in response to you.
Go right ahead and have the last word.
Call me stupid, call me gay. Accuse me of kidnaping the Lindberg baby.
Say whatever you think about Mark Anderson, and it will be the last word.
But do me a favor. Please do not quote any of my posts and respond to them in the future.
I have a very bad habit of not giving up. That causes me to get into these type of threads, and in the end I regret having them with the likes of you who insist on littering your comments with personal insults.
I am done. I tried once to give you some friendly advice that your style makes you impossible to speak to. I'm done now. Ive wasted hours beating by head against a brick wall.
So, fire away. Its all yours, get all those insults in, and good luck to you.
Editting because I missed this part.
Again with the reading comprehension.
I said Anderson is a bad run defender. YOU said he isn't bad because once he earned a starting job. I responded to that by pointing out that D was bad vs the run. You misunderstood that and said I was saying it was all his fault.
So I explained to you that the only reason for the reference was to show your 'proof that he wasn't bad' was dubious.
OK, carry on.
Hard to follow when you change what you think you meant to think you said every time
Yes it was, you even quoted that comment from me in your response.
Right, since I don't agree that after 6 years in the NFL of being off the field against the run, he will miraculously become Carl Banks this year, I don't know anything about the guy.
You quoted my post that ONLY said he will not play the same role as Vrabel. It said NOTHING ELSE. In that response you said 'do research'.
Either that was referring to comparing Vrabel to Anderson or it was responding to something in your mind.
How would I know what it was referring to? Nowhere in the post do you say it refers to anything not in what you quoted?
How do you know he won't be playing the same role as Vrabel? Because we, the FANS, have speculated that Anderson is going to be a 3rd down pass specialist??
Seriously, Andy. A little research on your part would go a long way.
This is getting ridiculous. I am now wasting my time telling you what you posted.
You said the exact words, in response to my exact words.
Enough to have an opinion.
Its not a red herring, it is a parellel example, and very similar in fact.
Your argument was how can anyone know Anderson wont play Vrabels role since he hasn't played here yet.
He has a track record and skillset. He wasn't invented today.
I was giving my opinoin, not trying to testify in the Scopes Monkeys Trial.
Are you saying your opinion has been scientifically tested?
But he is a football player. It is not hard to see his skillset, know the Patriots system and have a good idea where he would fit.
The assumption that a player will show up here and magically develop skills he hasn't shown in a 6 year career is ludicrous.
But I'll play along. Can we discuss Murrell as our new double digit sack guy? Lockett as the next Rodney Harrison? Carter as Willie McGinest?
Perhaps Mallet will beat out Brady. We have no idea how much he will improve with a camp in NE. Your argument is silly.
You seem to think no one knew Vrabel had NFL ability. You are wrong.
You are talking about him like he is a draft pick changing positions.
Of course we can know what Anderson brings to the table, we've seen 6 years of it.
Watch. I predict he will be pretty much the same player he has been for 6 years.
You predict the player he will be has no relation to the player he has been for 6 years of an NFL career, and apparently would randomly guess.
Which one is more likely to be right?
I'm just going to defer to Agent Smith on this one.
I can't believe I've read all 14 pages of this petty Iknowmorethanyouathon.
I need to lie down
Yeah this is total stupidity. Can you two guys arguing in the corner please give the thread back to us wanting to discuss this guy in a more balanced way?