Ty Law officially released

[JackBauer]

Again, wrong. It's hardly irony when I'm telling it like it is. And again, scroll up and read your antics here.

You tell me to scroll up and learn how to read... while decrying how "acrimonious" this debate has become. Seriously. Telling me to scroll up and read is no less a cop out than throwing your hands up when you can't disprove that, for most of the year, Sanders was in on passing downs even when Wilson was healthy.

You can roll your eyes or call me an ******* to your hearts content. We're done here, thankfully.

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

You tell me to scroll up and learn how to read... while decrying how "acrimonious" this debate has become. Seriously. Telling me to scroll up and read is no less a cop out than throwing your hands up when you can't disprove that, for most of the year, Sanders was in on passing downs even when Wilson was healthy.

As I stated, I've already corrected you a few times in this thread. It was clear you were not debating the issue in good faith and your series of replies and antics are a testiment. This is why I've told you to scroll up and read your posts to refresh your memory. Of course, you will not do this and just retort with the same BS and tactics. It's exactly because of this I stated that I don't want to argue with a******* on the internet to which you've called that a "cop-out." Again, it is not a cop-out and I don't want to waste time in providing more evidence for you because your whole point in this thread is not to debate or to see an disparate opinions. Rather, it's to win a silly argument by destructive antics and if all else fails, to toss in a last word.

You can roll your eyes or call me an ******* to your hearts content.

We were done a while ago, and if you don't want to be called an a*******, then stop acting like one.

 

[JackBauer]

As I stated, I've already corrected you a few times in this thread. It was clear you were not debating the issue in good faith and your series of replies and antics are a testiment. This is why I've told you to scroll up and read your posts to refresh your memory. Of course, you will not do this and just retort with the same BS and tactics. It's exactly because of this I stated that I don't want to argue with a******* on the internet to which you've called that a "cop-out." Again, it is not a cop-out and I don't want to waste time in providing more evidence for you because your whole point in this thread is not to debate or to see an disparate opinions. Rather, it's to win a silly argument by destructive antics and if all else fails, to toss in a last word.

We were done a while ago, and if you don't want to be called an a*******, then stop acting like one.

This is just weak. You haven't corrected anything, since you haven't posited any evidence (still) to, you know, SUPPORT the claims you made. This debating tactic, of course, indicates that I am the one arguing in bad faith. Gotcha. By all means, if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside to stick your fingers in your ears and cry like a petulant child, go right ahead.

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

This is just weak. You haven't corrected anything, since you haven't posited any evidence (still) to, you know, SUPPORT the claims you made. This debating tactic, of course, indicates that I am the one arguing in bad faith. Gotcha. By all means, if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside to stick your fingers in your ears and cry like a petulant child, go right ahead.

You're again proving my point. Just scroll up and read your BS. It really shouldn't be that hard, now should it nor should it that hard to just look up simple numbers like Rodney's INT totals in the playoffs. And you're suggesting I "stick [my] fingers in [my]head?" You've an extremely twisted notion of what a good faith argument constitues. Keep at it though, sport. And just for you because you've proven yourself to be such an up-standing, sincere sort.....

 

[JackBauer]

You're again proving my point. Just scroll up and read your BS. It really shouldn't be that hard, now should it nor should it that hard to just look up simple numbers like Rodney's INT totals in the playoffs. And you're suggesting I "stick [my] fingers in [my]head?" You've an extremely twisted notion of what a good faith argument constitues. Keep at it though, sport. And just for you because you've proven yourself to be such an up-standing, sincere sort.....

Now you're just dissembling and/or being willfully ignorant.

Deltha O'Neal once led the league in INTs. What's your point?

That's not to diminish Harrison in any way; only to show that INT totals aren't necessarily indicative of coverage ability any moreso than sacks are indicative of pass-rushing skill. All that shows is that he's extremely clutch (his getting torched by Kevin Boss in one of the gamechanging plays of the Super Bowl notwithstanding). And you've yet to back up your claims regarding Sanders/Wilson. So who's really arguing in good faith, here? Maybe you don't know any better, in which case I won't hold it against you. And now I think we should let this die.

 

[d.finn.patsfan.]

Bell has done little since 2003 but he had 81 tackles in a 3-4 defense (similar to Capers' defense as it was Pittsburgh) and turns 30 this July. I wonder what he has left.

He has a history of injuries in KC (or so i'm told). He's an intriguing option though.

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

Now you're just dissembling and/or being willfully ignorant.

Deltha O'Neal once led the league in INTs. What's your point?

Well, the point was and has been that Rodney is not poor in coverage and to use your wording that went something like "not incredible." I clearly stated this previously so again, you accusing me of being "willfully ignorant" is one in a long list of your antics. And again, this constitutes bad faith, and for all intent and purposes, troll antics. I shouldn't have to point these things out to you nor should it be necessary for me to tell you to lose your sarcasm at the onset of this argument if indeed your intent was one in good faith. It's really not that complicated nor does it need to be.

That's not to diminish Harrison in any way; only to show that INT totals aren't necessarily indicative of coverage ability any moreso than sacks are indicative of pass-rushing skill. All that shows is that he's extremely clutch

They indicate more than your slanted, agenda driven assertions. And yes, Rodney's extremely clutch in coverage.

(his getting torched by Kevin Boss in one of the gamechanging plays of the Super Bowl notwithstanding).

No, Boss was AD's assignment. Did you miss Seau, who had picked up the RB en route for a possible screen on the defense's left flank, pointing toward Boss and telling AD that was his man? Rodney was the deep help and his responsibility, in addition to protecting his deep half of the field was to also help out Asante on the D's left flank.

There, I corrected you again.

And you've yet to back up your claims regarding Sanders/Wilson.

I've clearly state what I would not do so and I also stated clearly why.

So who's really arguing in good faith, here? Maybe you don't know any better, in which case I won't hold it against you. And now I think we should let this die.

Another item in a long list of your BS.

 

[Joker]

Wotan borrows Thor's hammer and brings it down square on the hapless, hating Jack Cower's microscopic cranium

 

[VJCPatriot]

Because DB's on the Pats drop like flies.

I don't care if he wins the starting CB job, plays the Nickel ot Dime, or even plays FS...Law can still play at a high level.

Give him an incentive based contract, and he will be fine. Will he agree to that...not so much.

Law is 34. So he is not the same Law that we remember and love from the earlier superbowl runs. However he is a savvy veteran that could help this team as say a #2 CB or a safety.

So if he will come back for #2 CB money, that's ok with me. If he still wants to "feed the family" then no thanks to Ty Law.

 

[JackBauer]

Wotan borrows Thor's hammer and brings it down square on the hapless, hating Jack Cower's microscopic cranium

Still hurting from the Jackson thread, huh?

 

[JackBauer]

Well, the point was and has been that Rodney is not poor in coverage and to use your wording that went something like "not incredible." I clearly stated this previously so again, you accusing me of being "willfully ignorant" is one in a long list of your antics. And again, this constitutes bad faith, and for all intent and purposes, troll antics. I shouldn't have to point these things out to you nor should it be necessary for me to tell you to lose your sarcasm at the onset of this argument if indeed your intent was one in good faith. It's really not that complicated nor does it need to be.

I never stated that Harrison was poor in coverage. I said, as you quoted, he is "not incredible" in coverage. Thus, he could range anywhere from, say, above average on down. You immediately pounced, ostensibly because you believe(d) that Harrison is indeed superb in coverage. My suspicion is that you assumed I was intimating that because Harrison is "not incredible" in coverage, he must be commensurate to Sanders. I think this is more or less accurate, especially as Sanders continues to improve and develop more confidence. Given that you consider Sanders to be poor in coverage, I can understand why you would've reacted the way you did. For the life of me I don't understand how this ever became a point of contention, but here you are accusing me of arguing in bad faith. Why? I have no idea.

They indicate more than your slanted, agenda driven assertions. And yes, Rodney's extremely clutch in coverage.

Thankfully we have the supreme arbiter of objectivity to set my "slanted, agenda-driven assertions" straight.

No, Boss was AD's assignment. Did you miss Seau, who had picked up the RB en route for a possible screen on the defense's left flank, pointing toward Boss and telling AD that was his man? Rodney was the deep help and his responsibility, in addition to protecting his deep half of the field was to also help out Asante on the D's left flank.

There, I corrected you again.

You didn't really correct much, since, as you admit, Harrison had deep responsibility on the play. Of course, it wasn't merely the completion, but the YAC. If you'll remember, he was in position to at least limit the damage, but not only couldn't take Boss down but barely kept up with him for an additional 10-15 yards.

I've clearly state what I would not do so and I also stated clearly why.

Equivocate all you want: You can't, because you don't have the facts at your disposal.

Another item in a long list of your BS.

Something about glass houses and stones comes to mind...