Calling Burgess a LB

[RayClay]

OK, I'll just chalk this one up to you wanted to say something but don't want to explain what you mean. Why did you bother?

I won't. If you want to argue against a point I'm not making, or keep changing the goalposts, I won't bother.

Al I know is, McGinest and Vrabel aren't walking through that door. I agree with a lot of what you say and the rest, you've shifted.

The original statement i replied to, and a later adjustment.

Burgess is not an OLB. He is a DE, that can only play in nickel/dime sub packages or in the 43.

Again, he IS an OLB in the 34, he is just a very bad one.

 

[Off The Grid]

The original statement i replied to, and a later adjustment.

Burgess is not an OLB. He is a DE, that can only play in nickel/dime sub packages or in the 43.

Again, he IS an OLB in the 34, he is just a very bad one.

:singing: :bricks: :singing: PWNED!! :singing: :bricks: :singing:

 

[Ring 6]

I won't. If you want to argue against a point I'm not making, or keep changing the goalposts, I won't bother.

Al I know is, McGinest and Vrabel aren't walking through that door. I agree with a lot of what you say and the rest, you've shifted.

The original statement i replied to, and a later adjustment.

If you read the rest of the posts, I think it is pretty clear that when I said 'isnt an OLB' I meant isn't going to play there regularly in the base, and when I said 'is an OLB' I said that is where he would play if he played in the base but he isn't capable of doing so except in an emerency.

But feel free to take whatever you want to out of context. Or you could just respond to my 3rd request for you to explain just what your point is.

 

[RayClay]

If you read the rest of the posts, I think it is pretty clear that when I said 'isnt an OLB' I meant isn't going to play there regularly in the base, and when I said 'is an OLB' I said that is where he would play if he played in the base but he isn't capable of doing so except in an emerency.

But feel free to take whatever you want to out of context. Or you could just respond to my 3rd request for you to explain just what your point is.

I took nothing out of context, nor did I pwn anyone. All I originally said was it wasn't out of the realm of possibility that in a field of total unknowns and unprovens who were in the process of making the conversion, a vet might get a few snaps while others were learning.

This got converted into me saying Burgess should be our starter in the 3-4 base defense at OLB, somehow.

Just pointing out why I don't bother stringing this out anymore.

In your opinion, he's horrible at OLB and we have much better, I haven't given an opinion.

We both agree he's better as a DE, at least I assume so given he's a former All Pro there.

 

[lillestroom]

Does anyone give a flying f**k what he is as long as he gets to the QB quite regularly ???