Moab
Well-Known Member
Obvious...trolling is obvious
Well at least you're not denying this little tidbit, kudos to you for admitting this.unless we have a vested interest in ignoring what happens on the field.
Ah, the spin it back at the sender because there isn't an actual response. That's a tried and true tactic on the playground. Also goes by the classic "I know what you are, but what am I."Well at least you're not denying this little tidbit, kudos to you for admitting this.
I guess there is really no reason to carry on this little debate after your admitted ignorance to what is actually occurring on the field.![]()
I mean goddamn, y'all got clowned again by Damien Williams, CJ Anderson, and Barkley's general "impotence." How many L's y'all gonna take before you accept the truth?So many silly people flailing to defend RB's being impact players with clear and discriminating boundaries.
Not into the sillyness your attempting here moose. But obviously the point to my last post was missed if you didn't understand the 'actual response'.Ah, the spin it back at the sender because there isn't an actual response. That's a tried and true tactic on the playground. Also goes by the classic "I know what you are, but what am I."
Ah, there we go. Bias does not invalidate true statements. It's is in fact possible for MSNBC or Fox News to report facts despite a heavy handed bias. A Saints fan may be predisposed to thinking their team is the best in the NFL, that doesn't mean his bias invalidates such an opinion, as it is rooted in facts; albeit it's possible he may use facts to justify a conjecture first, instead of the facts guiding the opinion. Is it possible for such an opinion to be wrong? Certainly. He would be well within his or her right to believe such a thing, however.Not into the sillyness your attempting here moose. But obviously the point to my last post was missed if you didn't understand the 'actual response'.
Let me be a lot dryer and clear so you get the actual point.
Sure, a fan base may have a slanted perspective, especially in a troll bait thread as this, but so does the troll.
Amirite?![]()
Maybe you missed the word 'may' in my last post?Ah, there we go. Bias does not invalidate true statements. It's is in fact possible for MSNBC or Fox News to report facts despite a heavy handed bias. A Saints fan may be predisposed to thinking their team is the best in the NFL, that doesn't mean his bias invalidates such an opinion, as it is rooted in facts; albeit it's possible he may use facts to justify a conjecture first, instead of the facts guiding the opinion. Is it possible for such an opinion to be wrong? Certainly. He would be well within his or her right to believe such a thing, however.
This only works if you offer no argument whatsoever- and essentially typed word salad. If this is really your angle- your implicature is horribly pointless.Maybe you missed the word 'may' in my last post?
Thanks for just restating the obvious and arguing your last sentence in Post 60 I've already quoted.
You seem to converse quite well with yourself, as noted by several self quoted posts in this thread, but now that you've begun to argue you're own points, I'm not sure if you need any of us anymore.![]()
1st off to be considered a system RB on teams like the steelers Rams etc.. is to be able to be a 3 down back.
Now once you are a 3 down back I could see someone saying they could plug in another 3 down back into which ever system. but if you dont have a 3 down back, your system changes. Steelers seem to be able to plug next guy up scenario, but the Cowboys. If Zeke is not in, their run game suffers. For instance our back up had negative yards today.
Dude you're just all over the board, stay focused. You started out asking if TG is a system RB, right? You used what I perceive as a slanted stat. You implied that was likely a bias, I pointed to your likely bias, which neither can either be disputed or refuted to any certainty. So WTF is 'your' point/argument to support your OP indictment? Certainly we agree your stat can be bias by either of us. So what else you got?This only works if you offer no argument whatsoever- and essentially typed word salad. If this is really your angle- your implicature is horribly pointless.
Yeah, you can stop arguing strawmans and dead-end arguments anytime now, troll.Dude you're just all over the board, stay focused. You started out asking if TG is a system RB, right? You used what I perceive as a slanted stat. You implied that was likely a bias, I pointed to your likely bias, which neither can either be disputed or refuted to any certainty. So WTF is 'your' point/argument to support your OP indictment? Certainly we agree your stat can be bias by either of us. So what else you got?
Was going to use Zeke as example. I somewhat see OP's point but Barkley/Mcaffrey types are not system guys. And you still got to find a good "system" RB.
Look at the difference in the Pats running game with Michel.
Don't need to- you can just divide the role into several similar characters such as Dion Lewis or Rex Burkhead. That's moreorless the point of my argument- it's so replaceable, it seemingly doesn't even matter in most situations.Name how many times James White had more than ten carries.
Being able to grind out yards when everyone in the building knows you're running is different than a change of pace.
Is there an echo in here?Yeah, you can stop arguing strawmans and dead-end arguments anytime now, troll.
Stay focused on the actual thread here. Cut the BS and you'll realize this is not a troll thread whatsoever.
IF you're not arguing what I am arguing, you're arguing with straw, period. We both know that...Is there an echo in here?
Damn Moose, that 2X now that you've done that. You're just struggling here. So, I'll bite, if this is not a troll thread, than what's you're real angle?
#RunningBacksDontMatter???
By the way, I'm not sure you really understand the Strawman Fallacy.
Don't need to- you can just divide the role into several similar characters such as Dion Lewis or Rex Burkhead. That's moreorless the point of my argument- it's so replaceable, it seemingly doesn't even matter in most situations.
With that being said- in terms of skill, Michel is way better than all of those guys, imo. It's just very hard to stand out as an RB.