Manning chooses Broncos

[Crimsoncrew]

a good tight end does open things up for a wr. burress said playing next to shockey made things so much easier. fact is welker had almost as many receptions as gronk was targeted.

crabtree is a wr. we need a wr who can crack the top 16 at the very least when it comes to yards.

That's hard to do when your QB is 27th in YPG.

This is a chicken-or-egg discussion. One side argues Crabtree isn't good and the other argues Smith isn't good. And some argue that both are probably true. The reality is that we don't really know the extent to which Crabtree could flourish with a better QB, or that Smith could flourish with better WRs. I'm not willing to entirely exonerate Smith as Crabtree has produced as well or better than any WR we have had with Smith at QB. At some point, you've got to look at the QB.

 

[Bemular]

You provided your rationale, not evidence to support your rationale. I know you're still catching on, but those aren't the same thing.

Whoops, sorry, I forgot I have to use crayons and construction for you. How about this, the evidence I provided was rational. This means the evidence I provided was, among other things, reasonable which means it made sense. In fact, I believe you concured with some of the evidence and used a red herring to dodge the rest of it. As I said, your claim is false, the Giants' other position groups, were not markedly worse than ours in 2011.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

yet crabtree couldn't take advantage of the attention paid to vernon because he isn't starting material.

it's a two way street when you're talking about tight ends and recievers. if the receiver isn't good, the tight end will suffer. if the tight end is no good the reciever will suffer. not to say pettigrew isnt good, but being able to cover him with a single linebacker allowed us to slow down megatron. the giants being able to fully lockdown crabtree with webster allowed them to slow down vernon after he burned them.

See, there you go posting stupid shit again. Then you get bothered when people throw the inverse back at you with Smith. Crabtree is a decent starting WR, just as Smith is a decent QB. Neither is great. Neither is awful. Stop the sensationalism.

Crabtree was locked down because Smith won't throw into coverage. He was open enough that a QB like Manning would have hit him. His one reception is a case in point of Smith's limitations. 3rd and 5 from the 10ish. Crabtree was open and had a great chance to pick up a first down at the 5, but Smith threw above and behind him, giving his no chance to pick up the first down. Smith was not pressured, he just missed the throw. It's not all the receivers and OL. When Smith has chances to make plays, he fails to do so too often.

Anyway, I'm spending way too much time in this thread. I'm out for awhile.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Whoops, sorry, I forgot I have to use crayons and construction for you. How about this, the evidence I provided was rational. This means the evidence I provided was, among other things, reasonable which means it made sense. In fact, I believe you concured with some of the evidence and used a red herring to dodge the rest of it. As I said, your claim is false, the Giants' other position groups, were not markedly worse than ours in 2011.

No, you didn't provide any evidence. As usual, you provided your opinion and expected us just to take your word for it.

 

[Bemular]

No, you didn't provide any evidence. As usual, you provided your opinion and expected us just to take your word for it.

Take my word for it? You mean take your word for it don't you? Afterall, aren't you the one who watched less than four games but claims to know details so intimate that we should just take your word for it when you say the Giants other position groups were markedly worse?

See there you go posting stupid shit again.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

And given that one of your arguments is that Davis and Ballard's tangibles are close, I'm not inclined to accept your position.

Now, I'm not sure what you meant by "tangibles," but if we're talking athletic measurables, Davis blows Ballard out of the water. If we're talking receiving stats, the same is true. I'm not sure what other "tangibles" there are in this conversation.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Take my word for it? You mean take your word for it don't you? Afterall, aren't you the one who watched less than four games but claims to know details so intimate that we should just take your word for it when you say the Giants other position groups were markedly worse?

See there you go posting stupid shit again.

And there you go still not providing any support for your opinion.

I provided a third party's assessment of the Giants' OL. That is not taking my word for it. You have offered nothing.

 

[ViperVisor]

I'm not willing to entirely exonerate Smith as Crabtree has produced as well or better than any WR we have had with Smith at QB. At some point, you've got to look at the QB.

Sample of WR is not really a worthwhile sample. It is 13 starts from Antonio Bryant and a season and a half of Josh Morgan.
Antonio Byrant was a more dynamic down the field WR and Josh Morgan is close to the same target for target as Crabtree as a possession WR.

 

[Bemular]

And there you go still not providing any support for your opinion.

I provided a third party's assessment of the Giants' OL. That is not taking my word for it. You have offered nothing.

You posted a third party's assessment which confirmed your claim that the Giants other position groups were markedly worse than the 49ers other position groups? Ha ha, I don't think so chief.

Unless your third party assessment confirmed your position then your argument is based on little more than a slippery slope interpretation of this third party assessment and that would still be taking your word for it.

Furthermore, like I said, you agreed with part of my evidence and tried to use a red herring to dodge out of the rest. So when you say I haven't posted anything you are just making shit up.

 

[Bemular]

And given that one of your arguments is that Davis and Ballard's tangibles are close, I'm not inclined to accept your position.

Now, I'm not sure what you meant by "tangibles," but if we're talking athletic measurables, Davis blows Ballard out of the water. If we're talking receiving stats, the same is true. I'm not sure what other "tangibles" there are in this conversation.

JFC, now you are claiming after watching less than four Giants games you are intimately aware of Ballard's athletic measurables??? And in addition to that bit of genius, you also think YOU can defend your position statistically??? I'm laughing hysterically - literally! Let me guess, Davis had more catches and more yards, right?

Look delusional boy, there is a reason you need others to come and bail your ass out of your debates with me. Time to put this one to rest, clearly your football acumen is beyond that of any scout to ever watch less than four games.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

You posted a third party's assessment which confirmed your claim that the Giants other position groups were markedly worse than the 49ers other position groups? Ha ha, I don't think so chief.

Unless your third party assessment confirmed your position then your argument is based on little more than a slippery slope interpretation of this third party assessment and that would still be taking your word for it.

Furthermore, like I said, you agreed with part of my evidence and tried to use a red herring to dodge out of the rest. So when you say I haven't posted anything you are just making shit up.

I provided some evidence to support my claims. To date, you have provided nothing.

Let's start simple: why are Ballard's tangibles not so different from Davis'? They're tangibles, so it should be easy to track something down to back up your claim.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

JFC, now you are claiming after watching less than four Giants games you are intimately aware of Ballard's athletic measurables??? And in addition to that bit of genius, you also think YOU can defend your position statistically??? I'm laughing hysterically - literally! Let me guess, Davis had more catches and more yards, right?

Look delusional boy, there is a reason you need others to come and bail your ass out of your debates with me. Time to put this one to rest, clearly your football acumen is beyond that of any scout to ever watch less than four games.

Can't come up with any support for your asinine statement, huh? Fair enough.

Hell, you can't even define "tangibles."

 

[Bemular]

I provided some evidence to support my claims. To date, you have provided nothing.

Let's start simple: why are Ballard's tangibles not so different from Davis'? They're tangibles, so it should be easy to track something down to back up your claim.

Exactly, so run along and do just that

 

[Bemular]

Can't come up with any support for your asinine statement, huh? Fair enough.

Hell, you can't even define "tangibles."

Ha ha, if you think after reviewing their tangibles that Ballard was markedly worse than Davis then apparently you can't define tangibles either - so were even.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I provided some evidence to support my claims. To date, you have provided nothing.

Let's start simple: why are Ballard's tangibles not so different from Davis'? They're tangibles, so it should be easy to track something down to back up your claim.

Exactly, so run along and do just that

It's your claim, moron.

But just to show you how very easy it is, I'll give you a little something to run with. When talking "tangibles," mearsuable physical ability and statistical production are very relevant. One could argue they are the most relevant evidence as they are easily quantifiable. As you haven't or can't provide another definition, I'll go with that for now.

Measurable athletic ability:

*Vernon Davis | Maryland, TE : 2006 NFL Draft Scout Player Profile

Jake Ballard | Ohio State, TE : 2010 NFL Draft Scout Player Profile

Ballard couldn't complete his workout, pulling a hamstring during the 40, but bench and vertical well below Davis'. It's clear Ballard isn't nearly as fast or even as quick.

Production:

Vernon Davis, TE for the San Francisco 49ers at NFL.com

Jake Ballard, TE for the New York Giants at NFL.com

Davis clearly superior in this area.

So here we have at least two tangible areas in which Davis far surpasses Ballard. I'm sure you'll just dismiss these as not having any relevance. Unfortunately, you've really hemmed yourself in by using "tangibles." These are tangibles, and they strongly support my position over yours. So what've you got in terms of evidence for your claim, chickenshit?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Ha ha, if you think after reviewing their tangibles that Ballard was markedly worse than Davis then apparently you can't define tangibles either - so were even.

More of the same. It's funny, even though I know what to expect by now, I'm still surprised by what a pussy you are. I mean, shit, this is the internet. If you can't grow a pair here, that's pretty pathetic.

 

[Bemular]

More of the same. It's funny, even though I know what to expect by now, I'm still surprised by what a pussy you are.

Why am I a pussy?

 

[Bemular]

It's your claim, moron.

But just to show you how very easy it is, I'll give you a little something to run with. When talking "tangibles," mearsuable physical ability and statistical production are very relevant. One could argue they are the most relevant evidence as they are easily quantifiable. As you haven't or can't provide another definition, I'll go with that for now.

Measurable athletic ability:

*Vernon Davis*|*Maryland,*TE*:*2006 NFL Draft Scout Player Profile

Jake Ballard*|*Ohio State,*TE*:*2010 NFL Draft Scout Player Profile

Ballard couldn't complete his workout, pulling a hamstring during the 40, but bench and vertical well below Davis'. It's clear Ballard isn't nearly as fast or even as quick.

Production:

Vernon Davis, TE for the San Francisco 49ers at NFL.com

Jake Ballard, TE for the New York Giants at NFL.com

Davis clearly superior in this area.

So here we have at least two tangible areas in which Davis far surpasses Ballard. I'm sure you'll just dismiss these as not having any relevance. Unfortunately, you've really hemmed yourself in by using "tangibles." These are tangibles, and they strongly support my position over yours. So what've you got in terms of evidence for your claim, chickenshit?

Is this a joke or are you serious? You actually dug out their NFL draft scouting profiles from 2006 and 2010? Hilarious. You honestly believe those athletic profiles mean something don't you.

How dumb are you that you would actually post that shit. Man, it doesn't matter what kind of stick I throw for you fido, you'll fucking chase anything. Here's a clue you dumb dog, those profiles are meaningless to this discussion and prove nothing beyond the fact that you're an idiot.

As for your statistics what do we have there - yep, more catches and more yards - can't argue with that - Crimsoncrew = genius

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Is this a joke or are you serious? You actually dug out their NFL draft scouting profiles from 2006 and 2010? Hilarious. You honestly believe those athletic profiles mean something don't you.

How dumb are you that you would actually post that shit. Man, it doesn't matter what kind of stick I throw for you fido, you'll fucking chase anything. Here's a clue you dumb dog, those profiles are meaningless to this discussion and prove nothing beyond the fact that you're an idiot.

As for your statistics what do we have there - yep, more catches and more yards - can't argue with that - Crimsoncrew = genius

More of the same from the chickenshit who can't support his argument, even though the contrary position is apparently so stupid that no one could possibly believe it.

You're right, chief, we'll just take your word for it. Ballard clearly is in Davis' class.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Why am I a pussy?

Well, I'd wager you're a pussy for a great number of reasons, but in this context it's because you refuse to back up your statements. You hide behind insults and your opinion without ever trying to actually defend your position. It's chickenshit behavior.