Thoughts of a Negative Poster

[Bang]

I'm not interested in debating this with you any longer.[COLOR="Gold"]

.

I've got news for you.
You haven't debated anything with me.

In our latest exchange you made up a number to back your made up position. Pulled it right out of your ass and threw it down on the board as if it was actually real.
10 million a year avg salary for defensive ends.. that is so laughably wrong, and I'm not sure if you said it because you have zero respect for the intelligence of the board as to believe that no one would question your ridiculous claims and point out your obvious lie, or because you've got your own head stuffed so far up your own rear thast you actually believe that when you make up a number that it actually a fact. Given your typical condescension and superiority complex, I'm betting it's the latter.\
Actually, given you believe this:

Of the people who seem not to understand me, there are two groups: those who honestly don't understand and those who pretend not to understand. With experience, it isn't hard to separate them and deal with them appropriately

tells me that you really do believe your made up bull**** is real, and as usual, anyone who disagrees is simply too stupid to understand you or is just argumentative.
The arrogance.
Nice "debating" with you again, oldguy.

But for the record, I'll give you a chance to prove that defensive ends on average make 10 million per year.
You should be able to rather easily, since you're so sure of it, i figure you must have read it somewhere. I mean if it's so obvious then my quick links that proved was wrong should be easily shot down by one so dismissive.
If you can show me that, then maybe i'll believe that Dan Snyder decided 35 million was a good price to pay for some name recognition and mediocrity.

But since you can't, i'm guessing you'll just ignore this.

~Bang

[Oldfan]

...In our latest exchange you made up a number to back your made up position. Pulled it right out of your ass and threw it down on the board as if it was actually real..

Do you make up numbers? Is that why you have the gall to accuse others?

This is that site I looked at. I forgot that they were listing the top 20 DE salaries and my 10 mil was an estimate of average in the top 20. In any case, your argument based on the seven mil a coach makes is weak crap.

http://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/nf...each-position/

DE:

Dwight Freeney, Colts - $17,035,000 - Signed thru 2012
Jared Allen, Vikings - $15,519,850 - Signed thru 2013
Elvis Dumervill, Broncos - $12,600,000 - Signed thru 2015
Julius Peppers, Bears - $12,400,000 - Signed thru 2015
Charles Johnson, Panthers - $10,750,000 - Signed thru 2016
Chris Long, Rams - $10,310,000 - Signed thru 2012
Mario Williams, Bills - $9,800,000 - Signed thru 2017
Tommy Kelly, Raiders - $9,500,000 - Signed thru 2014
Antonio Smith, Texans - $8,000,000 - Signed thru 2013
Will Smith, Saints - $6,433,333 - Signed thru 2013
Justin Smith, 49ers - $6,375,000 - Signed thru 2013
Kyle Vanden Bosch, Lions - $6,230,000 - Signed thru 2013
Justin Tuck, Giants - $6,000,000 - Signed thru 2013
Osi Umenyiora, Giants - $6,000,000 - Signed thru 2012
Sedrick Ellis, Saints - $5,816,000 - Signed thru 2012
Jason Babin, Eagles - $5,775,000 - Signed thru 2015
Robert Mathis, Colts - $5,750,000 - Signed thru 2015
Chris Clemons, Seahawks - $5,300,000 - Signed thru 2012
Calais Campbell, Cardinals - $5,000,000 - Signed thru 2016
Trent Cole, Eagles - $4,600,000 - Signed thru 2017

[kleese]

There are three things I liked about Schwartz

1) He has solid NFL experience; 2) he doen't strike me as highly egotistical and 3) he's exceptionally bright. With those qualities, he will listen to his assistants, recognize good advice when he hears it, and change his mind when necessary.

I don't know the inside scoop on Detroit. I don't know how much credit o blame to give him, but I would hire him to coach my football team.

I'm with you on JS... Huge fan of his and he was a name that interested me way back in 2004. I like him a lot and the Lions quick rise lends some credence to those feelings.

This year is a bit of head scratcher though and he certainly deserves blame for it... They just haven't looked good all year... As a matter of fact I'm not sure they've played a solid 60 minutes all season long. A little puzzling.

But this sometimes happens... I've mentioned I am a Reds fan. In 2010, they won the division after a decade of misery. They were quickly dispatched in the playoffs, but it was a great season... Akin to the 2011 Lions. Then in 2011, with expectations raised, the Reds floundered and finished below .500. It was a bit odd. Then, they regrouped and had their best season in 40 years last year... A bit of a sophomore slump if you will and entering 2013 they might be the favorite to win the World Series. So I wouldn't give up on JS yet, but next year is huge for him.

[Oldfan]

....So I wouldn't give up on JS yet, but next year is huge for him.

I feel confident judging Shanahan's record 1999 - 2008 because he had full control, but when coaches have to play the talent hand dealt by a GM it's much harder to decide how much credit or blame to assign. So, would have to hear some substantial and well-founded criticism of him to give up on Schwartz.

[Bang]

Do you make up numbers? Is that why you have the gall to accuse others?

This is that site I looked at. I forgot that they were listing the top 20 DE salaries and my 10 mil was an estimate of average in the top 20. In any case, your argument based on the seven mil a coach makes is weak crap.

http://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/nf...each-position/

DE:

Dwight Freeney, Colts - $17,035,000 - Signed thru 2012
Jared Allen, Vikings - $15,519,850 - Signed thru 2013
Elvis Dumervill, Broncos - $12,600,000 - Signed thru 2015
Julius Peppers, Bears - $12,400,000 - Signed thru 2015
Charles Johnson, Panthers - $10,750,000 - Signed thru 2016
Chris Long, Rams - $10,310,000 - Signed thru 2012
Mario Williams, Bills - $9,800,000 - Signed thru 2017
Tommy Kelly, Raiders - $9,500,000 - Signed thru 2014
Antonio Smith, Texans - $8,000,000 - Signed thru 2013
Will Smith, Saints - $6,433,333 - Signed thru 2013
Justin Smith, 49ers - $6,375,000 - Signed thru 2013
Kyle Vanden Bosch, Lions - $6,230,000 - Signed thru 2013
Justin Tuck, Giants - $6,000,000 - Signed thru 2013
Osi Umenyiora, Giants - $6,000,000 - Signed thru 2012
Sedrick Ellis, Saints - $5,816,000 - Signed thru 2012
Jason Babin, Eagles - $5,775,000 - Signed thru 2015
Robert Mathis, Colts - $5,750,000 - Signed thru 2015
Chris Clemons, Seahawks - $5,300,000 - Signed thru 2012
Calais Campbell, Cardinals - $5,000,000 - Signed thru 2016
Trent Cole, Eagles - $4,600,000 - Signed thru 2017

I'm not accusing you of making up numbers.
I'm stating you absolutely did, and you've posted this and proven it.
those are the TOP Salaries.
In fact, i mentioned this in my post that you ignored.

YOUR words: "7 mil a year is chump change DEs make 10 mil average"

for one, the top SIX guys making over 10 mil do not constitute an average for defensive ends. Anyone who can read can see that in your post. it's right there above these words. Hell, the average of those guys above is only 8.5 mil, and they're the CREAM.
I already posted these numbers with this link last night http://www.spotrac.com/top-salaries/...defensive-end/
You must have missed it in your dismissal. You probably should have looked, though, it might have saved you this embarrassing post I'm quoting now.

I then showed you that the ACTUAL average salary among defensive ends is 1.5 million.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/avera...-position.html


You're dead wrong, you made it up completely to boost your entirely made up fantasy of Snyder's motivations for dropping 35 million on this coach, and now you're trying to prove it with a post that does nothing but utterly prove that you are totally off base in your assumption of the average salary of a defensive end. Roughly 7 times off.
So, yeah.
You're either to dumb to understand this conversation, or you're just being argumentative.
Next time you make up some numbers to support your totally speculative assertion, it''d probably be a good idea to not be off by so much, and it's probably a good idea to not try to prove your point with a post that completely shows how wrong you are..


~Bang

[daveakl]

I thought it did.

No, not at all.

To say that the goal of Snyder must not be to create the best team because his decision to hire Allen and Shanahan is different then your map is very telling.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I wanted Jim Schwartz here, not Zorn. But, he would not have put up with the Vinny and Dan show.

Schwartz has the brainpower to compete with Belichik. But, you would still need a GM.

Do you blame his personnel for Schwartz's 22-39 record? Based on this season, it would seem that 2011 was the anomaly right?

Edit: I saw your earlier reply...disregard.

[Oldfan]

No, not at all.

To say that the goal of Snyder must not be to create the best team because his decision to hire Allen and Shanahan is different then your map is very telling.

Then you need to explain why my reasoning isn't sound.

This is a question of probability.

If you want to buy a racehorse capable of winning stakes races, would the purchase of a five-year old with a well-established mediocre racing record make sense? Wouldn't you be more likely to succeed with a younger horse with more potential?

Given full control of the Broncos (1999 - 2008) Mike produced mediocre results over that span. Yes, it's possible that he could suddenly figure things out and do a much better job, but how likely is it? How likely is it that that five-year old racehorse is going to blossom into a stakes winner?

[daveakl]

Then you need to explain why my reasoning isn't sound.

This is a question of probability.

If you want to buy a racehorse capable of winning stakes races, would the purchase of a five-year old with a well-established mediocre racing record make sense? Wouldn't you be more likely to succeed with a younger horse with more potential?

Given full control of the Broncos (1999 - 2008) Mike produced mediocre results over that span. Yes, it's possible that he could suddenly figure things out and do a much better job, but how likely is it? How likely is it that that five-year old racehorse is going to blossom into a stakes winner?

I'm not sure why you are using this analogy again, it really does not fit in any way, shape, or form.

I never said that your reasoning wasn't sound. I said that your assertion that Snyder does not have the goal of being the most successful team because he did not follow your model is very telling.

[Oldfan]

I'm not sure why you are using this analogy again, it really does not fit in any way, shape, or form.

I never said that your reasoning wasn't sound. I said that your assertion that Snyder does not have the goal of being the most successful team because he did not follow your model is very telling.

If you didn't understand how the analogy fits, then you didn't understand my reasoning based on probability. And, if you didn't understand that hiring Shanahan made it less likely to succeed in becoming #1, then you wouldn't understand that Snyder would not have hired Shanahan if he wanted a coach to take the Skins to the top of the NFL.

[Bang]

If you didn't understand how the analogy fits, then you didn't understand my reasoning based on probability. And, if you didn't understand that hiring Shanahan made it less likely to succeed in becoming #1, then you wouldn't understand that Snyder would not have hired Shanahan if he wanted a coach to take the Skins to the top of the NFL.

So in other words, it doesn't matter that person after person has poked holes in your reasoning, and have shown you a myriad of ways how it can be unsound.
But you disagree, to the point of making up numbers, and then trying to stand on them after it's been shown to you how wrong it is.

You don't want anyone to prove anything to you.
You ask for people to prove your reasoning unsound, and as soon as they do, you dismiss them and say things like "You don't like my argument, i don't like yours".

fappityfapfapfap. Jackityjacksmackitysmack.

~Bang

[elkabong82]

No. I would be looking for the best combination of brainpower and experience I could find in a man with a promising future. I don't want a retread.

That's not a sound argument.

I don't think Snyder is willing or able to lead this team to #1. So, I'm lowering my goal. I'll be satisfied if I can watch RG3 perform -- healthy -- for several years.

So even though you admit your standards would have made you possibly miss out on Belichick, coach of the team you want to emulate and replace, you wouldn't revise your standards? That seems pretty self-destructive.

Historical precedent/trends are a sound argument. If something has never happened before then it is hard to believe it will happen. The odds are against it. If you're going to argue against that point you have to bring evidence. Simply countering with "no it's not" is bogus especially for someone making a thread calling for more reasoned arguments. You have told others that they have to prove that an argument is unsound, yet you didn't do the same.

[Skinsinparadise]

I don't know the inside scoop on Detroit. I don't know how much credit o blame to give him, but I would hire him to coach my football team.

I watched the end of the Colts/Lions game, the Lions defense on the last play, looked like they played zone with everyone pulled back into the end zone, seemed weird considering it gave Luck or a RB a free ride into the end zone, Luck threw a shovel pass and then game over. I was curious the next day how the Detroit press would characterize it, and a couple of articles globalized Schwartz as struggling with clock management and making curious decisions late in games. Granted that's just opinion. But for a defensive guru -- he hasn't made their defense anything special. He has IMO an above average QB with the top WR in the league. IMO this isn't a team bereft of talent. I haven't watched him though that closely, in small doses, he seems a bit high strung. In their one good season, you got him fist pumping like they won the super bowl after each win, the hot exchange with Harbaugh post game -- in the Thanksgiving game where he threw the flag and perhaps cost them the game, he blamed on being hot and emotional in the moment about the call in question.

Not saying being high strung is a bad thing, Bill Parcells was emotional too but more talk of him these days being canned than anything about being a hot coach of the future. Maybe unfairly? I don't know.


Here's one blog that summarizes some of the critiques on Schwartz.
http://rotoexperts.com/29591/detroit...than-schwartz/

[daveakl]

If you didn't understand how the analogy fits, then you didn't understand my reasoning based on probability. And, if you didn't understand that hiring Shanahan made it less likely to succeed in becoming #1, then you wouldn't understand that Snyder would not have hired Shanahan if he wanted a coach to take the Skins to the top of the NFL.

I don't understand how the analogy fits because it is a bad analogy. But I also would think based on it that you don't have a real understanding of horse racing and do not understand why it is flawed.

[Oldfan]

So even though you admit your standards would have made you possibly miss out on Belichick, coach of the team you want to emulate and replace, you wouldn't revise your standards? That seems pretty self-destructive.

Not at all. The Belichik hiring beat the odds to succeed. I want to beat him at the NFL game, but make it more likely that my plan succeeds in doing that.

Historical precedent/trends are a sound argument. If something has never happened before then it is hard to believe it will happen. The odds are against it. If you're going to argue against that point you have to bring evidence. Simply countering with "no it's not" is bogus especially for someone making a thread calling for more reasoned arguments.

Why is it hard to believe that a sound plan can succeed even though it has never been done before? We hear about such successes once a week in the business world.

Arguments can be supported with logical reasoning OR evidence; and they can be supported with logical reasoning AND evidence. The lack of historical evidence isn't an essential.

---------- Post added December-14th-2012 at 12:44 PM ----------

I don't understand how the analogy fits because it is a bad analogy. But I also would think based on it that you don't have a real understanding of horse racing and do not understand why it is flawed.

I owned a small string of racehorses a while back.

We have no place to go with this. You think it's a false analogy. I disagree.