Dan Conner

Yeah, it's not like I have repeatedly made the point that my desire to keep Anderson is based on him being willing to sign for a modest contract. Clearly you didn't notice any of the times I mentioned that. Good grief. And you didn't expect anyone to bust your balls about saying that Dan Connor is "almost flawless" as a linebacker? I mean, come on. That is ridiculously high praise for a guy who has never even proven himself to be an adequate starter. He's nice depth, and maybe he would be a solid starter at SLB, but we don't know that and we certainly have no reason to consider him "almost flawless."

 

Completely disagree that he's proven "adequate", but certainly, attacking downhill, not missing assignments, and having less missed tackles than anyone else could be considered below adequacy if you need.

 

Maybe the impression was different here, but the people I talked to generally shared my frustration about the Connor at MLB / Beason at WLB experiment. Don't get me wrong, Dan doesn't make a lot of mistakes and he doesn't miss tackles, so that's useful, but he's also slow and not a playmaker. Understandably, the defense looked worse with him at MLB and Beason shifted over. It's reasonable to think that his limited mobility would play better at SLB than at a position that requires him to go sideline to sideline, but I'm just honestly not sure where the Connor-hype is coming from. I've never watched the guy and thought "wow, he's almost flawless." I see him as a solid back-up who can do a decent job as a starter, but don't really envision him as anything more.

 

Beason definitely didn't have his best year, which honestly surprised me. I mean, he's never been the most athletic player, but he's very athletic (actually, just on 40 time, he, Anderson, and Connor are almost equal), so I figured he'd respond a little better.

To do it again, and I probably have said it before a few hundred times, you keep Beason inside, put Connor strong, and Anderson weak. At the worst you still have a MLB that's as good as almost anyone, and Anderson could've put up even better numbers backside.

Which, one of those wacky metrics sites did overrule me on Anderson in pass coverage a few weeks ago, where I'd always felt he was unnecessarily unreliable in coverage, but certainly wasn't last year. But that particular site's where I confirm plenty of other things, like Connor.

We just disagree on Connor. I mean, I'd resigned myself that we had a very solid starter sitting behind an incredible one, but the last few weeks, looking back at his college time outside, looking at his blitzing this year, he got there, a lot when asked. Our SLB has to bring it, which is something Anderson can do, but it's something Connor can do, too.

Plus, flawless doesn't mean, in my view, perfect, or as if I'm saying he's the best LB on our team or anything. I mean, shit man.

 

It's ok to admit that you said something way over the top when you claimed that Connor was "almost flawless" as a linebacker. You can do it, I have faith in you. Admitting that you made a mistake is a hard step for you, but a necessary one.

 

And you never do, Colin. Is being a dick a choice, or do you have a birth defect you would like to discuss? Why is being right (by your standards only) so important to you? Why are you so offended when people say something you disagree with? You are an insecure, feeble person who needs attention and constant self assurance, but you never get it. Therefore you continue your futile campaign to awkwardly achieve that which your lacking social skills prevent you from acquiring. When you die, the years in which you inhabited earth will adorn your spit and urnine-stained tombstone, beneath the etched letters: AN ASSHOLE in this GRASSHOLE.

 

much more important to worry about semantic uselessness than talk about linebackers.

 

I haven't been on in quite a while. But it seems somethings never change. Skidmark save your energy this has been going on for as long as I remember Colin being on here. Now of course he will call me a douche bag but that's Colin.

 

At least spell my pseudonym correctly. Moreover, use what handful of brain cells you have to left to notice where I have repeatedly pointed out lately that I thought James Anderson was a waste of a roster spot, but he's gone on to be really good. People like you think I don't admit when I'm wrong because I almost never am, but the more intelligent would notice that I'm very open about my mistakes when they actually happen.

Another swing and a miss, shirley. My ego is self-sustaining. I neither want or accept the sycophantic prostration of the toadies who go around the internet latching on to those with stronger personalities than their own. I post on places like this because my brain is constantly active. I argue because I actually give a crap. I insult because I get frustrated when intelligent people unnecessarily bullshit (like magnus calling Connor "flawless") or when the slow cannot comprehend the points I feel are obvious. For instance, I don't understand how someone like you can't comprehend that being correct is the most important result. Someone like you would apparently prefer to be wrong, but have people agree with you.

You don't agree with magnus about Dan Connor being "flawless." No one does because it's so obviously fucking ridiculous. But because you're a sheep without an original thought in that meatsack that sits above your shoulders, you latch on to him because he seems smart without being someone who will judge or rebuke you. It's precisely because you hide from people who judge or challenge you that you have failed to progress or develop. Meanwhile he's a really smart guy who is extremely knowledgeable about football and should be better than this, but he's always been handicapped by his complete inability to acknowledge his own mistakes. Everyone says stupid things from time to time, myself definitely included, but when magnus does it he gets all defensive and makes excuses instead of acting like a man and just owning the idiocy.

This is another common mistake. People like you think I lack social skills because you cannot comprehend that I hold you to be such a valueless existence that I would not waste the effort or indulge in the disingenuous charade where I pretend to give a crap about you or what you believe. Tact and schmoozing are for the people whose opinions actually matter. You don't.