Projected team strength and weaknesses

Seriously man, do you understand that you can never ever have any credibility when you cannot simply admit that you're wrong about something? This is like the Merriman thing where you said he should only be considered a DE. It took forever for you to just admit that what you said was wrong. Admitting that you were wrong to say that Thomas Davis is not like Derrick Brooks would not be agreeing that he can't play SLB, but you still just can't admit that what you said was stupid even though you're implying that Fox and Richt know less about Davis than you do.

Except that I did, champ.

I didn't get pissed because you disagreed. I got pissed because you're sticking to something moronic, and you're not a moron.

Dude, this is the second time on this page that you've lied about that. I already quoted you twice, but here's a third time: "Teams tend to put players who make major impact behind the LOS, IMO, at strongside, moreso than contain players of weakside."

 

saying I'm wrong = saying I disagreed with you? We're quibbling over you twisting their compliment, nothing more. Personally, I don't think Fox and Richt each meant "he's physically limited to only weakside linebacker, and couldn't make impact on the strong side" when one of the two actually put him at SLB and the other very well might.

Speaking of which, until Fox actually unseats WW for Davis, I don't see the point in putting up this much fucking bluster over you not liking what I have to say, but each his own :bananalam The funniest thing is that I first mentioned "situationally at SLB", as in he'll play next to Witherspoon in the nickel. Which is right where he is.

That said, I don't remember seeing the huge majority, or as you said, "every single scouting report", that pigeonholes him to only WLB, or completely out of SLB. Oh, that and this whole idea that Davis (or any other LB) can't make plays at SLB.

 

Magnus, this is very simple and I have explained it multiple times. Whether or not Thomas Davis is like Derrick Brooks is a separate issue from whether or not he is capable of playing SLB. You keep trying to link them because you're embarassed about saying that John Fox and Mark Richt know less about Thomas Davis than you do.

John Fox said Thomas Davis is like Derrick Brooks.
Mark Richt said Thomas Davis is like Derrick Brooks.
You said that they're wrong, that Thomas Davis is not like Derrick Brooks.


It's just that simple. Either you know more about Davis than Fox and Richt do or you were wrong. But you can't admit that you were wrong. You've only admitted such a thing a handful of times in your entire life. It's just something you're not capable of doing with only the rarest of exceptions.

 

If you had said that you understand that the numbers clearly show that strongside linebackers are almost always significantly heavier than weakside linebackers and then gave an argument as to why Thomas Davis could overcome it, that would at least be respectable. Instead you said "The whole size thing doesn't have much to stand on," which is pretty stupid.
He is a physical enough player. In today's NFL, linebackers make more plays getting around blockers, as opposed to the style of strait up contact. This is why a weaker upperbody doesn't concern me as much. The athletic ability is should be enough. So I believe he sould get a look at the position, along with WLB and SS.
The reason I couldn't formulate an argument around your numbers is that is was days before you posted them. Yes, there is often a difference in size between a player taking on the strongside vs. weakside. I've acknowledged that. But it isn't an always thing. It depends, as you've said yourself, on the scheme. Maybe the Panthers are thinking of something that could put his athletic ability at SLB, instead of having a less athletic Short there.

That's not an argument for starting Davis at SLB. "I don't want to answer" is not an answer. You haven't made an argument for Davis at SLB because you are completely incapable of making one
Or perhaps I didn't feel like it, so I just posted a little something. The funny thing is that I've never made an agrument for any position, just an opinion that he may be able to hold up at SLB. I didn't think anyone would be such a tightass about something so small.

Because you were disagreeing with me, which is a challenge to the validity of my statement.
If I'm such a dumbass, it shouldn't even touch the validity of what you said.
I wasn't directly disagreeing with you. Moreso, anyone who thinks Davis is out of the question at SLB. I never quoted you directly. It just so happens that you think what I said was utterly stupid, which is fine. But it shouldn't be something that you take so personal. If it's a stupid thing to say, why bother even responding to it. No one else cares.

What isn't deniable is what you chose to deny, that there is a demonstrable size difference.
No, what I chose to deny is that Thomas Davis won't play SLB. The size difference exists. But just because it's there doesn't mean John Fox will say, "why the fuck even bother seeing what he can do at the strongside."

 

I like how you're trying to invent an argument on the fly, but perhaps you might want to mention something I haven't already shot down. We already covered how Davis has below average strength.

Weakside linebackers get around blockers. Strongside linebackers are supposed to engage blockers. It's their #1 responsibility.

So what you're saying is that you chose to say that I was wrong about a size difference between the positions without actually bothering to check your facts, and once I did your research for you, you found out that you were in fact wrong?

No. There have only been a handful of examples in the last twenty-five years. It's incredibly rare, which is why your objection was stupid instead of just wrong.

Yes, that's possible, but considering how much you've been posting in this thread I think the more likely scenario is that you're simply incapable of formulating such an argument.

It didn't. If I said your mother is a whore it wouldn't have any validity because I don't know your mother and she's probably a nice lady, but it would still be a challenge.

Cool, but you were disagreeing with that before. I'm glad you at least are willing to admit that you were wrong.

 

irrelevance is more important than the topic Glad to see that whatever is contrary is also stupid, per chance. I made my points. Don't like them? Throw a hissy. That's the universal symbol for clarity and logic. Can't wait to see what Fox actually thinks, rather than a contorted self-serving twist.

 

Nah, never said you were wrong about the numbers. I never even said that a size difference does not exist. But I have been saying that a smaller LB can play on the strongside.

Weakside linebackers get around blockers. Strongside linebackers are supposed to engage blockers. It's their #1 responsibility.
All LB's tend to engaging less, weak, middle or strong. And maybe we shouldn't assume that Davis won't be able to engage. I know it's not his strength, but perhaps he can get strong enough to the point that this isn't a huge problem.

So what you're saying is that you chose to say that I was wrong about a size difference between the positions
Again, never said so.

It's incredibly rare, which is why your objection was stupid instead of just wrong.
You're right, it is rare. But is was a hypothetical. A lot of what I've said pertaining to Davis is hypothetical, which is why I'm kinda puzzled at your reaction.

I like how you're trying to invent an argument on the fly, but perhaps you might want to mention something I haven't already shot down. We already covered how Davis has below average strength.
He doesn't have great strength, but I can see it improving to be "good enough".

 

Dude, it's very simple.

John Fox said Thomas Davis is like Derrick Brooks.
Mark Richt said Thomas Davis is like Derrick Brooks.
You said that they're wrong.

The fact that you can't admit that you were wrong about that is not my problem. It's not an illusion crafted by me or some trick or irrelevant. It's the biggest flaw in your character and something that has always been an enormous problem for you.

Ok, so earlier today everyone felt the urge to say stupid things, and now tonight you're all apparently compelled to lie about what you said. It's not particularly wise considering that the quotes are right there for anyone to see. What you said was "The whole size thing doesn't have much to stand on."

No, they aren't. Now you're just making up things to cover for the holes in your position.

 

Just as you said every scouting report, etc, and, well, I've not seen it. I've not seen that consensus from the media, either.

For the record, I said that I felt like Brooks and Johnson were more equatable. I felt like Johnson was strictly a weakside player, and that he couldn't fill a gap. None of the three can really shed line blocks well at all, nor can the two starters we have right now, so that's largely moot. That I think Davis can fill a gap, make plays at either S or W, to me, aren't things that Brooks and Johnson can do. The end result is that I made my thoughts from you bringing up Fox/Richt, not for me to tell them that they're wrong. But you're going to see that as best fits your own argument. The end result is that I wouldn't ask Brooks or Johnson to fill a gap or crash the run on that side. They're both contain players, and I don't find Davis that.

You blathering on about how I "never admit I'm wrong" has nothing whatsoever to do with the above. Neat tricks, still, just as before, and irrelevant to the actual point.

 

Maybe they are maybe they are not....who the fuck knows right now....he hasn't played a snap in the NFL.....he could be a huge bust or he could be a safety or he could be like Brooks....what the fuck does it matter right now on June 8?

Fox has been wrong before.
Richt has been wrong before.
Mango has been right before.

get a fucking grip and drop it.