God damn it.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rupert said:
Still off on tangents and not on point.

Since the majority of DE's do NOT post 60-70 tackles, it is you who is in error. When a VERY SMALL handfull post those stats, that is NOT the norm.
Click to expand...

Brayton did it.

And where did I EVER say DE's can't post 60-70 tackles? I didn't. But you again jumped to a nonsense conclusion. You even disproved your own point about Brayton. Keep fishing.
Click to expand...

Did I now? Please, do explain.

A small two game stint means nothing. Are you suggesting that Brayton could or would have posted 24 sacks if Ryan would have left him at DE?
Click to expand...

No, you reading impaired ninny. I'm mocking your goofy question about why he didn't. Do try to keep up.

You're talking more nonsense as time goes on.
Click to expand...

Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment. I've read what you consider sense. I'll stick to the facts and what actually happened, thanks.

But check your own facts, Brayton didn't even have 3 sacks his sophomore season.
Click to expand...

2.5, same thing. He had 3 sacks. He just had to share the credit with someone on one of them.

Again, don't let the facts interfere with your argument. You're doing fine.
 
Yes, neither should you, especially when you're wrong. Just joke away and call people names. That makes you right. :rolleyes:
 
Yeah, it was a blast. I hope I get to do it again. ;)

Rupert said:
Yes, neither should you, especially when you're wrong. Just joke away and call people names. That makes you right. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I need a ruling. Does the word "ninny" really qualify as name-calling? Toughen up, Nancy. ;)
 
It has absolutely nothing to do with "toughening up" and everything to do with having a serious discussion. When you avoid the point and resort to diversionary tactics, it's obvious you have no serious desire to come to a resolution, even if that resolution is agreeing to disagree. So instead of wasting my time, I'll just bow out.

But if you want to continue, prove it.

How do you define "Base DE"?
 
Rupert said:
It has absolutely nothing to do with "toughening up" and everything to do with having a serious discussion.
Click to expand...

Kinda hard to have a serious discussion when you're not saying much that can be taken seriously. Sorry.

When you avoid the point and resort to diversionary tactics, it's obvious you have no serious desire to come to a resolution, even if that resolution is agreeing to disagree.
Click to expand...

Diversionary tactics? What point am I avoiding? You've been babbling nonsense from the beginning. There hasn't been a point to this since the first page of the thread.

So instead of wasting my time,
Click to expand...

Entering into a discussion when you don't know what you're talking about has wasted both of our time. I would actually like an apology for that.

I'll just bow out.
Click to expand...

...for the second time.

But if you want to continue, prove it.
Click to expand...

Prove what? There you go, talking out your ass again.

How do you define "Base DE"?
Click to expand...

The left DE. The position Brayton was drafted to play originally. The position he played for a couple games in our 3-4 defense prior to getting jobbed by your boy Ryan. Granted, his 60+ tackle season came at RDE, but I see no reason at all to believe he couldn't have similar success on the left side against slower RTs.
 
Are all raider fans as stubborn and hard headed as you two? :eek:
 
Well, now I see what you mean by "Base DE"; however, this is not what is typically meant when Base DE is said.

The media, and fans who know most of what they know about football from those talking heads, refer to the "Base DE" as the guy who is on the field with the "Base" defense. The Base DE is pulled for a pass rusher in obvious passing situations, but often returns to the field for prevent defense.

It is in that context that I said:
60-70 tackle base end? Okay.
Click to expand...
So in that context, Brayton wasn't a base end, since he was on the field in most defenses, and therefore did NOT collect 61 tackles as a "Base DE". He collected them as an "every-down DE". Which is a different animal. Additionally, by your own definition, Brayton wasn't a Base DE, so he didn't collect those tackles in that role. So in that context, you defeated your own argument. Shot your own dick off so to speak.
 
Regarding being serious: I don't like arguing with pre-pubescents. Most of your replies come off as if that's your age. And it's hard to take anything you say seriously when you undermine your own argument and think you're making a point. But you obviously don't see it that way, and that's the mark of the uninformed.

I've talked with you when you didn't act this way, and I hoped to discuss things with that individual. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be what you want to do.
 
You guys are killing me...it's like the giant douche/turd sandwich debate.

You guys are arguing about Rob Ryan and Tyler Brayton?? Who the hell are they?

Just shake hands and end this retardedness...seriously.
 
JC said:
You guys are killing me...it's like the giant douche/turd sandwich debate.

You guys are arguing about Rob Ryan and Tyler Brayton?? Who the hell are they?

Just shake hands and end this retardedness...seriously.
Click to expand...
Excellent post JC --- the voice of reason! (REP)
 
OMG. Did Crow really use the word "ninny?" LMBO!!! I must bookmark this for prosperity. That's one he's not called me...yet.

I gotta side with Crow on this one, though, Brayton being a CU boy and all.
 
Help me understand

TommyGirl said:
OMG. Did Crow really use the word "ninny?" LMBO!!! I must bookmark this for prosperity. That's one he's not called me...yet.

I gotta side with Crow on this one, though, Brayton being a CU boy and all.
Click to expand...
Pardon me if I'm out of line here but which of Crow's points are you siding with? This thread has gone horribily wrong and I think I've lost track of the issue.

I mean what exactly is the definition of a "base DE"?
 
I don't agree with anybody, I've decided. I think you should ban Crow.
 
TommyGirl said:
I don't agree with anybody, I've decided. I think you should ban Crow.
Click to expand...
I second that motion :p
 
While you're at it, you can ban Angel, too. They can keep each other company. :D
 
Rupert said:
Regarding being serious: I don't like arguing with pre-pubescents. Most of your replies come off as if that's your age. And it's hard to take anything you say seriously when you undermine your own argument and think you're making a point. But you obviously don't see it that way, and that's the mark of the uninformed.

I've talked with you when you didn't act this way, and I hoped to discuss things with that individual. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be what you want to do.
Click to expand...

This might actually mean something had you made a single point over the course of this thread. But, I suppose knowing what you're talking about isn't a prerequisite to chest thumping. :rolleyes:
 
I actually made many points, your disagreeing with them is irrelevant, since we're mostly talking opinions. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top