Venturi on Frank Cignetti and Bradford

[Anonymous]

Never in my life of posting have I ever seen the word "project" as bashing. I think of it as a neutral assessment people can agree with, disagree with, discuss, debate.

This is the root of the discussion I guess. Some people do take the word "project" as an indictment. We had a rather lively discussion about Quinn when he was drafted, and the word "project" seemed to be the focus of the entire discussion. It depends on what you mean by it I suppose. Sometimes project can refer to a Eric Crouch (forcing a guy into a position where he'll likely never succeed) or it can refer to a Robert Quinn (someone who had time off and would take a little more time to develop into a NFL caliber DE).

After reading the entire thread (twice), I don't see anything that should offend the senses. Bradford by far exceeded expectations during his first season because the offense was tailored to his strengths. Shurmur, love him or hate him, did a fairly good job of keeping him within a scheme that made his transition easier. The mess of a season that followed can be attributed to a great many things. Truncated off-season, new offense, new OC, injuries, and yes ... Bradford himself. I don't think that we should try to assign percentages of blame either. That's another cause of strife. One thing I'm sure we're all very much aware of, is that no QB could have done much better given the circumstances.

Is Sam a project? I can't answer that because my meaning of "project" would differ from someone else's. All I know is this. If Sam can get adequate protection and have more than one receiver at his disposal, he will likely do very well. We've seen what he could do when he had Clayton at full health in 2010 and the two were clicking. Add Fells and Amendola into the mix (two outlet receivers), and he didn't look much like a project to me. Sure he had/has things to work on, but it was no illusion when he had control of the offense and everyone was pretty much healthy. And that was without an illustrious supporting cast.

Let's do this. Read each other. Refrain from dismissive statements toward each other. Don't accuse people of lying, and don't try to assign or read motives. Don't take pot shots at each other. Understand that everyone sees things differently. Understand that everyone is a Rams fan here, and that nobody wants anyone to fail. For instance, if I think that Jason Smith could be looking at the end of his stint here, that doesn't mean that I want him to be cut. I'd much rather he turn his career around and become an all-pro O-lineman (guard, RT, whatever). And if I say that he may never get over the hump that secures his future with the Rams, that doesn't mean I dislike the guy. It just means that what I see is what I see. And of course, I hope to be wrong.

Regarding the somewhat confusing nature of this board, I can try to sum it up. Bradford may have to work on pre-snaps. He may have to work on his deep touch. He may have to improve his pocket presence. But one thing is for certain. He's smart, studious, dedicated, has a good arm, has mobility, and he's the future of this Franchise. As such, he's going to be a great one. Not, "he may or may not turn out to be good." Simply, "He's going to be a great one." Get it?

Homerism, optimism, board unity, blind faith. The 4 pillars of ROD.

You can add that SB's shoulder is more durable than some (myself included) have thought.

BTW I've tried to read the PM but can't due to having to "release" messages to a folder or some such stuff.....which I've tried and failed repeatedly to do. So if PM is slapping me for posting "Pinocchio-itis" then I apologize to zn now.

 

[-X-]

You can add that SB's shoulder is more durable than some (myself included) have thought.

BTW I've tried to read the PM but can't due to having to "release" messages to a folder or some such stuff.....which I've tried and failed repeatedly to do. So if PM is slapping me for posting "Pinocchio-itis" then I apologize to zn now.

Okay, I'll add the shoulder too. Though, I was never really worried about that. You don't invest millions into a guy unless he was fully checked out by more than one competent medical professional. Supposedly his shoulder was even stronger than before it was injured (pre-draft). And of course his Pro Day removed a lot of those suspicions.

Empty your mail box and you'll be able to get new PM's. Everyone has a limit of 50 before it's full.

You know what you did, and you know it was wrong. Please don't do it anymore.

 

[-X-]

Everyone, Venturi down to me, is aware of the injuries and of the general regression on offense around him. That can be sorted out and you can see things that go to the qb alone.

I'm going to call you out on this now. If you recall, there were similar arguments being raised against #10 a few years back. That it wasn't "all the support", and that people could see flaws in his game. If I recall correctly, you didn't really subscribe to that, or at least you weren't open to people assigning any blame to the QB (07-09). What has changed? Can you clarify? Is it that #10 had shown that he was good before, so it stood to reason that he couldn't be "bad"?

And, honestly, can't you tie it all together when it comes to Bradford? Meaning, if the O-line was in tatters, his OC wasn't good at adjusting, and the receivers were dropping like flies, how can you tell that he has things that he needs to work on? Can't go through progressions in 2 seconds. We don't really know that he wasn't making pre-snap reads with any regularity last year either. Even in 2010 he checked out of plays and changed things at the line. It's possible that putting the responsibility of changing protections - along with synching up with receivers on sight-adjustments - in a truncated off-season - with a bad line and no receivers - was just too much for any QB (let alone a sophomore) to deal with.

Fair?

(and read that like we can disagree here and agree in another thread - as I am).

 

[Anonymous]

Everyone, Venturi down to me, is aware of the injuries and of the general regression on offense around him. That can be sorted out and you can see things that go to the qb alone.

I'm going to call you out on this now. If you recall, there were similar arguments being raised against #10 a few years back. That it wasn't "all the support", and that people could see flaws in his game. If I recall correctly, you didn't really subscribe to that, or at least you weren't open to people assigning any blame to the QB (07-09). What has changed? Can you clarify? Is it that #10 had shown that he was good before, so it stood to reason that he couldn't be "bad"?

And, honestly, can't you tie it all together when it comes to Bradford? Meaning, if the O-line was in tatters, his OC wasn't good at adjusting, and the receivers were dropping like flies, how can you tell that he has things that he needs to work on? Can't go through progressions in 2 seconds. We don't really know that he wasn't making pre-snap reads with any regularity last year either. Even in 2010 he checked out of plays and changed things at the line. It's possible that putting the responsibility of changing protections - along with synching up with receivers on sight-adjustments - in a truncated off-season - with a bad line and no receivers - was just too much for any QB (let alone a sophomore) to deal with.

Fair?

(and read that like we can disagree here and agree in another thread - as I am).

They're entirely different things.

Bulger was an established qb with 4 solid good years who regressed in 2007-2008 because of a long, long series of injuries to the OL. He clearly regressed under those conditions and people said so. The only debate was about why he regressed. A lot, remember, frankly just said he fell apart and could come up with no good reason for it--it was important to point out to them that a qb cannot play without an OL. It's virtually the same argument as the one used to say what happened to Kurt in 2002 (though there you have to add the superbowl hangover).

People discussing Bradford's limitations as a young qb who needs to develop focus primarily on the first 4 games (I said as much) because the ankle injury and the broken OL changed the entire dynamic.

Before that there were issues around him, mostly IMO because of the new offensive system that was installed without a lockout.

In that context though you could see the problems a young qb had on his own--and, I stressed, a lot of that was because McD had him stepping out of the comfort zone he had in 2010 and attempting things he had not really done before.

So a young qb who is PART OF the struggle (mostly because he was rushed ahead of himself) is not the same as a veteran qb who had already developed but then got beaten down.

If anyone asked what the effects were on Bulger when you look at all of 2007-2009, I say what they are. But I also stress that no one would have avoided those effects.

If you look at Bradford in 2011, he is clearly the guy we saw in 2010, but also clearly a young qb who has to develop certain things in his game. McD didn't help much. Even then, MOSTLY that is about the first 4 games, before injuries (especially the Bradford) made it harder to judge anything.

I mean do you think Venturi didn't know Bradford hurt his ankle or that the OL fell apart? (or fell apart again, though nothing like 2007). Or that Venturi didn't know the things we know about the lockout, the new system, McD (actually Venturi was rare in being a media guy critical of McD), the receivers, and the offensive struggles? I mean yeah Venturi knows about those things...but he STILL finds places where SB's game has to develop.

My main thing about early 2011 is that Bradford was forced out of his normal development curve and as a result we saw more of the flaws that 2010 kept in check.

And yet Venturi stresses (rightly) that those things are either coachable or a matter of getting experience.

And do you think a new qb coach comes into St. Louis and says "ah, the kid is fine as he is...just get him a receiver."

Yes bad things happened around him but you HAVE TO see what part of that was him TOO, or no, IMO, it's not fair, it's incomplete.

 

[-X-]

Everyone, Venturi down to me, is aware of the injuries and of the general regression on offense around him. That can be sorted out and you can see things that go to the qb alone.

I'm going to call you out on this now. If you recall, there were similar arguments being raised against #10 a few years back. That it wasn't "all the support", and that people could see flaws in his game. If I recall correctly, you didn't really subscribe to that, or at least you weren't open to people assigning any blame to the QB (07-09). What has changed? Can you clarify? Is it that #10 had shown that he was good before, so it stood to reason that he couldn't be "bad"?

And, honestly, can't you tie it all together when it comes to Bradford? Meaning, if the O-line was in tatters, his OC wasn't good at adjusting, and the receivers were dropping like flies, how can you tell that he has things that he needs to work on? Can't go through progressions in 2 seconds. We don't really know that he wasn't making pre-snap reads with any regularity last year either. Even in 2010 he checked out of plays and changed things at the line. It's possible that putting the responsibility of changing protections - along with synching up with receivers on sight-adjustments - in a truncated off-season - with a bad line and no receivers - was just too much for any QB (let alone a sophomore) to deal with.

Fair?

(and read that like we can disagree here and agree in another thread - as I am).

They're entirely different things.

Bulger was an established qb with 4 solid good years who regressed in 2007-2008 because of a long, long series of injuries to the OL. He clearly regressed under those conditions and people said so. The only debate was about why he regressed. A lot, remember, frankly just said he fell apart and could come up with no good reason for it--it was important to point out to them that a qb cannot play without an OL. It's virtually the same argument as the one used to say what happened to Kurt in 2002 (though there you have to add the superbowl hangover).

People discussing Bradford's limitations as a young qb who needs to develop focus primarily on the first 4 games (I said as much) because the ankle injury and the broken OL changed the entire dynamic.

Before that there were issues around him, mostly IMO because of the new offensive system that was installed without a lockout.

In that context though you could see the problems a young qb had on his own--and, I stressed, a lot of that was because McD had him stepping out of the comfort zone he had in 2010 and attempting things he had not really done before.

So a young qb who is PART OF the struggle (mostly because he was rushed ahead of himself) is not the same as a veteran qb who had already developed but then got beaten down.

If anyone asked what the effects were on Bulger when you look at all of 2007-2009, I say what they are. But I also stress that no one would have avoided those effects.

If you look at Bradford in 2011, he is clearly the guy we saw in 2010, but also clearly a young qb who has to develop certain things in his game. McD didn't help much. Even then, MOSTLY that is about the first 4 games, before injuries (especially the Bradford) made it harder to judge anything.

I mean do you think Venturi didn't know Bradford hurt his ankle or that the OL fell apart? (or fell apart again, though nothing like 2007). Or that Venturi didn't know the things we know about the lockout, the new system, McD (actually Venturi was rare in being a media guy critical of McD), the receivers, and the offensive struggles? I mean yeah Venturi knows about those things...but he STILL finds places where SB's game has to develop.

My main thing about early 2011 is that Bradford was forced out of his normal development curve and as a result we saw more of the flaws that 2010 kept in check.

And yet Venturi stresses (rightly) that those things are either coachable or a matter of getting experience.

And do you think a new qb coach comes into St. Louis and says "ah, the kid is fine as he is...just get him a receiver."

Yes bad things happened around him but you HAVE TO see what part of that was him TOO, or no, IMO, it's not fair, it's incomplete.

Ah, shut-up ya fucktard. There. NOW you're at the PD.

I see what you're saying, and for the most part agree. However, and this is where we're going to differ for all of eternity, I don't think you can differentiate what Bulger went through and what Bradford went through and come out saying that one (Bulger) is deserving of more latitude because of his prior achievements. I'm not entirely sure why, but that doesn't sit right with me.

Like Doc said, all QBs have things they have to work on. Just because Bradford said he had to continue working on his reads and whatnot, doesn't mean that it's a flaw in his game. It probably only means that he has to continue working on it. As in, mastering his craft. Now, that said, I'm not saying that he's a finished product either. He can't be, and Venturi is right when he points out areas that are in need of improvement.

So, let's wrap up.

1. Bradford is still a developmental QB
2. Bradford has things he can work on.
3. Bradford doesn't have "flaws." Flaws would indicate things that can't be corrected. (A mark, fault, or other imperfection that mars a substance or object).
4. Bradford was adversely affected by all of the circumstances that surrounded 2011 (including the first 4 games).
5. There's no reason to believe that Bradford, in a system with continuity and good receivers, can't be a real good one.

And.... whatever else you wanna add.

 

[Anonymous]

This is the root of the discussion I guess. Some people do take the word "project" as an indictment.

Not me. I take it for granted that a young qb who came from a spread has to develop. To me that's not only neutral, it's obvious. Either way I not only have never seen it used as a "bash" term, I don't even get the idea that it might or could be. To me it's just synonymous with "2nd year."

Now if people are going to object to the word--even though I don't get why (and I don't)--then, fine, in the interests of communication, I just use a different word. The point is the argument, not the word.

And yeah he's developmental. Clearly.

Someone mentioned "the shoulder" and I don't know why because before the 2010 draft I went out of my way to say that in fact I thought the shoulder was NOT an issue. I knew full well that that kind of surgery can actually make the shoulder STRONGER. And I said so frequently. You know how it is in the rush of posting--some people don't really read everyone, so I kept having to respond to posts that said "hey his shoulder's not a problem" and I kept having to say "I said as much myself, many times."

The issues raised before the draft were: being green cause of the spread (and that's still an issue, at least when it comes to his development curve and how long it will take); durability (not the shoulder), and in spite of the ankle I think he answered that one; and then whether he was "clutch" (and to me the jury is still out on that one).

We saw the progress in 2010. We saw things fall apart in 2011, and some of that was him doing new things--it wasn't all just the stuff around him.

Now if someone is going to continually misread the (strangely) heated pre-draft debates, that's not my problem. I said I was fine with the pick before they drafted him (same with Holt over Bailey) even thought I preferred the alternative (same with Bailey). I sang his praises all of 2010. I defend him regularly, in no uncertain terms, against REAL bashers on the PD board. I have a balanced and fair approach to this entire issue. I don't like sorting through misreads to get to real discussions (that's not aimed at X). The only REAL places to disagree on all involve nuances and the magnication of small differences. Hence this discussion should just be about whether he's accurate under pressure in the medium ranges and why and what the issues are. It should be interesting discussion. It should be fun. Full of differences naturally but fun. There shouldn't be someone wearily going "naw, didn't say that, naw you're reading that in, naw I didn't mean THAT word THAT way...."

Know what I mean?

 

[Anonymous]

I see what you're saying, and for the most part agree. However, and this is where we're going to differ for all of eternity, I don't think you can differentiate what Bulger went through and what Bradford went through and come out saying that one (Bulger) is deserving of more latitude because of his prior achievements. I'm not entirely sure why, but that doesn't sit right with me.

Like Doc said, all QBs have things they have to work on. Just because Bradford said he had to continue working on his reads and whatnot, doesn't mean that it's a flaw in his game. It probably only means that he has to continue working on it. As in, mastering his craft. Now, that said, I'm not saying that he's a finished product either. He can't be, and Venturi is right when he points out areas that are in need of improvement.

So, let's wrap up.

1. Bradford is still a developmental QB
2. Bradford has things he can work on.
3. Bradford doesn't have "flaws." Flaws would indicate things that can't be corrected. (A mark, fault, or other imperfection that mars a substance or object).
4. Bradford was adversely affected by all of the circumstances that surrounded 2011 (including the first 4 games).
5. There's no reason to believe that Bradford, in a system with continuity and good receivers, can't be a real good one.

And.... whatever else you wanna add.

They're absolutely different things. Also, to me, the word "latitude" is just wildly wrong. I don't get anyone "latitude" on these issues OR withhold it--it has nothing to do with "latitude" for me either way.

It's just a matter of simple direct accurate descriptions of what happened.

And on that I didn't GIVE Bulger "latitude" and I didn't WITHHOLD "latitude" from Bradford. They weren't personal or value judgements either way.

Both ways it's just simple direct descriptions of what happened.

I never use the "basher/apologist" approach to things and don't have much patience for those who do...let alone for those who read posters as being either thing.

And if ALL qbs have issues then why does it cause a long discussion full of disagreement to NAME them. It's, like all qbs have issues...cool...here are Bradford's. No one should ever have to defend saying that.

And, again, there are real genuine actual Bradford bashers on the PD board, and when I bother to respond to them at all, I let em have it, because their arguments are nonsense. The result? Over there, I am called an apologist.

 

[-X-]

This is the root of the discussion I guess. Some people do take the word "project" as an indictment.

Not me. I take it for granted that a young qb who came from a spread has to develop. To me that's not only neutral, it's obvious. Either way I not only have never seen it used as a "bash" term, I don't even get the idea that it might or could be. To me it's just synonymous with "2nd year."

Now if people are going to object to the word--even though I don't get why (and I don't)--then, fine, in the interests of communication, I just use a different word. The point is the argument, not the word.

And yeah he's developmental. Clearly.

Someone mentioned "the shoulder" and I don't know why because before the 2010 draft I went out of my way to say that in fact I thought the shoulder was NOT an issue. I knew full well that that kind of surgery can actually make the shoulder STRONGER. And I said so frequently. You know how it is in the rush of posting--some people don't really read everyone, so I kept having to respond to posts that said "hey his shoulder's not a problem" and I kept having to say "I said as much myself, many times."

The issues raised before the draft were: being green cause of the spread (and that's still an issue, at least when it comes to his development curve and how long it will take); durability (not the shoulder), and in spite of the ankle I think he answered that one; and then whether he was "clutch" (and to me the jury is still out on that one).

We saw the progress in 2010. We saw things fall apart in 2011, and some of that was him doing new things--it wasn't all just the stuff around him.

Now if someone is going to continually misread the (strangely) heated pre-draft debates, that's not my problem. I said I was fine with the pick before they drafted him (same with Holt over Bailey) even thought I preferred the alternative (same with Bailey). I sang his praises all of 2010. I defend him regularly, in no uncertain terms, against REAL bashers on the PD board. I have a balanced and fair approach to this entire issue. I don't like sorting through misreads to get to real discussions (that's not aimed at X). The only REAL places to disagree on all involve nuances and the magnication of small differences. Hence this discussion should just be about whether he's accurate under pressure in the medium ranges and why and what the issues are. It should be interesting discussion. It should be fun. Full of differences naturally but fun. There shouldn't be someone wearily going "naw, didn't say that, naw you're reading that in, naw I didn't mean THAT word THAT way...."

Know what I mean?

Sure. I know what you mean. But you're going to have to do yourself a favor and separate what you read now from what you read then. I can tell you with absolute certainty that nobody here is going to trot out your past (pre-draft) discussions and call you out on them. So what you read now shouldn't lead you to defend something you may or may not have said in the past. That's just here though. I don't know if you're compelled to do that elsewhere.

As always, any discussion that leads to multi-page responses is going to invariably lead to misunderstandings over small differences or nuances, as you said. Sometimes you can clear that up right away and move forward, and sometimes it leads to intentional misreading, motives trolling, or purposeful misrepresentation. I'd really love it if we could avoid that, and I'd like to think that everyone here is mature enough to do that.

You don't have to substitute "project" for another word. Simply define it to everyone and that should suffice. You might have to substitute "argument" for "debate" though. I know they mean the same thing, but you know... in the interest of doing my bidding, you should comply. :hehe:

Anyway, I agree that he has things to work on. I've said as much all along. Until he gets comfortable in a system and has continuity in that system, he's going to have to labor through it until it becomes second nature. "Adjusting" can mean every bit as much as "working on it." I don't think he has issues with his mechanics, or his intelligence, or his deep ball, or anything else really. It all (IMO) stems from him not being comfortable in one system. Lots of QBs come from the spread, and naturally it takes a little time to adjust to the pro scheme. That's kind of the only issue I see, and it shouldn't be one for very long. Being "clutch" depends on a great many things. You can make all the right throws and manage the clock well during crunch time, but if you don't have protection and the receivers aren't running the right routes (or even catching the ball), then what good does it do? Is Brady not clutch because he got sacked and threw a lame duck up in the SB? Naw, he just didn't have the help he needed at that particular moment. Whereas Eli DID have those things (good protection, and receivers making the tough grabs), so he was "clutch" when it counted. Very subjective argument (er, debate) that "clutch" thing is.

 

[-X-]

I see what you're saying, and for the most part agree. However, and this is where we're going to differ for all of eternity, I don't think you can differentiate what Bulger went through and what Bradford went through and come out saying that one (Bulger) is deserving of more latitude because of his prior achievements. I'm not entirely sure why, but that doesn't sit right with me.

Like Doc said, all QBs have things they have to work on. Just because Bradford said he had to continue working on his reads and whatnot, doesn't mean that it's a flaw in his game. It probably only means that he has to continue working on it. As in, mastering his craft. Now, that said, I'm not saying that he's a finished product either. He can't be, and Venturi is right when he points out areas that are in need of improvement.

So, let's wrap up.

1. Bradford is still a developmental QB
2. Bradford has things he can work on.
3. Bradford doesn't have "flaws." Flaws would indicate things that can't be corrected. (A mark, fault, or other imperfection that mars a substance or object).
4. Bradford was adversely affected by all of the circumstances that surrounded 2011 (including the first 4 games).
5. There's no reason to believe that Bradford, in a system with continuity and good receivers, can't be a real good one.

And.... whatever else you wanna add.

They're absolutely different things. Also, to me, the word "latitude" is just wildly wrong. I don't get anyone "latitude" on these issues OR withhold it--it has nothing to do with "latitude" for me either way.

It's just a matter of simple direct accurate descriptions of what happened.

And on that I didn't GIVE Bulger "latitude" and I didn't WITHHOLD "latitude" from Bradford. They weren't personal or value judgements either way.

Both ways it's just simple direct descriptions of what happened.

I never use the "basher/apologist" approach to things and don't have much patience for those who do...let alone for those who read posters as being either thing.

And if ALL qbs have issues then why does it cause a long discussion full of disagreement to NAME them. It's, like all qbs have issues...cool...here are Bradford's. No one should ever have to defend saying that.

And, again, there are real genuine actual Bradford bashers on the PD board, and when I bother to respond to them at all, I let em have it, because their arguments are nonsense. The result? Over there, I am called an apologist.

The word latitude can't be wildly wrong. I spelled it correctly.

I'm not sure what you mean by the basher/apologist thing. I didn't mention it here. See, that's what I'm saying about defending past arguments. We're only having a discussion here. If you say you're not giving or withholding latitude, then perhaps I just read you wrong. Happens.

Apologist.

 

[Anonymous]

I see what you're saying, and for the most part agree. However, and this is where we're going to differ for all of eternity, I don't think you can differentiate what Bulger went through and what Bradford went through and come out saying that one (Bulger) is deserving of more latitude because of his prior achievements. I'm not entirely sure why, but that doesn't sit right with me.

Like Doc said, all QBs have things they have to work on. Just because Bradford said he had to continue working on his reads and whatnot, doesn't mean that it's a flaw in his game. It probably only means that he has to continue working on it. As in, mastering his craft. Now, that said, I'm not saying that he's a finished product either. He can't be, and Venturi is right when he points out areas that are in need of improvement.

So, let's wrap up.

1. Bradford is still a developmental QB
2. Bradford has things he can work on.
3. Bradford doesn't have "flaws." Flaws would indicate things that can't be corrected. (A mark, fault, or other imperfection that mars a substance or object).
4. Bradford was adversely affected by all of the circumstances that surrounded 2011 (including the first 4 games).
5. There's no reason to believe that Bradford, in a system with continuity and good receivers, can't be a real good one.

And.... whatever else you wanna add.

They're absolutely different things. Also, to me, the word "latitude" is just wildly wrong. I don't get anyone "latitude" on these issues OR withhold it--it has nothing to do with "latitude" for me either way.

It's just a matter of simple direct accurate descriptions of what happened.

And on that I didn't GIVE Bulger "latitude" and I didn't WITHHOLD "latitude" from Bradford. They weren't personal or value judgements either way.

Both ways it's just simple direct descriptions of what happened.

I never use the "basher/apologist" approach to things and don't have much patience for those who do...let alone for those who read posters as being either thing.

And if ALL qbs have issues then why does it cause a long discussion full of disagreement to NAME them. It's, like all qbs have issues...cool...here are Bradford's. No one should ever have to defend saying that.

And, again, there are real genuine actual Bradford bashers on the PD board, and when I bother to respond to them at all, I let em have it, because their arguments are nonsense. The result? Over there, I am called an apologist.

The word latitude can't be wildly wrong. I spelled it correctly.

I'm not sure what you mean by the basher/apologist thing. I didn't mention it here. See, that's what I'm saying about defending past arguments. We're only having a discussion here. If you say you're not giving or withholding latitude, then perhaps I just read you wrong. Happens.

Apologist.

Lol. (lol on your last used word).

On B/A, I wasn't talking about you. Just a net tendency. And I know you didn't mention it. I did. I was referring to a world of landmines for realists. It basically means, as a rule I am not "for or against" players, I just try to see where they're at as players. They get some special consideration from me cause they're Rams and I am biased, but not that much, and if they aren't working out I want to know why, not just slam em. Ya know? So I was saying there is no judgement at stake when I critique a player's play. It may not be always accurate but I try to be objective.

Anyway, yeah, I am not "judging" Bradford. Any more than I would be judging Jackson if I said he didn't run effectively in 2009 probably because of injuries. It's just description.

 

[-X-]

On B/A, I wasn't talking about you. Just a net tendency. And I know you didn't mention it. I did. I was referring to a world of landmines for realists. It basically means, as a rule I am not "for or against" players, I just try to see where they're at as players. They get some special consideration from me cause they're Rams and I am biased, but not that much, and if they aren't working out I want to know why, not just slam em. Ya know? So I was saying there is no judgement at stake when I critique a player's play. It may not be always accurate but I try to be objective.

Anyway, yeah, I am not "judging" Bradford. Any more than I would be judging Jackson if I said he didn't run effectively in 2009 probably because of injuries. It's just description.

Ah ha. Very well said. You should probably put that in your signature space. That would eliminate a lot of mischaracterizations.

 

[Anonymous]

Ah ha. Very well said. You should probably put that in your signature space. That would eliminate a lot of mischaracterizations.

Why are you attacking me? I don't deserve to be attacked like that!

I hate misreading.

Only bad people misread.

...

:cheese:

 

[-X-]

Ah ha. Very well said. You should probably put that in your signature space. That would eliminate a lot of mischaracterizations.

Why are you attacking me? I don't deserve to be attacked like that!

I hate misreading.

Only bad people misread.

...

:cheese:

Fuck off.

 

[Anonymous]

Ah ha. Very well said. You should probably put that in your signature space. That would eliminate a lot of mischaracterizations.

Why are you attacking me? I don't deserve to be attacked like that!

I hate misreading.

Only bad people misread.

...

:cheese:

freak off.

Now, just to make extra sure on something.

My joke in my post there is at my own expense. See, I pretended I misread you, then, say that misreading is bad.

Now, when you respond, you COULD be playing right along.

But...just in case...you might not be, and if not, then, I want to clear it up. I sometimes do jokes on the net that backfire.

You wrote a good post and I appreciated it (about the signature). I wouldn't make fun of that. So out of appreciation and just for laughs, I pretended like I misread it.

Cause that's a very funny thing to do. Really.

:mrgreen: :lol:

 

[-X-]

Ah ha. Very well said. You should probably put that in your signature space. That would eliminate a lot of mischaracterizations.

Why are you attacking me? I don't deserve to be attacked like that!

I hate misreading.

Only bad people misread.

...

:cheese:

freak off.

Now, just to make extra sure on something.

My joke in my post there is at my own expense. See, I pretended I misread you, then, say that misreading is bad.

Now, when you respond, you COULD be playing right along.

But...just in case...you might not be, and if not, then, I want to clear it up. I sometimes do jokes on the net that backfire.

You wrote a good post and I appreciated it (about the signature). I wouldn't make fun of that. So out of appreciation and just for laughs, I pretended like I misread it.

Cause that's a very funny thing to do. Really.

:mrgreen: :lol:

Of course I knew that. I was being ironical. And sarcastical. And stuff.

 

[Anonymous]

Ah ha. Very well said. You should probably put that in your signature space. That would eliminate a lot of mischaracterizations.

Why are you attacking me? I don't deserve to be attacked like that!

I hate misreading.

Only bad people misread.

...

:cheese:

freak off.

Now, just to make extra sure on something.

My joke in my post there is at my own expense. See, I pretended I misread you, then, say that misreading is bad.

Now, when you respond, you COULD be playing right along.

But...just in case...you might not be, and if not, then, I want to clear it up. I sometimes do jokes on the net that backfire.

You wrote a good post and I appreciated it (about the signature). I wouldn't make fun of that. So out of appreciation and just for laughs, I pretended like I misread it.

Cause that's a very funny thing to do. Really.

:mrgreen: :lol:

Of course I knew that. I was being ironical. And sarcastical. And stuff.

Okay. Part of me got that. Part of me just wanted to be sure.