Greg Little vs series..

[Icege]

1 hour ago, trucpfan said:

So the Bills trading up to take the best available tackle left means what to you? If Little was there you trying to say they would’ve traded up and passed on him? We don’t know teams draft boards the broncos took a tackle at 45 ish you think they would’ve passed on a better rated tackle to take the guy they drafted cone on now you’re arguing to make your point while leaving out obvious scenarios. He would have been drafted before 47 based on how it played out.

According to the draft room video put out by the Bills official YT channel, Cody Ford was their target the entire way. They thought that Carolina had traded up for Ford, and then immediately traded up to get him fearing a run on tackles once they heard that Little was the pick (though I suppose they saw the selection of Taylor by JAX two picks prior to signal the start of the run).

Broncos had also been rumoured to be targeting Risner for a hot minute now due to his flexibility on the line (Ja'Wuan James was inked to a $51M deal to hold down the RT position). Garrett Bolles was a 2nd rounder I believe a couple of seasons prior. Risner is likely coming in to start at center after Denver lost Paradis to Carolina.

I believe that Little would have likely been there at #47 and was not happy with the pick nor the trade up to make it happen. The pick is growing on me, and hopefully he turns out to be the franchise LT we've been missing since Jordan Gross. If he does, then #77 was a small price to pay to make sure that we got him.

I still would have preferred waiting until #47 to take either Little or Scharping so that we could get Deiter with #77 and have our OL set for the next three seasons.

[MasterAwesome]

52 minutes ago, Toomers said:

I’m Dismissive? Coming from someone who tries to dismiss any slightest issue with how this team is run. With almost every post. Or when you do that is it OK? Then when I question you about what these specific “hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty” were, poof you disappear. Instantly. 

  I posted a legit reason for your scenario not being likely. Why would LA pass on him at 31? But your made up hypothetical is much more valid...lol.

Maybe you could point me to the trade where LA traded DOWN in the 1st round. Or is this something else you made up to support your BS? Throw out another diatribe based on a lie. Rape a thesaurus? Rinse. Repeat. 

 

Dang dawg...were you holding that in this whole time? I apologize for not answering your other question a week ago. I read it at the theater during the previews before Avengers and then it slipped my mind by the time the movie was done cause you know, it’s like 17 hours long. As an aside, I’m also generally no longer interested in engaging those people who I believe are legitimately close-minded, on every single point...cause then it’s just a back-and-forth unproductive mess that wastes both parties’ time and amounts to nothing. I don’t think you are one of those blatant dishonest actors, but just saying FYI I may disappear from more arguments in the future if I get that impression from someone...poof...instantly.

If you really wanna bring that up right now...in this thread...I can give you examples from that topic alone. The type of double standard I’m referring to is when people are debating Hurney vs. Gettleman for the 819382th time and that one guy brings up “Amini was a 2nd round pick....AMINI WAS A 2ND ROUND PICK...!!!” as some kind of mic drop, with complete disregard for the numerous failed high draft picks of Gettleman and every other GM in the league. And an example of intellectual dishonesty is trying to present an analogy, equating the expectation of Hurney improving the second time around, with the expectation of Jimmy Clausen being a better QB if we were to give him a second chance or whatever. I hope I don’t have to actually poke holes in that analogy and explain why that’s intellectually dishonest, but I’m not trying to derail this thread any further than I have to.

LA traded down from 31 to get the Falcons’ second and third round picks...I’m not sure what you are trying to dispute here. Hence I’m not sure why you’re suggesting them passing on Little at 31 means that they would have passed on him at 45. Is this some inconsequential semantics thing? Like they traded down FROM the first round instead of IN the first round? I said they traded down at the end of the first round...is that not a factual statement? This is an easy google search.

Do you know what a diatribe is? The only diatribe I see is your last heated post where you attack me. Maybe I will let you borrow that thesaurus that I rape before each post ;)

Also I didn’t say you ARE dismissive...I was stating that you were being dismissive in that instance, which you were. That’s the difference between us - I’m more interested in attacking a point rather than a person.

[Khyber53]

Matsko is one of the best teachers out there and Wharton has a lot of experience in the trenches. I think you'll see him catch on quick.

[yasuhara2241]

I like Little as a prospect. He's got a ton of potential. 

I warmed up to the trade for 1 main reason. I think Marty would have grabbed both Grier and Miller with our 3rd round picks anyways so we would only be really missing out on our 4th round selection. 

I know that is guessing but that's all we do and Marty does have a tendency to set up their draft board and target players at positions of need. 

[Panthero]

8 hours ago, Toomers said:

Then it should be easy. Who that hadn’t already passed on him was trading up? 

im basing the comment on the run on tackles. I dont have a counterfactual to prove that however, so its merely an opinion. I don't have a specific team (i'd say the bills but i know they wanted Ford), but Denver was a possibility. Using Garrett Bolles as a reason they weren't interested is pretty weak. He's struggled significantly at that spot.   

[Toomers]

3 hours ago, MasterAwesome said:

Dang dawg...were you holding that in this whole time? I apologize for not answering your other question a week ago. I read it at the theater during the previews before Avengers and then it slipped my mind by the time the movie was done cause you know, it’s like 17 hours long. As an aside, I’m also generally no longer interested in engaging those people who I believe are legitimately close-minded, on every single point...cause then it’s just a back-and-forth unproductive mess that wastes both parties’ time and amounts to nothing. I don’t think you are one of those blatant dishonest actors, but just saying FYI I may disappear from more arguments in the future if I get that impression from someone...poof...instantly.

If you really wanna bring that up right now...in this thread...I can give you examples from that topic alone. The type of double standard I’m referring to is when people are debating Hurney vs. Gettleman for the 819382th time and that one guy brings up “Amini was a 2nd round pick....AMINI WAS A 2ND ROUND PICK...!!!” as some kind of mic drop, with complete disregard for the numerous failed high draft picks of Gettleman and every other GM in the league. And an example of intellectual dishonesty is trying to present an analogy, equating the expectation of Hurney improving the second time around, with the expectation of Jimmy Clausen being a better QB if we were to give him a second chance or whatever. I hope I don’t have to actually poke holes in that analogy and explain why that’s intellectually dishonest, but I’m not trying to derail this thread any further than I have to.

LA traded down from 31 to get the Falcons’ second and third round picks...I’m not sure what you are trying to dispute here. Hence I’m not sure why you’re suggesting them passing on Little at 31 means that they would have passed on him at 45. Is this some inconsequential semantics thing? Like they traded down FROM the first round instead of IN the first round? I said they traded down at the end of the first round...is that not a factual statement? This is an easy google search.

Do you know what a diatribe is? The only diatribe I see is your last heated post where you attack me. Maybe I will let you borrow that thesaurus that I rape before each post ;)

Also I didn’t say you ARE dismissive...I was stating that you were being dismissive in that instance, which you were. That’s the difference between us - I’m more interested in attacking a point rather than a person.

   First, I misunderstood your Rams trade down statement and see that now. Thought you meant down in round one but we were already discussing it so I should have figured what you meant. That’s on me

  Now.. it been more than once. And wouldn’t care if you didn’t keep quoting me . Have I said a word before this.  But you pull this dismissive crap like I was supposed to fall over and say, Wow,  you are so right. Giving a solid reason why it wouldn’t happen isn’t dismissing. It’s debating. When I do it it’s dismissive. When the last time I made a statement about the team that you didn’t jump in, and out, on? Why is that? 

  And those examples are the same as “Matt Kalil” or Vern to justify Hurney mistakes. Or mic dropping Cam for an overall 25% chance at a winning season. It goes both ways. But you only want to acknowledge one side of things as hypocrisy because you don’t agree with those. 

  If you don’t want discuss with close-minded(translation: disagrees with you) quit quoting me.  Use all the words you want. Leave me out of it. Not really interested in these tip-touching lovefests about every player. 

[MasterAwesome]

5 hours ago, Toomers said:

   First, I misunderstood your Rams trade down statement and see that now. Thought you meant down in round one but we were already discussing it so I should have figured what you meant. That’s on me

  Now.. it been more than once. And wouldn’t care if you didn’t keep quoting me . Have I said a word before this.  But you pull this dismissive crap like I was supposed to fall over and say, Wow,  you are so right. Giving a solid reason why it wouldn’t happen isn’t dismissing. It’s debating. When I do it it’s dismissive. When the last time I made a statement about the team that you didn’t jump in, and out, on? Why is that? 

  And those examples are the same as “Matt Kalil” or Vern to justify Hurney mistakes. Or mic dropping Cam for an overall 25% chance at a winning season. It goes both ways. But you only want to acknowledge one side of things as hypocrisy because you don’t agree with those. 

  If you don’t want discuss with close-minded(translation: disagrees with you) quit quoting me.  Use all the words you want. Leave me out of it. Not really interested in these tip-touching lovefests about every player. 

Have I really been quoting you that much? I honestly don’t remember us getting in very many back-and-forth discussions...unless you only post like a couple times a month and I just happen to respond to each of them. You make me out to be some Hurney/Panthers nut-hugger who thinks they can do no wrong and chastises anyone who dares to speak out against them...that I dismiss every slightest issue that anyone has against the team. You realize my post count would be about 98,000 in the last few months alone if that were the case...right? What is this “lovefest about every player”? What players have I been defending in here?

I am very selective in the posts that I quote and respond to...simply responding to every “Hurney is an idiot” post is boring as hell. To the posts that I do respond to...I’m not sure how you can say I’m dismissive. Quite the opposite actually...I take their point head on by challenging the reasoning behind it. Being dismissive of their points would be to ignore their specific argument and just respond “Wow you’re a Hurney hater, F off dumba&$”...I never do anything remotely like that. Again, that’s boring. The reason I responded to you in this thread is because you posted a unique take that I haven’t seen before (albeit, misguided IMO)...that Little would have been available at 47 and we didn’t need to trade up because no other team would possibly take him. So I challenged your claim by proposing a team who I did think could possibly take him, and gave my reasoning behind why I think so...which is what you asked for in the first place (“What team between 37 and 47 would draft Little”). When I answered your hypothetical question with a hypothetical answer, you said “Okay so one team maybe possibly could have taken him”...i.e. you’re trying to dismiss/ delegitimize my point with your phrasing. All it takes is one team to draft him before us...and a “maybe possibly could have” is the only answer any of us can give...it’s impossible to know if a team for sure would have drafted him, had we not. It’s kinda the same as people who claim that Scarlett or so-and-so player was a wasted pick because they would have been available as an UFA...do the rest of us just throw our hands in the air and say “Ok you’re right” because we can’t provide factual evidence that another team 100% would have drafted him? The entire draft is such a complex and nuanced process that I wouldn’t dare predict anything with certainty...and I think people who try to act otherwise by proclaiming “so-and-so player would have 100% been available at our pick” or “would have 100% been available after the draft” are at the very least engaging in intellectual dishonesty (I know I use that phrase a lot), and at the worst, just pretentious trolls.

As far as hypocrisy on both sides...hell yeah there are some obnoxious pro-Hurney/anti-Gettleman posters too. However I can’t imagine anything I’d want to do less than use my valuable free time joining in on the anti-Hurney circle jerk and defending the GM of the New York Giants. I’d rather leave that to the pros on here. I like how I get criticized for trying to refute some of the endless negativity in here...does that make you guys such “woke” and passionate fans that you spend all this time and energy piling on the team in topic after topic after topic about the same stuff over and over? You know these boards have become toxic as hell when being “too positive” or “too supportive” of my team is used in a derogatory manner.

Also, you’re giving me mixed signals here...you’re telling me to quit responding to you, but you also criticize me when I don’t respond to you. If I stop quoting you now, are you gonna come at me next month and say “woah where’d you instantaneously disappear to a month ago when we were talking about Little getting drafted?!”? This is clearly a lose-lose for me 

[Toomers]

6 hours ago, MasterAwesome said:

Have I really been quoting you that much? I honestly don’t remember us getting in very many back-and-forth discussions...unless you only post like a couple times a month and I just happen to respond to each of them. You make me out to be some Hurney/Panthers nut-hugger who thinks they can do no wrong and chastises anyone who dares to speak out against them...that I dismiss every slightest issue that anyone has against the team. You realize my post count would be about 98,000 in the last few months alone if that were the case...right? What is this “lovefest about every player”? What players have I been defending in here?

I am very selective in the posts that I quote and respond to...simply responding to every “Hurney is an idiot” post is boring as hell. To the posts that I do respond to...I’m not sure how you can say I’m dismissive. Quite the opposite actually...I take their point head on by challenging the reasoning behind it. Being dismissive of their points would be to ignore their specific argument and just respond “Wow you’re a Hurney hater, F off dumba&$”...I never do anything remotely like that. Again, that’s boring. The reason I responded to you in this thread is because you posted a unique take that I haven’t seen before (albeit, misguided IMO)...that Little would have been available at 47 and we didn’t need to trade up because no other team would possibly take him. So I challenged your claim by proposing a team who I did think could possibly take him, and gave my reasoning behind why I think so...which is what you asked for in the first place (“What team between 37 and 47 would draft Little”). When I answered your hypothetical question with a hypothetical answer, you said “Okay so one team maybe possibly could have taken him”...i.e. you’re trying to dismiss/ delegitimize my point with your phrasing. All it takes is one team to draft him before us...and a “maybe possibly could have” is the only answer any of us can give...it’s impossible to know if a team for sure would have drafted him, had we not. It’s kinda the same as people who claim that Scarlett or so-and-so player was a wasted pick because they would have been available as an UFA...do the rest of us just throw our hands in the air and say “Ok you’re right” because we can’t provide factual evidence that another team 100% would have drafted him? The entire draft is such a complex and nuanced process that I wouldn’t dare predict anything with certainty...and I think people who try to act otherwise by proclaiming “so-and-so player would have 100% been available at our pick” or “would have 100% been available after the draft” are at the very least engaging in intellectual dishonesty (I know I use that phrase a lot), and at the worst, just pretentious trolls.

As far as hypocrisy on both sides...hell yeah there are some obnoxious pro-Hurney/anti-Gettleman posters too. However I can’t imagine anything I’d want to do less than use my valuable free time joining in on the anti-Hurney circle jerk and defending the GM of the New York Giants. I’d rather leave that to the pros on here. I like how I get criticized for trying to refute some of the endless negativity in here...does that make you guys such “woke” and passionate fans that you spend all this time and energy piling on the team in topic after topic after topic about the same stuff over and over? You know these boards have become toxic as hell when being “too positive” or “too supportive” of my team is used in a derogatory manner.

Also, you’re giving me mixed signals here...you’re telling me to quit responding to you, but you also criticize me when I don’t respond to you. If I stop quoting you now, are you gonna come at me next month and say “woah where’d you instantaneously disappear to a month ago when we were talking about Little getting drafted?!”? This is clearly a lose-lose for me 

  The only confusion is your definition of debating vs. dismissing. You gave a reason. I countered with a logical reason it wouldn’t happen. You call it dismissive as you ignore(dismiss mine. How is that not hypocrisy? 

  And you made the closed-minded comment. You are the one who rides in like he’s above that. That is why I asked why you keep quoting me if you don’t want to discuss with people like me? Not before? So what’s the confusion there? Either debate the point or don’t? 

  Just curious. Were you this concerned when we had numerous threads, daily, about how Gettleman was the worst GM ever while we going thru the most successful period in team history? Did you question every statement against him? Because you sure don’t hesitate to fight with any statement that Hurney isn’t perfect. Is there a rule that I have to agree with every move he makes? When I defend Hurney, what does that mean? Because that has happened. Maybe your argue the point only self can show me a wall of text like this from you that defends Gettleman like this? 

 So if you don’t like what I say....don’t quote my closed-minded posts. Is it that hard? 

[MasterAwesome]

3 hours ago, Toomers said:

  The only confusion is your definition of debating vs. dismissing. You gave a reason. I countered with a logical reason it wouldn’t happen. You call it dismissive as you ignore(dismiss mine. How is that not hypocrisy? 

  And you made the closed-minded comment. You are the one who rides in like he’s above that. That is why I asked why you keep quoting me if you don’t want to discuss with people like me? Not before? So what’s the confusion there? Either debate the point or don’t? 

  Just curious. Were you this concerned when we had numerous threads, daily, about how Gettleman was the worst GM ever while we going thru the most successful period in team history? Did you question every statement against him? Because you sure don’t hesitate to fight with any statement that Hurney isn’t perfect. Is there a rule that I have to agree with every move he makes? When I defend Hurney, what does that mean? Because that has happened. Maybe your argue the point only self can show me a wall of text like this from you that defends Gettleman like this? 

 So if you don’t like what I say....don’t quote my closed-minded posts. Is it that hard? 

Dude lol, I specifically said I DON’T think you are one of those close-minded people (go back and read that post again)...people like frash or frosh or whatever his name is, who has some caricature of Hurney as his avatar and acts like Hurney is his abusive stepdad in every thread.  Why are you so hyper focused on the “close-minded” and “dismissive” statements? This discussion has completely unraveled. Your last 2-3 posts are just zoned in on my “dismissive” comment and just stating hyperbolically that I defend against every anti-Hurney comment on here...which is outrageous. Again, my post count would be astronomically high if that were the case. I argue against specific criticisms that I think are unsubstantiated/baseless...I already explained why I originally challenged your assertion in this topic. So stop arguing some strawman that you’ve made up in your head about how I’m vehemently opposed to any Hurney criticisms and that you’re not allowed to have any issues with anything he does. How productive would it be if I was just like “Wow you just hate Hurney and you’re just a huge Gettleman nut-hugger”...that’s basically what you’re doing to me, but from the opposing stance. I don’t want to trigger you but that’s literally being dismissive...you are dismissing my arguments because you’re painting me as some huge Hurney fan who supports everything he does, rather than challenging what I’m saying and making substantive arguments.

Am I in the Gaulden thread saying that Gaulden is the next Ed Reed and everyone quit making fun of him cause he was a hell of a pick by Hurney? Hell no, the only thing I had issue with in that thread was people criticizing Hurney’s statement that Gaulden is competing for a starting position...which is what we want...the FS position is wide open and we want all our safeties to be competing for that position. I never liked the Gaulden pick, so I’m not too optimistic. Oh crap I just criticized Hurney...I don’t wanna blow your mind, but I also wasn’t a fan of the Haynes pick in our 4-3 defense last year, but I’m a bit more hopeful now that we’re introducing more of the 3-4. I understand how Hurney/Ron were apprehensive in just handing Butker the starting job over Gano at the beginning of the season, but that proved to be a bad decision and that’s on them for mishandling that. If you really want a laundry list of all my Hurney criticisms, I can provide you with that.

What was your “logical reason” against why the Rams wouldn’t possibly take Little at 45? Because if they wanted him, they would have taken him 6 spots before? I’ve addressed that twice...my argument is that just because they didn’t take him 14 spots earlier (not sure why you say 6 spots), doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have taken him at 45. If they didn’t see the value in taking him at 31, then trading down and hoping to land him at 45 isn’t unfathomable...that’s precisely why teams trade down. How many people were saying before the Paradis signing that we should take Garrett Bradbury but that he wasn’t worth the 16th pick, and we should try and trade down and take him later? How many cases are there every year of a team trading down and still landing their target? 

That all being said, how are you saying that I’m ignoring/dismissing your argument? Do you share your account with someone else? Am I arguing with two different people? How are you able to overlook or mischaracterize everything I say? I’m starting to wonder if you even understand what dismissive means, since it seems like you equate dismissiveness with being called Hitler reincarnate. This is your third consecutive post where you’re so fixated on the dismissive comment...it’s ridiculous. It’s really not that bad...it happens all the time in debates. I’m sure I’ve been dismissive plenty of times on here, but not in this instance that you’re claiming I was.

And dawg...I was a huge Gettleman fan when he was here. If you’re really trying to argue there were numerous daily threads talking about how Gettleman was the worst GM ever while he was our GM...then I was definitely not on the same boards you were on. Aside from the few salty people who didn’t like how he cut Smitty, most of us were dangling from his ballsack about how much of a “gritty” and no-nonsense businessman he was and how he can always find all these FA bargain bin gems...plus obviously all the success we were experiencing. I definitely vocally defended him cutting Smith at the time, referencing the article or the specific quote about how abrasive Smitty was in the locker room and how he wasn’t going to allow Cam to be the leader as long as he was there. Hell, I still think cutting Smith was the right move. When he rescinded Norman’s franchise tag, I was thinking “Hell yeah...what an absolute savage. This guy is balls-to-the-wall ruthless! No one jerks him around”. So again, quit trying to mischaracterize me.

Obviously I have my fair share of criticisms about Hurney and Ron and a ton of players on our team...just because I’m not insanely vocal about them like the rest of you are, doesn’t mean I support everything the team does. As I said, I’m not trying to contribute to the toxicity on these boards. If your argument is really going to devolve into these kinds of broad generalizations and mischaracterizations instead of addressing any of these individual points I’m making (I know I’m giving you a LOT of material with these long-ass posts), then yes I will grant your wish to stop responding to you since this is clearly gonna go nowhere.