Dez's contract situation may turn ugly

[peplaw06]

Total horseshit. It's funny to read though. Dissenting opinions aren't welcome on most sports team boards and I have no doubt you would have banned me a long time ago if you could have. People like you who get all upset over dissenting opinions is exactly what's wrong with sports team boards. You don't like my opinion? Tough noogies.

I don't really give a shit about your opinions. It would be one thing if you just had wrong opinions. What I really have an issue with is all the deflecting and spin that you do. You can't just argue a point. You end up bringing in irrelevant shit and twisting words, acting like you have no idea what is going on. Strawman arguments, fallacies... every dishonest logical tactic in the book there is, you use it. But I don't think you recognize you're doing it... It's like you're a message board pro and have learned how to do certain things without realizing how it's fucked up.

And, yes it is.

No, it's not.

I was talking about the "offense collapsing without Dez" point when I said, "arguing a strawman like you always do." It's in this post. You're calling me a liar and you can't even keep shit straight.

More dishonesty, clipping my post then trying to make it say something it wasn't.

I fully admit I took that out of context. It's called... a joke, or sarcasm, if you will. But I didn't change the words.

Keep calling me a liar though. Fucking idiot.

 

[peplaw06]

Brings up a good point though, can teams win Super Bowls without the one centerpiece (highly paid, "freakish", and statistically elite in the regular season) WR? Or is money better spent orchestrating the use of several good WRs (fit the scheme, interchangeable with other WRs in offense, and may or may not be emphasized or targeted in any particular game depending on who the opponent is)?

Right now the freak part of Dez is really his hands and his competitiveness.

Sports Science showed how efficient his catching ability is.

He is not the fastest WR by any stretch, not the biggest or tallest or jumps the highest. But over and over, he catches the ball despite being covered, he contorts his body to find the space to catch, he will dive and fight and claw for the ball with most of the other team's DBs surrounding him and in his passion, he will tantrum, run onto the field, and complain to the refs over calls. The Patriots, Seahawks, Ravens, Steelers, Packers, Saints and Colts could only hope for a player like him.

Of course a team can win a Super Bowl without an elite WR... It's happened the past two years at least.

That's not really an interesting point though. It's a deflection from the topic I've been discussing re: devaluing Dez... and it continues to devalue him.

Teams have won Super Bowls with great WRs as well. There's no one way to win a Super Bowl.

 

[Doomsday]

No, it's not.

I was talking about the "offense collapsing without Dez" point when I said, "arguing a strawman like you always do." It's in this post. You're calling me a liar and you can't even keep shit straight.

No you weren't, dipshit - you're not even talking about the same part of your post! I was addressing THIS:

Another strawman. If you want to argue that, then start a thread on "Dez vs. Romo... Who's More Valuable?"

And I correctly informed you it cannot be a straw, since I never asserted anyone was arguing that. What you QUOTED from me was: "I've also said it is far less worrisome to me losing Desmond, than it would be losing Tony. And if you deny that, then you're dumber than I thought... " And you called THAT a straw. See? You're just continually trying to move the goal posts.

I don't really give a shit about your opinions. It would be one thing if you just had wrong opinions. What I really have an issue with is all the deflecting and spin that you do. You can't just argue a point. You end up bringing in irrelevant shit and twisting words, acting like you have no idea what is going on. Strawman arguments, fallacies... every dishonest logical tactic in the book there is, you use it. But I don't think you recognize you're doing it... It's like you're a message board pro and have learned how to do certain things without realizing how it's fucked up.

Dude, you're describing yourself exactly. Perfect projection.

Now, if you didn't find yourself unable to exercise a little self control and not try to make EVERYTHING a pissing contest, then you wouldn't have all this trouble with debates. Just honor your word and "stop engaging." You look like a cluck going back on that.

 

[Doomsday]

It's a deflection from the topic I've been discussing re: devaluing Dez... and it continues to devalue him.

Nobody's devalued him, and those who have been accused of it have explained. Move on, counselor.

And it's no deflection at all, it is continuing to back up MY point which is and always was, we are not gonna DIE if we lose Dez.

 

[Doomsday]

Asserting that we can win without him, and do it well, doesn't in any way devalue him.

 

[peplaw06]

No you weren't, dipshit - you're not even talking about the same part of your post! I was addressing THIS:

You didn't quote the correct part... dipshit. You quoted "arguing a strawman like you always do." The part about Romo, I said "Another strawman." Fucking look at it.

And I correctly informed you it cannot be a straw, since I never asserted anyone was arguing that. What you QUOTED from me was: "I've also said it is far less worrisome to me losing Desmond, than it would be losing Tony. And if you deny that, then you're dumber than I thought... " And you called THAT a straw. See? You're just continually trying to move the goal posts.

Well, if you want to go there again... then yes, it's still a strawman. You didn't outright assert that I argued we would miss Tony more than Dez. But you implied that I would argue it, by saying, "if you deny that, then you're dumber than I thought." I didn't deny it, I didn't assert it, I never discussed it. But it's still a strawman. It has nothing to do with the original topic. Do you know why the term is called a strawman?

 

[peplaw06]

Google strawman is getting a workout right now.

 

[peplaw06]

Asserting that we can win without him, and do it well, doesn't in any way devalue him.

Of course it does.

Players get paid based on their ability to help a team win. If a player isn't essential to winning, then their value is decreased.

 

[Doomsday]

You didn't quote the correct part... dipshit. You quoted "arguing a strawman like you always do." The part about Romo, I said "Another strawman." Fucking look at it.

Yes and i didn't edit it because IN CONTEXT it is clear what i am addressing - I addressed your first "straw" accusation in the first paragraph of my reply.

But you implied that I would argue it, by saying, "if you deny that, then you're dumber than I thought." I didn't deny it, I didn't assert it, I never discussed it

No, goob, I was throwing your words back on you. The use of IF in the reply doesn't in any way assert or even remotely imply that was your argument.

And it is true - if you are not FAR more worried about losing Tony than Dez, you really are dumber than a box of flat rocks.

Do you know why the term is called a strawman?

I do exactly, and it is a fallacy by you to contend that everything you decide is a deflection, is a straw fallacy. Because it's not. Strictly, a straw fallacy is contending someone argued a point which they never did, then burning down your own straw by defeating the fallacious argument. Which is what you try, all the time.

MY addition of being far more worried about losing Tony is neither a straw or a deflection, it is further in defense of the "devalued" accusation - because there is no doubt whatsoever Tony is far more valuable than Dez, and even this statement does not "devalue" Dez. FACTS don't "devalue" anyone.

Google strawman is getting a workout right now.

No doubt, from you.

 

[Doomsday]

Of course it does.

That's your opinion and it has little to do with fact. There is NO "devaluing" of Dez in saying we can win and win well, without him. Notice this isn't saying WILL win? CAN win. CAN.

 

[Doomsday]

Look, Pep. I am a honest broker. We've clearly had a few misunderstandings. We are not communicating well. I am not trying to fuck with you or anyone else. How about some benefit of the doubt, huh? Each and every time I have been shown to be wrong factually about something, I mea culpa. I've even changed my opinions many times.

You won't see me changing my opinion though when you're apparently manufacturing one that never existed, because you either don't understand the opinion, or it hasn't been communicated well. I admit to having not communicated well, and have corrected that. I never at any time not in thought or in action, have "devalued" Dez. I merely believe we can win without him. I believe we can have a very good passing game, without him. This is hardly a extreme position, it happens every fucking year in the NFL, people stepping up out of nowhere and teams getting shit done anyway through adversity including losing a star player.

We're not losing Dez, at least for this year because he would be a fool for walking away from $13 mil which is more money than he has made all his career thus far. So really it is a moot point.

The actual TOPIC of the thread is, about how this contract situation could turn ugly. Either party could make it ugly, not just Dez or his handlers. Jerry could make it ugly.

So far Dez has done nothing to make it ugly. Being absent from the mandatory minicamp isn't his choice - he cannot attend because technically he is not under contract. If the league would let him he probably would. So far there's been nothing but bluster and bluster alone does not ugly make.

Now, "ugly" of course has different definitions depending on which side of this you are. To Dez, it might be ugly already because of the tag. And so forth. We shall see.

 

[bbgun]

This forum needs family counseling.

 

[peplaw06]

Yes and i didn't edit it because IN CONTEXT it is clear what i am addressing - I addressed your first "straw" accusation in the first paragraph of my reply.

Always saying people are taking your posts out of context, instead of just owning up and admitting you fucked up. Man up pussy.

I do exactly, and it is a fallacy by you to contend that everything you decide is a deflection, is a straw fallacy. Because it's not. Strictly, a straw fallacy is contending someone argued a point which they never did, then burning down your own straw by defeating the fallacious argument. Which is what you try, all the time.

Yep, you don't know what it means. Maybe you should have googled longer.

MY addition of being far more worried about losing Tony is neither a straw or a deflection, it is further in defense of the "devalued" accusation - because there is no doubt whatsoever Tony is far more valuable than Dez, and even this statement does not "devalue" Dez.

How do you defend the accusation that you are devaluing Dez by claiming someone else is more valuable?

Do you even English bro?

FACTS don't "devalue" anyone.

Really? Did the fact that Greg Hardy was charged with an assault, convicted of it, then had the conviction overturned on appeal, decrease his value? I mean, those are facts.

No doubt, from you.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... *gasp* hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.

Good one chief.

 

[Doomsday]

How do you defend the accusation that you are devaluing Dez by claiming someone else is more valuable?

That merely states a FACT and facts can't "devalue." Dez's value doesn't change if Tony's does, right?

Always saying people are taking your posts out of context, instead of just owning up and admitting you fucked up. Man up pussy.

Umm, no I think you missed it, I said I did not edit the post, not that I didn't mess up. But there's no question for honest people what, in context, I was addressing.

Yep, you don't know what it means.

You're full of crap, I explained it quite thoroughly.

Did the fact that Greg Hardy was charged with an assault, convicted of it, then had the conviction overturned on appeal decrease his value?

I don't know. Relevance? There is none.

 

[Doomsday]

This forum needs family counseling.

Actually I think it just needs some overdue house cleaning.

 

[peplaw06]

That merely states a FACT and facts can't "devalue." Dez's value doesn't change if Tony's does, right?

Let's try this. Do facts ADD value? Does the fact that Dez just came off a season with 88 catches, 1320 yards, and 16 TDs add to his value?

I don't know. Relevance? There is none.

You don't understand the relevance of my stating facts about Greg Hardy? You don't understand the relevance of how these facts caused his value to decrease?

YOU SAID FACTS DON'T DEVALUE ANYONE!!!!

 

[Doomsday]

Let's try this. Do facts ADD value? Does the fact that Dez just came off a season with 88 catches, 1320 yards, and 16 TDs add to his value?

That all depends on the market, right? He is going to get what the market demands, for his services.

You moved the goalposts again, because originally "devaluing" was about his impact for the team, now suddenly after you couldn't win that straw, it's about money. Everyone here has said either he deserves his money, or he will get it. Nobody's argued otherwise.

You don't understand the relevance of my stating facts about Greg Hardy? You don't understand the relevance of how these facts caused his value to decrease?

If he could get more money elsewhere do you think he would have? Sounds like the market "devalued" him right? It's not relevant to dez and his impact for the team.

 

[Doomsday]

My saying we can still win and have a good passing game without him has nothing to do with how much money he can command. That's the market influence. Saying that also, does not "devalue" his impact for the team. He's not "devalued" in any way.

 

[peplaw06]

That all depends on the market, right? He is going to get what the market demands, for his services.

Oh for the love...

Let's see if I can make it simpler for you.

Two HYPOTHETICAL scenarios:

Scenario 1 facts. Dez Bryant has a season of 88 catches, 1320 yards, 16 TDs. Doesn't get into any off the field trouble. He's a pro bowler, and 1st team All Pro. He makes the crazy catch to beat GB and we win the Super Bowl.

Scenario 2 facts. Dez plays a full 16 games, but catches 40 passes for 750 yards and 4 TDs. He gets arrested for assault of a girlfriend. Doesn't make the pro bowl.

Which scenario would he have MORE VALUE?

You moved the goalposts again, because originally "devaluing" was about his impact for the team, now suddenly after you couldn't win that straw, it's about money. Everyone here has said either he deserves his money, or he will get it. Nobody's argued otherwise.

Geeminy Creeeminy. Value is about money.

If he could get more money elsewhere do you think he would have? Sounds like the market "devalued" him right? It's not relevant to dez and his impact for the team.

He can't get more money elsewhere... not because the market devalued him. But because the market isn't a true free market. The Cowboys have used a CBA mechanism to keep him in the fold, the franchise tag. Any team who wants him has to pay a premium. They not only have to pay him his true value, but they also have to pay two first round draft picks. He's not valued that high by anyone.

This is way over your head I'm sure. I don't think you will understand even the most elementary economic principles. You don't even understand what value is.

 

[Doomsday]

Geeminy Creeeminy. Value is about money.

Value to team impact on the field was the original meter. The claim was, I was devaluing his impact. No matter where you look be it this thread or past threads, I have always said he will get his money. The only question ever from me was, would it be Dallas who pays.

So, this was never about money value.

I've ignored the rest of your red herrings.