2013 NFL Draft - Saints Big Board

[Danno]

Originally Posted by alleycat_126

No, I didn't try to counter your argument. In fact, I believe I said that you were right. But I did mention a point that you have yet to counter which is that the Saints have only targeted the six foot or better CB this offseason.... Which is to say that they seem to be going the way of the taller CB.... And so I think they need one more 6'0ft or better Man up
corner

- They bought a 6,0ft man up corner (tried to buy 2)
- They have 6'0ft man up corner on staff (I think he wins the slot job)
- Only natural that they may draft a 6'0ft man up corner ( David Amerson??)

I never said that, anywhere. Are you referring to someone else?

[alleycat_126]

Originally Posted by Danno

I never said that, anywhere. Are you referring to someone else?

This is what happens when you skim through and don't read the statements fully. You and I have been going back and forth for the past seven statements..... Who else would my words be directed to but you?

For Danno...... cliffnotes of the conversation

Danno- Maybe this should be an offensive draft and fill the defensive problems when we have a better understanding of our weaknesses

Alley- We already know our weaknesses NT, 2 alike SS, need another 6'0ft man up corner

Danno - Rob Ryans defense doesn't require a space eating NT, 6'0ft corners being better is a myth

Alley - If Bunkley works at NT good but if not lets draft NT just in case, Don't disagree with your theory on CB's but your team seems to be targeting tall man up corners in free agency....

Danno - so you list two 6'0ft corners to counter my statement

Alley- No Im saying your statement is correct, but the team seems to be targeting a players that contradict your statement. To this you had no counterpoint......

[Danno]

Originally Posted by alleycat_126

This is what happens when you skim through and don't read the statements fully. You and I have been going back and forth for the past seven statements..... Who else would my words be directed to but you?

For Danno...... cliffnotes of the conversation

Danno- Maybe this should be an offensive draft and fill the defensive problems when we have a better understanding of our weaknesses

Alley- We already know our weaknesses NT, 2 alike SS, need another 6'0ft man up corner

Danno - Rob Ryans defense doesn't require a space eating NT, 6'0ft corners being better is a myth

Alley - If Bunkley works at NT good but if not lets draft NT just in case, Don't disagree with your theory on CB's but your team seems to be targeting tall man up corners in free agency....

Danno - so you list two 6'0ft corners to counter my statement

Alley- No Im saying your statement is correct, but the team seems to be targeting a players that contradict your statement. To this you had no counterpoint......

You have problems comprehending simple english. Try again. Here, I'll lay it out for you exactly as I typed it...

Danno: CB's are typically 6-0 and under. Most of the greatest CB's of all time are around 5-10 or 5-11. Its a myth that you need tall CB's to compete today. Most 5-11 CB's have a freaking vertical nearly 1/2 foot higher than most of these tall WR/TE's playing today.

Now how in the world did you get "6'0ft corners being better is a myth"? out of my statement?

[alleycat_126]

Originally Posted by Danno

Danno: CB's are typically 6-0 and under. Most of the greatest CB's of all time are around 5-10 or 5-11. Its a myth that you need tall CB's to compete today. Most 5-11 CB's have a freaking vertical nearly 1/2 foot higher than most of these tall WR/TE's playing today.

Now how in the world did you get "6'0ft corners being better is a myth"? out of my statement?

Do you know what a cliffnote is? It means I am giving you a broken down version of your wordy thought. You said tomatoes, I said To - ma - toes.... We still said the exact same thing. You still haven't addressed my point about the team targeting taller corners!!!! your just shucking and jiving around it knitpickng typing and sentence structure and word play......

Here's how I got that out of what you said. Two statements " CB's are typically 6-0 and under.>>>>>>> Most of the great CB's are 5-10 or 5-11 <<<< if your not saying that smaller CBs are better why is this statement even needed!!!! IT'S A MYTH THAT YOU NEED TALL CB'S TO COMPETE TODAY

in other words 6'0 ft corners being better than smaller corners is a myth!!!!

[Danno]

Originally Posted by alleycat_126

Do you know what a cliffnote is? It means I am giving you a broken down version of your wordy thought. You said tomatoes, I said To - ma - toes.... We still said the exact same thing. You still haven't addressed my point about the team targeting taller corners!!!! your just shucking and jiving around it knitpickng typing and sentence structure and word play......

Here's how I got that out of what you said. Two statements " CB's are typically 6-0 and under.>>>>>>> Most of the great CB's are 5-10 or 5-11 <<<< if your not saying that smaller CBs are better why is this statement even needed!!!! IT'S A MYTH THAT YOU NEED TALL CB'S TO COMPETE TODAY

in other words 6'0 ft corners being better than smaller corners is a myth!!!!

Wow, just wow. I give up. You are incapable of comprehending simple english.

[alleycat_126]

Originally Posted by Danno

Wow, just wow. I give up. You are incapable of comprehending simple english.

I explained how I got what I got out of your statements and this is what I get back..... seriously.

Ok, you tell me what I should have comprehended from your statement. You garner a great deal of respect here, but don't expect me to cowher to you because your post count is high, or because you sling insults to avoid explanations...... I'll keep my feelings out of the post, I expect you being the senior poster to do the same.

- What should I have comprehended from your statements?

[Danno]

Originally Posted by alleycat_126

I explained how I got what I got out of your statements and this is what I get back..... seriously.

Ok, you tell me what I should have comprehended from your statement. You garner a great deal of respect here, but don't expect me to cowher to you because your post count is high, or because you sling insults to avoid explanations...... I'll keep my feelings out of the post, I expect you being the senior poster to do the same.

- What should I have comprehended from your statements?

OK,

I said CB's are typically 6-0 and under. True

Most of the greatest CB's of all time are around 5-10 or 5-11. True

Its a myth that you need tall CB's to compete today. True

Most 5-11 CB's have a freaking vertical nearly 1/2 foot higher than most of these tall WR/TE's playing today. True

Nowhere did I say that 6'0 CB's being better is a myth. I said you don't need tall (over 6'0) CB's to compete, then stated that most of the best CB's of all time ever are under 6'0, to illustrate that you don't have to be a tall CB (over 6'0) to compete.

This is taking way too much effort to relay what should be easy to understand. This is my final attempt at helping you understand. I'm sure the rest of the board is growing tired of this silly back and forth too. I hope you understand.