This argument isn't about Tannehill Chyren, you've beaten that one to death, but why does he have to become a "franchise QB" but all Reiff has to do is be an upgrade over Columbo?
I'd say since Tannehill has to end up a franchise QB, Reiff should have to be Jake Long (1st yr/multiple time pro-bowler), and Ingram/Coples should have to be Jason Pierre Paul or better. Sounds fair right? Oh and you still haven't explained why we're wasting our 2nd rnd pick on a QB you think wont be any good?

Chyren has stated nothing that has made any sense.

We all know he doesnt want Tannehill and will take any player over him.

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

Mark Sanchez started 16 college games. Matt Cassel started 0. Tom Brady started 25.

In his column today, Peter King guaranteed that Seattle will take Tannehill at #12 if we pass on him. He said you could put it in writing.

captkoi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> samsam3738 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Tannehill or Weeden whichever scrub goes first,
> > both are still going to stink in the NFL.
> >
> > whats the difference.
>
> **************************************************
> ****
>
> Sam, Why do you think they will both "stink"?

I just truly believe after luck and griffin there is no other qb worth taking a shot on.

You ignored my post where I said that I never said that Weeden sucked. I said if YOU (meaning one poster) THINK that he is no better than Weeden, why take him at 8. I'm just putting this in for the benefit of the other readers because you know better, Dolph......or maybe you don't.

My case is rested Chyren, pretty sure I proved that you mold your beliefs to fit your arguments

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My case is rested Chyren, pretty sure I proved
> that you mold your beliefs to fit your arguments


Now THAT'S the truth.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dolphaholic Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > My case is rested Chyren, pretty sure I proved
> > that you mold your beliefs to fit your
> arguments
>
>
> Now THAT'S the truth.
>
>


That shows that both of you are the clowns.

If you want to make your point, you got it backward.

I would expect you to say that I would "mold the arguments to fit my belief" instead of "mold your beliefs to fit your arguments."

How does one mold their beliefs?

One molds his arguments, not his beliefs.

Ask your 4 year old son, Dolphaholic. He can explain it to you.

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChyrenB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I would expect you to say that I would "mold
> the
> > arguments to fit my belief" instead of "mold
> your
> > beliefs to fit your arguments."
>
> > One molds his arguments, not his beliefs.
>
>
> In most normal people yes, and you can stop
> inquiring about my 4 yr old, he stopped reading
> the board last week........say's he gets enough
> whining and crying at pre-school.


Normal people...yes. But we aren't talking about a normal person in this case.

But what CB seems to miss is that right or wrong the perception of him on this site is that for him it's all about the argument, not any beliefs he may or may not hold.

I'm sure he will disagree, vehemently. But there are dozens of threads in the archives of this site that would support A&O and his original point.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2012 04:44AM by THE Truth.