Dome Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 1 minute ago, CHOMP_CHOMP said: I don’t really think it’s semantics. You made a pretty broad statement saying he wasn’t good or he would have warranted a 7th round pick at least. Then you started to backslide and throw all kinds of ifs, ands, and buts. Everyone’s entire argument against you, was that good players get cut all the time due to all kinds of circumstances and just because a team didn’t send a late round pick doesn’t mean the player isn’t still good. But yea, sure, whatever, you were right the whole time lol So my question then is: do people still think Warford is good? And if he’s still good, why did the Saints draft his replacement? The post I made above shows how easily the Saints could’ve kept him had they seen him as a good player. So why didn’t they? Unless this is just a matter of people thinking they’ve got a better read on a player than the Saints staff, which is their own prerogative I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 14 minutes ago, Dome said: Which is exactly what I said earlier... When someone acknowledges that an argument is different, they’re also acknowledging that they aren’t the same. Thats how that works. I think youre confused. This started because you said I couldnt his basic logic, i asked you to lay out the logic, and instead you laid out a different argument then mookies Which is....odd?. then when called on it you said you agree with mookies take from the beginning. Youre trying to play both sides of the fence for some reason and doing a poor job of it. Anyway, doesnt matter as, @MookieMonstah had an awful opinion, but in reading the most recent posts im just glad hes walking it back now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 34 minutes ago, ET80 said: For reference, Tyrann Mathieu wasn't traded. Is that "telling" of anything? Whatever it was telling of was wrong... Darrelle Revis also couldn’t get a future conditional 7th. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MookieMonstah Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, CHOMP_CHOMP said: I don’t really think it’s semantics. You made a pretty broad statement saying he wasn’t good or he would have warranted a 7th round pick at least. Then you started to backslide and throw all kinds of ifs, ands, and buts. Everyone’s entire argument against you, was that good players get cut all the time due to all kinds of circumstances and just because a team didn’t send a late round pick doesn’t mean the player isn’t still good. But yea, sure, whatever, you were right the whole time lol See this is the issue. Making a statement, realizing it’s broad and then clarifying isn’t back pedaling. It’s oh, that statement was pretty sweeping let me clarify my reasoning. Yet people are ignoring the reasoning and continuing to argue the first comment. That’s semantics. I don’t care about being “right” because like I’ve said I wouldn’t be surprised if this lit a fire under Warford and he was good for a team next year. From MY point of view, Watford struggled last year and came in overweight. The Saints took Ruiz in the first round which allows McCoy who was good last year to play RG making a declining player expendable. The Saints didn’t desperately need the money which is why I have this train of thought. Of course there is plenty of scenarios where good players didn’t get traded, also plenty of scenarios where good players did get traded after they were “released”. Tons of reasons why it may or may not have happened. I don’t mind having discussion about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dome Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 Just now, GSUeagles14 said: I think youre confused. This started because you said I couldnt his basic logic, i asked you to lay out the logic, and instead you laid out a different argument then mookies Which is....odd?. then when called on it you said you agree with mookies take from the beginning. Youre trying to play both sides of the fence for some reason and doing a poor job of it. You understand how you can agree with someone’s argument and the point they are making without taking identical stances in the way you make your argument... right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MookieMonstah Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Yin-Yang said: Darrelle Revis also couldn’t get a future conditional 7th. You keep giving examples of guys on big contracts that weren’t worth the money. This isn’t one of those situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MookieMonstah Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 Just now, Dome said: You understand how you can agree with someone’s argument and the point they are making without taking identical stances in the way you make your argument... right? He just has this weird need to come at me. Just let him get his fix in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MookieMonstah Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 (edited) People keep giving examples of guys who were good but didn’t get traded and all of them had BIG contracts. This isn’t the same situation. IF you think Warford is still a good player, 8.5M for one year is a VERY reasonable salary. Why wouldn’t a team offer a conditional 7th for a good starter on a very reasonable deal? Giving examples of guys like Gurley who were massively overpaid is a totally different situation. Edited May 11, 2020 by MookieMonstah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 4 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said: You keep giving examples of guys on big contracts that weren’t worth the money. This isn’t one of those situations. So...define this situation for me, because I'm lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dome Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 1 minute ago, MookieMonstah said: The Saints didn’t desperately need the money which is why I have this train of thought. bingo.. don’t believe everything you see on Twitter this was only a “cap issue” because they already had a replacement lined up And they only got his replacement lined up because they don’t think he’s good If he was still good, his replacement doesn’t get drafted and they pay him his salary. Saints don’t mind paying guys, they’ve proven that plenty. 2 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said: He just has this weird need to come at me. Just let him get his fix in. Oh I’ve seen this MO before.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MookieMonstah Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, ET80 said: So...define this situation for me, because I'm lost. Warford isn’t on some outrageous contract. The Saints could’ve easily afforded him if they felt he was worth keeping. Guys like Revis, Matthieu and Gurley weren’t traded because they had massive deals attached to them. Teams didn’t want to take on those massive deals. Warford was on a one year 8.5M deal, for a good starting OG that’s incredibly reasonable. Which is why I believe if he was still a good offensive guard like some are claiming, a team in need of an OG would’ve been willing to send over a super late pick. Edited May 11, 2020 by MookieMonstah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dome Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 Im actually fully willing to concede that Larry Warford is comparable to Andy Dalton, since neither was worth a pick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MookieMonstah Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 Just now, Dome said: Im actually fully willing to concede that Larry Warford is comparable to Andy Dalton, since neither was worth a pick For sure. Both were replaced by rookies, both showed signs of decline last year, neither were worth much clearly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 17 minutes ago, Dome said: You understand how you can agree with someone’s argument and the point they are making without taking identical stances in the way you make your argument... right? sure, but i think youre still confused. maybe reread through some of the original posts? and then we can take this up again if needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dome Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 21 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said: sure, but i think youre still confused. maybe reread through some of the original posts? and then we can take this up again if needed. Definitely not confused. So I’ll pass. Thanks for the discourse though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.