Kiper just picked L. White for Panther

Dude, if anything's gay around here, it's you obsessing about me so much that I'm practically the only thing you're posting about. But no, my hatred of post-modernism goes well beyond you. If you don't know what the word means, look it up, but you gave a pretty good example in the section I quoted before.

 

Again, Captain Perfect, I am not on your plane. I know what the term means, and I understand exactly what you're trying to insenuate (or is it ensenuate?:banginghe)

 

You two deserve each other, and Collin deserves to go at it with someone more willing to sink to his level.

 

In theory Collins right, every team would love to have an LT they can rely on week in week out. Fact of the matter is it doesnt work like that for most teams. And no team to my knowledge goes into a season with 1 RB on the roster, LT or not. Injuries happen, players hit walls, get run down, sometimes salary cap ramifications or egos mean you can only have 1 star RB. Even the fantasy stud Holmes got replaced/needed help.

Magnus is right in that this franchise has never gotten by on the one back theory, for whatever reason. The one year we got close was 03 when we finally did the right thing and got a proven RB, Davis. And like Magnus said, we wore him out pretty good. He was headed for 400 plus carries. You all remember the articles about Davis being on pace to break Jamal Andersons record. And we still needed Foster both early in Indy and late in the NFCC and SB.

Fox has stated numerous times this team needs 2 good backs. How many times has he said you need 2 good backs in this league? Ive read it countless times. And im assuming the retainage of Foster is not an indication that they believe he'll finally break his injury bug-a-boo but that he has the talent to be a star in this league and he'd make a fine RB to make a pair with. I think we can all see how a player like a conditioned White or an improved Shelton would complement his style of play.

And yes, this arguement is silly, arguing over semantics (ALWAYS) when history has proven this franshise has had horrid luck with its RB's. We need as many quality backs we can get our hands on.

 

but the discussion is a good one, name calling aside, because fox always says that, but then he runs one into the ground

 

We've definitely had the habit of doing so (I pointed it out, too). Which is another excellent reason to have two backs, minimum. I've been screaming for years to have more than one on the field getting carries. In 2003, the excuse was (despite fumble/injury concerns) that Foster was the back who had most of the pass packages and that Davis had most of the run packages - which is ridiculous sounding, considering either back has ability in both.
Finally, last year, we used both right. I have no reason to suggest we'd do anything other than what we did in the middle of last year, considering it's Foster who'd come in as the "starter". It's possible we could go back to our old ways, but I don't know that anyone thinks that's the best way to go about it.

It certainly could be a good discussion, and it's certainly not that Collin doesn't know what he's trying to start when he comes in with "wrong again" and being more concerned about personal bravado.

 

What you said was wrong, though, and it's not something you should be deceiving other people into believing. There is nothing about our offense that makes us more physical than every other team in the NFL, so we're not going to "always need" two starters because we run the ball late in games or any other such foolishness.

I corrected you because:
#1) It's wrong.
#2) It puts too much emphasis on one position.
#3) It fosters the misconception that our run offense is somehow more grueling than everyone else's (which ranks up there with "greatest front four" and "Peppers takes plays off" in terms of common misconceptions)

Right now we don't appear to have the "one guy" who we can count on to be our workhorse, but to suggest that we'll never be able to rely on just one guy to carry the load the way that other teams do is just flat out wrong. You were wrong, but you're just not man enough to ever take responsibility for your mistakes. Saying "always" was a mistake, and saying that it's because "we'll always be running at the end of games" is just asinine. It was wrong.

Other teams get by with one guy. We would obviously like to get by with one guy. We haven't had that one guy yet.

 

it's an opinion, an opinion I still beleive correct. It's an opinion you've not disproven, merely disagreed with. You can crow all day and act like this is some faggy competition, but it's not.

 

I haven't read all of this thread, and ain't goin' to...anyway call me crazy, but I think White will be a better NFL back than Bush.

 

I have always thought the Davis fest in the first part of '03 was related to our QB situation and not wanting to rush Foster back more than wanting just one back.