So, To The Point That Supposedly The 8th Overall Should Be An Immediate All-Pro, Here's A List Of The Last Ten 8th Overall Picks

[iamhubby1]

7 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

There is also the argument for wearing defenses out late in the game, whether you believe in that or not. I think we can say both backs have been doing poorly thus far, but Stewart is at least indisputably a more physical and punishing runner. His 1-2 yard runs take a toll on the defense when he’s relentlessly pounding into them up the middle, whereas CMC can make people miss...but more often than not, he goes down on first contact.

That’s why I’m personally all for giving CMC more carries but I don’t think Stewart’s role in this offense should be understated. I think perhaps slowly taking some carries away from Stew and giving them to CMC is the best course of action, which I think Carolina is starting to do. It is hard to say with the Miami game because Stew was having so much success early on.

 

    The reason we like to play a ground and pound Offense, is precisely to wear Defenses down. Or at least, that is the plan. And Stewy fits that much better than CmC.

 

    Wearing the D down has a dual effect. By the 4th quarter, they are winded, and they start falling for those play actions. Win Win for us.

[iamhubby1]

1 hour ago, SeoulPanther said:

So you don't think that becoming a 3 down workhorse back (something which his ypc suggest is the weakest part of his game) will do anything to reduce his effectiveness in the slot and on clinch 3rd downs (where he has been invaluable)? 

 

   I don't know what affect increasing his carries will have. And that is what my stance has been all along. No one knows.

 

    The only way to find out what that extra load will do to him. Is to do it. Give him the majority of carries, and see where we go. Until then. IMO, it is all just guess work.

 

    If we increase his work load, and he succeeds. We are Golden. If we increase the load, and he fails. Then there we go. Personally, I don't see him failing. It just isn't in him.

[MasterAwesome]

22 minutes ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

    So...how are folks supposed to know how you feel on a subject? Like the song says. You have to stand for something. 

 

    Also, if you are going to play Devils' advocate. Wouldn't it be nice to tell folks that? Otherwise they will take your posts to mean what they say. I mean, I did. But then again, I am not always right on these matters.

I don’t see how my personal stance on any subject is relevant. We should be arguing against specific claims or points, not people...which is why I try to bring up unique points that may have not yet been addressed in a topic. The validity of those points should be based upon their own merits: if it’s silly or false, then explain why and refute it with a counterpoint. Too many people dismiss the context and substance of an argument based on the person giving it: “Oh he’s just a Gettleman nuthugger”, or “he must be Shula’s baby daddy with how much he defends him, you can’t take anything he says seriously”. This is silly...if it’s a good argument, it’s a good argument. If not, please poke holes in its logic and enlighten us (not you, just speaking generally).

 

Just because I am playing Devil’s Advocate does not mean I don’t also believe in the points I am making. I can believe that the Joe Mixon example is a poor example and serves as a cautionary tale of what can happen when you force-feed carries to a rookie, but also support the idea that CMC should get more carries. That’s where the objectivity comes into play: you can support a premise while also being cautious about the outcome based on precedence or rationale. You seem to be suggesting that my arguments should somewhat be discredited simply because I admittedly like to play Devil’s Advocate...I am not sure why that should be the case.

[iamhubby1]

7 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

I don’t see how my personal stance on any subject is relevant. We should be arguing against specific claims or points, not people...which is why I try to bring up unique points that may have not yet been addressed in a topic. The validity of those points should be based upon their own merits: if it’s silly or false, then explain why and refute it with a counterpoint. Too many people dismiss the context and substance of an argument based on the person giving it: “Oh he’s just a Gettleman nuthugger”, or “he must be Shula’s baby daddy with how much he defends him, you can’t take anything he says seriously”. This is silly...if it’s a good argument, it’s a good argument. If not, please poke holes in its logic and enlighten us (not you, just speaking generally).

 

Just because I am playing Devil’s Advocate does not mean I don’t also believe in the points I am making. I can believe that the Joe Mixon example is a poor example and serves as a cautionary tale of what can happen when you force-feed carries to a rookie, but also support the idea that CMC should get more carries. That’s where the objectivity comes into play: you can support a premise while also being cautious about the outcome based on precedence or rationale. You seem to be suggesting that my arguments should somewhat be discredited simply because I admittedly like to play Devil’s Advocate...I am not sure why that should be the case.

 

    Ok. Have at it.