Veterans

[mc52beast]

1 hour ago, Devil Doc said:

I agree.. I just see so many people complain on this form about "Ron loves his Vets" well.. we just 3.. and Olsen might be gone soon too. 

You’re a “vet” after the rookie season, not just because you played double digit seasons

[PhillyB]

30 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Here is an article which mentions Bradbury and talks about his leadership. They call him a veteran.

I guess they are inaccurate too. Or again maybe you are using a general term in a specific reference to a certain type of veteran.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiolJHZ-JrgAhVQKawKHYpyAJwQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcatcrave.com%2F2018%2F08%2F02%2Fcarolina-panthers-james-bradberry%2F&psig=AOvVaw0mqUDLiNSudX77GnjD9fmV&ust=1549124524297861

The reality the term veteran is a general term that refers to both older veterans and younger veterans. Using words like older veteran, seasoned veteran, established veteran all provide clarity and make sure we are all on the same page. You seem to be more concerned with winning some kind of argument than acknowledging the obvious that adjectives by nature help clarify general terms and are therefore more accurate. 

You could have said yes you are technically right and let it go instead instead of arguing. You seem the one limiting productive conversation making a mountain out of a molehill after admitting I was right.

Lighten up, Francis.

that's all fine, but you're backtracking. your original statement was "after a player's rookie season they are considered a veteran." you should've said "i consider them a veteran" since approximately 1% of us agree that a second-year player should be considered referred to as a veteran. this thread is about veteran players as we have collectively come to identify them and coming in claiming that anyone that's not a rookie should be considered a veteran obfuscates the conversation. it's silly.

i understand your point with regard to the superlatives but i think it's misguided and misplaced.

[PhillyB]

30 minutes ago, coralreefer_1 said:

I schooled him and you know it. I made a joke way back at the first reply. This dude got all upset and went off over it. He got upset because he knows very well he is the exact type i referenced. I did not make anything. Philly got upset at my comment and made it into a meta tear fest he lost ~

where did all your posts go :(

[panthers55]

1 minute ago, PhillyB said:

that's all fine, but you're backtracking. your original statement was "after a player's rookie season they are considered a veteran." you should've said "i consider them a veteran" since approximately 1% of us agree that a second-year player should be considered referred to as a veteran. this thread is about veteran players as we have collectively come to identify them and coming in claiming that anyone that's not a rookie should be considered a veteran obfuscates the conversation. it's silly.

i understand your point with regard to the superlatives but i think it's misguided and misplaced.

Just can't let it go can you . 

[PhillyB]

6 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Just can't let it go can you . 

not until you admit you were wrong 

[Mr. Scot]

2 hours ago, Devil Doc said:

I just hope we do whatever we can to keep Saints from ever going to the SB.. We just need to be competive again... any new on indoor training facility @Mr. Scot?

Nothing definitive.

[Waldo]

58 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Then if a veteran is any player not a rookie and a vested veteran is a 4 year player then why is the term only reserved to guys in the league 10 years or more? Seems my world by your own admission is the real world.

[Devil Doc]

Fine, When I mean Veteran.I mean players who have been playing the longest... on our Team/League. Is that better clarification?

I would Consider Torrey Smith a Veteran.

[TheSpecialJuan]

we waited a year too late for a youth movement.