Quote:Really?  Is that all you've got?

 

You're now asking for "GM reports" when I've referenced guys who reported things they heard from GMs and personel contacts?

 

You're better than this most of the time.  But you really start to reach when you're backed into a corner.

 

You're saying I'm lying about the radio interview with Lande?  He was on just about every week.  If I were to play along with your little charade, I could just as easily ask you about where's the evidence of Casserly's GM "poll" he spoke about.  Ever stop to think that was for conversation's sake and he never did a poll, that he was simply making a poor assumption (just like all the talking heads have done all along?)

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000...re-pro-day

 

<p style="margin-left:40px;">"There were things you saw on tape when you watched him," said Dominik, who was Bucs GM from 2009-13. "Something that scouts internally, we talked about it in Tampa with Teddy Bridgewater last year. Is he really the premiere quarterback? I like the young man, I think he's a quality individual, he's got character and leadership and those things. But this is a quarterback, and you're judged by what quarterback you draft, and I think Teddy Bridgewater might not have all the pieces you're looking for."

 

Frangie told a similar story the other day on the radio.  He asked a scout about him and he flat out told him he didn't like him.  More lies, I suppose...

 

There were also whispers that none of the QBs were franchise caliber.  One or two guys hinted at it here and there citing their contacts with organizations.  They were dismissed/ignored at the time.  I've provided links in the past.  You're free to look for them, as I'm certainly not doing your homework for you.  Seems as if you're fine with your current conclusion, so I wouldn't dare suggest you change your mind, or even try to do any more homework at all on the subject.  I've lived through all the mud slung at me, I know what I've read and heard... and if you haven't that's fine.  Don't bother because it doesn't seem as if you care enough to look at the other side.  I tried to give Ted the benefit, but couldn't find anything that backed up all the hype.  Instead, all the mounting evidence brought us to where we are.  Perceptions were wrong about him and what GMs thought about him, and they're only now coming around to what others suspected for a while.

 

1.  I asked about the so called "GM reports" from the beginning of my interaction with you in this thread.  The purpose of my response to you was not to debunk any whispers that may have been circulating about Bridgewater from scouts.  I asked you specifically about GM reports.  Two responses from you later, I still have nothing but filibuster from you, and not one explanation about these "GM reports" have come in any of these filibusters.

 

2.  I didn't say you were lying or being truthful.  But citing YOUR OWN POST in a discussion where your own prior posts were not an issue...citing your own post when the opinions of GMs were the issue is unresponsive, nonpersuasive, and generally bad form that may cause people to question the veracity of your claims, whether they agree with your underlying presise or not.

 

3.  Your citation of Mark Domenik is amusing, considering he brought in a QB you hated in Freeman a full round ahead of where you think he should have been drafted.

 

4.  I heard the Frangie segment to which you refer.  Frangie's comments cited analysis from a "SCOUT" not your purported "GM reports."

 

Finally, I am not "slinging mud" at you.  I am not jumping on the proverbial grenade to insulate Bridgewater from criticism.

 

You specifically referenced "GM reports." 

 

Had you said "scouting reports," I likely would not have responded to you at all.

 

Unless you have some form of "keyboard Tourette's," you knew or should have known exactly what you were typing.

 

I wanted clarification on those "reports."  I've yet to receive the clarification.

 

Now if your misstatements lead to questions that put you on the defensive, that's not my problem or concern.

 

But that questioning certainly doesn't rise to the level of "mudslinging," especially when you made the unsupported assertion about "GM reports," and quoted YOUR OWN POST to argue against a point I didn't make, all while avoiding the questions I posed to you.

---