Good point. We need to bump someone back to the PS though after strickland and sheppard return, Cole for example?
Not sure who you're addressing 'cause it damn sure wasn't me. In case you missed it, Sapp was reported to be enamored with both. The second part of your post I agree with, it's just not cogent to this discussion.
No he wasn't. He was rebutting a statement about "what's the risk". He's actually right but I just don't agree with merging cocaine and marijuana together (even if the federal gov't considers them the same), that's all. If that's what you call painfully and obviously sarcastic, I better go back to college and take some English/rhetoric classes.
nope, the only accusation of cocaine came before the draft, and the NFL denied cocaine specifically (but never addressed marijuana). http://www.answers.com/topic/warren-sapp
Someone get this man a course catalog. He was pointing out that Sapp was an absurd comparison because Sapp's problem was with weed, which is ENTIRELY different from cocaine. He heavily employed sarcasm to make his point. Everyone else got that. Somehow, you didn't, even though he more directly stated it in the very next line.
you have severe comprehension abilities. clearly BM's position correlated Matt Jones' cocaine use with Sapp's marijuana use, and my post stated such a correlation was ridiculous considering the two are completely different and would affect performance differently. nothing about my post even intimates anything different.
OK, you're talking about convictions and I'm talking about overall public opinion. We're both right. I don't feel that strongly either way about Jones, so w/e. I was just trying to point out that, contrary to some earlier posts, people with coke addictions can still be great football players. Sapp was a bad example. How do Michael Irvin and Lawrence Taylor work for you?
it's not that Sapp wasn't convicted, it was that the NFL outright denied he tested positive for it. any opinion to the contrary is based on nothing and thus meaningless. Michael Irvin would be a better example, though the easy retort is Matt Jones isn't Michael Irvin on or off coke, so Irvin's ability to play on it doesn't indicate Matt Jones' ability.
Sure that's the next logical step in the argument, but if you hearken back to my original point, you missed the argument completely. My whole point was that those saying he is a bad idea because he is a cokehead are silly. I tried to use Sapp as an argument, and you did a decent job of pointing out the inconsistencies, but bringing up Irvin and Taylor was to prove my original point. Cokeheads do not necessarily make bad football players. Now if you don't want him because of talent, ability, or attitude, that is a different argument completely. I was just pointing out that a coke addiction alone does not a bad player make.
Actually doing a few bumps in between plays prolly helps you out, sign this guy up!! Get that Superman feeling, or so I've heard...:up:
