Saturday minicamp update

Personal attacks are not allowed. This is a warning. You won't get another.
-- heraldonline admin

but aside from their policies, personal attacks are a method used by those who have no way to logically state their points.

I can't believe you are complaining about personal attacks after all the stuff you've written on this and other boards about people. This has got to be a joke, right?

I beg to differ on the long ball... the one pass he threw in the Saints game when he came in for Carr was quite well-thrown.

Anyways, he's proven he can throw a fade, as evidenced in last year's Dallas game, which is something NOBODY other than Jake could do (and even his were never as beautiful as that one was). I think we're in very good hands for the forseeable future with Moore as backup and heir apparent to Jake.

were jump balls. You'd be singing a different song if the DB had come down with them.

You really hate to give Moore any credit.

I give him tons of credit for not screwing up (too much.) But he ain't ready to play now. Contrary to popular belief, he did not win the game against Seattle (the defense did), and his showing against TB's fourth-stringers isn't all that impressive either. At this point, he's barely a game manager, and until I see the guy lead more than one TD drive in a game against starters, I'm not going to anoint him a future All-Pro and the QB-in-waiting.

1. Moore is not Steve Young in waiting.
2. Moore is not David Carr.

Moore did okay. He did as good as Ben Roethlisberger did in his first few games. His task was to manage the game. He did that. I think what is showing is all the euphoria around David Carr's benching that occurred in the pain that was the 2007 season.

The main thing is that Moore played with composure. He kept his head. I would love to think he could be the same as Jake, but that's not reality. But he is leagues above what David Carr showed. Moore's a promising young guy. Now all he needs is a track record.

1) Yes, fairly well, by Smith's practice-nemesis Ken Lucas.
2) No, he's on the right. Brayton and Johnson are on the other side, and it'll probably stay that way.
3) I guess. They also want to keep Muhammad out there to block on run downs, so it makes sense.

couldn't be that Muhammad earned it. The team has been gushing about his return and why would anyone cover that?

His '04 performance? The only thing he's "earned" in the last few years based on production is a job as a very situational possession receiver.

Chas Chandler says Moose "looking pretty much like his old self". In great shape and looking to put it all out there.
They also rate that "you get the feeling" Muhammad should be starting, and that Delhomme raves about him.

I think we get that you dislike Muhammad, but he won't be "very situational" if he's atop the depth chart as he is now.

And I'm not disputing those points, but to suggest that he's "earned" a starting spot is ludicrous in my opinion. If he's re-energized and ready to play a lot better than he has since he left, then he certainly can contribute, but if you go off of how he's actually produced since then, he certainly shouldn't be the starter. Oh, and I'm glad they "get the feeling" Muhammad should be the starter; the Observer has how strong an influence in personnel decisions this year? 10%? 25%?

I never stated he earned a starting spot. I was disputing that Muhammad was first string because of familiarity.

The Observer is reporting things. Not fanboying a player or railing on another. Fox, Delhomme, Williamson, Smith are the ones that are giving out the quotables about how he looks and how it's nice to have him back.

Maybe they're less hung up on the 40 catch 2007 and are more aware of him as a player than a single statistic.

at the top of the list when it comes to "fanboying." Moose is like an old girlfriend you give another go to because she was good in bed. Of COURSE you're not going to be saying anything but good things early on.

Maybe they're more hung up on how happy they are to have their buddy back and less aware of what he is as a player now, as a 34-year-old in 2008, rather than a 31-year-old in 2004. It goes both ways. Again, I don't believe that it's not possible that Muhammad can be a contributor this year, even as a part-time starter (or a "rush down" starter.) I just think that it makes more sense to allow the younger, more explosive receiver who possesses far higher upside (Hackett) to get most of the reps.

"part time starter"? He's currently THE guy first string.
He's next to Smith, Hackett is behind him.

Also, calling the power structure, the team leader, and the best player on the team, "fanboys" might be taking begrudging the guy just a little far.

What else would they possibly say about him? "Geez, this guy got old and slow..."

don't equal. They're not going to trash him, but of course you're going to discount it because of your bias.

It goes back to the original point. You can't believe he earned to be first string based on talent or play, but that seems to be something you'll have to work out for yourself while you're watching him start.

But they didn't pay him $2mil a year to be a great guy. They pay Fox $5mil a year to make the right call. I think it's fair to say Moose does well enough for him to be where he is. If Hackett out-performs, then Hackett will be there. Training camp will show it.

It's May. It's all speculation until Labor Day.

the Herald's policy, what were you saying about personal attacks? Oh, that just must apply when people disagree with you.

Where I've ever simply flung an anonymous insult at someone with no substantive factual basis for it and then ran away (as did the bold pantherclaw above.) If I challenge someone, I come with facts and relevant information. All people do to me is call names. It doesn't really hurt my feelings, and it only strengthens my beliefs when no one can come up with rational, logical reasons that I'm wrong. Hell...the latest craze at the Observer boards is to make fun of "me" in a picture I'm not even in. Again, do tell how I've ever gone to that level of...ahem..."intellectual discourse."

Perhaps the issue is not "intellectual discourse" at all. Perhaps it is tact--or the lack of it. Perhaps someone has exhausted the opportunity for confict in their real lives so they resort to narrow-minded arguing on blogs to fulfill some malnourishment of their cognitive and social development. Perhaps the miscatagorization of the problem as everyone's inability to reach the plateau of your intellectual discourse is the reason this condition is chronic. Just a thought.

Definitely comes down to reaping what you sow. The end result is that there's nothing wrong with a little heated debate, but belligerence and inflexibility, seemingly for no reason, just tends to weigh down discussion and bring on unneeded drama.

"Narrow-minded arguing to fulfill malnourishment of my social development?" A clever turn of phrase, my friend. I'll again, note, however, that if that were my true intention, I'd probably be one of the many who anonymously fling insults with no contributions of any substantive value. None of those facts apply.

Oh, and screw tact. Tact is for weak people who get their feelings hurt. If you say something stupid and are offended when someone points it out, don't speak in the first place.

How about when you said you were "smarter than you, and can state your point far more elequently"? Granted, I wasn't the one you said that to, but you did write that on an observer blog. The reason people keep bashing you is because you refuse to concead good points, and you do so with a snarky attitude. Sort of like when you told someone else that you liked their point, except for where they wrote stuff.

Also, if people shouldn't write stuff if they get offended, then stop calling on the herald folks to erase stuff when people say offenive stuff to you...you moron. (sorry, just couldn't help it.)

here comes your warning! :D!