Okay… We’re going in circles. My arguments have flowed along with the discussion. We aren’t even talking about the same points anymore. I have been defending my points and naturally responding to your contentions… That’s ONE reason why I’ve gotten away from my original argument.

You cannot take every sentance that I’ve typed and analyze it as a separate thought. This is elementary. You MUST follow my train of thought and quote it in entirety. Please notice that I quote your entire thoughts out of respect. I could nitpick the strongest argument if I simply extracted single sentences. Throughout this entire discussion you have taken me out of context. Furthermore, you have brought up the SAME QUOTE several times.

A 3-4 DE needs to be stout against the run but also needs to rush the passer. That’s the definition of the five-technique, and why it’s so hard to play effectively. It’s one of the most important positions in the 3-4.

You have probably memorized it by now. I was not clear when I originally typed it. I admitted this, but for some reason you continue to quote it in virtually every comment. So, I will requote my response for the second time…

When I said that a ‘3-4 DE needs to be stout against the run but also needs to rush the passer. That’s the definition of the five-technique,’ I was not being entirely accurate. That’s not the actual definition of the technique. In reality, I was summarizing the responsibilities of the technique and the skills needed to play it. If taken in the context of my argument, the point was valid. I was addressing the different skills need to play OLB versus the five technique DE. I did not really mean for it to be taken as a definition.

PLEASE don’t make me quote myself again.

It absolutely was what you were saying.

That’s not what I was saying. Please read more carefully. It will prevent you from misunderstanding. Again, you’re taking quotes out of context. It would be helpful if you would explain why that “was what [I was] saying.” Single sentence declarations do not hold weight in an argument.

Do you see how this statement is completely different than the one you made above? "Greatly effects (sic)" is completely different than "dictates". You are changing the language of what you said, backing off of your earlier (and more clearly incorrect) statements so that now I am not even sure if you are disagreeing with what I have been saying, but you sure as hell are disagreeing with what you originally said.

Are you seriously attacking my argument because I said “GREATLY effects” instead of “dictates?” Have you really resorted to word games? I would have just as easily said, “The only real point is that a lineman’s position dictates the type of athlete required and the methods that will be successful.” I capitallized “greatly” for emphasis. I guess you didn’t get it.

No one’s responsibilities are dictated by where he lines up. Again, this is what I am arguing against, with boat loads of evidence which you are flat out ignoring.

I’m not ignoring you, and I’m not seeing your “boat loads of evidence.”

How can you say that player’s responsibilities AREN’T dictate by where he lines up? If a MLB lines up over the middle IN HIS POSITION, how does he not have the resonsibility to defend the middle of the field? Sure… in different systems, players are asked to do different things. In different systems, they look for different athletes, but there MUST be a base from which these variations are derived. That’s what I’ve been talking about this whole time. I was talking about the base system when I originally described the numbered techniques. For the sake of the argument, I don’t care about every variation on the 3-4. I’m just talking about the standard, base 3-4 that “everyone from your local high school coach up to Tony Dungy” derives their 3-4 defense from. If taken in that context, I maintain that all of my points, excluding my quote above, are valid.

Finally… I’m done. Please notice that I didn’t try to make any new points here. I’m only defending original points and in some cases myself… via my logic being attacked. I must say that I haven’t enjoyed this argument. Towards the end of it, you have become more aggressive. You’re arguments have been weak and desperate only to find holes in my logic. I’m assuming you want me to relent. Well… you’ve been on this blog for a long time, and I haven’t. I’m sure that you have some pride to maintain. I don’t mind disagreeing, but I won’t change my opinion. Maybe I haven’t been entirely clear in every comment, but I still believe that my points are correct in some form. Again, I haven’t attacked your position or made any new points here. I’ve only defended my original points. Where we go from here is up to you.

I like that Louis Leonard guy. I wish we would give him playing time over Shaun Smith.