Where does D. Hall rate as a CB for the Redskins all time?

I wonder if D. Hall was the head coach if he would have just given Patrick Ramsey a chance.

Alright I've had it with this thread.

Here's the way to settle it.

To Hall apologists/fans/groupies: Hall is not the best CB ever, not the best Redskins CB ever, not even close to the top. You, like many people, are blinded by the flashiness of INTs and TDs, which clouds your view of his flaws. Also, we know that Carlos Rogers' hands, makes Hall look like the best ever. Remember that what makes him a playmaker, also makes him a liability. So your arguments that he's an elite CB are getting old. Get the F over it.

To Hall haters: Get F over it too. Reasonable fans know that Hall has his flaws. But when we're drinking and Hall takes one to the house, we're going to be unreasonable and overpraise him (even if it is preseason). Also, your arguments to prove that he's not a good CB are getting old, and some of you seem to enjoy it too much. Finally, we know some of you don't like him as a person, which is fine but remember that this will bias your opinion.

Any questions?

we can now close this topic and I suggest you keep this handy. It'll be worth posting when this discussion comes up again.

Where do D. Hall discussions rate as most annoying on TheWarpath.net all time?

+1

Seriously...

I just read this thread from start to finish and I have such a headache right now. :smashfrea

As for Hall... IMO he's a great #2 but definitely not a #1. You need a shutdown corner to shutdown one half of the field (ie Carlos in 2010). The QB will work Hall's side of the field 80% of the game and the chips will fall where they may. A good QB will usually rip DH to shreds, while a wild one (Cutler) can put his jersey in the hall of fame.

I'm not a Hall hatter, I'm a fan. He's a perfect compliment to a great #1 CB. If Hall's your #1 CB your secondary is in trouble.

5. Haynesworth/McNabb discussions


Sup brah. U mad I'm macking white womenz?


http://30fps.mocksession.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/2011-August-23-18-38-33.jpg

If you feel disrespected, then with all due respect, you're probably taking this a little too personally and have placed yourself higher than you ought to. And if you feel that the stats that you've produced are somehow superior than Bucket's, or for that matter the same stats I've mentioned in another thread, then, again, I really don't know what to say about that.

But let's agree on this -- we all want the Redskins defense to be as dominant as they can as a unit, not prizing individual performances that rarely yield championships or playoff appearances. In short, I have no interest in seeing D.Hall kill it this year for the sole purpose of coming here to thump my chest and say I told you so.I should clarify that I don't feel personally disrespected. Really, that should be universal by now, more than 13,000 posts in. I don't feel personally disrespected about anything.

It's disrespectful to my argument to say that my evidence and someone elses evidence are basically equal. That's an easily preconcieved perspective (wow! Both these sides bring great points all the time!) that didn't reflect the reality of the situation. Really, it gives the opportunity to belittle my objectivity in the numbers as an exercise in hating. There is no better word to fit that than disrespectful. If you were respecting my ability to defend my position, I think you would have seen that most of my best points weren't even drawing responses. I mean, what can you say about the 31st defense having the corner with the highest number of passing yards against outside of, "oh, well, that makes sense."

This isn't a matter of right and wrong, it's fact vs. opinion. When the best defense of an argument that is brought up is "it's ten other guys' fault," well...okay then.

1) 5 to 10 other guys on defense are the reason that Hall gives up a lot of yards
2) if you disagree with this, you are biased

This is Bucket's argument in logical form. Is this really something you wish to defend? People like him should not ever, ever use the term bias.

Where do D. Hall discussions rate as most annoying on TheWarpath.net all time?

Well there are plenty ahead of him.

Zorn in 09

AH last year and this year

DM this year

Brunnel when he was on the downside of his career here in Washington

CP talk the last couple of years

All of the Colt Brennan love

I had another good one but I lost it..... lol

Oh Lavar talk was getting pretty annoying a few years back.

JC talk was getting absurd at times as well.

Where do D. Hall discussions rate as most annoying on TheWarpath.net all time?

Easily in the top 5. I stopped paying much attention to this thread after the first page because nobody is ever going to win in this argument.

Its understandable why DH is drawing this kind of contrast in opinion. Im not bothered by the thread topic. It will be interesting to revisit threads like this mid season. My money is on DH quieting the sceptics.

Alright I've had it with this thread.

Here's the way to settle it.

To Hall apologists/fans/groupies: Hall is not the best CB ever, not the best Redskins CB ever, not even close to the top. You, like many people, are blinded by the flashiness of INTs and TDs, which clouds your view of his flaws. Also, we know that Carlos Rogers' hands, makes Hall look like the best ever. Remember that what makes him a playmaker, also makes him a liability. So your arguments that he's an elite CB are getting old. Get the F over it.

To Hall haters: Get F over it too. Reasonable fans know that Hall has his flaws. But when we're drinking and Hall takes one to the house, we're going to be unreasonable and overpraise him (even if it is preseason). Also, your arguments to prove that he's not a good CB are getting old, and some of you seem to enjoy it too much. Finally, we know some of you don't like him as a person, which is fine but remember that this will bias your opinion.

Any questions?Ruhskins, this doesn't reflect the reality of the situation at all.

There are varying levels of objectivity with any argument. No one making one side of the argument is completely without bias. Ever. But that doesn't mean this is Hall haters vs. Hall apologists. The closest thing to a real Hall hater on this site is someone like SFREDSKINS, who will put an anti-Hall comment (though usually not much of a strong one) in any Hall thread. But do people actually take offense to what he writes? No. What gets the Hall apologist up in arms is when the facts start getting rolled out, then the lines start getting drawn.

Hall haters do not exist anymore than Fletcher haters or Moss haters do. This is absolutely critical to realize. There is a reason that Hall is a polarizing character while no one gets their panties in a bunch when describing one of the five plays over the course of a season that Fletcher screws up. Fletcher is one of the most consistent play to play players in the NFL, so if I say something like, "boy, London Fletcher had a really uncharacteristically poor game," no one will ever say that I'm hating on Fletcher. If I make a different, critical observation of Hall that, "boy, DeAngelo Hall had another poor game," many people take that personally.

But all I'm doing is referencing the established fact that you admit that Hall is one of the most inconsistent players in football and Fletcher is the most consistent. This is already established. It's not an anti-Hall bias. There are not Hall haters. In both cases it is a critical bottom line evaluation of a game played by a Washington Redskin.

Until we can identify someone here as a Fletcher-hater or a Moss-hater, a Hall-hater is just a loaded term that isn't descriptive of a group of people.