Ty Montgomery, WR: Stanford

[RightlegTucker]

Whoa there, buddy. You're injecting your own hidden meanings and biases into what I said. Who ever said that "Cpatt 2.0" is insulting or inflammatory? I think Montgomery and CPatt ARE similar players, in that they're physical freaks who are great in the open field, but lack fundamentals and will be a project at the NFL level. They're both going to have to have "designed plays" for them to have early impact.

I never said, nor implied, that it was time to write off CPatt, but that he's a long-term project and his lack of fundamentals is a hindrance to instant NFL success, and I think Montgomery may have the same problem. Doesn't mean they suck or are worthless. Don't assume hidden subtexts in what people write.

I didn't have to infer anything, you invoked Patterson's name. "Cpatt 2.0" suggests a direct comparison between the two. They're both raw receivers, but separate nonetheless. Calling any player coming out of college "Current Player 2.0" is an inaccurate representation or projection of that player's abilities and respective skill set, either positive or negative. I understand your assessment along with anyone who has similar feelings regarding "project players", but you can't lump them all into the same category, or infer that one is simply the clone or an exact copy of an existing player, in this case "CPatt 2.0". It's a lazy way to assess a player's abilities and unfair to each individual respectively. Cordarelle Patterson is not a gadget player, he is a wide receiver in the NFL, as Montgomery soon will be. You do a disservice to the intricacies of the position and each individual players strengths and weaknesses by suggesting one is simply a different rendition of the other. I don't have a problem with your opinion, only your original remark for the reasons I have outlined above. Perhaps you didn't mean to suggest what the phrase "Player X 2.0" insinuates, but how am I to differentiate between the two if all you provide is the statement without any context as to what you mean specifically? I stand by my position that the analogy itself is inflammatory hog wash.

[bigchiefbc]

Whoa there, buddy. You're injecting your own hidden meanings and biases into what I said. Who ever said that "Cpatt 2.0" is insulting or inflammatory? I think Montgomery and CPatt ARE similar players, in that they're physical freaks who are great in the open field, but lack fundamentals and will be a project at the NFL level. They're both going to have to have "designed plays" for them to have early impact.

I never said, nor implied, that it was time to write off CPatt, but that he's a long-term project and his lack of fundamentals is a hindrance to instant NFL success, and I think Montgomery may have the same problem. Doesn't mean they suck or are worthless. Don't assume hidden subtexts in what people write.

I didn't have to infer anything, you invoked Patterson's name. "Cpatt 2.0" suggests a direct comparison between the two. They're both raw receivers, but separate nonetheless. Calling any player coming out of college "Current Player 2.0" is an inaccurate representation or projection of that player's abilities and respective skill set, either positive or negative. I understand your assessment along with anyone who has similar feelings regarding "project players", but you can't lump them all into the same category, or infer that one is simply the clone or an exact copy of an existing player, in this case "CPatt 2.0". It's a lazy way to assess a player's abilities and unfair to each individual respectively. Cordarelle Patterson is not a gadget player, he is a wide receiver in the NFL, as Montgomery soon will be. You do a disservice to the intricacies of the position and each individual players strengths and weaknesses by suggesting one is simply a different rendition of the other. I don't have a problem with your opinion, only your original remark for the reasons I have outlined above. Perhaps you didn't mean to suggest what the phrase "Player X 2.0" insinuates, but how am I to differentiate between the two if all you provide is the statement without any context as to what you mean specifically? I stand by my position that the analogy itself is inflammatory hog wash.

Player comps are one of the most common, standard things that virtually all people in player development do when they are scouting players about to come into the league. Players with similar builds, athleticism and skill sets don't always develop the same, but they can be guides when evaluating how a player's development may go. I didn't mean to imply that Montgomery is a literal clone of CPatt, it was a quick and easy way of saying that I think they have similar skill sets and similar limitations in their fundamentals, and may face many of the same challenges making a fantasy impact in the early part of their careers.

[RightlegTucker]

Player comps are one of the most common, standard things that virtually all people in player development do when they are scouting players about to come into the league. Players with similar builds, athleticism and skill sets don't always develop the same, but they can be guides when evaluating how a player's development may go. I didn't mean to imply that Montgomery is a literal clone of CPatt, it was a quick and easy way of saying that I think they have similar skill sets and similar limitations in their fundamentals, and may face many of the same challenges making a fantasy impact in the early part of their careers.

Of course comparing a collegiate player's athletic traits to a past or present pro player can help shed light on their abilities, but you did not say this in your original comment I took issue with, that being Cpatt 2.0. I understand you didn't mean to insinuate that Montgomery is exactly the same as Cpatt now that you have elaborated, but since you did not provide any exposition in your original comment the only information I was privy to was "Cpatt 2.0", a phrase I find detestable for a bevy of reasons. If you leave a brief or ambiguous comment, the onus does not then befall on those who read it to immediately grasp the point you were trying to get at, if you feel your views were misrepresented you are more than welcome to respond and clarify what you actually meant, which you did and I accepted. However, you cannot make the claim that I was projecting my own views on to your comment when you left it open to interpretation. If you provided more information in your original post I think you would be correct, but" Cpatt 2.0" does not beget anything outside of the statement itself.

[bigchiefbc]

Player comps are one of the most common, standard things that virtually all people in player development do when they are scouting players about to come into the league. Players with similar builds, athleticism and skill sets don't always develop the same, but they can be guides when evaluating how a player's development may go. I didn't mean to imply that Montgomery is a literal clone of CPatt, it was a quick and easy way of saying that I think they have similar skill sets and similar limitations in their fundamentals, and may face many of the same challenges making a fantasy impact in the early part of their careers.

Of course comparing a collegiate player's athletic traits to a past or present pro player can help shed light on their abilities, but you did not say this in your original comment I took issue with, that being Cpatt 2.0. I understand you didn't mean to insinuate that Montgomery is exactly the same as Cpatt now that you have elaborated, but since you did not provide any exposition in your original comment the only information I was privy to was "Cpatt 2.0", a phrase I find detestable for a bevy of reasons. If you leave a brief or ambiguous comment, the onus does not then befall on those who read it to immediately grasp the point you were trying to get at, if you feel your views were misrepresented you are more than welcome to respond and clarify what you actually meant, which you did and I accepted. However, you cannot make the claim that I was projecting my own views on to your comment when you left it open to interpretation. If you provided more information in your original post I think you would be correct, but" Cpatt 2.0" does not beget anything outside of the statement itself.

You assumed I meant it in a derogatory manner, or as an insult, which it wasn't. That was what I was taking umbrage with. Regardless, we understand each other now, so we can let it drop.

[RightlegTucker]

You assumed I meant it in a derogatory manner, or as an insult, which it wasn't. That was what I was taking umbrage with. Regardless, we understand each other now, so we can let it drop.

I believe "Insert Player 2.0" is derogatory for the reasons I've outlined above, if you don't provide context or exposition for your posts you shouldn't be upset with the reader if they are misinterpreted.