What! Stats don't tell the whole story? Gosh, I never said that a few hundred times or anything. :sarcasm:
All I'm saying is that we have different definitions of the word "elite." I understand what you said but I don't agree with you. ; )
"millertime" wrote:
You said a lot more, in fact put several words in my mouth and failed to clear it up, but then again when you have others mindlessly applauding that piss poor tactic of debating, why would you take the time to make things right?
I listed off players whom I felt were elite. I did not compare Cullen Jenkins to any of them. I've said time and time again stats don't tell the whole story.
What I had challenged was that Cullen Jenkins is an elite player in the NFL. I just don't think he is and I don't feel there's any reason to call my opinion lame because you didn't understand what I was saying.
This whole name me players who are better ... then we narrow it down to only 3 - 4 DE's ... c'mon ... if you have to get that specific do you really have an argument?
I'm a good sport so I'll play along. I'm completely ignorant on what teams even run a 3 - 4 defense. Does that mean I must consider Cullen Jenkins an elite DE?
I think I under valued Cullen Jenkins and that's something I do with every Packer because I try to view them from outside in to avoid being bias. I think Clay, Cullen and B.J. are important to the success of the Packers defensive front seven and each benefit from one another. I'd also say B.J. and Cullen benefit from Clay more than anything else.
It'd be awesome to have Cullen Jenkins back as a Packer because as I've said countless times, he helps the Packers outside of the numbers he puts up. Once again, I'll say this too, I'm worried about his injuries. He's only 30, which after thinking about it some, don't feel is old for a DE.
In my opinion the closest players the Packers have to being elite would be Aaron Rodgers, Clay Matthews and Charles Woodson.