In defense of Alexander

by Snuffleupagus on Oct 1, 2007 3:47 PM PDT Comment 35 comments

After watching yesterday's game I was obviously pleased. It was great to see the defense dominate, even if it wasn't exactly against the Patriots.

But at the end of the game I also thought "well, that John Morgan guy won't be able to slam Alexander after this game."

So I read the game summary and surprise, surprise . . .

It isn't that Alexander played particularly well. But I believe the tone here was to basically beg Alexander not to single handedly blow this game.

Yet here I come here to get my dose of Alexander bashing and feel the need (for some reason) to at least try to defend Seattle's star back.

FIRST:
Alexander is getting to the point that Seattle needs to look to the future.
Alexander is overrated in the national media.
Alexander needs a kick in the pants to play with more heart (I wish he'd treat the first down line the way he treats the goal line).

None of this makes him bad. It just makes him not great.

Here's my ridiculous defense of Alexander:

Holmgren like Hasselbeck a lot. He wants him to be his next big star and as a result he has a built a passing based offense and ever since the Super Bowl has designed a pass whacky herky jerky offense that does not establish a rythym to no fault of Alexander's.

In the Super Bowl I watched as Holmgren clearly strained to create Hasselbeck (since he was the visionary behind getting and keeping Matt, training him) as the super star of that game. Alexander averaged 4.8 yards per carry in that game. 4.8! Yet early in the game Holmgren went pass whacky, refusing to just run off tackle until the Steelers stopped it. He called pass after pass and lost!

Ever since then he has continued this sporadic strategy.

I know there are still a lot of run plays called, but this is not a running offense. The offensive production comes in spurts, not in steady production.

Even yesterday we saw Holmgren at his best when it was 2nd and 5 inside the ten. Alexander, whatever his faults, loves his TD's and becomes a different person in the redzone. So Holmgren runs in this situation right? ... or.... incomplete, incomplete, in comes Josh Brown.

Is Morris really better? Your bias on this matter shines through. Today your saying that at the end of the game when the 49ers KNEW the run was coming Morris had some nice runs. Proving he's good. Yet last week, at the end of the game, when the Bengals KNEW the run was coming, Alexander had some nice runs that padded his stats and proved he is overrated (the 100 yard game).

Is it possible that at the end of the game yesterday the 49ers defense wasn't exactly playing with a fire in their belly? (the punt with 5 minutes left was basically the 49ers giving up the game no?)

Also, is it possible that when Alexander is not in the game the defenses fall back for pass? thereby making Seattle's other runners look much better?

Mack Strong averages over 4 yards per carry in his career (over 4.5 last year), this makes him much better than Alexander right? Or maybe when Strong is in the backfield alone defenses don't look for the run . . .

Then you comment specifically on the game yesterday with the 49ers dropping guys back without any fear of a run or catch from Alexander. I would, again, put at least some of the blame for this on Holmgren's play calling. Alexander did catch the only ball that was thrown at him yesterday. If this was such a huge problem why didn't the Seahawks run any draws (not that I saw) or pass to Alexander a couple more times? (I know he isn't a great receiver, but, like I said, he did catch the only ball thrown at him).

Here's the point:

Alexander is not great, but comparing him to Rex Grossman? C'mon! there's hyperbole and then there's stupidity. I have an irrational dislike for Holmgren, but at least I recognize that while I think I have legitimate grievances I tend to be irrational. I might not think he's great, but I'm not going to compare him to Norv Turner.

Alexander needs to start to be phased out, he needs to have a coach get on his ass about running hard, but when the Seahawks don't march on to the Super Bowl and win it won't be because of Alexander.

There, that's my attempt to defend Alexander.

Also since the Seahawks dominated yesterday and I didn't see Alexander make any horrendous mistakes I will give you a reprieve from your promised week off of Alexander bashing in the comments to this diary so discussion can ensue. :)

A place to bury strangers.

0 recs | Comment 35 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Fun stuff

I forgot to say that I just found this blog this year (after the Mariners season tanked and I couldn't stomach lookoutlanding anymore).

I really appreciate the analysis here and since I've moved to the East Coast I'm glad to have a place to read about and talk about the Seahawks.

So thank for all the time you put into this place.

by Snuffleupagus on Oct 1, 2007 3:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

good diary

my brother has actually sworn of fieldgulls because he can't stand the alexander bashing. I'm not a fan of a bunch of people jumping on a bandwagon to bash people either. I like alexander, thought I have to admit a decent backup who can blow and catch a little would be nice to run out there. Mo Morris and Alvin Pearman, however, are not the solution.

by LantermanC on Oct 1, 2007 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My first season here too,

and I agree. Thanks to everyone who puts in the hard work on this site.

As for Shawn, you make some valid points. My biggest gripe about him is his little "slip and run into the tackler backwards" move. If he could stay on his feet, he might get a few more yards and not look so bad.

"I'm not familiar with this type of.. thing I'm seeing."

by Thingray on Oct 1, 2007 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Um

Alexander got the 1st and Goal carry and then on 3rd and 5 he ran the ball with Alexander.

Also, is it possible that when Alexander is not in the game the defenses fall back for pass? thereby making Seattle's other runners look much better?

This just proves Johns point that when Alexander is in the game it forces our offense to become one dimensional. He can't catch and he can't block so then when he is in the game the hawks are going to run allowing the Defense to stack the box.

Alexander drops balls in no contact practice drills and the inside draw is a dangerous play to run when you have a RB that only has one arm to hold onto the ball with.

I've been rather quiet on this site about my opinion of Alexander. Basically I'm torn on him. I don't think hes finished but I do think he needs to benched to maybe give him a spark. I don't believe Morris is the answer but I do believe that he needs to get more carriers.

I can't bash Alexander because this team will be better if he gets better. Maybe this is just wishful thinking.

V. 1.0, mutherf***er, know what I'm sayin'?

by Scruffy Lefty on Oct 1, 2007 4:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

you're right

I don't know of what I was thinking on that drive. I think I was thinking about the drive with the pass from Seneca Wallace... which I thought was very odd, and lucky that it wasn't intercepted. But even there Shaun got the carry on 1st down. I just would have stayed with him there. We can all agree that he needs to get fired up more, and giving him the ball inside red zone seems to be the way it has worked in the past . . .

by Snuffleupagus on Oct 1, 2007 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wasn't suprised that they called the

reverse pass but I was kind of suprised Seneca still threw it. Branch was pretty much covered.

And I agree where I would of given the ball to alexander on 2nd down and if that didn't work probably tried to pass on 3rd.

V. 1.0, mutherf***er, know what I'm sayin'?

by Scruffy Lefty on Oct 1, 2007 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You know it was very nearly a touchdown...

Seneca gotta pretty good touch on the pass, but he threw from his back foot and that basically killed any chance of a TD reception.

by John Morgan on Oct 1, 2007 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

it was also nearly an interception

I just didn't understand the need when the Seahawks seemed to be moving the ball well.

Plus, is a defense going to be surprised if your backup quarter back pulls up on his end around to pass? It's like a trick play that isn't tricky.

I'm not saying it was stupid or anything, it just seemed kinda odd. like, where did that come from?

by Snuffleupagus on Oct 1, 2007 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did Holmgren kick your dog?

I just curious why do you hate mike so much?

V. 1.0, mutherf***er, know what I'm sayin'?

by Scruffy Lefty on Oct 1, 2007 4:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

mostly it was the super bowl

I've asked myself that same question. I can attempt to explain:

I feel like Holmgren has Hasselbeck favoritism. Obviously this isn't bad, because Matt is great. But my dislike started way back when Dilfer seemed to be playing better ball but Holmgren continually started Hasselbeck. That seems to have worked out as a be worse now to win later scenario, so that's not so bad.

Then the XL Super Bowl. Perhaps my special bitterness is born because I got to go. Truly a once in a lifetime opportunity. Now, understand the atmosphere. Steelers fans are EVERYWHERE. The entire freakin national media has been talking about the Seahawks are going to get stomped and Betis has created the perfect story. It feels like the entire NFL is against me and the handful of Seahawks fans on the ground. (it took me a long time to find a Seattle Jersey for sale and I actually could not find a Walter Jones jersey, cause the Seahawks were so underrepresented)

You saw the game. The Seahawks physically won that game, they athletically won that game. Alexander was literally running for 5 yards a play. The left side of the line was dominating as they had all year long.

then the Seahawks just started throwing the ball. pass, pass, pass.

I have very little doubt that my memory is clouded, but look at the play breakdown. 45ish pass attempts, while Alexander, the MVP that year, had 20 carries?

This combined with the fact that Holmgren did not get Alexander the rushing title that year forced me to conclude that Holmgren wanted Hasselbeck to be the start of the team, not Alexander. (honestly, if Hasselbeck had been, say 15 yards away from the passing title in any given year, do you think the Seahawks would do anything but pass in their final game???)

Back to the Super Bowl: the Seahawks lost, despite me yelling loudly from the stands "RUN BEHIND JONES!"

But even then my Holmgren dislike was not set in stone. After exiting the stadium in a wash of Steeler fan joy. I over heard two fans talking and one of them said "yeah, and our defense did a really good job shutting down Alexander."

That did it. Alexander could run at will, yet the Seahawks play calling was so... odd... that the Steelers fans really thought they had shut down the run. When really they had shut down the pass.

There you go.

by Snuffleupagus on Oct 1, 2007 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I understand thinking I'm piling on Alexander...

or that others are or that the whole site is, but I think people are fooled into thinking that Alexander is playing okay because his traditional stats are okay. All I'm trying to say is that he's really not playing okay, he's running poorly and he's a nothing as a pass blocker or receiver. I have nothing personally against Alexander, but if you get to see every game five or six times like I do, you can't deny what you see. My point is only to make it abundantly clear that Alexander's play is a real problem that must not be ignored even though the Seahawks are winning

To your specific points here's the best I can reply in limited time:

The Niners stacked the box against the run facing Morris. I did not see the Bengals do the same thing against Alexander last week.

Alexander is a terrible receiver and Mike Holmgren knows that. So does Mike Nolan. He's been a terrible receiver for years now. In 2006 he posted a -81.8% DVOA per reception, by far the worst in football. I think you are holding one play up to a veritable mountain of evidence.

I don't think I've ever quoted yards per attempt nor implied that's an accurate way to judge a running back.

Mike Holmgren is running the ball as much as he did last year. The only reason he's running the ball in "spurts" is because Alexander's poor rushing ability is forcing Seattle into obvious passing downs. Could Alexander get more productive yards on first, I'm sure Holmgren would be more inclined to run it, but as long as it's second and 8, third and 6, the Hawks are forced to pass the ball.

I don't know what to make of your Super Bowl theory. Despite playing from behind for almost the entire second half, Alexander got 20 carries. I don't think Holmgren was particularly interested in making anyone a star. I think he wanted to win the Super Bowl.

Morris has been more valuable per carry every year except 2005, when Alexander's numbers where bolstered by his awesome touchdown showing. Morris is also 27, in his prime, a better pass blocker (though no great shakes) and a better receiver.

The only reason I compare Alexander to Grossman is that both are players that are holding back otherwise talented units and both are not likely to be replaced excepting injury or a losing streak. I realize that it's nearly impossible for any running back to be as damaging to a team as a bad Qb, that's the nature of football.

I would stop writing about Alexander, but here's my viewpoint, the Hawks are a true title contender. This could very well be the last year that's true for quite a few years. Seattle is not going to win the Super Bowl unless they can get their running game straightened out. Solutions, solutions that are by no means radical or even uncommon, exist on the roster right now. I am championing those solutions because I want Seattle to win, not because I have anything against Alexander. I'd be more than happy to stop railing against Alexander, but he's hurting the team and I just don't think enough people understand that yet.

Really, I'm glad we all get our own opinions, I'm glad there is dissent. It would be a little spooky otherwise. I really shouldn't have said that I wouldn't say anything about Alexander if he didn't single handedly lose us the game on Sunday. I mean I was being facetious, but I shouldn't have said it. I can't run a reputable Seahawks site and ignore one of the Hawks' most important players. I would like to think my post up today detailing some of Hasselbeck's goofs makes it clear I'm not after anybody. I try and call the games how I see them and Alexander is not going to be ignored because I've written it all before.

With all that said, I understand that the tone of this blog has grown overly negative, and frankly I don't know why, but I'll try and tone it down. Yesterday's win should be celebrated and I didn't mean to ruin a game that was a lot of fun to watch with overt and unnecessary negativity.

by John Morgan on Oct 1, 2007 5:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

don't worry, you didn't ruin the game at all

yesterday was awesome, and like you said should be celebrated.

I don't think this blog has grown negative at all, we're 3-1, playing solid football and in good position to make the playoffs (again!).

I've really enjoyed the Alexander topics and write-ups, because I used to be a box score junkie before I starting coming here.

Josh Brown is better than you.

by MFAN on Oct 1, 2007 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

wow

I like this place better than lookoutlanding already!

you should have seen what happened when I tried to defend Richie Sexson . . .

Seriously, I don't disagree too much with what you're saying about Alexander. He appears to be the weakest link on the offense.

He is bad at receiving, but if he isn't going to be covered well as a result and Hasselbeck can notch back on the ball speed (as a result of poor coverage) there still seems to be an opportunity there.

Regardless, the Seahawks clearly need to be gearing up to replace him. But I really feel like the best possible thing the Seahawks can do is inspire him to play harder (maybe he should read this blog).

by Snuffleupagus on Oct 1, 2007 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

when Shaun gets an opportunity?

I think as the Other Morgan already pointed out with his receiving DVOA, when Shaun catches the ball he does horribly, and has done horribly for years. Why would there be an opportunity now?

by Captain Morgan on Oct 1, 2007 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why would you try to defend

Richie Sexson? Did you do this on purpose?

by BrettJMiller on Oct 1, 2007 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

well

I think it was just more an attempt to see if I could come with any plausible reason for why Hargrove was still starting Sexson.

I could not.

by Snuffleupagus on Oct 2, 2007 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Intrasquad pickup basketball games?

--Shrug

by Shrug on Oct 3, 2007 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let's hope

For the sake of the Seahawks, lets hope your defense of Alexander turns out a bit better then the wishful thinking about Sexon.

by brokejumper on Oct 2, 2007 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Holmgren is pretty upset about the run game

He talked about it alot after the game, but said it was not all Alexanders fault. Thw way I see it if Alexander doesn't step up then Mo and Weaver are bound to see more carries. Also next years draft is really deep at RB. It seems no matter how well any of our RB's do there is a very good chance they draft a RB, personally I'd like to see them get Ian Johnson in the middle rounds

by Joeshow12 on Oct 1, 2007 11:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

This is something I want to clear up.

Does anyone thing Holmgren is going to hold a press conference and say "It's all Shaun's fault. He's clearly the weak link in our running game"?

I know the run blocking isn't perfect, but just because Holmgren isn't impolitic enough to point fingers, doesn't mean it's not mainly Alexander's fault that the running game isn't working.

by John Morgan on Oct 2, 2007 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Personally

I'd like to see the Hawks go after Jon Stewart of Oregon. I'm by no means a football scout, so I'm willing to hear counterarguments, but when I've seen him play, he looks like the type of back I'd like to see us pick up. Very quick and with good field vision, but also strong and able to break through a few tackles. I feel like a player of his abilities might be able to turn a lot of Shaun's 2-yard losses into 2-yard gains, and his 6-yard gains in 15-yarders.

Anyway, just my thought.

God that was a sweet win on Sunday. Phil and I were talking, it was basically a perfect sports weekend, what with the Mets losing and the Rockies winning in addition.

by jimmimoose on Oct 2, 2007 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There it is, your moment of zen.

(I can't believe I'm the first guy to drop that one...)

--Shrug

by Shrug on Oct 2, 2007 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Some thoughts

First of all, welcome. Thanks for the post, and for understanding what we are, and what we are not. (I stole that from Eminem's Grammy acceptance speech by the way.)

You make a lot of good points. I also don't believe that comparing Alexander to Grossman is one hundred percent accurate. There's at least some reason to believe Alexander can be the star of a couple games this season. Grossman, on the other hand, had to play through an entire season with the predominating opinion that he was a fraud, a perspective that was soundly confirmed weekend before last.

I don't think Alexander's quite that much of a bill of goods. He has one thing I guarantee you Grossman will never have: an MVP award. Nobody doubts he earned every ounce of it. He doesn't have much to carp about this season so far, but at this point I think he's a second- or third-ballot HOF'er.

Should the phase-out begin now? Yeah. Well, let me rephrase that: It might do everyone a bit of good if Shaun didn't have quite as much job security as he's used to. Not just because the competition would open up, but also because there's a minute chance it would inject a certain aspect of his drive that seems to be lacking lately. Stranger things have happened. I can see both a steadier decline in his abilities, and a potential comeback season in Shaun. But in the first quarter of this season it hasn't happened yet. We have 13 weeks to see that develop.

I do disagree with you about Holmgren's opinion of Hasselbeck. Coach doesn't care about turning anyone into a superstar. Media exposure's the last thing on his mind. He does have a wealth of experience helping to create great quarterbacks. Including some guy who has now thrown more touchdown passes than anyone since... oh, that's right, ever. The point being, quarterbacks are Holmgren's personal forte. Which is probably how it should be. He's not interested in turning them into superstars; he's interested in turning them into great quarterbacks. Maybe you were just being semantic or something -- but it takes a lot of hard work to turn into a great QB. You can become a superstar by climbing into a white Bronco and telling A.C. to hit the gas 'cause there's a sale a Brooks Brothers.

Besides, Beck's already a star anyway. And this season, he's definitely being a great quarterback.

That's all. Thanks for coming. We're all pussycats here, really. Meow.

--Shrug

by Shrug on Oct 2, 2007 10:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Well put Snuff....

While I don't know about your Superbowl or Matt thoery's.. I couldn't agree more about this being the home for the "hate Shaun" club. The fact that this site is WAY TOO negative about him does make it hard to read. He's not a world beater by any stretch. He is on the decline. But as John admittited this site has had a very negative tone to it... that seems to be snowballing btw.

I have read maybe one or two people post that Shaun still has it....but to say that enough people don't know he has lost a step or is hurting the team is insane. If they don't know they will never know.

I wish this (again the best site I've seen) site would give the Shaun bashing a rest. Especially after a 20 point win on the road against our only division rival.

by The Manchild on Oct 2, 2007 10:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

side note

How about in this weeks poll we ask what we should do about Shaun on this site.

-change nothing... I hate being happy when reading about the Hawks!
-limit bashing him to a minimum please
-don't bother bashing him after a 20 point win
-Shoot him when he runs out of the tunnel vs the Aints (with a stun gun... I don't want to end up on the news if I just gave a wacko an idea)

by The Manchild on Oct 2, 2007 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

n/s

A sports blog being critical?? <FEIGNED SHOCK>Gasp!!!</FEIGNED SHOCK>

Seriously though... while I love Shaun and hate to see him bashed, the thing is, Morg's doin' his job, which is to analyze. And we're a blog, so sometimes that analysis gets a little, oh, spirited.

But it's reasonable... yeah, we won by 20 points, but that was largely because of the receivers' big day, and because the 49ers' offensive line was made of frilly lace doilies. It's fair to criticize components of the game that weren't working on all cylinders, i.e., the running game.

I agree the point's been made about Shaun to our satisfaction. I hope we get other things to talk about too. But it IS a valid point.

Just sayin'. I don't work here or anything like that. I'm a consultant now.

--Shrug

by Shrug on Oct 3, 2007 12:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

shock and awe

I re-read my post and I did notice it was a little less than specific to the point I was trying to make. I don't mind a little negativity... even after a huge win. I just think having every pre-game thread and every single re-cap being a Shaun diss is tired. So tired it really does turn people off to the site. (I know that I'm close).

I'm just getting my feet wet here and I'm not trying to rock the boat and I'm not trying to be a nag.

I tend to agree the points made about Shaun are valid. I disagree that enough people here don't know. I'm certain enough about it has been said.

This is officially my last complaint until my next post.

by The Manchild on Oct 3, 2007 1:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's nothing wrong with rocking the boat

or "being a nag" as long as it is intelligently thought out (as your comments are) and cogent to the discussion (again, as your comments are). And that's the great thing about these online forums: people have differing opinions.

As you can see from the comments on this blog, not everybody thinks Alexander is completely done. It's not like you're alone in your opinion.

I've kept quiet on the whole Alexander situation because I don't fully know what to say. He drives me nuts when I watch him play, because I do see these huge holes opening up in front of him, and he pussyfoots his way to a 3 yard gain when he could have had an 8 yard gain. He drops the ball with regularity. He's a terrible pass blocker.

However, he rules in the red zone (especially inside the 10 yard line). I want nothing more than to see him succeed, yet Mike Holmgren continues to set him up for failure by either running that damned stretch play, or trying to set up the screen pass (something the Seahawks have never done well).

So, yeah, I guess what I'm trying to say is that you should stick around, even when it seems like Shaun is getting ragged on. You having a differing opinion from what seems like the prevailing opinion on the blog can be a good thing, provided that flame wars don't erupt (I haven't seen a flame war on here except when I was a dumbass and told seattlesucks to take a hike...not my finest hour).

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

by Phildopip on Oct 3, 2007 7:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

n/s

You didn't say anything inappropriate -- just counter-pointing. We're trying to work out the kinks in the <HUMOR> tag. We're all in this together!

So, don't worry... thanks for your note.

--Shrug

by Shrug on Oct 3, 2007 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Um..... I don't understand

what the problem is here, people. Do people just want J.M. to disregard what has been pretty not-good running by Shaun? Have you guys ever read Lookout Landing? Man, compared to what Jeff did to Raul, Ho-Ram, Sexson, etc., over the past six months, this is nothing.

Feel free to disagree with John, but I think it's overly harsh to call him overly negative. And yes, we can still point out negatives after a 20 point win. And still love the Seahawks.

by Eegah on Oct 3, 2007 4:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

baseball v. football

Like I said, there are obviously legitimate gripes about Alexander (and if not for the Grossman comparison I never would have been inspired to write this diary).

But is he the only problem with the Seahawks? If you replace Alexander with Addai does this team suddenly became a perfect unstoppable juggernaut? I'd say no.

Holmgren said it himself in the press conference that blocks are being missed. Execution all around isn't ideal. I have issues with play calling at times. I think most people's general issue is that Alexander seems to be the only one receiving criticism recently.

In football singling out the performance of individual is a very difficult task, and far less viable than in baseball.

Not that I want to see more negativity in general, but I just find it instinctively difficult to believe that Alexander is the only one who's done anything wrong this season.

As the posts today show, there are other issues to discuss. Alexander should just be one of many.

by Snuffleupagus on Oct 3, 2007 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't quite buy that.

It's easy enough to understand why Peyton Manning is awesome and Rex Grossman is not, though I definitely partially agree with you in that there is a TON more codependence. Maybe more like a pitcher and his defense? Just throwing that one out here.

Yeah, you're totally right that there are other topics to talk about. It's just that, if you look at the first four weeks of the season, the one weakness of the team (you might call it major, maybe not) has been the running game, especially in short-yardage situations. It's not like JM can be that negative about the play of Hass, or of our defense. Even our special teams have been better (excepting those two blocked punts).

Honestly, I think that part of it is that we don't want this team to be "just good", you know, good enough to win the NFC West, be a #3 seed, and bow out in the divisional round of the playoffs. We want this team to be "great", ready to make a run at a playoff bye. That opportunity appears to depend, in large part, on whether we improve the running game.

Again, take this more as partially sticking up for J.M. as well. The guy has done some just terrific work since he's started writing, and he'll improve as this community will improve over time. So don't take this as a flat rejection of everything you stand for or anything.

by Eegah on Oct 3, 2007 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

good points

I'm sure this discussion will continue. That's good. But you are absolutely right about John. I have been lurking before posting and am really really impressed with his writing and analysis here. I should have made that more clear in my diary (and tried to put it in my first comment as a result).

by Snuffleupagus on Oct 3, 2007 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs