Quote
Blue and Gold

Quote
dzrams
Well to be fair, last year at this time, you said that Donald would be good in this 3-4 but not nearly as good as he had been in the 4-3. I recall the name Jurrell Casey coming up as a comp....
.

[ramsrule.com]

I also laughed when someone on radio suggested he could be a nose
[ramsrule.com]

The only time I mentioned anything close to what you suggest is this
[ramsrule.com]
"Donald, IMO, is better than Casey, but in terms of sacks, there is a possibility that his production will go down. But, if Rams win, no one will care, If our SAM and WILL players get 10 sacks each and the inside pressure caused by Donald helps them, then it's all and good."

I said POSSIBILITY that production will go down. It was in response to someone asking about things. A first blush it didn't seem like a scheme fit but almost immediately posted on the implications of the 3-4 and how it would be implemented, here is one from when Wade was rumored to be hired.
[ramsrule.com]

So, I suggest you be fair and accurately post what I said rather than twist it.

"Jurrell Casey in tenny, he is in exact same situation, a 3-tech in a one-gap 3-4 and he makes great money but the things he does are more subtle and he doesn't put up the same kinds of sacks and tackles for loss as he did when they were in a 4-3.

Maybe Donald will be an exception, he has the talent for it, but I would doubt he'd be a 10-sack, 10-stuff guy in Phillips's defense."

http://ramsrule.com/herd/read.php?19,570634,570808#msg-570808

Here you were stating that Donald like Casey was going from a 4-3 to 3-4, that Casey had lesser stats b/c of the transition, and that AD could possibly not trend downward in production but you doubted that he would match his former production.

Of course, the most important part is the overall context of the thread being that you would accept a trade for him because he would presumably have lower production in Phillip's defense.

I was recalling what you said off of the top of my head, not intending to misrepresent you, but I do believe I captured the essence of what you were saying.

Since you obviously searched, it's interesting to me that you didn't find and quote from this post.

So, I suggest you be fair and accurately post your own words.

At any rate, my point wasn't about your doubts of Donald's fit so I'm not gonna spend much time arguing about the meaning of your words. Just know, I wasn't trying to twist them and don't think I did mis-characterize the spirit of them.

My point was to state that Donald was better, not worse. It was that greatness often supersedes scheme fit. The same could happen with Suh.