Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Voyageur" data-source="post: 957213" data-attributes="member: 17953">Prime has never been about production levels. Prime has always been based on relative age. A WR who does well at the age of 30, which means he is doing well "past his prime," since the connotation and usage of the word in regards to football production is based on age. They already established a range of age that's considered prime by positions.If you use the term to say that Adams is in his prime, and Watkins is past his prime, you're not using the term correctly. That's what prompted this issue. It was stated, in a thread, and had become the common theme.A person cannot say that one player is past his prime, to say you shouldn't give him a 2nd contract, then say that someone who's older is in their prime, so you can give them a huge contract. That's not a rational statement. You can say that the first guy has passed his prime, and probably won't have more to offer, while the other guy is playing well past his prime, and may well do so for a few years, and would be worth the risk. This is exactly what the Watkins/Adams issue is. There's actually more risk to a huge Adams contract than there is to the smaller Watkins contract, and you're getting the potential of two healthy young players in exchange for Adams.Just setting the record straight. I don't intend to argue with you over it.</blockquote>

Total: 391 (members: 5, guests: 386)