I've seen enough

Color me surprised. You said something that was wrong, I proved unquestionably that you were wrong by actually going back and counting the number of times we ran sweeps during that period, and you refused to admit that you made a mistake. In fact, you still refuse to admit that you made a mistake. That's because you're a coward with absolutely zero integrity. It's not unusual for someone as narcissistic as you are to stick doggedly to your opinions (I'm the unusual one for admitting when I'm wrong so readily), but it's really despicable that you can't even do it when you're proven factually wrong, and you can't because you're the one who sees this as a competition and you're scared to death that acknowledging a mistake will put you behind.

No, I asked you to define what you meant by a handful because I had found the exact number of sweeps we ran, and by no means was it a small amount. You knew that and refused to say what you meant because you didn't want to admit that you were wrong. As I've pointed out, you do this regularly. Even when you're factually, undeniably, 100% wrong about something you still cannot bring yourself admit it.

Actually I did, dumbfuck. I don't necessarily blame you for not remembering that, as you obviously don't have the kind of memory that I do, but how big a dickhead are you that you'd say that I "didn't detail 2004" when you clearly didn't remember if I did or didn't? If you had just bothered to look it up, you would have found that I did instead of embarrassing yourself again.

Me making things personal has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I won the argument. It comes down to me deeply despising the type of person you are. I hate you and wish you had never existed, not because you disagree with me, but because you represent what I despise most. People who are born stupid can't help that, but you have intelligence and knowledge, you just intentionally turn your back on that and show no respect whatsoever for the truth, only the satisfaction of your own ego. To be perfectly honest, I see that I could have been like you and thank God that I'm not.

No, I pinned the offense's struggles in 2006 on Jake, and I proved that I was correct. I always said that I believed Henning's firing was a result of Richardson putting pressure on Fox because of public unrest.

Of course you are. Have you ever presented any of your own? No. The suggestion was raised that Jake's third down struggles were the result of poor play-calling putting us in longer third down situations. I went to the trouble of finding out the facts on whether we were or weren't, and we weren't. Then you wanted to blame the running game, even though I've repeatedly pointed out that our ground production in '06 was completely normal for this organization. You have repeatedly ignored all the evidence I've come up with simply because you don't want to accept it, and yet you're never capable of explaining why it's invalid or presenting any counter-evidence to support your point of view. Ultimately it seems obvious that you know you're wrong and yet again just don't want to admit it.

Actually I did. Every single time you've claimed that there was some radical difference that I explained things, I provided facts that shot you down and proved you wrong. You see, another difference between us is that you just make bullshit excuses like "the running game wasn't as good!" or "we were in longer third downs!." Meanwhile when I make claims, I actually do the research first to make sure that I'm right. You're apparently too lazy.

Damn right. You haven't presented any evidence at all, presumably because you can't find any to support your point. You insist that I'm wrong but refuse to provide any proof. Meanwhile I've provided substantial proof both that I'm correct and that you're wrong, but as is typical, you ignore and dismiss anything you don't want to acknowledge.

Are you talking about yourself? If not, I'm confused. You're the one who has admitted on multiple occasions that you sometimes do things just to get me riled up because you see it as a form of revenge for past grievances. Meanwhile I've always been open about the fact that when I insult people, it's an honest emotional reaction. I don't insult you to win arguments, I insult you because I think you're a despicable human being and your very existence disgusts me.

Of course the running game was crappy in 2006, but as I've repeatedly pointed out, it was crappy in 2005 and 2004 as well. That was unchanged. 2003 is really the only season in the team's history where we consistently effective at running the ball..

Don't pretend that you can't recognize the link between being the league's worst passing game on third downs and a decline in scoring. That's why the scoring dropped, genius.

Really? You're awfully assertive about what I know and don't know considering that I did go back and look at all those plays while you obviously haven't. In truth, there used to be a time when you were willing to get off your ass and collect some data. Now you won't, although you still run your mouth as much if not more than ever. I showed what third down situations we were in, I've also shown that our run/pass splits were consistent, and I demonstrated that we weren't running certain plays like sweeps and third down draws with an unusual frequency.

Here is yet another example where you made a claim that you had no idea if it was true or not, and you apparently couldn't be bothered to check it. So I was the one who had to go back and look through the gamebooks to add up the number of QB pressures we allowed in 2006 and 2005. I did, and even though I found that they weren't substantively different, you keep babbling with this bullshit excuse.

Really? No shit? Well golly gee, Einstein, I'd guess that might have something to do with being absolutely awful on third downs, and thus not being able to sustain drives.

If Jake is sucking ass on third downs, how is Henning supposed to fix that? I don't see you blaming Davidson when there are obviously problems with this offense. You aren't doing that because you like Davidson, whereas you didn't like Henning.

I don't blame Davidson for any of Carr's problems. Carr's issues existed before he ever got here, and are ones I've been talking about since we signed him. What I've blamed Davidson for is obviously bad play-calling. I raised those same issues when Jake was still active.

 

That's not what I said either, but again, every time you're getting your ass kicked in an argument you inevitably try to change it by pretending that someone said something that they didn't. What I said was that it's not helpful or appropriate to mindlessly say that a player "sucks" or is "awful" or whatever. If you want to criticize a player, that's fine if you can back it up. Prove your point; make your case. Clay made some good points about Carr's statistical shortcomings, just as I made plenty of good points about how he hadn't been as bad as people were suggesting. Similarly, back when Morgan was loved and being described here as a "great player," I went through the trouble of contrasting his tackles per game totals with other top linebackers and showing how he didn't measure up. I didn't just say "Morgan sucks!," I actually provided evidence to support my criticism.

It's funny that you would accuse me of something you're undeniably guilty of. I'm not the one who has biases, magnus, you are. I'm not the one who plays favorites, you are. I'm the one who has always gone to the trouble of looking up the numbers and finding data to support my opinions while you ignore that and continue to babble while being too lazy to produce any of your own.

 

except not really, but again great job using up any equity you spent on any amount of knowledge by stating your credibility is worth judging something in which you just happen to always come in favor. Of criteria you just happened to choose.

When you make an obvious mistake intent to show that you are, indeed, capable of making mistakes, not because your opinion during a pissfest was disagreed with, which is the standard you're setting on everyone else.

plus, I'm not that narcisistic. You really don't know me that well.

Nice work. You were right, and yet you still end up looking like the douchebag for no actual reason, it's just what you do. But you were right, you detailed 2004. Be nice to know the other critical numbers - how much were short, and how much were longer, since 1/2 the sample is an incomplete picture, but yes, you showed 2004 as well and I didn't recall that.

I'm not at all embarassed about not remembering one statistic from a good solid year ago. I'd rather not have been incorrect, but I'm not the least bit embarassed. No idea why it would be.

That's the thing. This isn't some competition to me. It obviously is to you, which is why you keep score and care more about shaming and insulting. I'd rather figure this out than try to force you into some inconsequential mistake and then worry about that instead of the topic.

Of course it does. You're the one judging if you won, and generally, you always just happen to decide in your own favor. Even if the end result ends up to be completely opposite your judgement down the line.

This is all very, very special. Thanks for sharing that. Good to know yet again that you don't have control over your emotions and that "truth" isn't actually as important as being unable to control that, oh no, your opinion of me skews your reality.

You didn't prove yourself correct. You stated an opinion and backed it, but 2006 failure = Jake is not something you "proved". You stated that opinion, which again gets rid of a lot of the variables rational people wouldn't just write off with no reason.

I put forth plenty of ideas then, and now. I put forth ideas that do point to Jake, and don't point to Jake. I don't believe this situation was 100% anything, and that's part of what I find fault in your argument, much less the obvious extrapolation that Jake = 2006 as if he was the difference in rushing TDs, lack of defensive turnovers, further decline in field position and special teams, and so on. I'm not worried about proving myself right so I can say I'm right, or proving you wrong because you're ridiculous. I'd rather find the actual solution.

You proved that we weren't in longer third down situations (or, actually, you proved we weren't in a larger portion of third down situations from 3-7 yards). That doesn't mean Jake = third down, and that's where you finished. I don't think that's anywhere near a complete picture, but you wanted the trophy.

incorrect.

No, not really. Not at all. Did you go into the changes on the line? Changes in receiver? No, you really didn't, you assumed all of those constant. You related QB pressures against the defense's, as if that mattered, without any other basis, but didn't bother going into the differences in personnel, and obviously we played the same team 32 straight times in a vacuum.

This is blatantly untrue, and yet you keep stating it. You stick to this like I troll you, and yet you're always the one sniping what I think, not the other way around. It's obvious, however, that your constant insults and personal issues with people are just another tactic to try to get other people as upset as you are.

So 2005 was an abberation, but 2006 was because of 3rd down? That's remarkably convenient.

If I missed 2005's QB pressures, then I apologize, but you related the offense's 2006 pressure given up against our own defense's for 2006, and that was useless.

I don't like Davidson. I like the scheme, and I like what this offense could become, and unlike you, I know this offense isn't exactly the same like you keep stating. I know, you have to show some bias because you're ultrasensitive about Henning and Carr, and you're "better" than to get into such a corner even though the entire board's picking at your sensitivity there.

But yes, if we're not succeeding on third down for any reason, try something different. You didn't contest that Henning was remarkably static in his playcalling, I notice, and we were very slow to adjust for all 5 years. Yes, trying something different, trying to compensate for a problem we're having, trying to find individual weaknesses instead of using the same basic conventions, that's an offensive coordinator's job.

Just as this year, the concern is more that Carr isn't converting useful third downs, but makes his throws that let us fall short. Davidson can't just say "oh well, I guess we should do the same fucking thing over and over, even though it's not working well enough". I'd expect some adjustment.

Never once seen you give Jake a pass because of play-calling, and like I said, just convenient that last year it's the QB, this year it's the play call.

sorry, your exact words were "stop bitching about David Carr". You were shielding him against unfair criticism, and then set the bar ridiculously high as to what you found acceptible to criticise. 100 yards of passing? That's not bad, don't fucking say that's bad. He made half his throws! That's just 10% off 60 percent, and QBs who throw for 60% are good QBs. Nevermind that they throw downfield occasionally, or take a chance or two within reason. Or get more than 5 passing first downs. Or have some poise.

People don't buy you're some unbiased, completely fair observer. You call that you're right and decide the argument is in your favor, you wonder if posters' mothers will kill themselves based on an argument, and you pretend you're above being strong of bias? Give me a fucking break already. You can't bullshit your way into that one.

 

Any chance you 2 could take this to PMs instead of destroying yet another thread with continuing a combination of several months long arguments?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I didn't think so

 

I don't have a problem with it.

 

I'm enjoying the read as well

 

Oh I haven't read it. Just saying it's my thread, making me the ultimate authority.

 

Do you guys circle the block to get second looks at house fires and/or car wrecks? That's what this seems like to me, old arguments resurrected, like the definition of "handful".

 

you'll know when you have too much more than a handfull, because when she's on top, it'll look like 2 utters hanging down on you.