Delhomme

who consistently creates big problems in arguments because of that. Your reaction was of bias, not truth. Truth was, the words were there. Truth was, you lashed out at me because you have problems with me, not because the words weren't there.

It's a deflection. It's not my fault you went off the hinges and blasted me for something that was untrue. And continue it with blasting me again, even though what you're criticising is untrue.

I guess you simply saying "I was wrong, you did say that" is pretty hard for you. And again, stop with the "believe". I don't believe I answered it, I did.

So it certainly takes a lot more than your three main criteria to be a good quarterback, and other things can be there enough to make those three fail.

except for not really. The end result is, I disagree with it. I don't "not understand it". I realize in your world that you have to use tactics, but it didn't work above when you were wrong about whether I'd posted criteria, so I don't see how I'm a coward for disagreement.

No. Croyle wouldn't be an effective push to McCown, much less an effective push to Jake. And RFA, so you get to give up a pick for a guy who isn't good.
It would also bite a pretty big hole in the "hundred quarterbacks" thing if this is the best you can put up for an alternative.

See, this is what I mean. You judge others on their intent for things you explicitly do. One standard would probably be a lot more "fair and honest".

I didn't even have to search, it's on the front page.

 

Me being irritated that you insisted you said something but refused to point it out is not a case of me being biased. People don't find you irritating because they're biased. They find you irritating because you're a condescending, belligerent asshole who is simultaneously a coward that snipes from the periphery and hides behind semantics.

Were you in a car accident recently or some other incident that caused brain damage? I'm asking because I don't remember you always being this stupid. I lashed out at you because you didn't just repeat what you had said, and I will lash out at you the next time you do that as well. There will be times when I miss something someone else said, but seemingly everyone besides you will either just repeat it or link to that post. You don't. You act like a coward and insist that you said it without explaining what or where. That's irritating.

No, you still haven't mentioned any major attributes necessary for quarterbacks besides the three I focused on. And you're obsessing about semantics here because you know that you can't think of any and you're too much of a coward to just admit that.

Like what? Make an argument or shut the fuck up. Your posturing is stupid and unnecessary.

You have not given an example of that, no. You pretend like Carr had all three attributes when he played with us because you're a piece of shit coward who can't admit that I'm right and you're wrong, so you're going to lie and pretend like Carr was effective at reading defenses last season.

You're a coward because that's who you are. People know you to be a coward because you have always been one. It's part of your personality.

I like how you make blanket statements without explaining why. Again, "because magnus said so" stopped carrying any weight following the Jeff Lewis debacle, and hasn't been helped by the many times since then that you hyped a quarterback who I said would suck ass, and I ended up being right. Croyle has equal or superior skills and talent to Delhomme.

Then link to the post, moron.

 

You reacting that way is bias. Rational people don't fly off the handle about something like this. You were wrong.

That's untrue, I've posted many and continued to discuss it. You're here complaining I didn't giftwrap it for you.

So, the end result is that you believe that three things matter a lot in being an NFL QB, the other factors aren't significant, and I believe it takes a lot more than those three. So we disagree there.


As a part of your defense, only specific players matter, and though "any of 100 would", not "could", you offered up a player who couldn't beat out Damon Huard and is now sitting behind Tyler Thigpen.

You called him a possible upgrade before he came here. He's got more talent in the same sense that you're saying Croyle has. Talent doesn't equal results, and having three critieria doesn't make you a winner. Football is not played in a vacuum.


But yes, Carr had to read a defense to dump off. So, he can read a defense. Might not be the ideal, but you said any of a hundred. At some point, there's gotta be more players than excuses, if it's a hundred.

It must not exist then, and you finding it in search or where I told you it was, well, that keeps it from existing.

 

Excuse me?

 

but I insisted I said something but refused* to point it out. Sadly, only God can judge me now.



*if refused means "I said it was a few posts up"

 

People get pissed at you all the time, and it's not because they're irrational. It's because you're irritating. Plus it seems like if I was so frequently irrational you'd be able to win an argument against me once in a while instead of getting your ass kicked time after time. The reason I keep winning is simply that your bias leads you to say dumb things that are easily disproved.

That you had said something about QB qualities? Sure, I was wrong that you hadn't said anything as I didn't catch every post. But as I showed, what you actually did say did not expand the list of major necessary attributes beyond the three I noted. So yes, you said something, but it was useless. And you still made yourself an incredibly irritating coward by not just linking to the post until badgered about it. When someone asks you question, it's like there is something in your brain that won't allow you to just answer it directly.

No, you haven't. Several of the things you said are just a different way of saying "the ability to read defenses," and you already admitted that toughness is not a prerequisite. You haven't named any one attribute besides the three I mentioned that a quarterback absolutely needs to be successful. Mobility, toughness, etc can be helpful but are not necessary.

Actually, why are we even arguing about this? You're a laughingstock when it comes to quarterbacks. People laugh at how stupid you've been over in the years in which quarterbacks you thought would be good, while people realize that I know what I'm talking about on the subject. That you still have the nerve to even argue with me on this subject after Kyle Boller and all your many embarrassments is bemusing.

And Delhomme couldn't beat out Aaron Brooks. I also offered up players who had been selling insurance or bagging groceries. We've already established that I know quarterbacks better than most NFL teams, much less you.

Indeed, because he was a much more talented player than Delhomme. But unfortunately he'd lost his nerve and could no longer consistently read defenses. It's a shame, because the guy was skilled.

You won't post it because you're a coward and because you know that you fucked up in assuming that I said it when I didn't.


PPaul:
If you weren't so hopelessly stupid, you would have grasped what pretty much everyone else did, that I've always acknowledged why people find me irritating but that magnus has always denied it and pretend that he is beloved as some humble buddha. Step away from the computer and go clean the Duke Power bathrooms.

 

It's Duke Energy retard, has been for 5-7 years. We have ECU grads to clean up for us

 

This thread finally needs to be rubber roomed.

 

Why? You'll just need another one the next time Jake has a shitty game or a comeback win. Better to just keep it contained in this one.

 

No way - this thread is awesome.