|
Post by ram29jackson on Dec 5, 2014 13:29:01 GMT -5
people don't need much coaxing to create their own facts in their own head with no actual data other than assumptions to prove anything. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA The irony is so thick I'm choking...or maybe that's just the laughter... I'm not creating any false facts in my head. I'm interpreting presented data correctly. I'm not the one who believes the Bills can naturally go to and lose 4 SBs in a row. When something is too good to be true,that means it is. But the NFL has created a world where the unlikely keeps happening and you just believe it without thinking it through.
|
|
|
Post by gobolts25 on Dec 5, 2014 23:59:25 GMT -5
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA The irony is so thick I'm choking...or maybe that's just the laughter... I'm not creating any false facts in my head. I'm interpreting presented data correctly. I'm not the one who believes the Bills can naturally go to and lose 4 SBs in a row. When something is too good to be true,that means it is. But the NFL has created a world where the unlikely keeps happening and you just believe it without thinking it through. Alright, I'll give you that. In general, the things you say happened actually happened (as far as the statistical results of games). But your stringing them together into some kind of WWE-clone is just plain ignorant, and your logic (which should be based on the actual rules of logic) is utterly nonexistent. As such, your attempts at belittling everyone else because they see the actual reality and call you on it is even more ignorant. Or trollish, I don't care and in the end it makes no difference either way. Once again, you're not changing anyone's mind, but you are providing fodder for a certain other troll to continue his ways. I refer you to my current sig. EDIT: Since I'm likely to change it in future, here's my current sig: "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain
|
|
kkc86
College Starter
I'm back
Posts: 735
|
Post by kkc86 on Dec 6, 2014 11:12:59 GMT -5
I suppose the injuries are fake too.
|
|
|
Post by Morkim on Dec 6, 2014 11:36:22 GMT -5
I suppose the injuries are fake too. He's already said Palmer isn't really hurt.
|
|
|
Post by ram29jackson on Dec 6, 2014 13:40:10 GMT -5
I suppose the injuries are fake too. Some aren't but a large number are. You cant tell me you know for a fact they aren't staged. And they have to use that to push a storyline like the Cards losing or the Ravens losing with Ngato out so the Browns have a clear path to the playoffs.
the injury report was invented by gamblers for gambling.
|
|
|
Post by gobolts25 on Dec 6, 2014 16:09:24 GMT -5
^ candidate for Ronnie Lott tackling dummy ^
|
|
|
Post by cantonhall34 on Dec 16, 2014 4:14:46 GMT -5
I suppose the injuries are fake too. Some aren't but a large number are. You cant tell me you know for a fact they aren't staged. And they have to use that to push a storyline like the Cards losing or the Ravens losing with Ngato out so the Browns have a clear path to the playoffs.
the injury report was invented by gamblers for gambling. Two things: 1 - Who's "Ngato"? I don't think Baltimore not having Ngato, Cameroon will help the Browns reach the playoffs at all. Not sure what that's all about. 2 - Also, as referenced by you earlier: "Cleveland won all the championships in the 50s." - I'll call you on that bluff. Remember, some of us on here aren't "new" to the game. We've been around and have studied and observed the game for MANY years and know the history. That doesn't make us any better or worse than anyone else, just that some of us know a BS fact when we see/hear it here, and you can't fire that weak-ass Jamie Moyer fastball by us. So with that in mind, and as a matter of FACT, not insinuation, not surmising, not inferring, not conjecture, not connotation, but FACT - which I know is being used loosely here sometimes: NFL Champions, Decade of the 1950's1950 - Cleveland Browns 1951 - Los Angeles Rams 1952 - Detroit Lions 1953 - Detroit Lions 1954 - Cleveland Browns 1955 - Cleveland Browns 1956 - New York Giants 1957 - Detroit Lions 1958 - Baltimore Colts 1959 - Baltimore Colts So yeah, Cleveland did not win all the championships in the 50's. Yes, they went to 10 consecutive championship games, but they did not win all of them. I don't mind that people believe whatever they want to about the league. We can all disagree on everything and I wouldn't care. Let's at least be CORRECT when we spout facts, though, OK? When facts are being used they are not opinion. When misrepresenting what the facts are in order to forward an argument, you lose credibility.
|
|
|
Post by cantonhall34 on Dec 16, 2014 5:03:21 GMT -5
I probably brought it up last year, IDK what section or where this belongs. Back then, touched on the terms 'heads up' and 'read option'. Currently annoyed by 2 more... 1) Quarterback driven league 2) Copycat league Like a year ago, we concluded maybe new terms to refer to the same old stuff. And then they spew this QB stuff but 'defenses win championships'. Same guys talk opposites from both sides of their mouth depending on the matchup or phase of the moon. So who wants to tackle any of this? Hi Dive! I'll see what I can do to help you with this too. 1 - QB driven league is basically what beast was saying, in that they are the glamor positions and NORMALLY if you have the best QB you have a chance to win. People love to see points scored and the Q B is the one to do it in today's league. Most of the time teams cannot win without a good QB. I know people will point out the 2000 Ravens, 2002 Buccaneers (their defenses were so good it didn't matter they had a pedestrian QB. See more below), but those are the exceptions rather than the rule. Generally, good QBs win. That's why the most successful teams have also had good/great QBs. That leads me into... The phrase "defense wins championships" - basically the teams that have the antidote for the offensive firepower are the teams that have the best chance at winning the SB. THAT is true, despite what you may hear otherwise. Historically, even the best offenses in the league could be shut down by a good defense. Does it always happen? No, but it does in the biggest game of the year (historically speaking). Of course there were times when things didn't favor the defense, but those times were usually when the team with the defense faced an equally stout defensive team, ie: Pittsburgh/Minnesota in SB9, San Francisco/Denver in SB24. Occasionally there will be a team whose defense is so superior it really doesn't matter if the offense scores a ton, because they can win nearly on their own, ie: the aforementioned 2000 Ravens and 2002 Buccaneers. In the last 30+ years, the all time record for points scored in a single season has been broken four times - 1983, Washington, 1998, Minnesota, 2007, New England, and 2013, Denver. None of those teams won the SB, though all but one, the 1998 Vikings, made it there. In those games, it was the DEFENSE of the opposition that shut down the historically great offenses that ended up winning the day, sometimes in dominating fashion, as Washington in 1983 and Denver in 2013 found out. 11 teams have scored 500+ points in a season during the SB era, but only three of those teams - 1994 49ers, 1998 Broncos, 1999 Rams - won the SB and are considered among the best teams of all time, partly because of it, but also because they all had defenses that could play when it mattered. 2 - Copycat league - because whatever a team does that WINS, other teams are likely to take and use as part of their own approach. You see this every now and then when a team has success with a gimmick - like Miami did with the "Wildcat" a few years back - where teams see something that they never would have done, but once another team has success with it, everyone wants to incorporate it into their game plan, even if it's for only a few plays. You also see this when teams have success with a particular philosophy over an extended period, such as the shift to the 3-4 defense, the addition of elements of the 46 defense the Bears were famous for running in the 80's, the shotgun formation, no huddle, etc. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by cantonhall34 on Dec 16, 2014 5:14:25 GMT -5
^ candidate for Ronnie Lott tackling dummy ^
|
|
|
Post by Divebitch on Dec 16, 2014 8:58:48 GMT -5
Hi Dive! I'll see what I can do to help you with this too. 1 - QB driven league is basically what beast was saying, in that they are the glamor positions and NORMALLY if you have the best QB you have a chance to win. People love to see points scored and the Q B is the one to do it in today's league. Most of the time teams cannot win without a good QB. I know people will point out the 2000 Ravens, 2002 Buccaneers (their defenses were so good it didn't matter they had a pedestrian QB. See more below), but those are the exceptions rather than the rule. Generally, good QBs win. That's why the most successful teams have also had good/great QBs. That leads me into... The phrase "defense wins championships" - basically the teams that have the antidote for the offensive firepower are the teams that have the best chance at winning the SB. THAT is true, despite what you may hear otherwise. Historically, even the best offenses in the league could be shut down by a good defense. Does it always happen? No, but it does in the biggest game of the year (historically speaking). Of course there were times when things didn't favor the defense, but those times were usually when the team with the defense faced an equally stout defensive team, ie: Pittsburgh/Minnesota in SB9, San Francisco/Denver in SB24. Occasionally there will be a team whose defense is so superior it really doesn't matter if the offense scores a ton, because they can win nearly on their own, ie: the aforementioned 2000 Ravens and 2002 Buccaneers. In the last 30+ years, the all time record for points scored in a single season has been broken four times - 1983, Washington, 1998, Minnesota, 2007, New England, and 2013, Denver. None of those teams won the SB, though all but one, the 1998 Vikings, made it there. In those games, it was the DEFENSE of the opposition that shut down the historically great offenses that ended up winning the day, sometimes in dominating fashion, as Washington in 1983 and Denver in 2013 found out. 11 teams have scored 500+ points in a season during the SB era, but only three of those teams - 1994 49ers, 1998 Broncos, 1999 Rams - won the SB and are considered among the best teams of all time, partly because of it, but also because they all had defenses that could play when it mattered. 2 - Copycat league - because whatever a team does that WINS, other teams are likely to take and use as part of their own approach. You see this every now and then when a team has success with a gimmick - like Miami did with the "Wildcat" a few years back - where teams see something that they never would have done, but once another team has success with it, everyone wants to incorporate it into their game plan, even if it's for only a few plays. You also see this when teams have success with a particular philosophy over an extended period, such as the shift to the 3-4 defense, the addition of elements of the 46 defense the Bears were famous for running in the 80's, the shotgun formation, no huddle, etc. Hope that helps. Lemme start by saying 'thanks' and appreciate the very well thought-out reply. but I do understand the definitions of both. Had to chuckle at ram29jackson who took it to a funny place with the 'copycat', but he fully understood what I meant by 'talking opposites outta both sides of their mouths'. 'Defense wins championships'. Here's what I have the problem(s) with, and before I get kneejerks, really think about this... 1) If offense got you there, why isn't it getting everyone else there? If defense trumps every time, then it should be a 'defense driven league' (not QB) or 'defense wins games' (not just 'championships'). 2)a) One can offer examples like the '85 Bears (semi-crappy QB) and the 2013 Seahawks (very mediocre offense, and Lynch was SHUT DOWN), both amongst the top defenses in history. But it doesn't always, even often work out that way. Usually you're getting 2 teams in the top 60 - 80% (??) on both sides of the ball. The winner will be determined by just how much each team is better than the other on what side of the ball and...any given Sunday (see NYG, twice). It ain't just 'defense', even 'mist' of the time. And let's not forget the '85 Bears had a great offense as well, just not a great QB. Don't get me wrong, he was far from a game mgr, but not the most accurate. hehe 2)b) IOW, I've seen more teams like the 90s Cowboys and the late 2000s Steelers, Green Bay, NYG (if they could win it anyone could), teams that could hold their own on defense...win it all. Did the early 2000 Pats have a decent D? At any rate, I don't see defenses winning anything without a better than avg offense unless they are world class. But you cannot say the opposite, cuz a huge offense WILL win, just not against one of the top defenses in history. On 'copycat'. With the possible exception of the wildcat is there much else that's been truly new? The wildcat never realized its full potential ala Miami. First you gotta have a personnel capable of its execution. And it takes a lot more practice and playbook additions as well. I'll bet many teams have discovered it ain't worth the 'investment'. But I digress. Guess I just get annoyed by these commentators feeling like they have to have a name for everything. IMO, sports broadcasting is the 'copycat' league. lol Seriously, one of them applies the term to a certain team's situation that given week, and the rest of them all nod their heads in agreement. So what is this Bears 46 defense?
|
|