I had to clarify because you didn't seem to know on your own that Brady hadn't been very good against the Ravens in Flacco era. If you think those stats I posted are signs that Brady was good, I don't know what to tell you. You could have looked up the numbers yourself and seen that I was simply stating facts, but it's much easier to just call me biased and move on.I called you biased for saying Brady hasn't been as good. Where did I call you biased for saying Flacco put up better numbers?
you even had to "clarify" what you were saying
And the post to which you claimed I was biased was saying that Flacco had more individual head-to-head success than Brady did (and that the pressure was on New England). You didn't say which part you thought was biased, so now it just seems like you're backpedaling. I apologize if I misunderstood you, but seeing as you pretty much dropped the topic, there was no opportunity for me to find out.
Neat double post
You moved the goalposts to "Flacco puts up better numbers than Brady in their matchups" AFTER I called you biased. Since I called you biased before you ever brought up which one put up better numbers, it would be a strawman to claim I called you biased BECAUSE you said Flacco put up better numbers than Brady as you put an argument in my mouth that I never said.
Does that answer your question about what you said being a strawman?
You pretend like the Ravens beat New England off a drop and miss field goal. I said Baltimore was better than New England, and they backed me up. You act like I said the Ravens are a dynasty or something.
Talk about bitter right here.
You've already admitted your anti-Patriots bias so i'm not sure what your point is.
Did i say anything about the NE game?
My point is that everybody except pats fans are homers and biased
Did you miss the first post I quoted where I said Brady wasn't successful against the Ravens and Flacco was successful against New England? What did you think I meant there? I didn't even say the Ravens were going to win. If you forgot, I was responding to the general feeling that Brady vs. Flacco was an advantage for New England. That hasn't really been the case statistically.
I'm sorry that I exaggerated a point on an online sports forum
You sound like spurraider21 right there.
Entering that AFCCG, Brady was 3-2 in his career vs. Flacco, so at the time, definitively saying something as vague as Flacco had more "individual head-to-head sucess than Brady did" when he had a ing losing record against Brady wasn't some extremely obvious "fact" as you claim.
Which is why you had to "clarify" that you meant Flacco put up better numbers in their matchups, which you yourself admit I didn't respond to.
So your answer is "no". Thanks
Seeing that Brady vs. Flacco was a 3-2 advantage for New England entering that game, I had no idea what the you meant when you said Flacco had more success against New England than Brady had against Baltimore. Generally having success means winning.
No offense, but I was clearly not talking about W/L the first time around, or else I would not have said that Flacco struggled in the 2010 playoff game. To me, "having a good game" means putting up good numbers and avoiding mistakes. You can have a bad game and win, which is what Flacco did.
In general, the only lopsided victories in the last six match-ups belong to the Ravens. So I don't even think you can discount Flacco's numbers as him trying to catch up or something. He has just literally had good games against the Patriots, and Brady has just had bad games against the Ravens. That's just the way it is.
Great split hairs all you want. You stated a vague opinion which could be interpreted any number of ways.
Did I ever say you were "biased" for saying Flacco put up better numbers than Brady in their matchups? Yes or no.
Sure...So your answer is "no". Thanks
Saying the Ravens fluked all the way to the Super Bowl is like saying Miami fluked passed the Spurs because of Game 6.
Bills fans on here aren't. Bandwagon riders aside (sup Ghazi), 49ers fans aren't insufferable homers either.
I'm not sure. You responded to a post in which that was the only thing I said. So I at least thought you meant to say that until today. That you meant it to apply to my support of the Ravens in general makes more sense now, but it seems retroactive, seeing as I hadn't even picked the Ravens to win at that time, if I did at all.
EDIT: Nevermind. I did pick the Ravens to win in post 48.
Chargers fans outside of Flabbs aren't either, but they're reverse homers when it comes to New England, kinda like black people when it comes to Duke Basketball.
It's the new age of the NFL. Fluke les happen. See the 01 Patriots, 05 Steelers, 07 Giants, 11 Giants, and now the Ravens. Just own up to it.
Why not the 2000 Ravens, then?
I could see you saying those were Cinderella teams. But they weren't flukes. When plays needed to be made, they made them. We're not talking the Immaculate Reception here.
I wouldn't call any NFL team a "fluke" simply because there's so much parity these days that winning/losing a superbowl is usually the difference between a few fluky bull plays in a close playoff game. Almost every recent superbowl team had a wildly fluky play at a key time go their way during the playoffs that was mostly luck.
Going into the playoffs the 2000 Ravens were dominating, and IIRC the only team anybody gave a chance to beat them was the ans.
Every one of those other teams pretty much spent the entire season not looking like a championship caliber team, but through a series of one in a million plays and incredible upsets, fluked their way to a le.
Well when a team goes balls deep in you that often, causing your franchise GOAT to cry and whine incessantly, of course a hatred develops.
Somehow I knew the answer to that wasn't going to be a "yes" or a "no"
rofl true the Patriots are what caused this
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote