Reply With Quote
I said he's just another Louis Murphy, and that has everybody here all riled up
i don't think so, dobson looked like total so it's only fair to call him as such without too much worry. If he improves (he indeed showed flashes of difference making talent) than none should account it against you as long as you don't say stuff like "he is and will always be like phillybilly"Can't wait for the tidal wave of I'm going to get when Dobson has a good game
I said he's just another Louis Murphy, and that has everybody here all riled up
rofl true the Patriots are what caused this
forgot about that.
I could have said, "yes." But I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you calling me biased while quoting a post about Flacco and Brady did not necessarily mean that you were calling me biased because of that post.
ROFL more backtracking.I said he's just another Louis Murphy, and that has everybody here all riled up
There, that's better.
well it's a little unfair for an injured reciever playing his first career game in heavy rain to say what he will be or will not be tbh.. he did play as total though, i give you that.I said he's just another Louis Murphy, and that has everybody here all riled up
The 2000 Ravens were underdogs in the ans and Raiders (six points each). It was very much like this season. The 2011 Giants were in the middle of a streak entering the post-season, so they definitely did look as terrible as the Ravens did this past season. I don't recall a flukey 2007 Giants win outside of maybe the Super Bowl, but like the Divisional game last year, it wasn't like the Giants were being firmly outplayed in that game.
The post I called you biased for did not say "Flacco put up better numbers than Brady in their matchups" as that's an objective comparison (as you said in your next post responding to me, which subconsciously admits your first post was subjective
You didn't say yes because I never called you biased for specifically making the objective comparison that "Flacco has put up better numbers than Brady in their matchups"
You said he'd follow the same career path of Louis Murphy, so no, that's not what you said.I said he's just another Louis Murphy, and that has everybody here all riled up
ing tomato tomahto
No. Specifically, I said Brady hasn't been good against the Ravens since they got Flacco and that Flacco has been good against the Patriots with the exception of one game (which the Ravens won). That is what you called me biased for. Now you're trying to say that you meant that you were calling me biased for thinking the Ravens were going to win, but you had the opportunity to quote that post, and you didn't.The post I called you biased for did not say "Flacco put up better numbers than Brady in their matchups" as that's an objective comparison (as you said in your next post responding to me, which subconsciously admits your first post was subjective
You didn't say yes because I never called you biased for specifically making the objective comparison that "Flacco has put up better numbers than Brady in their matchups"
So now you're splitting hairs to try to get out of being wrong. If you had bothered to look up the numbers, you'd've seen that the Patriots won those three games despite Brady not being good and that Flacco had had repeated success in those games, you could have just admitted that you didn't know what you were talking about. But instead, you just assumed that I had to be a biased Anti-Patriot because I didn't buy into the hype.
As I said before, I don't think there was anything really subjective about the first post. Brady hadn't been very good, and Flacco had. The stats bear that out. That the Patriots were 3-2 against the Ravens at that point doesn't dispute that fact. I never said that the Ravens in general were more successful than the Patriots in that span.
"hadn't been as good" is about as subjective as it gets. "Good" and "Bad" is a matter of opinion.
I generally associate having success with winning. Like I said, "success" and "good" is a subjective matter of opinion. I think stuff like which one is going up against a better defense/which one has better players around him on offense needs to be weighed with numbers when debating between "good" and "bad", I guess you don't.
Brady had been good enough to win 3 games. Flacco had been good enough to win 2 games. The W-L column bears out which one played better. That's my opinion, your opinion is based off how much Flacco inflated his stats. See how opinions work?
And you implied it when you said "I think the pressure is on New England"
It's odd, and hilarious, you felt the need to clarify what you meant when you said "Brady hasn't been good" even though you're now apparently saying it was super obvious and super objective what you were saying.
no. when one person performs better (as often indicated by statistics), saying "hasn't been as good" is objective. to say flacco outplayed brady in the 2012 playoffs isn't a stretch nor is it subjective.
tell me more about how tim tebow is a successful NFL quarterbackI generally associate having success with winning.
here comes the part where spursraiders says, "Well I never said it had anything to do with the 2012 playoffs! I just felt like pointing out Flacco outplayed Brady in the playoffs!"
So you think it was subjective? I guess I can agree with that. But subjective doesn't really mean biased, or at least biased to an unfair extent. Yes, good and bad are matters of opinion, but that opinion wasn't based off me not liking the Patriots. It was based off looking at their stats. Had you called me out on not being subjective in that post, it wouldn't have really meant anything. But you dismissed my opinion as being slanted by my bitterness or whatever.
It's a symptom of this new quarterback-centric league that people give QBs wins and losses like they're pitchers in baseball. I don't think it works that way, and I've said that even when it didn't benefit my argument. Flacco has one of his "wins" against the Patriots despite the fact that he played really poorly. He has three "losses" despite the fact that he played well. You think the buck stops with the record, and I can respect that even though I disagree. But instead of using that line to respond to my post, you took the, "Oh look, biased fan hating on the Pats because he's still bitter," route.
That's why I brought up that exchange in this thread. It's not like you asked spurraider why he thought that Dobson was going to be like Murphy before accusing him of being a bitter fan trying to down a Patriots player. You just assumed he had no actual merit for his points from the start. Even if you're right to dismiss his opinion here, you're not always right to do so.
Last edited by Chinook; 09-14-2013 at 06:39 PM.
As I said, I thought it was clear, because I thought Patriots fans would roughly know the stats Brady puts up against Baltimore. (It's a pretty typical thing for him to struggle.) Then you gave me flack for the opinion, so I took the, "I should clarify," route rather than the insulting route that a lot of people on this board take when they get into a disagreement.
I looked death right in the eyes before. Im pretty dissensitized. You get anxious. I don't. I've been places emotionally you haven't sniffed and I pretty much know how I react in tense life or death situations. I've had AK47's pointed directly at me (caught in the middle of bank robbery in Dire Dawa, Ethiopia), was held hostage at gunpoint for 3 hours by thugs in Vietnam, was caught in the middle of a mall shooting where the guy came up right next to me fired his pistol and blew another guy's off, and was moments away from being abducted as a kid. I'm not a tough guy. I've just been through a lot of ed up and know how I would react to certain situations as a result.
Where in my reply did I call you bitter? I called you biased because you predicted the Texans would beat New England.
The Ravens defense was being compared to the 85 Bears and they dominated every playoff opponent they faced. I could give a less what Vegas thinks (those lines are 100% Dilfer-related imho). Most NFL fans thought the Ravens defense was going to take them all the way.
I assume you mean last season. Either way, do you know your own team? The 2012 Ravens were an average football team who looked average most of the season and limped their way into the playoffs. Most people wrote them off until Ray Lewis started quoting Bible scriptures and deer antler sprayed/roided/drank vials of Baker & Lollars blooded himself back onto the playing field. The 2000 Ravens started slow and reeled off 7 wins to end the season, and were in dominating form going into the playoffs.
Couple points...
-that 2000 Ravens D was historically great--even though they may have been dogs at some points--but didn't they go a 5-game stretch that season where they didn't score an offensive TD, but still went 3-2? Tennessee was their only true obstacle--maybe Minnesota out of the NFC, but the Giants skunked them in the NFCCG.
-I called that Flacco run at the beginning of the year. Not being a homer, but he's a gamer--like a Big Ben, Snake, etc.
I don't feel like getting into a semantic discussion. I don't mean that you used those words. You did indeed call me biased and not bitter. But I assumed you called me that because of the exchange earlier in the thread where I admitted that I detest the Patriots because of 2007 (in other words, admitting that I was bitter toward them). That may have been incorrect, and I apologize if it was. I picked Houston to win because I saw the weaknesses in the Patriots that Baltimore exploited the next week. I think the prediction went awry because the Texans were a lot worse than I thought they were, rather than the Patriots being a lot better.
Where in my reply did I call you bitter? I called you biased because you predicted the Texans would beat New England.
rofl what is this from?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
