he also thinks the world is 10,000 years old. Just in case anyone missed that from the other thread.

Ask him about left-handed second basemen too...

Me, in my 20s:



****** my future wife of to no end when some chick would walk up and say "You look just like........"

I've obviously let myself go:

hates the Pats because they cheated to win the Super Bowl, but has shown no evidence that this is true.

Here you go: This was posted just two days ago. Marshall Faulk clearly agrees with me 100 percent and offers evidence from examples of plays the Patriots shouldn't have known how to defend.

Sure, the commissioner insists there is no evidence for it, but I put that right up there with the O.J. Simpson verdict in terms of believability.

hates Tom Brady, partially because he had a child with his girlfriend, and then left her.

I also hate Tom Brady because people over rate and over hype him, and because he's arrogant, and because he's a crybaby. I'm sure there's more, but we'll start with those.

states that Tom Brady is a whore, despite knowing that he's slept with 2 people.
 

So there has to be a specific number to define someone as a whore according to you, is that it? Don't tell me what I can think.

ignores all statistical evidence that shows that the offense line throughout Brady's career, overall, is probably about average.
 

No. The stats I posted a link to several pages ago showed the offensive line was ranked no lower than 9th in the league in any year Brady was the primary starter for the Pats.

That would be pretty much the opposite of what you claim here.

rants and raves about Matt Cassel's year with the Pats, but ignores the fact that Cassel also put up similar numbers one year with KC, without Moss and Welker.

So now Cassell is as good as Brady? You're admitting that?

rants and raves about Matt Cassel's year with the Pats, but can't explain why Drew Bledsoe struggled so much for 2 years before Brady.

Bledsoe didn't struggle as much as you pretend. I already addressed this several posts ago.

glamours about some system that carries Brady, but can't explain how the system works, and why other teams won't run the same amazing system.

Systems aren't easy to replicate, especially without the right players that fit into them well - and those players take time to acquire even if it can be replicated.

I already explained how the system worked. You first ignored that and then dismissed it and I pointed out how your reasons for dismissal weren't correct and you simply let the topic drop.

has shown that he refuses to accept how basic logic works.
 

No. I accept basic logic. I refuse to accept when people attempt to manipulate basic logic because they are determined to take offense to something that was never intended to offend anyone.

thinks that most people are bad people.

Actually, I think all people are inherently bad. I'm not the only one who thinks this. It's a concept that is held by many people and even major world religions.

Also, I am sorry if anyone was offended by any of my comments. As I've said, that was not the intent.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/1/2013 2:51:00 PM (view original):
Me, in my 20s:



****** my future wife of to no end when some chick would walk up and say "You look just like........"

You look just like...a homeless guy?

Your evidence is "Marshall Faulk thinks so?"  - OK.

A whore, by definition, is "A person considered sexually promiscuous."  So, sure, you can believe in your own definition.  I won't tell you what to think.

Re: o-line stats - I'm done arguing about it.  I've said several times that Brady gets rid of the ball quicker than almost all QBs, and then gave you the stats to back it up.  It's hard to get sacked when you hold the ball less than almost all QBs.  I could start at QB and never get sacked if I wanted to, but it doesn't mean the o-line is good.  Please stop ignoring that.

You said something about the system being conservative in nature, creating mismatches and using deception.  It sounds like something most teams do.  You also ripped BB for being overhyped, when he would be the one creating this system. So who is it thats overrated? BB or Brady?

I don't understand the question "So now you're admitting Cassel is as good as Brady?"  Is that your way of further ignoring Cassel's year in KC? Cassel has 1 L, btw, I know you've been using 2.

I'm not manipulating basic logic, I'm using it.  If A = B, and A = C, then B = C.

Re: bad people - I believe we are thinking different things when we say "bad people."  I had a feeling we may have been.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/1/2013 2:51:00 PM (view original):
Me, in my 20s:



****** my future wife of to no end when some chick would walk up and say "You look just like........"

You've been dead for 40 years?

So they said 25 years ago.

And so they say but little do they know. 

Posted by bistiza on 2/1/2013 2:56:00 PM (view original):

hates the Pats because they cheated to win the Super Bowl, but has shown no evidence that this is true.

Here you go: This was posted just two days ago. Marshall Faulk clearly agrees with me 100 percent and offers evidence from examples of plays the Patriots shouldn't have known how to defend.

Sure, the commissioner insists there is no evidence for it, but I put that right up there with the O.J. Simpson verdict in terms of believability.

hates Tom Brady, partially because he had a child with his girlfriend, and then left her.

I also hate Tom Brady because people over rate and over hype him, and because he's arrogant, and because he's a crybaby. I'm sure there's more, but we'll start with those.

states that Tom Brady is a whore, despite knowing that he's slept with 2 people.
 

So there has to be a specific number to define someone as a whore according to you, is that it? Don't tell me what I can think.

ignores all statistical evidence that shows that the offense line throughout Brady's career, overall, is probably about average.
 

No. The stats I posted a link to several pages ago showed the offensive line was ranked no lower than 9th in the league in any year Brady was the primary starter for the Pats.

That would be pretty much the opposite of what you claim here.

rants and raves about Matt Cassel's year with the Pats, but ignores the fact that Cassel also put up similar numbers one year with KC, without Moss and Welker.

So now Cassell is as good as Brady? You're admitting that?

rants and raves about Matt Cassel's year with the Pats, but can't explain why Drew Bledsoe struggled so much for 2 years before Brady.

Bledsoe didn't struggle as much as you pretend. I already addressed this several posts ago.

glamours about some system that carries Brady, but can't explain how the system works, and why other teams won't run the same amazing system.

Systems aren't easy to replicate, especially without the right players that fit into them well - and those players take time to acquire even if it can be replicated.

I already explained how the system worked. You first ignored that and then dismissed it and I pointed out how your reasons for dismissal weren't correct and you simply let the topic drop.

has shown that he refuses to accept how basic logic works.
 

No. I accept basic logic. I refuse to accept when people attempt to manipulate basic logic because they are determined to take offense to something that was never intended to offend anyone.

thinks that most people are bad people.

Actually, I think all people are inherently bad. I'm not the only one who thinks this. It's a concept that is held by many people and even major world religions.

Hahaha!!!!  Nice...you dug up an article that's what...a day or 2 old.  All it says is that Marshall Faulk is mad and crying over the loss and blames it on some taping the Pats did.

Which wasn't proven they did.  Pats were guilty of video taping defensive signals from an illegal position.  They were warned and BB was too dumb to stop....especially since he was playing against Eric Mangini.

Your evidence is "Marshall Faulk thinks so?"  - OK.

The Patriots were punished by the commissioner for other actions and the commissioner supposedly found no evidence to suggest they cheated in the Super Bowl, but like I said, to me that rings about as true as the O.J. Simpson verdict.

It's not that Faulk agrees, although he obviously does.

Look at what he has to say in some of the examples he gives about how the Patriots defended plays they couldn't have seen in film or otherwise UNLESS they'd watched the Rams practice specifically for the Super Bowl.

A whore, by definition, is "A person considered sexually promiscuous."  So, sure, you can believe in your own definition.  I won't tell you what to think.

By that definition, Brady fits. He was with at least two women within a short period of time. That's promiscuous.

 I've said several times that Brady gets rid of the ball quicker than almost all QBs, and then gave you the stats to back it up.  It's hard to get sacked when you hold the ball less than almost all QBs.  I could start at QB and never get sacked if I wanted to, but it doesn't mean the o-line is good.  Please stop ignoring that.

Fine. Brady gets rid of the ball quick, but the offensive line sometimes holds their ground for long periods of time as well. If we say they are equally responsible for the success of Brady's passing, that still means Brady gets far too much credit and they get far too little, i.e. Brady is over rated and over hyped, which is what this debate is about to begin with.

You also ripped BB for being overhyped, when he would be the one creating this system. So who is it thats overrated? BB or Brady?

They both get more credit than they deserve.

When Belicheat was in Cleveland he didn't win any Super Bowls.

When Brady went down, the team did fine without him.

Both of those things show that they aren't the end-all and be-all many people make them out to be.

However, between the two, Brady is WAY more hyped than Belicheat.

I don't understand the question "So now you're admitting Cassel is as good as Brady?"  Is that your way of further ignoring Cassel's year in KC?

You said Cassel (there. satisfied on the spelling?) had a good season in KC similar to the one he had in NE. The season he had in NE is similar to the ones Brady has had in multiple seasons in NE.

So if Casell's KC Season = Cassel's NE Season which = several's Brady's NE seasons, that means Cassel = Brady (again, this is all rough, but nontheless true).

So my question then is this: Did you intend to point out that Cassel is essentially equal to Brady, or was that just an accident?

Or are you going to find some way to say Brady is still better despite what I've just shown you (again, the hype factor is huge for Brady, so I'm expecting you to find some reason to say Brady is better).

Re: bad people - I believe we are thinking different things when we say "bad people."  I had a feeling we may have been.

This is really another entire discussion, but since you laid this idea out there, what are you thinking of when you say "bad people"?

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/1/2013 3:34:00 PM (view original):
So they said 25 years ago.

And so they say but little do they know. 

Do you eat more chicken than any man ever seen?

Biz - 

A defense being in the right position after an audible doesn’t necessarily mean the team knows exactly what play is called.  He did admit that it could have been fantastic coaching.  I do think BB is a great defensive coach.  He really comes across as a bitter person looking for an excuse on why they were upset.

Here’s the definition of promiscuous.  You tell me if Brady fits. 
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/promiscuous

Re: o-line - The stats also show that his line blocks for an average amount of time before the QB is sacked, at least this year.  Which is why I say they’ve been largely average.  If they’re around 4^th to 6^th most of the time, and Brady gets rid of the ball quicker than almost all QBs, then I’d argue their line is average, based on the information I have.  We also saw that when Brady went down, the o-line was 22^nd in the league with at the helm.  When Brady came back, they went back to where they generally are.  I don’t think a o-line carries a QB when the o-line is average.

Re: Brady and BB – I would agree with you that BB is overhyped, at least on the offensive side of the ball.  I think he does the best with what he has on defense, though.  I think that’s where his value kicks in.  He was an excellent defensive coordinator before he became a head coach.  Generally ex-DC don’t become offensive geniuses, though.  I look at the evidence – BB runs teams that struggle on offense.  Brady takes over.  They don’t struggle anymore.  Logic says that Brady was the difference maker.  I know you hate applying logic, though.

When I mention Cassel’s KC season, the point is that it’s possible that has the ability to play well.  If anything, I’d consider Cassel’s KC season to be more impressive than his NE season, because he had Moss and Welker to throw the ball to.  At the same time, he was worse than Brady was with the same weapons.  To compare Cassel’s year with Moss and Welker to Brady’s with worse weapons and a worse o-line is arguing in bad faith.

Re: bad people – it’s a different argument that could go on a while.  But I’d tell you that it’s probably a fine line who’s “good” or “bad.”  And you want to judge who is good or bad, based on a set of rules that we make up.  It makes it difficult.  Obviously, a serial killer has absolutely no regard for human life.  This makes him a bad person.  I don’t necessarily think anyone who knocks up a woman accidently is a bad person.  It depends what happens afterwards.  Does the person do what he can to be a good father, to raise the child? Is his heart in the right place? If yes, I’d argue that based on this info, he’s a good person.  

I'd also argue that most people are inherently good people.  I understand there is a debate to be had about that.  I'll be honest in saying it's not a debate I want to have with you.

A defense being in the right position after an audible doesn’t necessarily mean the team knows exactly what play is called.  He did admit that it could have been fantastic coaching.  I do think BB is a great defensive coach.  He really comes across as a bitter person looking for an excuse on why they were upset.

I don't think he comes across as bitter and looking for an excuse. If that was the case, half the players who ever lose the Super Bowl (or playoffs, or any game for that matter) would probably come out with statements that are similar and it would be a regular thing.

The fact is Faulk has every reason in the world to suggest or at the very least question the Patriots used cheating and illegal tactics during that Super Bowl.

What's more likely? That Belicheat did the greatest single game coaching effort in the history of the NFL by far? Or that he and the team had inside information that helped them do what they did?

It's MUCH more likely they had the help. So much so that I find it completely implausible to think of anything else.

I'll give you this much and no more: Belicheat putting together that kind of coaching performance is as likely as a single play is of winning the lottery, which I think is about 175 million to 1 (depends upon the game and what not, but something like that).

No, it's not impossible. But the wise thing to do would be to consider other alternatives that are more possible, and cheating is high on that list.

RE: Brady being a whore - you go by your definition, I will go by mine. It's not up for debate.

I look at the evidence – BB runs teams that struggle on offense.  Brady takes over.  They don’t struggle anymore.  Logic says that Brady was the difference maker.

I don't think the teams struggled as much as you suggest.

Also, the team was successful in the year Brady played a small part of a single game. That suggests the success has little to do with him.

Obviously, a serial killer has absolutely no regard for human life.  This makes him a bad person.

I'll play devil's advocate on this to illustrate my point in how you can justify anything if you'd like (to any fools who want to try to twist things, once again: I'm playing devil's advocate here, if you don't get that go look it up):

What if the serial killer can't help himself because something is wrong with him and he feels compelled to kill? What if he's otherwise a warm-hearted, kind person? What if he treats people wonderfully in the rest of his life besides when he feels compelled to kill? What if he were to only kill other people who do terrible things and perhaps therefore deserve it? What if he's a good father and husband? What if he is highly praised for all sorts of things and thought of in high regard in his community and in various social groups? And on and on and on...

I'd also argue that most people are inherently good people.  I understand there is a debate to be had about that.  I'll be honest in saying it's not a debate I want to have with you.

That's fine.

I can tell you I've seen a lot of the dark side of humanity and it doesn't just exist in a few people or some people, but the fundamental elements are present in ALL people, with only some of them acting on those things. However, I can also say with authority from seeing it happen that most people are inherently selfish and greedy and out to serve their own interests. You may see nothing wrong with that, but it's the root of so many problems. People don't care about others, only themselves. Call me a cynic if you will, but I've seen too much not to believe what I'm telling you here.

But yeah, let's not debate it.