Storm Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Far from it actually, think it's the first time when someone and "the Dog" have had a somewhat decent discussion. It usually always breaks down to "the dogs a troll lulz lulz lulz" or "the dog" posting in nothing but "zzZZzzz" But really this thread could go down hill fast, but then again I'll forgive ya since you and him are on non speaking terms I dunno...it's more like the Dog arguing a point that doesn't make much sense and refusing to relent. Then, the Dog finds it entertaining for reasons only know to himself, to log onto badegg, the obnoxious troll, while trying to maintain his Dog "Giants fan persona"...it's quite disturbing, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 "RB Brandon Jacobs' 13 carries for 76 rushing yards against Arizona, which included a big 25-yard gain and a four-yard touchdown, translated to 5.8 yards per rush, his best production this season." Once again, you ignore stats. Tell me, at 5.8 yards per carry, how many rushing yards and the time of possession shift is possible with that production(5.8 X 23). Plus field position...plus a potential TD or another big gain. Your argument that "plays left on the field" and stats somehow equate is incorrect. You wanted to move onto the Arizona loss and my opinion on that, there's your answer. As an offensive unit, the Giants possess the ability to sustain drives of 6 or more minutes...effectively shortening games...in their favor. With Brandon Jacobs running like he was, especially on the first series, you don't stray away from him when he's the hot hand. You control the game on the ground, it comes next that Eli Manning (who has one of the best 3rd and long conversion percentages, in case the running does get stuffed) will be able to work the secondary. Besides, you created 2 (or more) message board IDs. How cool can you really be? the dog didn't challenge your little hypothetical that running jacobs more could have resulted in a win (you are extremely hot and bothered...). but to assume that the outcome was a given based on your theory is naive. if you can't see that, so be it. your theory is fine...in THEORY. reality is, there are no guarentees... ahh, the dog so enjoys your other paranoid conspiracy theory about the dog having a second ID...so limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Youre digging dogfuck, and Storm is embarrassing you. and the dog thinks you should take steps to not being a coward and honor your agreement...until then, the dog will just sit back and laugh at your insanity...storm has become more intriguing at this point anyway, as he just refuses to let anything go...you two should team up for a reality show...the real life ren and stimpy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 the dog didn't challenge your little hypothetical that running jacobs more could have resulted in a win (you are extremely hot and bothered...). but to assume that the outcome was a given based on your theory is naive. if you can't see that, so be it. your theory is fine...in THEORY. reality is, there are no guarentees... ahh, the dog so enjoys your other paranoid conspiracy theory about the dog having a second ID...so limited. Yes, you did challenge it. You challenged it by comparing my theory with your theory about missed opportunities for the Patriots during the Super Bowl, something that has nothing to do with Giants vs Arizona, the topic on hand. Are you listening to yourself? "uh huh...uh huh...tell us more. really, the dog thinks that could be true...or not. similar to how the patriots should and would have won if either of the two defenders converted one of mannings errant throws in their hands, tyree doesn't bail them out with a 1 in a million helmet catch" And "tell us more"....you got a turd in your pocket, Ned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Yes, you did challenge it. You challenged it by comparing my theory with your theory about missed opportunities for the Patriots during the Super Bowl, something that has nothing to do with Giants vs Arizona, the topic on hand. Are you listening to yourself? "uh huh...uh huh...tell us more. really, the dog thinks that could be true...or not. similar to how the patriots should and would have won if either of the two defenders converted one of mannings errant throws in their hands, tyree doesn't bail them out with a 1 in a million helmet catch" And "tell us more"....you got a turd in your pocket, Ned? oh dear, the sky is the limit for you. the dog didn't challenge your theory...the dog merely pointed out through example that you can say that about almost every game...this team should have done this and they would have won...etc...you want to believe that running jacobs more would have lead to a win? dog won't challenge your theory. the dog will remind you that it is just a theory, and to guarentee a victory based on it is naive. if the dog finds a turd in his pocket, you can be 100% sure the dog will endearingly name it "Storm"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 oh dear, the sky is the limit for you. the dog didn't challenge your theory...the dog merely pointed out through example that you can say that about almost every game...this team should have done this and they would have won...etc...you want to believe that running jacobs more would have lead to a win? dog won't challenge your theory. the dog will remind you that it is just a theory, and to guarentee a victory based on it is naive. if the dog finds a turd in his pocket, you can be 100% sure the dog will endearingly name it "Storm"... Dude, you asked for my opinion on the Arizona game. My opinion, which you once again fail to understand, is that the Giants WOULD have won the game if they ran Jacobs more. What in the hell don't you get? My opinion is supported by stats, and if you had watched the game, you would understand. Pass plays were called on multiple 3rd and shorts. Pass plays down the field while Jacobs was running well, especially straight ahead, like we all want him to. Had the Giants sustained more drives by running Jacobs and controlling the clock, scoring points along the way, they WOULD have won the game. It's not a guarantee so much, it's more what happens when, you know, a football team controls the clock and scores more points than the other. Jesus Christ, I feel like John Madden explaining this to you. Again, you pick a poor argument. What the New England Patriots and poor hands/poor players/butter on their fingers/I don't know what the hell you're trying to get at with this, has to do with this, I really don't know. I'm talking about stats and game plan, while you're off arguing BAD PLAYS 2 years back, while disrespecting the Giants and their amazing accomplishments that season along the way (Egg). If that doesn't make you a douche, I don't know what does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Dude, you asked for my opinion on the Arizona game. My opinion, which you once again fail to understand, is that the Giants WOULD have won the game if they ran Jacobs more. What in the hell don't you get? My opinion is supported by stats, and if you had watched the game, you would understand. Pass plays were called on multiple 3rd and shorts. Pass plays down the field while Jacobs was running well, especially straight ahead, like we all want him to. Had the Giants sustained more drives by running Jacobs and controlling the clock, scoring points along the way, they WOULD have won the game. It's not a guarantee so much, it's more what happens when, you know, a football team controls the clock and scores more points than the other. Jesus Christ, I feel like John Madden explaining this to you. Again, you pick a poor argument. What the New England Patriots and poor hands/poor players/butter on their fingers/I don't know what the hell you're trying to get at with this, has to do with this, I really don't know. I'm talking about stats and game plan, while you're off arguing BAD PLAYS 2 years back, while disrespecting the Giants and their amazing accomplishments that season along the way (Egg). If that doesn't make you a douche, I don't know what does. ahh, let's disect shall we? first, your opinion on Arizona was never requested, the dog just couldn't understand why we were still lingering on about the saints game at this point. your opinion is stated as such, and the dog will continue to tell you that stating victory based on a theory is naive. the dog gets it...you may need some more time. lord knows that in the history of the NFL, the team that has good stats is always the winner. stats are irrelevant...the dog never disagreed with your theory (relax...deep breathing...), and running jacobs may have been the best option (of course that 3rd and 1 stuffing he got, which has been more often the case as of late than ever before speaks against that, but anyway...) to get them to win, but you can't guarentee that. perhaps all the times he hasn't gotten out of his own way this year (and in past years) in short yardage situations has the OC thinking he needs to be more creative on third and shorts...if you still don't understand, well then, the dog has gone as far as you are able to go...the patriots reference was a meaningful example (research shows that for people to maximizing learning potential, you have to make it meaningful for the individual learner) to demonstrate that there are a lot of games where someone can say, if this happened or we should have...etc...doesn't make it so. hmmm, where have we heard this before...oh yeah, in the last 65 responses the dog gave you on this topic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 ahh, let's disect shall we? first, your opinion on Arizona was never requested, the dog just couldn't understand why we were still lingering on about the saints game at this point. your opinion is stated as such, and the dog will continue to tell you that stating victory based on a theory is naive. the dog gets it...you may need some more time. lord knows that in the history of the NFL, the team that has good stats is always the winner. stats are irrelevant...the dog never disagreed with your theory (relax...deep breathing...), and running jacobs may have been the best option (of course that 3rd and 1 stuffing he got, which has been more often the case as of late than ever before speaks against that, but anyway...) to get them to win, but you can't guarentee that. perhaps all the times he hasn't gotten out of his own way this year (and in past years) in short yardage situations has the OC thinking he needs to be more creative on third and shorts...if you still don't understand, well then, the dog has gone as far as you are able to go...the patriots reference was a meaningful example (research shows that for people to maximizing learning potential, you have to make it meaningful for the individual learner) to demonstrate that there are a lot of games where someone can say, if this happened or we should have...etc...doesn't make it so. hmmm, where have we heard this before...oh yeah, in the last 65 responses the dog gave you on this topic... Yet that has nothing to do with what we were talking about. Something controllable like game planning and something uncontrollable, like the deflection of the football or the luck of a helmet-catch have nothing in common. This isn't an example of a we should have or if this happened. That's an example of luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Yet that has nothing to do with what we were talking about. Something controllable like game planning and something uncontrollable, like the deflection of the football or the luck of a helmet-catch have nothing in common. This isn't an example of a we should have or if this happened. That's an example of luck. OK...a meanigful example from the same time period to better suit your learning needs: if the cowboys make the decision to not abandon the run game in the second half of the playoff game, they win going away and the dog's patriot reference no longer exists b/c the giants wouldn't be in the playoffs... the dog could say that, and it is a nice theory, but the reality is, even if they stuck with the run game, there is no guarentee they would have won...nor can you state that with respect to the giant-cardinal game... is...the...dog...more...clear...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 OK...a meanigful example from the same time period to better suit your learning needs: if the cowboys make the decision to not abandon the run game in the second half of the playoff game, they win going away and the dog's patriot reference no longer exists b/c the giants wouldn't be in the playoffs... the dog could say that, and it is a nice theory, but the reality is, even if they stuck with the run game, there is no guarentee they would have won...nor can you state that with respect to the giant-cardinal game... is...the...dog...more...clear...? Did...you...watch....the....giants.....cardinals....game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Did...you...watch....the....giants.....cardinals....game? oh god...the dog will regretfully bite on this...yes, the dog watched most of the game. and this is important why? the dog can't wait to see what comes next... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BronxRik Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Why is this locked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts