[nyjunc]

Originally Posted by JetBlue

all you do is excuse Sanchez's losses by pointing out how the defense gave up scores at the end of the several games, and here Manning gave them a 7 point lead with 30 seconds left and the entire field to go, and you blame Manning for losing the game and not the defense.

you are such a hypocrite. at least be consistent in your arguments, even if they are poor.

so we are comparing Mark Sanchez to Peyton manning? you think that is a valid comparison?

I am very consistent but I am not a nitwit that thinks Peyton and sanchez are equals and should be evaluated the same.

Peyton was given 14 points, right?

he gave back 7, right?

he had 3 TOs which resulted in 17 points, right?

He had a chance to end it w/ a 1st down, right?

he had TWO chances in OT to win it, right?

Thanks for playing.

[JetBlue]

Originally Posted by nyjunc

so we are comparing Mark Sanchez to Peyton manning? you think that is a valid comparison?

I am very consistent but I am not a nitwit that thinks Peyton and sanchez are equals and should be evaluated the same.

Peyton was given 14 points, right?

he gave back 7, right?

he had 3 TOs which resulted in 17 points, right?

He had a chance to end it w/ a 1st down, right?

he had TWO chances in OT to win it, right?

Thanks for playing.

that wasn't even a comparison of Manning and Sanchez, and only a nitwit would think it was. it was a comparison of your arguments, and for someone who claims to be so logical you committed one of the most basic flaws of logic -- inconsistent application of your criteria. either a defense's breakdown excuses a QB or it doesn't, you can't have it both ways, or else your are being inconsistent and illogical. your defense of the practice just destroyed any remaining credibility you think you actually have.

[nyjunc]

Originally Posted by JetBlue

that wasn't even a comparison of Manning and Sanchez, and only a nitwit would think it was. it was a comparison of your arguments, and for someone who claims to be so logical you committed one of the most basic flaws of logic -- inconsistent application of your criteria. either a defense's breakdown excuses a QB or it doesn't, you can't have it both ways, or else your are being inconsistent and illogical. your defense of the practice just destroyed any remaining credibility you think you actually have.

There's nothing inconsistent about it, the 2 are not on the same level and are not evaluated the same way. One is a HOFer while the other is a mediocre player. Shouldn't expectations be higher for the HOFer?


Nice deflection though, you are pretty good at that.

[JetBlue]

Originally Posted by nyjunc

There's nothing inconsistent about it, the 2 are not on the same level and are not evaluated the same way. One is a HOFer while the other is a mediocre player. Shouldn't expectations be higher for the HOFer?


Nice deflection though, you are pretty good at that.

we are not evaluating the QB's at all.

a logical argument is broad and can be applied identically regardless of the details. the moment you create separate arguments for specific situations you are creating an illogical argument. the only one deflecting anything is you because you can't dispute that fact of logic.

[nyjunc]

Originally Posted by JetBlue

we are not evaluating the QB's at all.

a logical argument is broad and can be applied identically regardless of the details. the moment you create separate arguments for specific situations you are creating an illogical argument. the only one deflecting anything is you because you can't dispute that fact of logic.

please stop, we are discussing football. There are variables, stop w/ that nonsense just b/c you are wrong.


show me the games where Mark was handed 14 pts, we lost and I blamed the D?

[JetBlue]

Originally Posted by nyjunc

please stop, we are discussing football. There are variables, stop w/ that nonsense just b/c you are wrong.


show me the games where Mark was handed 14 pts, we lost and I blamed the D?

it has nothing to do with how the lead was gotten, it only has to do with the fact that the lead was there and the defense blew it. again, the more you try to narrow the argument to only fit certain situations, the worse your argument gets.

this has nothing to do with football, it has to do with creating a logical argument. and if you create a logical argument it will apply to football. no study of logic has ever revealed that football somehow has its own logic that differs from the logic the applies to the rest of the universe.

[nyjunc]

Originally Posted by JetBlue

it has nothing to do with how the lead was gotten, it only has to do with the fact that the lead was there and the defense blew it. again, the more you try to narrow the argument to only fit certain situations, the worse your argument gets.

this has nothing to do with football, it has to do with creating a logical argument. and if you create a logical argument it will apply to football. no study of logic has ever revealed that football somehow has its own logic that differs from the logic the applies to the rest of the universe.

So peyton being given 14 pts, throwing away 7 and turning it over stetting up 17 pts had nothing to do w/ it? it was all on that last drive for Baltimore? Ignoring that you know he had the ball in his hands needing one first down to win, right? then he had it w/ 30 secs and 2 TOs, then he had TWO possessions in OT.

Your reading comprehension failures don't allow you to realize I didn't say the D was blameless, the D gets their share but Denver lost b/c of the play of the QB first. If Peyton has a decent game they win in a blowout.

[JetBlue]

Originally Posted by nyjunc

So peyton being given 14 pts, throwing away 7 and turning it over stetting up 17 pts had nothing to do w/ it? it was all on that last drive for Baltimore? I

no, that is your argument because that is the argument structure you have used to defend Sanchez.

the fact that you do not apply that argument structure consistently is either why your argument is illogical or you are a hypocrite. I don't mean that as an attack, so we can keep this as a cordial discussion. but that is the repercussion of your inconsistency.

[nyjunc]

just stop w/ the deflections and debate the topic at hand. There always has to be this preamble w/ you. Just debate the topic, if you don't know then move on.

[JetBlue]

Originally Posted by nyjunc

just stop w/ the deflections and debate the topic at hand. There always has to be this preamble w/ you. Just debate the topic, if you don't know then move on.

I have debated the topic by revealing your argument is illogical and thus isn't valid. you have attempted to dispute that by claiming that football doesn't follow the rules of logic that apply to the rest of the universe.

feel free to move on and continue to make you hypocritical arguments if you like, but your inability to dispute my position doesn't equate to not debating the topic at hand.

[nyjunc]

so you can't make a valid argument, got it.

[JetBlue]

Originally Posted by nyjunc

so you can't make a valid argument, got it.

deflection!