I think he meant that Tebow starting this year and succeeding is an assumption....and in my opinion a rather large one. The talent on the jets without Revis and Holmes is comparable to the broncos, and the schedule is similar, but expecting a repeat of last year might be hoping for too much. If Tebow is going to start I would prefer it be next year after a preseason at 1, throwing him in at the midpoint of the season will just be a bandaid on an axe wound. you are correct about the spread, and spread option, both offenses are being used more and more in the NFL. I am willing to bet that in 5 years it will be a large part of many teams playbooks. There are too many dual threat QB's coming out of college for it not to be
I never suggested McDaniels deliberately tried to ruin the Broncos. I can see how you came to that conclusion since I said he did everything possible to bury the franchise, but his failure was due to his immaturity and lack of people skills, not from a desire to purposely screw the organization. However, the eventual hatred he generated in many of the players was very real. The most glaring example of this came when the Broncos laid down at home against a crappy Raider team and allowed 59 points in three quarters. It was pretty obvious to all but the most deluded McDaniels apologists that the team had quit on him and was trying to get him fired. The rest of your post is the type of emotional nonsense I expect from a Tebow lover. I'll post here whenever I please. if anybody is unwelcome on this board, it's you and your ilk, thus the need for a short bus forum to contain your silliness.
Wow, this post is just a hot mess. Michael Vick has proven himself to be a worthless excuse for a human being as well as a terrible quarterback. I wouldn't describe myself as exclusively anti-Christian as I believe all religions are harmful. I would also say I have issues with Christianity, but no problem with Christians on an individual basis. Clayton Kershaw of the Dodgers is a good example. He's 10 times more successful than Tebow as a professional athlete and he's also a devout Christian who devotes an enormous amount of his time and money to helping disadvantaged people. The biggest difference between them is that Kershaw acts like a regular person, not the carefully programmed centerpiece of some enormous publicity machine.
You sound like this: When your Cable company puts you on hold you get angry. When you get angry you go blow off steam. When you go blow off steam accidents happen. When accidents happen you get an eye patch. When you get an eye patch people think your tough. When people think your tough, they want to see how tough. When people want to see how tough you wake up in a road side ditch. Don't wake up in a road side ditch.
The most obnoxious and least funny ad campaign currently on television. Apparently, you're representative of the lowest common denominator they were aiming for with that dreck.
Did I say that I liked the commercial? I was merely using it as an example of the faulty logic you have employed. Even with this response, you demonstrate a propensity to extrapolate falsities in a vacuum of information. 1) You made irrational assumptions 2) I use an example of a commercial which uses irrational assumptions and compare it to you 3) You opine that the commercial is obnoxious and lacking comedic value 4) Based on your opinion, you conclude that anyone who enjoys the commercial is within a lowest common denominator 5) You assume that I am a fan of the commercial, as opposed to merely using its content to demonstrate similarities 6) Therefore, you conclude I am part of your afore-mentioned lowest common denominator a) your opinion of the commercial's comedic value is unvalidated b) your assumption that I am a fan of the commercial is unfounded c) the crux of your argument is false Hopefully, I laid it out plainly enough for there to be no misunderstandings this time.
The entire point of mentioning that someone was a first round pick is to imply that they had a lot of talent/upside heading into the draft and, furthermore, that they worthy of being a first round pick. Neither is the case with Tebow. One person (in the NFL considered drafting Tebow in the first round, and he did. At this point, it's more in this organization's best interest, given the number of injuries, to not put ourselves in Cap Hell for the next year as opposed to trying to barely make the playoffs with a QB switch. I agree, a winning % to of .250 (the equivalent of 2-6) is a good benchmark. When the Jets fall to 3-9 or 4-12, pull Sanchez.
I only disagree with you on the point that Tebow did not have a lot of talent/upside heading into the draft. I believe he did, and still does.
How can one estimate or conclude falsities? Don't you mean something along the lines of produce? direct responses to your assessment: 1) Assumptions shouldn't be judged on rationality, they're either fair/correct or unfair/incorrect. 2) That says "you're being irrational!", but how does it explain how or in what manner he's being irrational? You may as well post "you're an idiot" if you're neither going to try to persuade nor engage Slap 3) You gave no actual commentary other than "you sound like this", what was he supposed to respond to...? 4) Based on his opinion...? He said it directly, you can even quote him on it: 5) Shouldn't this be a sub-point of four? Up until now you divided the numbers between posts but now you decided to switch it up. To each his own. 6) You're willing to work through this inductive B.S. but aren't actually willing to provide a response superior to quoting a commercial...? Why? a) First, unvalidated=non-validated, that's different that invalidated. Second, what does that have to do with the original argument? You are now trying to argue about the commercial itself as opposed to its relevance b) Equally as unfounded as your use of a commercial as opposed to your willingness to actually engage the argument. c) Worst logical fallacy possible... That's substantively equivalent to saying "you're an idiot". It's entirely possible that BackupQB is right and Slap is wrong, I didn't even read much of the "conversation". But the tebowites' excessive praise compelled me to point out, with ease, that you actually said nothing meaningful, and everything you did write that was in fact worthwhile could've been posted initially instead of quoting some commercial without saying anything other than "You sound like this:". Given your expectations of Slap's intelligence, your approach was rather irrational...
I just wish he were referred to as "a hardworker, constantly striving to improve" (for example) as opposed to "the former first round pick".
Dude, were you pissed off last night about losing to the Gators again? I've already told you that I never underestimate Vandy So don't be hating on Tebow lovers just cuz you guys lost again.
I think VanderbiltJets is an anal retentive control freak and, as you imply, a typical Gator hater. A good example of his control freakishness is his following comment. He admittedly longs for Tim to be referred to by using conjecture (constantly striving to improve) over a fact (1st round pick). Additionally, based on the comments I've seen of his, VanderbiltJets enjoys indulging in a level of contrarian mental masterbation that borders on the most absurd pissing contests I've ever seen posted in any message board. The following comment is an example. My conclusion is VanderbiltJets isn't as smart as he thinks he is and rarely says something worthy of anything more than a quip.
You know, I was hoping you would not respond because that would most-likely mean a labor intensive reply. For future reference, I am lazy and I don't like posting long replies. No. I meant exactly what I said. Those words are like, in the dictionary dude. It is very plain to understand what I was suggesting. 1) Umm... that is not an actual rule. Whether you personally feel as though his assumptions should not be judged on rationality, it is perfectly acceptable to do so. 2) In my mind, it was to be clear to all what I was suggesting using the quoted commercial. There was no need to produce a dissertation on the matter. 3) See #2. 4) The fact that an opinion is directly stated does not change the fact that it is an opinion. Stating that an ad campaign is obnoxious and "is the least funny [ad campaign]" is still subjective and an opinion, regardless of whether it was directly stated. Here is an example, "Tim Tebow has a pretty throwing motion." Directly.stated.opinion. 5) I was going through a logical progression. Whether #5 is #4a, it would still fall into the same position sequentially. The net sum would be the same. Coincidentally, I do not agree with you that it should be a sub-bullet, but is this really the level of stylistic scrutiny you would suggest is appropriate for a football forum? Are we really going to start playing the game of dissecting whether someone should have sub-bulletized? 6) I did not break down his first post because my reply to him was a light-hearted jab. I went into more detail on the type of error he made by addressing his response to my response, and in doing so tied what I believe are his reasoning failures into one overall theme. I was not expecting Rene Descartes [you] to come in and white knight him. a) Thanks for the lesson on the difference between unvalidated, non-validated, and invalidated. I am aware of the differences, however, I was not speaking about the latter two, so I'm not quite sure why you felt the need to introduce them. But let's just use good old Oxford dictionary... Unvalidated= not validated or proven to be accurate or true. So when I say that his opinion on whether the commercial is not funny is unvalidated, this re-emphasizes my earlier statement that what he said was opinion. And to be clear, I am not arguing about the commercial itself (I was very careful not to state my opinion on the commercial, because it is irrelevant to the discussion). b) That makes no sense. My decision initially to not give a detailed breakout of my disagreements with his original post does not have any bearing on whether the use of the commercial as an example is founded or unfounded. His reasoning still exists, therefore my disagreement with him is justified if I have a different view. c) You couldn't be more wrong. At no point did I suggest that he is an idiot either directly or indirectly. I highlighted where I believed he went wrong, in a logical progression. I tend to view people holistically, so whether I think he may have said something idiotic, I do not have enough evidence to say he is an idiot. Furthermore, I do not know him, so he may very well be a genius. I doubt it, but it is possible. The reason why I didn't get into detail, VanderbiltJets, is because I then have to spend my time answering posts like this. You make intelligent posts from time-to-time, but there are many instances where I think you attempt to steamroll less learned posters in this forum by displaying a superior knowledge base. There are many times when I read your responses and also find that while well-written, contain many reasoning errors. I just don't feel the need to attack it, because I don't have my heart set on being the resident "smart guy". Don't worry man, I'm not here to take your spot. You = smart Me = dumb :beer:
Do you actually think that I care about Vanderbilt Football enough to scorn Gator Fans in an NFL forum in retaliation for a loss...?
