I honestly think he wanted to win the game. Had nothing to do with competition and who was leading and who was going to be the starter or proving something to Idzik or making Sanchez look good or bad or anything or any ulterior motives--none of that. I think he put him in the game because he wanted to win and never thought he'd get injured. _
I really don't need your $100. But what's more important, I can explain it for you. I just can't understand it for you, too. _
Not trolling, I just don't have the energy to get into it with you today. Just dug a 3 foot wide trench off my back patio so my dog could go out. But no, I'll never change. It's not in my nature. _
We'll have to agree to disagree if you can't see the difference between calling another poster here a name and using a derogatory name for a public figure like Mark Sanchez. Or Muck as I prefer. I also do not consider Muck a childish name. I think it is pretty clever, actually.
Because the starters were all on the sidelines with their shoulder pads off, they were done for the evening. Done. To ask them to put their pads back on and go back in would have been a tad strange, to say the least. Putting Sanchez back in was just one guy--and it's not as if he played earlier in the game, was done for the evening, then put him back in. Hey, you asked for my opinion, that's it. None of that other spin foolishness some folks here want to trot out. _
Nah you're trolling. I'd explain further why you're trolling. But you wouldn't get it. I'm glad you'll never change.
So, you don't have any proof MS was injured, you cherry picked the TD stat, could not back up putting him in the middle third of NFL Qb's (meaning average, ignore his Qb rating has never been above 23rd, and have lost the argument. I htink that covers it, and fyi Orton is a better Qb than MS has ever been, and you know it.
Oooh the Sanchez Fans are in message board alliance against me! What shall i ever do??? Your hero sucks ass. Nice allies, btw.
You seemed to be seeking a serious discussion with another poster and were offended that someone posted childish gifs or pics rather than treating your question with the gravity that you so desired. I just thought it ironic that you would call them on being childish when you yourself were doing the same. If you want to engage in a serious adult conversation--then ALL childishness should be avoided. If you are seriously looking for a reasoned exchange about a topic and you TRULY want to understand the opposing view, you'd do so in a manner that eschewed any pretense of immaturity or clownish discourse. But that's just me. If you're just intersted in busting balls, by all means, carry on. Btw, you may think it's clever, but it's really pretty weak. _
Alliance? Allies? Against you? LOL. I don't even know who you are. Nor could I give a half-baked crap. _
I actually don't even believe that they had their shoulder pads off on the sideline considering they played into the third quarter. I'm not saying I remember them with their pads on, just that it would seem odd to me that they were off. I'd have to find that game and watch to see that. Putting the guy that people argue won the starting job into the game at that point is also strange to say the least. But you have no problem trying to spin that. It sounds to me like you want to believe something and so you're building an argument around that. But that's just my opinion.
Oh, believe me, I fully understand why you'd think I was trolling, but I'm not. That's part of YOUR misunderstanding that I was talking about. _
Who died and made you the message board policeman? I couldn't care less what your agenda driven take on name usage is. I was not offended by the use of pictures. I instead noted it was not a response to an argument. If people want to dodge the argument and post funny pics, that is their right. But I can point out it is not an answer, and should be able to do so without your siding with your fellow Sanchez Fans in mock outrage that I call him Muck. But if you want to pursue such a lame and phony line here, suit yourself. Shocking that you don't like Muck, btw. I will really try much harder next time to please you.
See, that's where you're wrong. I don't want to believe ANYTHING to build any argument around. I'm truly not spinning anything. Actually, it's pretty simple, IMHO. No ulterior motives--would not have made any difference one way or the other. I think he made a snap, simplistic decision not taking anything else into consideration--not competition, not the starter, not the back-up, not the 4th preseason game--not the week 1 starter. None of that. It's not that complicated. _
