July 3, 20196 yr comment_403091 16 hours ago, Bigblue204 said: Nope. It could just as easily been, without Lucky we win by 50. Cause his replacement would have been even more unstoppable. Without Nichols we win by 700023. There is no way to prove your statement or mine. Someone would have had to replace those two, they could very well have been the greatest football players ever. It's all hypothetical and makes for an invalid argument. What a crock of ____. No way to prove either statement, but you're statement is way out to lunch and mine was reasonable.
July 3, 20196 yr comment_403095 16 minutes ago, TBURGESS said: What a crock of ____. No way to prove either statement, but you're statement is way out to lunch and mine was reasonable. Yes very good. Way to get my point.
July 3, 20196 yr comment_403097 yeah pretty baseless statement to say a team won because of a couple outstanding plays from players...on their team...like really??
July 3, 20196 yr comment_403126 2 hours ago, Bigblue204 said: Yes very good. Way to get my point. Your 'point' seems to be that ridiculous assertions are equal to realist ones.
July 3, 20196 yr comment_403133 6 minutes ago, TBURGESS said: Your 'point' seems to be that ridiculous assertions are equal to realist ones. Close, it's more in line with hypothetical situations being equal due to the fact they can not be proven. Unless of course we take whatever it is that you do, that allows you to see these hypothetical situations unfold. You're hypothetical situation where lucky doesn't play, leaves out the fact that he would have been replaced with another player, game plans would have changed and the offense would have looked different....key word there is different. Not worse, not better. Just different. Your opinion is that it would have been worse (which is why they would have lost) mine was they would have been exponentially better. Neither can be proven, even though yours was based in reality a bit more, it was still a ******* ridiculous thing to say.
July 3, 20196 yr comment_403187 6 hours ago, TBURGESS said: What a crock of ____. No way to prove either statement, but you're statement is way out to lunch and mine was reasonable. I think the main point he was made in the bold section above. The ridiculousness of his statement was just to... actually I have no clue what his reason was- it was pretty funny though. Anyways- you can equate the two statements as there is no way to prove the statements short of pinpoint accuracy in space/time location technology between multiverses/dimensions.
July 3, 20196 yr comment_403188 3 hours ago, Bigblue204 said: Close, it's more in line with hypothetical situations being equal due to the fact they can not be proven. Unless of course we take whatever it is that you do, that allows you to see these hypothetical situations unfold. You're hypothetical situation where lucky doesn't play, leaves out the fact that he would have been replaced with another player, game plans would have changed and the offense would have looked different....key word there is different. Not worse, not better. Just different. Your opinion is that it would have been worse (which is why they would have lost) mine was they would have been exponentially better. Neither can be proven, even though yours was based in reality a bit more, it was still a ******* ridiculous thing to say. There are degrees of wrong. It's wrong to assume a mouse is rat, it's ridiculously wrong to assume a mouse is a giraffe. Just because two things can't be proven, doesn't make them the same degree of wrong. I'm assuming that Lucky's replacement would not play as well as Lucky did in the game. As he had a great game, it's likely that I'm right. You're assuming that Lucky's replacement is actually better than Lucky on the night. That's a giraffe vs mouse kind of assumption. There is very little chance that you're right. Two hypothetical situations that are equally likely right are equal. Two hypothetical situations where one is likely right and the other is likely wrong aren't. Edited July 3, 20196 yr by TBURGESS
July 3, 20196 yr comment_403190 5 minutes ago, TBURGESS said: It's wrong to assume a mouse is rat, it's ridiculously wrong to assume a mouse is a giraffe. yeah- they are both wrong. Degrees of wrongness does not change that. On the flip side degrees of rightness(?): Mouse ≠ Rat = correct Mouse ≠ Giraffe ≠ more correct Edited July 3, 20196 yr by wanna-b-fanboy
July 3, 20196 yr comment_403191 1 minute ago, TBURGESS said: There are degrees of wrong. It's wrong to assume a mouse is rat, it's ridiculously wrong to assume a mouse is a giraffe. Just because two things can't be proven, doesn't make them the same degree of wrong. I'm assuming that Lucky's replacement would not play as well as Lucky did in the game. As he had a great game, it's likely that I'm right. You're assuming that Lucky's replacement is actually better than Lucky on the night. That's a giraffe vs mouse kind of assumption. There is very little chance that you're right. Two hypothetical situations that are likely right are equal. Two hypothetical situations where one is likely right and the other is likely wrong aren't. Lol, sure....youre less wrong then me...if that makes you feel better. Either way, you're still wrong.
July 3, 20196 yr comment_403196 3 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said: Lol, sure....youre less wrong then me...if that makes you feel better. Either way, you're still wrong. That's the spirit!
July 3, 20196 yr comment_403203 EITHER WAY its a dumb argument...to say a team would have lost because a certain player had a good game is pretty much pointless...if that was the case then every game pretty much a team shouldn't have won...nor could have won if not for that player...whom is on the roster for a reason...to make plays to help his team win...like wtf?!?!
July 3, 20196 yr comment_403208 On that 41 yarder Whitehead does not score if Wolitarsky and Matthews get him blocks to cut back inside.
July 3, 20196 yr comment_403210 1 minute ago, Jpan85 said: On that 41 yarder Whitehead does not score if Wolitarsky and Matthews get him blocks to cut back inside. true true,....I heard that Nichols told them in the huddle though to run deep patterns waving for the ball...but they thought otherwise and helped make the play successful as per the plan...good thing shitty Nichols isn't respected in the huddle or we would lose more games than we win
July 3, 20196 yr comment_403216 34 minutes ago, Jpan85 said: On that 41 yarder Whitehead does not score if Wolitarsky and Matthews get him blocks to cut back inside. Or Nichols doesn't throw him the ball.
July 3, 20196 yr comment_403217 Just now, wanna-b-fanboy said: Or Nichols doesn't throw him the ball. Yup it’s a team game nothing happens in a vacuum
July 4, 20196 yr comment_403240 Maybe Nichols isn't that respected...he was the only offensive player on the field not to go check on Oliveira.
July 4, 20196 yr comment_403242 3 minutes ago, MrFreakzilla said: Maybe Nichols isn't that respected...he was the only offensive player on the field not to go check on Oliveira. So, you're suggesting Nichols doesn't care about his teammates, therefore he's disrespected? Yeah, that Matt. What a selfish creep he is! Who would respect a guy like that? Pffft! Not me!
July 4, 20196 yr comment_403245 22 minutes ago, MrFreakzilla said: Maybe Nichols isn't that respected...he was the only offensive player on the field not to go check on Oliveira. Maybe Matty doesn't like the gruesome part of football.... when it happened the radio guys mentioned something about how nasty the injury may be .... matt probably didn't want to see because he knows that's what the defence is always trying to do to him...
_4ce1be.png)
_4ccb55.png)
_b2ed7a.png)
Create an account or sign in to comment