Give Parcells credit for this...

[blindzebra]

So you make a claim like "10-20" people could have done what Parcells does, and when asked for evidence to support that, you ask superpunk to provide proof 10-20 people can't?

LOL.

I am God.

You can't question me.

Can you disprove I am God? No.

Therefore, I am.

God, I am.

This is what he asked:

I'm assuming you have proof that the ownership for the Browns and those other teams won't do whatever it takes to win, and that Jerry will.

Reading is our friend.

He spun what was said as opinion that I claimed it as fact...he got bit by a double edged sword for his trouble.

 

[superpunk]

Facts...okay smart arse, how about you prove 10-20 other guys couldn't improve the talent and coach them to 500.

Again spinning.

Fact or not...were we in cap hell before Parcells?

Fact or not...did we have years where a big chunk of our cap was tied up in dead money?

Fact or not...were we short on draft picks because of the Galloway trade?

Fact or not...were we still under those conditions when Parcells was hired?

Fact or not...did we have a 34-32 record under Parcells?

Fact or not...did we never win a division under him?

Fact or not...did we never win a playoff game under him?

Fact or not...did we never have a late season crash under him?

As for the teams you brought up, you want something to back up my claim?

Detroit hired Matt Millen...Detroit hasn't fired Matt Millen.

AZ has won one playoff game in the last 60 years under the same ownership, one that rarely re-signed any good players they had, rarely spent money in FA, always are among the last to sign their draft picks, always looking to trade down in the draft to get to a cheaper spot...you have heard of Bidwell, haven't you?

I couldn't find the proof that the owners of Cleveland, Oakland, Detroit and Arizona and Houston wouldn't do everything it took to win - whereas Jerry Jones will. (It's not like Jerry Jones ever traded down in the draft.)

Then again, I blacked out from all the logical fallacies about halfway through - so I could have missed it. Why don't you attempt to prove your own ideas instead of demanding others disprove them? Or did you realize how baseless your asinine little "10-20" hypothesis was and decide to bluster and bail?

Yeah....

 

[iceberg]

So you make a claim like "10-20" people could have done what Parcells does, and when asked for evidence to support that, you ask superpunk to provide proof 10-20 people can't?

LOL.

I am God.

You can't question me.

Can you disprove I am God? No.

Therefore, I am.

God, I am.

simply look around the NFL and find many coaches who after 4 years have a record around .500 - can't be that hard can it?

people build to average all the time. yes that's better than we used to be but yes, BZ has shown a lot of handicaps we've had to overcome that we did to ourselves that hopefully we've learned from.

i'd have to say yes - 10-20 coaches could have in the same situation parcells was in - built us to a .500 team w/no post season success.

yet many are still infatuated with "parcells" and find any positive they can to throw in front of the negatives. he had both here to be sure. he did make us a better team but he also was about a .500 coach - of which you can find about anywhere in the NFL, can't you?

not sure why people take such offense to what BZ is saying but i'd have to agree with it in many parts.

 

[blindzebra]

I couldn't find the proof that the owners of Cleveland, Oakland, Detroit and Arizona and Houston wouldn't do everything it took to win - whereas Jerry Jones will. (It's not like Jerry Jones ever traded down in the draft.)

Then again, I blacked out from all the logical fallacies about halfway through - so I could have missed it. Why don't you attempt to prove your own ideas instead of demanding others disprove them? Or did you realize how baseless your asinine little "10-20" hypothesis was and decide to bluster and bail?

Yeah....

Perhaps you have heard of hyperbole for impact? I doubt it since it's a pretty complicated concept.

Once again, you spin, instead of answering what is there...like that is a surprise...and I am the one blustering.

You posture so much I'm shocked you haven't pulled a hammy.

 

[superpunk]

Perhaps you have heard of hyperbole for impact? I doubt it since it's a pretty complicated concept.

Once again, you spin, instead of answering what is there...like that is a surprise...and I am the one blustering.

You posture so much I'm shocked you haven't pulled a hammy.

You're really not that bright, and it's a shame. I haven't spun anything - I don't even have anything I could possibly spin. I'm not the one trying to downplay accomplishments with worthless hypotheses that I have no support for.

I do however, wholeheartedly encourage you to share with the NFL's shoddy teams how easy you believe it is to turn organizations around. That should be great.

 

[blindzebra]

You're really not that bright, and it's a shame. I haven't spun anything - I don't even have anything I could possibly spin. I'm not the one trying to downplay accomplishments with worthless hypotheses that I have no support for.

I do however, wholeheartedly encourage you to share with the NFL's shoddy teams how easy you believe it is to turn organizations around. That should be great.

Ah yes, insult, ignore, deny.

I'll put my IQ against yours anyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

[superpunk]

Ah yes, insult, ignore, deny.

It doesn't make more sense when you just keep repeating it. I'm not blustering, ignoring, or anything else. I asked you to prove your own idea, and you can't. Now that's something that's easy to understand.

I'll put my IQ against yours anyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

Well, after viewing your attempts at a logical argument in this thread, I have to say that would be a mistake.

 

[blindzebra]

It doesn't make more sense when you just keep repeating it. I'm not blustering, ignoring, or anything else. I asked you to prove your own idea, and you can't. Now that's something that's easy to understand.



Well, after viewing your attempts at a logical argument in this thread, I have to say that would be a mistake.

Yep and you can disprove it...oh that's right you can't, but then again only you can ask for proof of an opinion and nobody can ask you to back up your assertions that it's incorrect.

Ah, insults again...yep that's a sign of a logical argument.

 

[Stautner]

So you make a claim like "10-20" people could have done what Parcells does, and when asked for evidence to support that, you ask superpunk to provide proof 10-20 people can't?

LOL.

I am God.

You can't question me.

Can you disprove I am God? No.

Therefore, I am.

God, I am.

That seems to be the trend on here with folks that like to make claims of fact.

I had the same thing happen to me a few weeks ago - a guy was claiming a few different things, then when asked what his source was he told me to go find it, then called me lazy for refusing. The funny thing is that he wouldn't even tell me where to find it.

 

[5Stars]

That seems to be the trend on here with folks that like to make claims of fact.

I had the same thing happen to me a few weeks ago - a guy was claiming a few different things, then when asked what his source was he told me to go find it, then called me lazy for refusing. The funny thing is that he wouldn't even tell me where to find it.

:laugh2: :laugh2: Sorry Stautner, I think that was me and we were talking about the player contract stuff and the long post where Adam corrected Fuzzy after about 20 pages or so...and I did eventually go get it for you...lazy!!

 

[Stautner]

:laugh2: :laugh2: Sorry Stautner, I think that was me and we were talking about the player contract stuff and the long post where Adam corrected Fuzzy after about 20 pages or so...and I did eventually go get it for you...lazy!!

You did get to it (FINALLY - after about 20 exchanges), but even then wouldn't tell me what particularly out of a 20+ page thread I was supposed to be looking at.

Bottom line is that the person making the claim is supposed to back the claim up - it's kind of goofy to expect the guy you disagree with to do the research to prove the point you want to make.

 

[superpunk]

Bottom line is that the person making the claim is supposed to back the claim up

It really is shocking how foreign a concept this is to some people.

Person A shares his thought about something.

It seems bizarre to Person B - Person B asks for proof.

Person A gives no proof, but challenges Person B to disprove Person A's theory.

This is not how it works, people.

 

[5Stars]

You did get to it (FINALLY - after about 20 exchanges), but even then wouldn't tell me what particularly out of a 20+ page thread I was supposed to be looking at.

Bottom line is that the person making the claim is supposed to back the claim up - it's kind of goofy to expect the guy you disagree with to do the research to prove the point you want to make.

All you had to do, lazy, was read the entire thread! :laugh2: What, did you want me to give you a warm glass of milk and a cookie and cover you up nice and cozy and read it to you too?

 

[Stautner]

All you had to do, lazy, was read the entire thread! :laugh2: What, did you want me to give you a warm glass of milk and a cookie and cover you up nice and cozy and read it to you too?

Hell, I would have needed a six pack and a Lazy Boy to read all 20+ pages, and then I still didn't know what it was that I was supposed to be looking for, so I probably would have missed it anyway.

Actually, I probably would have slammed a few of the beers and fell asleep on page 6.

 

[5Stars]

Hell, I would have needed a six pack and a Lazy Boy to read all 20+ pages, and then I still didn't know what it was that I was supposed to be looking for, so I probably would have missed it anyway.

Actually, I probably would have slammed a few of the beers and fell asleep on page 6.

How could you fall asleep on page 6 if you were in a Lazy Boy? I've never slept on a page...but I have on a Lazy Boy.

 

[Doomsday101]

Myself I'm glad BP was here and I do think he left this team in much better shape than when he arrived I think this team is better off because of the time Parcells was here. I hope he enjoys his retirement and I now look forward to seeing if Phillips can help take this team to the next level.

 

[iceberg]

It really is shocking how foreign a concept this is to some people.

Person A shares his thought about something.

It seems bizarre to Person B - Person B asks for proof.

Person A gives no proof, but challenges Person B to disprove Person A's theory.

This is not how it works, people.

you're the one who doesn't believe him - you tell him why it's just not possible.

 

[Stautner]

How could you fall asleep on page 6 if you were in a Lazy Boy? I've never slept on a page...but I have on a Lazy Boy.

Maybe I would have prefered to pass gas on it rather than read it.

 

[5Stars]

Maybe I would have prefered to pass gas on it rather than read it.

Leaded or un-leaded? You're not making sense, my friend!!

 

[blindzebra]

you're the one who doesn't believe him - you tell him why it's just not possible.

Yeah funny how we went from an opinion forum to a court of law.

Be a really fun place if every post needed foolproof evidence before it could be posted, wouldn't it.

The best part is I DID support my position, with valid points of where we were before Parcells got here, the history of Jerry willing to do whatever it takes to win, Parcells lack of success on the field, and the history of other owners that don't do all they can to win and I did that with the teams thrown at me.

Seems that if this were a scored debate, there would clearly be a winner, and it isn't the guy doing the insulting and saying prove it over and over, without even attempting to disprove it.