Jason Taylor wins DPOY

[superpunk]

You are chasing your tail -- you said:



I argued that wasn't the case. But now you switch back to the "he got suspended" angle. Just get your 10,000th post and lets call this horse beaten and dead.

Good lord.

The whole thing was started by you saying Merriman would have won without his suspension - which is completely speculative. It also ignores that he was suspended for a performance-enhancing substance, which coincidentally *shocker* enhances your performance. So clearly, were he not suspended, his performance may not have been enhanced.

Maybe logical progression isn't your thing, in this case. Neither stance can be proven correct, I just responded to your entirely speculative post with one of my own, which was somehow "more speculative." As if there could be degrees of things that are made up.

I know how the voters usually go, and you're probably correct, they'd have gone with roid boy had he not been caught. There's no way to know it, though, so there's no use saying it.

 

[Jarv]

Didn't I say "Merriman doesn't get suspended...."

As I demonstrated voters also go "ga ga" for players on winning teams.

Would you have voted for Merriman this year ?

 

[AbeBeta]

Would you have voted for Merriman this year ?

Had there been no suspension, yes. He's the most dominant player on a 14-2 team's defense. With the suspension, absolultely not.

My only point was that if there was no suspension -- say he'd been injured and missed 4 games instead -- his #s would have earned him the award.

 

[aikemirv]

You aren't following the discussion. Are you????

Oh, I am following it.

Now, if you said that had he not gotten suspended for something other than steroids, lets say for example: DUI or something like marijuana, he would have won the award, then your logic would be ok.

But your logic is severly flawed since it was a suspension for a performance enhancing product.

 

[Arch Stanton]

not for steroids -- it's the first positive. it is a different policy

My bad....thought it was all encompassing.

 

[AbeBeta]

Oh, I am following it.

Now, if you said that had he not gotten suspended for something other than steroids, lets say for example: DUI or something like marijuana, he would have won the award, then your logic would be ok.

But your logic is severly flawed since it was a suspension for a performance enhancing product.

For last freaking time. My argument was that if there was no suspension, he would likely have won the award based on his performance -- and the Chargers' performance.

Here is a logic lesson -- when someone makes the statement -- IF something didn't happen -- then a logical argument is not "but it did!!!!!" -- that's not the argument or the point I've made. At least 'punk is making some argument about Taylor's performance.

 

[aikemirv]

For last freaking time. My argument was that if there was no suspension, he would likely have won the award based on his performance -- and the Chargers' performance.

Here is a logic lesson -- when someone makes the statement -- IF something didn't happen -- then a logical argument is not "but it did!!!!!" -- that's not the argument or the point I've made. At least 'punk is making some argument about Taylor's performance.

It is not a logical argument, it may be an argument, but not logical.

A logical argument would be.

Merriman, if not for being injured for 4 games, would have won the award.

An illogical argument is. Merriman, if not for being suspended for 4 games for a performance enhancing product, would have won the award.

Simple reason is - you don't know what effect the performance enhancing product had on those stats.

For example, that is like saying:

"Ben Johnson, had he not taken steroids very well still would have won the Olympic gold"

When we know that, without steroids, he was an also ran!

Your argument is not logical!

 

[AbeBeta]

It is not a logical argument, it may be an argument, but not logical.

A logical argument would be.

Merriman, if not for being injured for 4 games, would have won the award.

An illogical argument is. Merriman, if not for being suspended for 4 games for a performance enhancing product, would have won the award.

Simple reason is - you don't know what effect the performance enhancing product had on those stats.

For example, that is like saying:

"Ben Johnson, had he not taken steroids very well still would have won the Olympic gold"

When we know that, without steroids, he was an also ran!

Your argument is not logical!

No. My argument is this. Merriman produced X stats but had a suspension. Remove the suspension and his X stats would have earned the DPOY. That's a clear and logical statement -- you are bringing other factors in that are not relevant to my argument - of course if you can bring in "but this and but that" to make an illogical argument.

Your Ben Johnson argument -- placed in the context of MY argument would be Ben Johnson's 100 meter time would have won the gold had he not be caught using steroids.

That sir or ma'am is a logical statement.

 

[Jarv]

No. My argument is this. Merriman produced X stats but had a suspension. Remove the suspension and his X stats would have earned the DPOY. That's a clear and logical statement -- you are bringing other factors in that are not relevant to my argument - of course if you can bring in "but this and but that" to make an illogical argument.

Your Ben Johnson argument -- placed in the context of MY argument would be Ben Johnson's 100 meter time would have won the gold had he not be caught using steroids.

That sir or ma'am is a logical statement.

Your argument may be fair, and I understand you want others to understand "exactly" what you are stating.

So why do you argue others opinion of what may have happened ?

Sure, if it was an injury (and not a suspension) and he had 17 sacks, he MAY have gotten the award.

Sure, if he wasn't taken Roids he may not have gotten the stats.

Both seem like plausible statements, of course either can never be proved, but they seem posible.

If I was a mod I would call it a draw and close the thread.

 

[superpunk]

If I was a mod I would call it a draw and close the thread.

All right. We'll call it a draw.

 

[AbeBeta]

Your argument may be fair, and I understand you want others to understand "exactly" what you are stating.

So why do you argue others opinion of what may have happened ?

I argued a critique of my post. Arguing other opinions is sometimes called ..... a discussion.

 

[aikemirv]

No. My argument is this. Merriman produced X stats but had a suspension. Remove the suspension and his X stats would have earned the DPOY. That's a clear and logical statement -- you are bringing other factors in that are not relevant to my argument - of course if you can bring in "but this and but that" to make an illogical argument.

Your Ben Johnson argument -- placed in the context of MY argument would be Ben Johnson's 100 meter time would have won the gold had he not be caught using steroids.

That sir or ma'am is a logical statement.

It is only clear and logical IF the suspension reason is for something other than performance enhancing products.

Otherwise, there is a cause and effect that makes your argument illogical.

We all know that if he had 20 sacks and played four more games and had not gotten caught he would have won it. There is no point to argue that.

Who are you arguing with on that one. I think you would get a consensus.

 

[Rack]

Merriman probably will win a DPOY before its said and done....and may even set a new sack record.

Can't wait to see this place when either happens.

I really want to see how this board reacts if that happens.

It would probably be just like it would on 30 other teams' message boards. People disappointed a steroid user won DPOY.

And if he gets off the juice, but his performance starts to suffer, there's a good chance he'll start juicing up again.

All right. We'll call it a draw.