Nors Cup

[Tio]

I will track - The bet has to be accepted by the Cup holder. Bets must be definitive and not a subjective "opinion".

I challenge you Hos, If Henson starts 2 more games we miss playoffs.

He'd be stupid to take that. Nors, I say a player with the his first name being Drew will start at qb for the Cowboys next year...

 

[Hostile]

I will track - The bet has to be accepted by the Cup holder. Bets must be definitive and not a subjective "opinion".

I challenge you Hos, If Henson starts 2 more games we miss playoffs.

Nors, my ONLY complaint about you is that you cannot admit when you are wrong and doggedly hang on to flawed theories despite overwhelming evidence. For example, your continued contention that the 46 defense was modeled after the 3-4. I could come up with many others.

Now, you want me to accept you as Judge of whether or not you lose a fictional Cup? I don't think so.

You'll never lose with yourself as Judge even if the loss is obvious to the rest of mankind taking a breath. Book it.

On top of that you want me to make a bet now on the playoffs with Henson starting 2 or more games. Nors, we are a long, LONG, LONG shot to make the playoffs with a 4-7 record coming into this week. It doesn't even matter who the QB is.

I'm not stupid man. Why do you even think I would accept this as a challenge?

Your initial post in this thread singled me out about these challenges. Maybe you feel some need for retribution after my challenges to your previous theories.

I'll give you a shot at retribution, but if you think I'm going to make it a piece of cake for you, well then you still haven't figured me out.

I'm very interested, but no sale on that proposal or on you being the Judge.

 

[Nors]

Nors, my ONLY complaint about you is that you cannot admit when you are wrong and doggedly hang on to flawed theories despite overwhelming evidence. For example, your continued contention that the 46 defense was modeled after the 3-4. I could come up with many others.

Now, you want me to accept you as Judge of whether or not you lose a fictional Cup? I don't think so.

You'll never lose with yourself as Judge even if the loss is obvious to the rest of mankind taking a breath. Book it.

On top of that you want me to make a bet now on the playoffs with Henson starting 2 or more games. Nors, we are a long, LONG, LONG shot to make the playoffs with a 4-7 record coming into this week. It doesn't even matter who the QB is.

I'm not stupid man. Why do you even think I would accept this as a challenge?

Your initial post in this thread singled me out about these challenges. Maybe you feel some need for retribution after my challenges to your previous theories.

I'll give you a shot at retribution, but if you think I'm going to make it a piece of cake for you, well then you still haven't figured me out.

I'm very interested, but no sale on that proposal or on you being the Judge.

Thats what you like - to believe your opinions on subjective issues.
Thats fine and your "right" here as you can chose to do. Why are you going off topic?

This is a clear challenge. If Drew Henson starts two games we will miss the playoffs.

Bet only comes into play if Henson starts two games. Playoffs are then the bet. You can stay out of the game, you would be wise to turn down the bet - JMO

 

[Tio]

Thats what you like - to believe your opinions on subjective issues.
Thats fine and your "right" here as you can chose to do. Why are you going off topic?

This is a clear challenge. If Drew Henson starts two games we will miss the playoffs.

Bet only comes into play if Henson starts two games. Playoffs are then the bet. You can stay out of the game, you would be wise to turn down the bet - JMO

Wait, so you get to decide the bets? That is very stupid resoning. Again, I propose a bet that Drew ________ will start at qb for the cowboys next year....

 

[Hostile]

Thats what you like - to believe your opinions on subjective issues.

When I have been proven wrong I have admitted it. It doesn't hurt. You should try it.

Thats fine and your "right" here as you can chose to do. Why are you going off topic?

I have no idea what you are talking about with "Off Topic."

I asked a question. Who judges the win/loss of the "Cup."

You decided to appoint yourself Judge and combatant.

I gave you a reason why I find it ludicrous to even consider challenging for your "Cup."

The deck is stacked. You will NEVER lose because the Judge (you) is incapable of admitting when you are wrong.

So, instead I will go ahead and congratulate you on your victory against anyone who does challenge you. With yourself as Judge, I have faith in you.

If you put it to a vote of the membership, you'll never win. We both know it.

This is a clear challenge. If Drew Henson starts two games we will miss the playoffs.

With the Cowboys at 4-7 and still facing the Eagles in Philly before the season is over I wouldn't take that bet with Joe Montana in his prime coming in to start 2 games.

In other words, not only no, hell no.

A fool might. I am not now, nor have I ever been a fool.

Bet only comes into play if Henson starts two games.

How about we turn this around and if your boy Romo starts 2 games you bet we WILL make the playoffs. I will bet that we WON'T.

Do we have a bet?

You can stay out of the game, you would be wise to turn down the bet - JMO

LMAO

I turned down the bet already.

Did you really think you could make that bet more enticing and I would jump on it?

Wake up, the coffee is brewing.

 

[Nors]

Wait, so you get to decide the bets? That is very stupid resoning. Again, I propose a bet that Drew ________ will start at qb for the cowboys next year....

I will turn down your crow bet offer. Henson has a good shot at it as do in a long shot Drew Brees or Drew Bledsoe.

I'd like initial bets to be on something that will happen now - not in a year.

 

[Hostile]

I will turn down your crow bet offer. Henson has a good shot at it as do in a long shot Drew Brees or Drew Bledsoe.

I'd like initial bets to be on something that will happen now - not in a year.

I take it my counter proposal doesn't stir your interest?

 

[Nors]

A team with a base 3-4 defense will play in the Super Bowl.

PATS
STEELERS
RAVENS
CHARGERS.

 

[Hostile]

A team with a base 3-4 defense will play in the Super Bowl.

PATS
STEELERS
RAVENS
CHARGERS.

LOL

You are transparent. Why not take half the contenders in the AFC?

Oh wait, you took more than half.

 

[Nors]

Accept the offer or move on.

This is the smack zone.


So you NOW acknowledge the dominance of 3-4 defenses in AFC - LOL

 

[Hostile]

Accept the offer or move on.

This is the smack zone.


So you NOW acknowledge the dominance of 3-4 defenses in AFC - LOL

I gave you a counter offer.

You deserve an answer but no one else does?

I know what Zone it is. I don't care.

No, I acknowledge that those are the top teams in the AFC. I don't see dominance from any of them.

 

[Nors]

I gave you a counter offer.

You deserve an answer but no one else does?

I know what Zone it is. I don't care.

No, I acknowledge that those are the top teams in the AFC. I don't see dominance from any of them.

dismissed officially on the record.

Call me on my dominance challenge then!

 

[Hostile]

dismissed officially on the record.

Call me on my dominance challenge then!

You like trying to stack the deck and think other people are stupid. I won't accomodate you. I'm not stupid.

3-4 dominance huh.

To me dominance is when that defense can totally shut down a high scoring offense. Highest scoring offense this year is Indianapolis with 431 points scored.

They have faced 3 teams that run a 3-4 scheme this year.

New England in week 1, scored 24 points on them in a loss. (Good, but not great.)

Oakland in week 5, scored 35 points on them. (328 points allowed on the season. That's dominance baby.)

Houston in week 10, scored 49 points on them. (289 points allowed on the season. Brilliance.)

You conveniently forget all of the other 3-4 defenses and want to focus just on the good ones. LMAO

For the umpteenth time. It is NOT the scheme that is dominant it is the personnel in that scheme. You are proving my point, but I doubt you'll admit that. New England, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and San Diego have personnel.

If we had the personnel I would gladly root for a 3-4 scheme here. We don't have the personnel. Period.

You want to cherry pick your arguments then find someone else. The truth is evident for anyone who wants to see.

Besides I won't accept any Cup Challenge as long as you are the Judge. Moot point based on that alone. Anyone who does accept your challenge is wasting his time based on that alone.

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Roughneck]

You like trying to stack the deck and think other people are stupid. I won't accomodate you. I'm not stupid.

3-4 dominance huh.

To me dominance is when that defense can totally shut down a high scoring offense. Highest scoring offense this year is Indianapolis with 431 points scored.

They have faced 3 teams that run a 3-4 scheme this year.

New England in week 1, scored 24 points on them in a loss. (Good, but not great.)

Oakland in week 5, scored 35 points on them. (328 points allowed on the season. That's dominance baby.)

Houston in week 10, scored 49 points on them. (289 points allowed on the season. Brilliance.)

You conveniently forget all of the other 3-4 defenses and want to focus just on the good ones. LMAO

For the umpteenth time. It is NOT the scheme that is dominant it is the personnel in that scheme. You are proving my point, but I doubt you'll admit that. New England, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and San Diego have personnel.

If we had the personnel I would gladly root for a 3-4 scheme here. We don't have the personnel. Period.

You want to cherry pick your arguments then find someone else. The truth is evident for anyone who wants to see.

Besides I won't accept any Cup Challenge as long as you are the Judge. Moot point based on that alone. Anyone who does accept your challenge is wasting his time based on that alone.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[Rack]

Game. Set. Match.

Werd.


Nors just got owned.

 

[Nors]

Game. Set. Match.

He has to turn every thread into his 3-4 sux rant. Sad.

 

[Tio]

He has to turn every thread into his 3-4 sux rant. Sad.

Atleast every thread that you turn into "3-4 is God's scheme".

 

[Hostile]

He has to turn every thread into his 3-4 sux rant. Sad.

Where did I say the 3-4 sux? Ever?

I haven't. Ever.

 

[Nors]

Where did I say the 3-4 sux? Ever?

I haven't. Ever.

And hijacked the thread. Lets move on - this is old.

 

[Hostile]

And hijacked the thread. Lets move on - this is old.

Hi-jacked a thread about a fictional Cup?

Nors, understand something I have been trying to tell you forever. I do NOT dislike the 3-4 scheme. Success in a defense, and in particular dominance, has NOTHING to do with the scheme and EVERYTHING to do with the personnel.

Personnel....