Nors Cup

[Hostile]

Lombardi

Mental Toughness is Spartinism with its qualities of sacrifice and self denial, also the qualities of dedication, fearlessness and love.

Goodnight Hos.

Goodnight to you too. Thanks again.

 

[Rack]

Goodnight to you too. Thanks again.

He doesn't have it in him to admit he was wrong.


He didn't have a choice but to admit he was wrong about the Ty Law deal, and he still says that talks were taking place (no they weren't).


Hos, here's a challenge for you. I bet Nors doesn't meet those two conditions... ever. Deal?

 

[Nors]

He doesn't have it in him to admit he was wrong.


He didn't have a choice but to admit he was wrong about the Ty Law deal, and he still says that talks were taking place (no they weren't).


Hos, here's a challenge for you. I bet Nors doesn't meet those two conditions... ever. Deal?

I'm NEVER going to.

Rack - you freakin Karnac? You can factually state that Dallas and Patriots never had talks on Law? How can you prove that? You know Parcells, Pioli?
Teams with Cap problems and no depth don't discuss trades? Parcells has no proclivity to bring back his players?

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I'm NEVER going to.

Rack - you freakin Karnac? You can factually state that Dallas and Patriots never had talks on Law? How can you prove that? You know Parcells, Pioli?
Teams with Cap problems and no depth don't discuss trades? Parcells has no proclivity to bring back his players?

Well to be fair to both.

He can not prove they did not have talks....yet I have seen no proof from you that the did.

So neither of you have proof.

BTW...do yourself a favor and stop tap dancing...either accept the terms hos laid down or reject them.

 

[Nors]

and agree - move on

 

[Hostile]

He doesn't have it in him to admit he was wrong.


He didn't have a choice but to admit he was wrong about the Ty Law deal, and he still says that talks were taking place (no they weren't).


Hos, here's a challenge for you. I bet Nors doesn't meet those two conditions... ever. Deal?

Unfortunately I think that last statement is right, and I do mean unfortunately.

I didn't ask for prof that NE and Dallas actually discussed Ty Law. That has been the big bugaboo for him here. I let the dust on that settle.

The night of his exile he was very derogatory towards Julius Jones. In particular talking about his YPC against Baltimore and what a total waste our 2004 draft was. Since then the kid has had 2 games where he played out of his mind.

One of my conditions...admit he was rash in his judgment of Julius. You would think that a Cowboys fan could do that. Apparently not.

His pet topic of 3-4 superiority vs. my contention it is about having the right personnel really seems to be why he refuses these conditions. He read an article praising the attacking style of the 46 defense. He believes the 3-4 to be an attacking style. So, he drew a line between the two and claimed the 46 was styled after the 3-4.

Dent, Perry, McMichael, and Hampton.

Marshall, Singletary, and Wilson.

7 pieces of evidence I presented to prove that claim false. The evidence right there is 100% irrefutable and undeniable. At no time have any of those first 4 names played LB or dropped back into coverage while playing for the 46. Not once, not ever.

So, it begs the question. Why won't he simply say he was wrong about that?

In my opinion he thinks it would be a link for me to say he is therefore wrong about the superiority of the 3-4 defense. Why he thinks I would make that wild stretch just because he did is beyond me. Maybe he thinks I will use that to say it proves that the 4-3 is a superior scheme. I have never maintained that the 4-3 is a superior scheme. I have said the best defenses in NFL History ran 4-3 schemes. That doesn't equal superiority. That means those teams had great personnel.

This is nothing like the dubious admission we weren't trading for Ty Law. You know where the Trade Deadline passed and afterwards he could keep the same agenda by saying "Dallas balked at giving up a #1." In other words what made him wrong was the trade deadline and the Dallas FO, not his information. To some that is an admission of wrong. Let them feel that way. I am fine with that. I don't buy ocean front property here in Arizona but some do. That's their business not mine.

I find the inability to accept those 2 conditions to be pretty sad. I mean how hard is that?

Instead he tries to add "rules" and wiggle room that were never part of the original condition.

Perhaps he thinks these actions make him look better. 100% wrong, but he is entitled to think it I suppose.

 

[Nors]

46 defense is a dinosaur - but used a lot of up backers, Safeties and moved the line all over to create blocking problems. Dead horse to talk to you. You have a closed mind to schemes and uses of players.

I stand that at the time there were questions on milk jones. 1 game , 1 fumble tapped hat, broken ribs, broken shoulder.

I've been giving Jules all the credit - he's playing great.

I was wrong on Law trade - your point?
Talks can't be proven by either side.

Not happening -

 

[Rack]

Forget it, Hos. He's just not man enough to admit he is wrong.

 

[Nors]

Is it ok if I add you to my "buddy" list?

Thanks!

 

[Hostile]

46 defense is a dinosaur - but used a lot of up backers, Safeties and moved the line all over to create blocking problems. Dead horse to talk to you. You have a closed mind to schemes and uses of players.

Actually that would be you with the closed mind to facts. You are also close minded to schemes. As long as the players are big, plug them in and turn them loose. Makes no difference to you that a Scott Shanle may not be as talented as an Al Singleton. Use the lesser player because the scheme is superior.

There isn't an ounce of proof to support that theory as evidenced by how bad the Oakland Raiders 3-4 scheme is in 2004. OR, How bad the Houston Texans 3-4 scheme is after 4 years. Or, how bad the Atlanta Falcons 3-4 scheme was in 2003.

I am not close minded to the scheme. I am close minded to running the scheme without the personnel to do it. There is a HUGE difference and if you don't recognize that, then you are being myopic.

You are especially close minded to facts that refute your rash statements.

For example, you rashly stated in your excitement about an article on the 46 defense that it was based upon the 3-4 scheme and the confusion it is designed to create. This is 100% wrong and the facts support this.

Fact...the 3-4 scheme employs 3 Defensive Linemen and 4 Linbackers. In this scheme the Linebackers can drop back into pass coverage or put pressure on the QB or RB in the backfield much like a DL.

Fact...in the 46 Defense (which just a few months ago you were raving about, but is now a "dinosaur") the Chicago Bears had 4, count them 4, Defensive Linemen. Their names were Richard Dent, William Perry, Steve McMichael, and Dan Hampton.

Fact...they (Dent, Perry, McMichael, and Hampton) played their entire careers on the Defensive Line and were not "hybrids."

Fact...none of them (Dent, Perry, McMichael, and Hampton) ever played Linebacker.

Fact...during the 1985 season when they (Bears) were perhaps the most dominant defense in the NFL those 4 players did NOT drop back into pass coverage, but rather came after opposing team's QBs and RBs like they stole something. Theirs was a fairly simple assignment...attack.

Fact...the 46 is not a Zone Blitz scheme where the DE's peel back into pass coverage while the LBs or Safeties blitz to confuse the pass protection. In the 46 the 4 D Linemen had a simplified job to simply apply pressure from snap to whistle and never stop coming.

You see, there is not one ounce of corroborating evidence to support your stance. Yet you cling to it and accuse me of close mindedness.

So, I will open my mind. Show me one instance where any of those 4 players (Dent, Perry, McMichael, or Hampton) ever assumed the role of LB in the 46 defense and instead of coming after the QB or RB the dropped back into pass coverage.

My mind is 100% open to showing me that the scenario above (which is absolutely vital to your claim of a parallel to a 3-4 scheme), ever worked in the fashion described.

Surely you can show me one example of corroborating proof for your claim Nors. I mean, being so open minded you must have found an example of this somewhere along the way. Have you written Buddy Ryan to ask him to corroborate your version? I'll gladly write him for you if you want. Say the word and this open minded person will get you your proof and back off.

You want to know why you get so much grief on message boards? It is because YOU are close minded and unwilling to prove your contentions or back away from them when you are wrong. When people prove you wrong instead of paying them any kind of respect you sulk, pout, and generally go insult them in another post or thread somewhere. You NEVER corroborate anything and constantly try to spin doctor your way out of the corners you paint yourself into. Not my fault the posters here are too smart to buy into these tricks.

Believe it or not other people on this forum do have some damn good knowledge of the game of football and how it works. I am often amazed at how much some of the people here do know. It isn't a threat to me and how much I feel I know. I appreciate when they share their knowledge with me. Believe it or not that appreciation includes you, Nors.

You would do yourself credit to listen to what they have to say for a change rather than getting upset when they don't agree with you and turning into a troll.

By trying to save face with not admitting you're just like the rest of us and are sometimes wrong, you don't save face at all. You lose it. Maybe you don't care. If not, then quit crying when people challenge your ideas because you invite exactly what they give you.

 

[Nors]

Actually that would be you with the closed mind to facts. You are also close minded to schemes. As long as the players are big, plug them in and turn them loose. Makes no difference to you that a Shanle may not be as talented as a Singleton. Use the lesser player because the scheme is superior.

There isn't an ounce of proof to support that theory as evidenced by how bad the Oakland Raiders 3-4 scheme is in 2004. How bad the Houston Texans 3-4 scheme is after 4 years. How bad the Atlanta Falcons 3-4 scheme was in 2003.

I am not close minded to the scheme. I am close minded to running the scheme without the personnel to do it. There is a HUGE difference and if you don't recognize that then you are being myopic.

You are especially close minded to facts that refute your rash statements.

For example, you rashly stated in your excitement about an article on the 46 defense that it was based upon the 3-4 scheme and the confusion it is designed to create. This is 100% wrong and the facts support this.

Fact...the 3-4 scheme employs 3 Defensive Linemen and 4 Linbackers. In this scheme the Linebackers can drop back into pass coverage or put pressure on the QB or RB in the backfield much like a DL.

Fact...in the 46 Defense (which just a few months ago you were raving about, but is now a "dinosaur") the Chicago Bears had 4, count them 4, Defensive Linemen. Their names were Richard Dent, William Perry, Steve McMichael, and Dan Hampton. That was 4.

Fact...they (Dent, Perry, McMichael, and Hampton) played their entire careers on the Defensive Line and were not "hybrids."

Fact...none of them (Dent, Perry, McMichael, and Hampton) ever played Linebacker.

Fact...during the 1985 season when they (Bears) were perhaps the most dominant defense in the NFL those 4 players did NOT drop back into pass coverage, but rather came after opposing team's QBs and RBs like they stole something. Theirs was a fairly simple assignment...attack.

Fact...the 46 is not a Zone Blitz scheme where the DE's peel back into pass coverage while the LBs or Safeties blitz to confuse the pass protection. In the 46 the 4 D Linemen had a simplified job to simply apply pressure from snap to whistle and never stop coming.

You see, there is not one ounce of corroborating evidence to support your stance. Yet you cling to it and accuse me of close mindedness. So, I will open my mind. Show me one instance where any of those 4 players (Dent, Perry, McMichael, or Hampton) ever assumed the role of LB in the 46 defense and instead of coming after the QB or RB the dropped back into pass coverage.

My mind is 100% open to showing me that the scenario above (which is absolutely vital to your claim of a parallel to a 3-4 scheme), ever worked in the fashion described.

Surely you can show me one example of corroborating proof for your claim Nors. I mean, being so open minded you must have found an example of this somewhere along the lines. Have you written Buddy Ryan to ask him to corroborate your version? I'll gladly write him for you if you want. Say the word and this open minded person will get you your proof and back off.

You want to know why you get so much grief on message boards? It is because YOU are close minded and unwilling to prove your contentions or back away from them when you are wrong. When people prove you wrong instead of paying them any kind of respect you sulk, pout, and generally go insult them in another post or thread somewhere.

Believe it or not other people on this forum do have some damn good knowledge of the game of football and how it works. I am often amazed at how much some of the people here do know. It isn't a threat to me and how much I feel I know. I appreciate when they share their knowledge with me. Believe it or not that appreciation includes you, Nors.

You would do yourself credit to listen to what they have to say for a change rather than getting upset when they don't agree with you and turning into a troll.

By trying to save face with not admitting you're just like the rest of us and are sometimes wrong, you don't save face at all. You lose it. Maybe you don't care. If not, then quit crying when people challenge your ideas because you invite exactly what they give you.

I made a fewcomments about similarities in how the 2 defenses scheme and attack oline with Men up in the box. Get it?

Move on - you turn every thread into a 3-4 or a 4-6 thread. Good grief

 

[Hostile]

I made a fewcomments about similarities in how the 2 defenses scheme and attack oline with Men up in the box. Get it?

Move on - you turn every thread into a 3-4 or a 4-6 thread. Good grief

Rack, was once again...100% right.

 

[Nors]

Rack 100% right, now thats wrong!

 

[Rack]

Thats too funny

Rack 100% right, now thats wrong!

You must laugh on a daily basis then.

 

[Tio]

Nors, this is really getting sad. WHy can't you admit, that the 46 and 3-4 aren't linked in any way that you suggest? WHy can't you give Jones props for carrying it 30+ yards a carry for 3 games straight? Why can't you say"i was wrong caling him milk Jones, head tapper....the guy played 4 more downs with a broken shoulder!" then we would be done with it.

Hos, I ask a favor of you, can you let the cup be up for grabs by anyone but nors, im sure noone else would give it to him if he won't admit he is wrong...

 

[Nors]

Nors, this is really getting sad. WHy can't you admit, that the 46 and 3-4 aren't linked in any way that you suggest? WHy can't you give Jones props for carrying it 30+ yards a carry for 3 games straight? Why can't you say"i was wrong caling him milk Jones, head tapper....the guy played 4 more downs with a broken shoulder!" then we would be done with it.

Hos, I ask a favor of you, can you let the cup be up for grabs by anyone but nors, im sure noone else would give it to him if he won't admit he is wrong...

1) I gave Jones major props. He's doing great. He's playing lights out. Hos felt a need to slander me because a few times I called Jones "Milk Jones".
Deservedly so, broken ribs and broken shoulder have kept him off the field for almost the whole season. I stand by joking at Jones expense - But I have and continue to give him props.

2) Hos feels a need to try and instigate a 4-6 , 3-4 CONTROVERSY that isn't.

Fact is he was of the stick with 4-3 defense last offseason. I don't rehash that at nauseaum. Freakin Hos - admit you were freakin wrong. This is a discussion board? - but its not discussions that some want here.

 

[Rack]

1) I gave Jones major props. He's doing great. He's playing lights out. Hos felt a need to slander me because a few times I called Jones "Milk Jones".
Deservedly so, broken ribs and broken shoulder have kept him off the field for almost the whole season. I stand by joking at Jones expense - But I have and continue to give him props.

2) Hos feels a need to try and instigate a 4-6 , 3-4 CONTROVERSY that isn't.

Fact is he was of the stick with 4-3 defense last offseason. I don't rehash that at nauseaum. Freakin Hos - admit you were freakin wrong. This is a discussion board? - but its not discussions that some want here.

Since when did JuJo have broken ribs? What world are you living in? It sure as hell isn't the "Real" world.


And since you seem to lack the comprehension skills that require you to "Get it" i'll try and say it in a way that you'll understand (regarding Hos wanting us to stay in a 4-3 this year).


WE DO NOT HAVE THE PERSONELL THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO SUCCESSFULLY RUN A 3-4 DEFENSE. COMPRENDE? THE REASON HOS WANTS US TO STAY IN A 4-3 DEFENSE IS BECAUSE THE PERSONELL WE HAVE ON DEFENSE IS BEST SUITED FOR PLAYING IN A 4-3 DEFENSE.

DO

YOU

UNDERSTAND

THAT

NORS?

 

[Nors]

Our Defense SUX -

Freakin fix it - don't make me repost all the "but its #1 rated defense" Don't change it. We are a great base 4-3.
We don't have personnel to run a 4-3!
Capiche.

 

[Rack]

Our Defense SUX -

Freakin fix it - don't make me repost all the "but its #1 rated defense" Don't change it. We are a great base 4-3.
We don't have personnel to run a 4-3!
Capiche.

Yet we had the #1 rated defense in the league last year with basically THE SAME PERSONNEL THAT WE HAVE THIS YEAR.

OUR PERSONNEL IS MUCH BETTER SUITED TO RUNNING THE 4-3 THEN IT IS FOR RUNNING THE 3-4. PERIOD.​

CAPICHE?

 

[Hostile]

Nors, this is really getting sad. WHy can't you admit, that the 46 and 3-4 aren't linked in any way that you suggest? WHy can't you give Jones props for carrying it 30+ yards a carry for 3 games straight? Why can't you say"i was wrong caling him milk Jones, head tapper....the guy played 4 more downs with a broken shoulder!" then we would be done with it.

Hos, I ask a favor of you, can you let the cup be up for grabs by anyone but nors, im sure noone else would give it to him if he won't admit he is wrong...

Yes, because you asked nicely the "Cup" is now up for grabs.