peplaw06
That Guy
- Messages
- 13,699
- Reaction score
- 413
I didn't "call you" on anything, other than I knew I could rebut your point. I simply asked for your source for numbers, so I could examine them.SLATEmosphere;3303561 said:Dude, I gave you very subjective stats. You called me on the "gaither has less sacks given up the last two years than adams" statement I made. I have you sacks given up,QB pressures and QB hits. ****ing subjective
Showing weakness? :laugh2:I came back and showed you that was in fact true.
You come back bashing the source aka showing weakness.
The only thing that's weak around here is your dependence on someone else's research. If you don't have someone else doing the work for you, you have nothing. And you don't know how they came up with their numbers.
good lord. I hardly even got involved in that debate, other than to point out a few obvious points. When you posted your numbers was the first time I've ever been to profootballfocus.com, so it's not like I got all wrapped up in theo's point and examined it closely.Meanwhile that source I was using that was being questioned by you, was the SAME source that theo used when defending Hamlin the other night. IIRC you were on theo's side. So you sure didn't have any problems when theo used it. But the minute I use it for my argument it gets tossed out the window.
What about you? You rail on theo's use of that source, and then use the exact same source for your argument here. And you're a lot deeper into these debates than I am.
All I've done is noticed that there are certain people who know what they're talking about, and there are those who don't. I think you know where you fall, yet you remain one of the loudest, most abrasive people here.
Color me shocked.casmith07;3303573 said:You do know the difference between subjective and objective, right?