Vita Vea visits

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Who is getting emotional? Your way is a loser's way. It's been proven time and again for the past 25+ years in Dallas. You think Jimmy Johnson would agree with you? Think again. Jimmy Johnson showed us how to build a winner by sacrificing during key times and making crucial trades in order to win through the draft in order to surround yourself with the best talent compared to your competition. Then coach them up hard into becoming winners. If they fail, you replace those underachievers with new and better talent that will help you succeed every year thereafter in the playoffs. That's how you build a winning morale, not by coddling them like you insist.

You think Jimmy Johnson would have tanked games?

I do like how you are advocating playing to lose and are calling me a loser. The irony is delicious.

And exactly how am I coddling them? I am just saying that you shouldn't tell them that you are trying to lose so you can replace them with better draft picks.

You've never been in a management position have you?

 

[Stash]

You would have thought it wasted either way.

What are you implying here?

So what record do you expect this year?

Does it matter? Apparently, you'll paint me as being negative no matter what I say, right?

 

[Stash]

What goal post is that?

My point has always been that tanking doesn't work unless you have a regime change. The Colts got a new regime in 2012 in Pagano and Grigson.

There's where the goalposts moved. Suddenly, your claim - that you obviously didn't research - is disproven and it now develops some sort of a "qualifier" about "regime change". It's embarrassing for you.

Just give it up already, you're not doing yourself any favors continuing this conversation.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What are you implying here?



Does it matter? Apparently, you'll paint me as being negative no matter what I say, right?

That we were not going to make the playoffs either way and 8-8 or 9-7 you still would have said it was wasted.

And it matters because I am curious. And who cares if I paint you as pessimistic? It's not like you have to be ashamed of it or anything. Come on man you just agreed that the team sucks a few posts ago. It's not like I have to do anything to paint you that way.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There's where the goalposts moved. Suddenly, your claim - that you obviously didn't research - is disproven and it now develops some sort of a "qualifier" about "regime change". It's embarrassing for you.

Just give it up already, you're not doing yourself any favors continuing this conversation.

I can repost where about an hour ago I said regime change works with tanking because that is what Jimmy did when he blew up the team in 1988. The qualifier was hardly new.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have been asking you for examples of tanking working ie turning a team around to playoff success and you gave me examples of teams that didn't try to lose ie tank.

I'm using your words to point out that if your "best interest" is indeed playoff success then even though you get better draft slots, tanking doesn't get you where you want to go and it really never has.

The only time I have ever seen it work is when you completely blowup the team a la what Jerry and Jimmy did when first taking over the team.

The mechanics of why this is are not so easy to understand but they are discernable. Football players have to train harder than in any other sport.

QB and kickers are exceptions but you just don't see skinny armed athletes like Kevin Durant of the NBA playing at that type of level in the NFL.

The game itself is much more physically demanding. There is no analog in team sports to the feats of strength on display as interior linemen compete. There is no analog to the collisions between defenders and ball carriers.

In order to compete players have to buy into a program and tain their ***** off. Once you stop trying to do everything within your power to win then it is simply human nature for the players to do the same. What's good for the goose is good for the gander is the cliche that encapsulates the sentiment. They start taking reps off. The stop coming to voluntary activities. The take less time studying film. They don't give their all in practice. They start taking plays off in games.

What you end up with is what you see in moribund franchises like the Jets, Browns, Bucs and the like. They struggle to develop players, their players underperform on gamedays with repeated mistakes and evidence of physical inferiority.

I know you would be all on board for blowing the team up and replacing the coaching staff. You level of despair is to that point but we are not blowing up the team this year and doing it anyway literally just wastes the year even more than you already think it is.

Tanking does not propel an existing program to post season success. It never has and never will as the sport is currently constructed.

Look at the timestamp and order of posts. Bolded for emphasis. You came up with another example with regime change. My point still stands.

 

[America's Cowboy]

You think Jimmy Johnson would have tanked games?

I do like how you are advocating playing to lose and are calling me a loser. The irony is delicious.

And exactly how am I coddling them? I am just saying that you shouldn't tell them that you are trying to lose so you can replace them with better draft picks.

You've never been in a management position have you?

Nah, I simply own a business. Trust me, you would fail in business or knowing how to build a winner.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nah, I simply own a business. Trust me, you would fail in business or knowing how to build a winner.

I don't trust you at all and you have no idea about me. You act like Blake from Glengarry Glen Ross is the optimal management style.

 

[Stash]

That we were not going to make the playoffs either way and 8-8 or 9-7 you still would have said it was wasted.

It was wasted. 2017 was a wasted season. If yiu want to make the case otherwise, the floor is yours. That meaningless last "win" just moved the needle from "bad" to "worse".

And it matters because I am curious. And who cares if I paint you as pessimistic? It's not like you have to be ashamed of it or anything. Come on man you just agreed that the team sucks a few posts ago. It's not like I have to do anything to paint you that way.

It's your obvious attempt to be dismissive that I'll call out. You can be patently wrong and it's just shrugged off as "no big deal" and then you try to turn the conversation down some different avenue as a distraction.

If you want a prediction of a record prior to the draft, free agency, and training camp, it's worthless, from you, me or anyone else. I can type a number from 0 to 16 and it carries the same zero weight at this point.

 

[Stash]

I can repost where about an hour ago I said regime change works with tanking because that is what Jimmy did when he blew up the team in 1988. The qualifier was hardly new.

"An hour ago" seems pretty "new" to me.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It was wasted. 2017 was a wasted season. If yiu want to make the case otherwise, the floor is yours. That meaningless last "win" just moved the needle from "bad" to "worse".



It's your obvious attempt to be dismissive that I'll call out. You can be patently wrong and it's just shrugged off as "no big deal" and then you try to turn the conversation down some different avenue as a distraction.

If you want a prediction of a record prior to the draft, free agency, and training camp, it's worthless, from you, me or anyone else. I can type a number from 0 to 16 and it carries the same zero weight at this point.

Being wrong in a point of fact is no big deal if it doesn't change my overall point. Tankiing only works when you regime change else it is detrimental.

Its not worthless if you are trying to gauge someone's sentiment towards a team's prospects.

 

[Stash]

Look at the timestamp and order of posts. Bolded for emphasis. You came up with another example with regime change. My point still stands.

And you think that this somehow gets you off the hook of being "empirically" wrong about your claims?

Newsflash, it doesn't.

You typed **** without knowing what you were "empirically" talking about. And it blew up in your face. And now you're trying to wriggle off the hook you've found yourself on.

Much easier and classier to simply admit your mistake and move on.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"An hour ago" seems pretty "new" to me.

it was before you made the point about the Colts. The temporal order is what is key and it proves I moved no goalposts.

 

[Stash]

Being wrong in a point of fact is no big deal if it doesn't change my overall point. Tankiing only works when you regime change else it is detrimental.

A far different story from "tanking never works". Whether yiu want to finally admit that or not.

Its not worthless if you are trying to gauge someone's sentiment towards a team's prospects.

Fine. You go first. Then I'll respond.

 

[Stash]

it was before you made the point about the Colts. The temporal order is what is key and it proves I moved no goalposts.

You moved the goalposts when you placed any sort of qualifier on your original "empirical" position.

When has tanking ever worked in the NFL?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And you think that this somehow gets you off the hook of being "empirically" wrong about your claims?

Newsflash, it doesn't.

You typed **** without knowing what you were "empirically" talking about. And it blew up in your face. And now you're trying to wriggle off the hook you've found yourself on.

Much easier and classier to simply admit your mistake and move on.

It's always amusing when you guys grandstand on a point of fact like you accomplished something. it's not an automatic win even if it is as emotionally satisfying for you as it seems. You have yet to tie my sitake into the argument and instead strut. I find it funny personally.

I did admit my mistake with using the Colts as an example. My point about blowing up teams with new regimes still stands from where I said it before.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You moved the goalposts when you placed any sort of qualifier on your original "empirical" position.

I had already constructed my argument. You accused me of adding that bit about regime change in response to your rebuttal which was not the case.

Adjust and move on. It's not a big deal.

 

[Stash]

It's always amusing when you guys grandstand on a point of fact like you accomplished something. it's not an automatic win even if it is as emotionally satisfying for you as it seems. You have yet to tie my sitake into the argument and instead strut. I find it funny personally.

I'm glad that you find such enjoyment in being "empirically" wrong. I find that "amusing".

It's also "amusing" how you try to label everyone else as "emotional". Another failed attempt at being dismissive.

I did admit my mistake with using the Colts as an example. My point about blowing up teams with new regimes still stands from where I said it before.

When has tanking ever worked in the NFL?

 

[LACowboysFan1]

Acting like that is what happened is not.

I didn't. But apparently you just want to act like you're always right and anybody else's opinion is wrong.

And for people like that I have no use. I will not be replying to any more of your posts.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm glad that you find such enjoyment in being "empirically" wrong. I find that "amusing".

It's also "amusing" how you try to label everyone else as "emotional". Another failed attempt at being dismissive.

It's only worked when it has been in tandem with regime change. You aren't even arguing that point or the mechanics behind it with regards to morale.

You're still too pleased with my mistake to move onto the larger picture. I've got some work to do and will be back later. Hopefully it will subside then.