Official Packers vs Eagles

NOMOFO

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
76
Just this past Thursday you said, "There's no way I look at our schedule and the Lions and the results and come away "impressed" with one team over the other regarding the schedule played. I don't think anyone that follows the league closely could."

That earlier statement implies a judgement about quality of competition. I would characterize this as self-contradiction, unless you wish to admit to "garbling".

I suspect you know exactly what I was talking about but yet felt compelled to post this, which speaks volumes. Unless of course you are not in the group I was speaking of that FOLLOWS THE LEAGUE CLOSELY.

There's a big difference between looking at a teams schedule and doing an eye test verses looking at a SOS chart. Especially when the SOS chart doesn't even go any further than wins and losses.

PERFECT example: The Rams beat the Niners, Seahawks and now Denver. That's three quality wins. When they played the Niners and Seahawks however they weren't even considered quality wins because at the time they didn't have winning records. In today's NFL, this year more then ever in recent history, the win loss records are very skewed and tell a fraction of the story. For God's sake, the pathetic Falcons at 4-6 are first in their division. nuff said.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
I suspect you know exactly what I was talking about but yet felt compelled to post this, which speaks volumes. Unless of course you are not in the group I was speaking of that FOLLOWS THE LEAGUE CLOSELY.

There's a big difference between looking at a teams schedule and doing an eye test verses looking at a SOS chart. Especially when the SOS chart doesn't even go any further than wins and losses.

PERFECT example: The Rams beat the Niners, Seahawks and now Denver. That's three quality wins. When they played the Niners and Seahawks however they weren't even considered quality wins because at the time they didn't have winning records. In today's NFL, this year more then ever in recent history, the win loss records are very skewed and tell a fraction of the story. For God's sake, the pathetic Falcons at 4-6 are first in their division. nuff said.
My point being, you conflate a difference of opinion with a difference of methodology.

Your argument for having some superior methodology to other posters seems to be predicated on the fact that you watch games that others do not. That's not supported and amounts to straw man.

It does not help your case for some particularly superior methodology when you make misstatements of fact.

Just so you know, Seattle was 3-2 when the Rams beat them. Seattle had wins over the Packers and Denver prior to the Rams game. The 49ers were4-3 when the Rams beat them. SF had wins over Dallas, KC and Philly at the time. 5 of the 6 Rams losses have been to SF, Seattle, Dallas, Philly and KC. Given their unhappy QB situation and lack of a good running game, their defense is better than the stats would indicate.

I have no idea what Atlanta has to do with this discussion other than they could be a trap game for somebody given Atlanta is playing for something.

As for your contention that this season is somehow different, I'd point out that since the mid-90's Cowboys, teams that are consistently outstanding on both sides of the ball, including outstanding QB play, have been very hard to come by.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NOMOFO

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
76
My point being, you conflate a difference of opinion with a difference of methodology.

Your argument for having some superior methodology to other posters seems to be predicated on the fact that you watch games that others do not. That's not supported and amounts to straw man.

It particularly does not help your case for some particularly superior methodology when you make misstatements of fact.

Just so you know, Seattle was 3-2 when the Rams beat them. Seattle had wins over the Packers and Denver prior to the Rams game. Also, the 49ers were 4-3 when the Rams beat them. SF had wins over Dallas, KC and Philly at the time. 5 of the 6 Rams losses were to SF, Seattle, Dallas, Philly and KC. Given their unhappy QB situation and lack of a good running game, their defense is better than the stats would indicate.

I have no idea what Atlanta has to do with this discussion other than they could be a trap game for somebody given their playing for something.

My Lord. We can do this all day. Unlike captaingooglmeister, I don't spend all my waking hours doing google research. It was my mistake from memory that Seattle was 3-2. I thought both of them and SF had losing records...but...whatever.

My comment on SOS remains the same. There are many different ways to figure SOS. I tend to think in today's NFL, to only look at one that breaks it down by wins and losses doesn't prove much. Last week I posted web links to different sites that figured SOS differently. No clue where those were posted and honestly, I'm really not all that interested in wasting time trying to find it again.

Superior methodology? Ahhhhhhh...ya... I suppose if I actually watch a team play several times and somebody else doesn't, I might actually have some insight. As you would and as anyone would. Really makes a lot of sense to argue that.

By eye test however I was talking about actually looking at a teams schedule and considering who is on it! It really is comical how hard some people try to prove out what they project will be future results without even a hint of honestly looking at facts! Perfect example is exactly what you yourself did with the Rams! I could not agree more! Yet, it's the Bills that are the "team de jour" even though they haven't proven SHI# or played HALF the schedule as the Rams.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
My Lord. We can do this all day. Unlike captaingooglmeister, I don't spend all my waking hours doing google research. It was my mistake from memory that Seattle was 3-2. I thought both of them and SF had losing records...but...whatever.

My comment on SOS remains the same. There are many different ways to figure SOS. I tend to think in today's NFL, to only look at one that breaks it down by wins and losses doesn't prove much. Last week I posted web links to different sites that figured SOS differently. No clue where those were posted and honestly, I'm really not all that interested in wasting time trying to find it again.

Superior methodology? Ahhhhhhh...ya... I suppose if I actually watch a team play several times and somebody else doesn't, I might actually have some insight. As you would and as anyone would. Really makes a lot of sense to argue that.

By eye test however I was talking about actually looking at a teams schedule and considering who is on it! It really is comical how hard some people try to prove out what they project will be future results without even a hint of honestly looking at facts! Perfect example is exactly what you yourself did with the Rams! I could not agree more! Yet, it's the Bills that are the "team de jour" even though they haven't proven SHI# or played HALF the schedule as the Rams.
We could do this all day, but I'll predict we will not.

People in glass houses should not throw stones.

You contend your observations are based on watching games and looking at schedules, yet you goofed on the SF and Seattle records.

You earlier claimed that the posters here probably have not even seen the Lions play. That would have been a ridiculous assertion even to you had you not forgotten the Packers and Lions had played already.

The Bills have an outstanding defense and sketchy QB play. It's a bit ironic you proclaimed liking Orton while I asserted he needed all of his weapons. You've written them off whereas I see the possibility of trap game in Buffalo. I would wager I've seen Buffalo play more than you.

Like the Lions, the Bills can beat anybody on a day the QB in on his game, or is at least mistake free. That's a matter of relative probability whereas you have a habit of couching favorable odds as certainties.
 

NOMOFO

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
76
We could do this all day, but I'll predict we will not.

People in glass houses should not throw stones.

You contend your observations are based on watching games and looking at schedules, yet you goofed on the SF and Seattle records.

You earlier claimed that the posters here probably have not even seen the Lions play. That would have been a ridiculous assertion even to you had you not forgotten the Packers and Lions had played already.

The Bills have an outstanding defense and sketchy QB play. It's a bit ironic you proclaimed liking Orton while I asserted he needed all of his weapons. You've written them off whereas I see the possibility of trap game in Buffalo. I would wager I've seen Buffalo play more than you.

Like the Lions, the Bills can beat anybody on a day the QB in on his game, or is at least mistake free. That's a matter of relative probability whereas you have a habit of couching favorable odds as certainties.
lol...ya...I forgot the packers played the lions. my god.
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
Unlike captaingooglmeister, I don't spend all my waking hours doing google research. It was my mistake from memory that Seattle was 3-2. I thought both of them and SF had losing records...but...whatever.
You've “accused” captainWIMM on a few occasions of using google so I finally have to ask: Are you criticizing him for supporting his opinions with facts? Or of searching the internet in order to find facts and then posting them? Or did he just correct one (or more) of your mistakes as HRE did above? Would you prefer factual errors made by posters not be corrected? Beyond that what does it say about a poster who, after being corrected goes on the “attack” instead of just admitting his mistake?
 

NOMOFO

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
76
Evidently. There's no other way to account for it.

You lose all credibility when you say something like that and it just further appears you're grasping...what do you say (and over- state and say again in half your posts) "amounts to straw man"?

So I commented on Orton. The fact that I do think he's a decent QB ("like him") and think half the league's QBs are worse. Somehow that gets flipped diced and twisted into what...exactly? Honestly have no idea WTF you are even trying to say... but I suspect it has to do with "straw men". Just guessing. :roflmao: Again, just being myself and playing the odds and that's a pretty damn good bet! :roflmao::roflmao:
 
I

I asked LT to delete my acct

Guest
My Lord. We can do this all day. Unlike captaingooglmeister, I don't spend all my waking hours doing google research. It was my mistake from memory that Seattle was 3-2. I thought both of them and SF had losing records...but...whatever.

My comment on SOS remains the same. There are many different ways to figure SOS. I tend to think in today's NFL, to only look at one that breaks it down by wins and losses doesn't prove much. Last week I posted web links to different sites that figured SOS differently. No clue where those were posted and honestly, I'm really not all that interested in wasting time trying to find it again.

Superior methodology? Ahhhhhhh...ya... I suppose if I actually watch a team play several times and somebody else doesn't, I might actually have some insight. As you would and as anyone would. Really makes a lot of sense to argue that.

By eye test however I was talking about actually looking at a teams schedule and considering who is on it! It really is comical how hard some people try to prove out what they project will be future results without even a hint of honestly looking at facts! Perfect example is exactly what you yourself did with the Rams! I could not agree more! Yet, it's the Bills that are the "team de jour" even though they haven't proven SHI# or played HALF the schedule as the Rams.

His NAME is Captain Wimm. Knock off the sniping. You`ve been advised of the ignore feature.
 

NOMOFO

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
76
You've “accused” captainWIMM on a few occasions of using google so I finally have to ask: Are you criticizing him for supporting his opinions with facts? Or of searching the internet in order to find facts and then posting them? Or did he just correct one (or more) of your mistakes as HRE did above? Would you prefer factual errors made by posters not be corrected? Beyond that what does it say about a poster who, after being corrected goes on the “attack” instead of just admitting his mistake?

Googling to get info to support or form an opinion is one thing. I do that if there's something I want to learn about or something I'm questioning or if there's a debate on a legit topic that needs support info.

The fact that I misspoke, based on memory, over a teams record....and it's already been mentioned like 5 times is pretty amusing and actually telling. I don't have time (or the desire) to spend hours a week googling over idiotic issues however.

You know what? I am all for admitting mistakes. I say we start a couple threads here. Let's revisit who said exactly what.

The first should be an Aaron Rodgers thread from his first start on. The second should be a Ted Thompson thread. The third should be a "the Packers receivers are not very good" thread. Fourth could be "those mighty Bears and all those weapons are going to be amazing!" Can we start there? In a couple weeks we can add a thread about the world champion Lions! lol

I would welcome my comments on all of those topics to get posted along side some of our resident experts. Have at it.
 
I

I asked LT to delete my acct

Guest
...but "idiot" and some of the names others are called are OK?

NOMO, this isn`t about others, it`s about you and your sniping. I get that you have an opinion, but so do other people, and ridiculing and name calling is not acceptable.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
You lose all credibility when you say something like that and it just further appears you're grasping...what do you say (and over- state and say again in half your posts) "amounts to straw man"?

So I commented on Orton. The fact that I do think he's a decent QB ("like him") and think half the league's QBs are worse. Somehow that gets flipped diced and twisted into what...exactly? Honestly have no idea WTF you are even trying to say... but I suspect it has to do with "straw men". Just guessing. :roflmao: Again, just being myself and playing the odds and that's a pretty damn good bet! :roflmao::roflmao:
"My Lord".

"My gosh."

My a**.

"Just sayin'."

"'Nuf said."
 
OP
OP
longtimefan

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,353
Reaction score
4,083
Location
Milwaukee
...but "idiot" and some of the names others are called are OK?

You specificly have been told to stop by me, and have had convos less than two weeks ago to stop.

I havent seen capt call you a name since.

He wasnt even in this convo and you drag him into it by name calling

Check your inbox
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top