Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Packers vs Ravens: Studs and Duds
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TJV" data-source="post: 518550" data-attributes="member: 4300"><p>Yes, everyone paying attention. Against the Ravens, Kuhn stayed in to block for Rodgers on 4 of 35 drop backs. That's just over 10% of the passing plays. As HRE posted, Kuhn is on the roster mostly for STs. I enjoy a <em>good </em>argument with differing opinions but my disagreement wasn't about opinions, Bill. It was about facts. Statements like, “Kuhn has been in the game more often than not on third down passing situations… He's been doing it most of this season as well.” And posting regarding the most recent game, “He played 10 offensive snaps in that game. Guess when he played almost all of them... that's right, THIRD and long.”, no matter how emphatically or repeatedly presented are <em>demonstrably</em> incorrect.</p><p></p><p>We can have differing opinions about things like the value of Finley to the team and we can back up those opinions with facts and no one can say with certainty either opinion is incorrect. But the number of times a player was in the game is not an opinion. It is an objective fact. So when a poster posts Kuhn “played almost all of” ten (he only played eight) offensive snaps on “THIRD and long” when he was only on the field for one third down play, that’s not a difference of opinion. That is (again) a <em>demonstrably</em> false statement. I understand the argument got out of hand, but IMO it’s too bad that you and few others don’t appear to care about facts. And worse, that the poster in question won’t even admit he is wrong about facts. </p><p></p><p>Look, in the vast scheme of things this isn’t that important but if you’re going to spend time discussing the Packers here, since there are plenty of things to legitimately disagree about, why not at least begin with facts? </p><p>And just so you and others know Bill, while the argument got out of hand, I am unrepentant about challenging falsehoods presented as facts and will continue to challenge them as long as I’m here. Anyone having a problem with that may want to consider putting me on ignore.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TJV, post: 518550, member: 4300"] Yes, everyone paying attention. Against the Ravens, Kuhn stayed in to block for Rodgers on 4 of 35 drop backs. That's just over 10% of the passing plays. As HRE posted, Kuhn is on the roster mostly for STs. I enjoy a [I]good [/I]argument with differing opinions but my disagreement wasn't about opinions, Bill. It was about facts. Statements like, “Kuhn has been in the game more often than not on third down passing situations… He's been doing it most of this season as well.” And posting regarding the most recent game, “He played 10 offensive snaps in that game. Guess when he played almost all of them... that's right, THIRD and long.”, no matter how emphatically or repeatedly presented are [I]demonstrably[/I] incorrect. We can have differing opinions about things like the value of Finley to the team and we can back up those opinions with facts and no one can say with certainty either opinion is incorrect. But the number of times a player was in the game is not an opinion. It is an objective fact. So when a poster posts Kuhn “played almost all of” ten (he only played eight) offensive snaps on “THIRD and long” when he was only on the field for one third down play, that’s not a difference of opinion. That is (again) a [I]demonstrably[/I] false statement. I understand the argument got out of hand, but IMO it’s too bad that you and few others don’t appear to care about facts. And worse, that the poster in question won’t even admit he is wrong about facts. Look, in the vast scheme of things this isn’t that important but if you’re going to spend time discussing the Packers here, since there are plenty of things to legitimately disagree about, why not at least begin with facts? And just so you and others know Bill, while the argument got out of hand, I am unrepentant about challenging falsehoods presented as facts and will continue to challenge them as long as I’m here. Anyone having a problem with that may want to consider putting me on ignore. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
R
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: rmontro
Yesterday at 8:07 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: tynimiller
Yesterday at 6:14 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: milani
Yesterday at 5:41 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 3:06 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
M
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: mradtke66
Yesterday at 2:30 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Packers vs Ravens: Studs and Duds
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
