Kano was the worst. Find one of Sub Zero (black n blue) about to annihilate Scorpion (yellow and black) and you got it right!
Other than that, I agree whole heartedly.
Ice up Saints, Ice up!
Jump to content
Matthias hasn't added any friends yet.
Posted by Matthias on 03 December 2013 - 09:50 PM
Kano was the worst. Find one of Sub Zero (black n blue) about to annihilate Scorpion (yellow and black) and you got it right!
Other than that, I agree whole heartedly.
Ice up Saints, Ice up!
Posted by Matthias on 24 November 2013 - 06:58 PM
Who's our starting number one corner? The truth is we have no good corners, yet if you ask me right now, I think both Thomas and White should start. They would be our best combination out of what we got to work with.
Posted by Matthias on 19 November 2013 - 07:30 AM
Wrong. Rulebook says right call was made. Try again.
What if this was the other way around? What if Cam was throwing to Olsen, and he was wrapped up? How would you feel then? Yet even if you believed the right call was made, what if Brady threw it in the range of Gronk? Kuechly still bear hugged him without even attempting to play the ball. (Which would have drawn a sure flag) Kuechly messed up point blank. Yet as I said before, I wouldn't even make a thread like this if this was an isolated incident. Kuechly is becoming known for this kind of coverage against good tight ends. This will bite us in the butt eventually.
Posted by Matthias on 19 November 2013 - 07:23 AM
I love me some Keeks, but he made a dumb play against Gronk. Not only should he have been penalized, it would have been better for him and the team in the long run to been penalized. Why do I say that? This is not the first time I seen Kuechly mug a good tight end in the endzone. What I saw last night was almost a mirror image of what he did to Gonzalez when we played the Falcons. Someone said that Kuechly made a similar play against the Bills, but I can't confirm that and yet I also wouldn't doubt it. It's clear now that this style of play is instinctual, and that is not good for us in the long run.
Kuechly should have been penalized, and that would have taught him to stop that kind of play. For one, it wasn't even necessary. We all know Brady has to throw the ball in the endzone, and we all calculated that Gronk was Brady's go-to-guy. You drop seven guys in coverage, meaning you aren't the only one to defend the pass. Why are you wrapping up and bear hugging the guy, not even a hint of attempt at actually playing the ball? That drives me crazy because Kuechly was actually in better position to intercept the pass himself had he played the ball. Why am I so mad that the refs picked the flag up? For one, it does in a way cheapen the game overall. I know the Patriots had a lot of dirty plays and they might have deserved for the refs to look the other way on that last play, but I want my team to play honorably regardless. I want to win without any excuse from the other side. That we were the best team last night through and through. Them picking up the flag kind of cheapened that for me. Secondly, Kuechly will now move on without changing his thought on how to cover a good tight end in the endzone. Eventually that play will catch up. I much rather would have been penalized last night and dealt with the consequences (one of them being Kuechly learn from this and begin playing the ball), than Kuechly doing something like this in the playoffs and it ends up costing us the game then.
How many of you believe Rivera got on Kuechly for that play last night? How many of you believe Kuechly is mentally checking himself right now and correct himself? Maybe those two things happened, I don't know. Yet I'm not as confident those two things happened now, because Kuechly wasn't penalized. Had he been penalized, those two things would have gotten done and trust me, they need to get done.
Posted by Matthias on 19 November 2013 - 12:30 AM
I won't go into the last play in detail, but I do feel we got away with that one a bit. What I will talk about in a little more detail is what we need to work on, specifically in the off season. The offense had a good game. They really stepped up with the defense struggling to stop Brady.
On Cam- His play was money tonight. He kept drives going whether it was with his arm or with his legs. He's still working on his accuracy in year three. I'd be lying if I said him missing wide open receivers on short passes doesn't bother me, but Cam has definitely improved. At this juncture in Cam's career, his strength in throwing the ball is the big play pass. Every pass Cam throw is almost a rocket. So I would like to see him master hitting receivers down the field for the big play, and continue to work on becoming a full passer.
Yet this O-line needs overhauling in the off season. We struggled to get good run blocking against a d-line that's missing two of it's starters, one of them being Vince Wilfork. These guys couldn't beat an undrafted nose tackle off the point of attack? (I liked Joe Vellano coming out of college by the way) Yeah, we need O-lineman.
On defensive play- They hung tough with a hall of fame QB. Managed to get two sacks, a force fumble, and an interception to end the game. They didn't have their best game, but it was good nonetheless. However, this game shows us immensly that we need to overhaul a good bit of our secondary. Tom picked apart Melvin White like nobody's business. No doubt it was because of our secondary, that we couldn't get a great pass rush going against the Patriots.
I felt like our defensive tackles were getting a good push against the run, but for some reason New England's backs slipped through some tackles and picked up yards. That part I feel like we can clean up in this season.
My expectations after this game- Good. Our defense is great and our offense has big play potential. Even with the problems we have, we are still one of the best teams in the league and we proved it tonight.
Posted by Matthias on 13 November 2013 - 12:53 PM
A little while ago I did a thread comparing Cam's throwing mechanics to that of Johnny Unitas. With this thread I'm going to compare Cam's maturation to another great QB. Roger Staubach.
Early on in Staubach's career, he wasn't a very polished passer. He played his college ball with Navy, and they didn't throw the ball much. In fact, even to this day they still run the ball just about every play. Early on Roger's strength was his running ability, and that was what he leaned on in his primitive years in the NFL. Here's a little snippet I've found on youtube showing some of his escapability...
It was plays like that, along with his running ability, that earned him the name Roger "The Dodger". That play kind of reminds me of another one Cam had against the same team.....
So Roger Staubach depended on his running ability to begin his career, and later on he became one of the best QBs of his day. Now, Cam was a much better passer coming into the league than Roger (First to break Manning's rookie passing yards record), but I see a similar pattern in depending on their running ability early in their careers.
Cam has struggled a little bit in one category when it comes to passing if you ask me. That category is touch passes. He can throw the football with the speed of a missle. I've seen this cat throw some passes and fit them into tight spaces, that would make every QB in the league drop their jaws. However, it seems most of Cam's passes have the velocity of a heat seeking missle. Even short screen passes. Plus with Cam's height and release point, the ball at times will go right over the receiver's head, even if they are wide open. Once Cam learn's how to throw some of these deep passes with touch, I'm telling yall Cam will be the best QB in the league. Some of you didn't see Cam being a surgeon of a QB, saying his skillset fit more of a Brett Farve type. Yet there was a stretch this season where Cam completed 77% percent of his passes, albeit most of them being 10 yard type passes, short and intermediate. Again once Cam learns to throw some of the deep passes with touch, he will be completing a very high percentage down the field. Making him able to dissect defenses and adding another great dimension to his game.
Many believed Mike Vick would revolutionize the QB position when he came out. Yet it doesn't look like he did that. You still have the Peyton Mannings, the Tom Bradys, and the Drew Breeses of the world dominating the game. Guys who are more of the traditional pocket passer. When I look at someone who's going to be a revolutionary at the QB position, I'm looking for a guy that can do it all. Cam has the ability to excel at all things QB, and he has the potential to go beyond that. I believe we are entering the phase of his career where he masters the art of throwing the ball. Cam can be a "Super Staubach". (Staubach got hurt often because of his size and his style of play in running the ball. Cam has the size that will allow him to break tackles and stay healthy)
Posted by Matthias on 11 November 2013 - 04:35 PM
Billick is a closet Panther fan.
Posted by Matthias on 09 November 2013 - 09:45 PM
The ideal pick for us will depend on who we pick up in free agency. For instance, if we sign a Hakeem Nicks, why draft a receiver with our first pick? (Unless Mike Evans or Sammy Watkins were available) I would most likely in this case draft the best OL available. In the second round, I would go receiver if Jordan Matthews, Brandon Coleman, or Odell Beckham Jr. were available. If they are gone, I would probably go best player available.
Posted by Matthias on 04 November 2013 - 07:38 AM
If these new allegations are true and Martin leaves the Dolphins, I'll take Martin. In normal situations, if someone was messing with you, you would fight them back. Yet when faced with unexpected situations, like facing serious racial discimination type stuff or what have you, it's not uncommon if a person doesn't quite know how to handle it. I don't know if Martin is a gentle giant or not, refusing to fight someone, but I can understand if he didn't quite know how to handle discrimination. Plus like with everyone been saying, he would be an upgrade at RT.
Yet whether or not these allegations are true, most of the league hate Ritchie's guts anyway. They were looking for a reason to take it to him. For Incognito's safety, this suspension was probably for the best. I was fully expecting the Panthers to target him when they played the Dolphins.
Posted by Matthias on 03 November 2013 - 09:55 PM
Coach Ditka said this morning if he was Jonathan Martin, him and Incognito would take a little stroll down "fist city". Said he would find out what Incognito was made of. All of this stuff involving Ritchie is just rumors, but I can definitely believe them. As for Martin being on this team, I don't know. This whole situation with the Dolphins is really weird to say the least. If Martin was really having all these problems concerning harassment, he should have done one of two things. Stand up and fight back, or talk to the coaching staff and squashing this thing there. It's weird that this problem escalated to this.
Posted by Matthias on 29 October 2013 - 10:42 PM
Yeah, I wouldn't like that pick. Besides, you don't draft running backs in the first round anymore. Also, we will be drafting at 32 overall, so this mock is wrong on two accounts.
Posted by Matthias on 23 October 2013 - 09:00 AM
Posted by Matthias on 23 October 2013 - 08:05 AM
I wasn't even going to make this thread until I started to post something I'd seen on social media in one of the several god threads floating around making everyone mad at each other, and then I realized what could be an interesting discussion that benefits everyone would probably get buried within ten minutes by angry false premises or smug balderdashing, so I decided it needs its own discussion.
One of my friends posted this on Facebook a couple of hours ago and I came across it and it absolutely gripped my attention.
I think it gripped me because I realized it's the best possible example of clashing epistemologies (a fancy philosophical term that refers to foundations of knowledge.) I think it also gripped me because for the longest time I've tried to think of a way to condense this very complex idea in the form of some analogy and I've never really been able to. But seeing such a succinct presentation of this method wherein data is accepted or rejected based on whether or not it supports a preconceived notion has simplified it for me.
Let's say you believe that there is no such thing as an extinct animal. For whatever reason, you believe that no species has ever gone extinct in the history of the universe. This belief is external to your core beliefs, but considered based in foundations that are themselves challenged if belief in extinct species is accepted; therefore, the social systems that generate, regulate, reinforce, and reproduce this particular belief are primary players in how your opinion was formed, the context in which you believe it, etc. (This, in essence, is the nature of religious belief and structure.)
Anyway. "Intellectual analysis" suddenly shows, very transparently, that there are in fact vestiges of earlier species which no longer can be found on this planet. Dinosaurs, for instance, have gone extinct. However, recognition and validation of the people who claim this stand in direct contradiction of the preconceived belief that no species have ever gone extinct. Therefore, the arbiters of that particular belief system reinforce to their followers that these falsehoods are exactly that: falsehoods. And in this scenario we find that intellectual analysis is fatal to this preconceived notion, and therefore leads to whatever the metaphorical parallel to "spiritual paralysis" is in our scenario.
Does that sound absurd? It shouldn't. Belief systems have a long and uncomfortable history with revelations in the natural world. Things that conservative churches believe today were often under heavy assault by their forefathers who saw these new discoveries as in insult to God and to scriptural interpretations of the day. This is where a healthy dose of perspective comes in. Viewing historical examples of the "don't ask questions because everything will fall apart" mentality is critical to understanding its application today.
So I would conclude this hastily-prepared, tip-of-the-iceberg discussion of epistemic foundations by bringing up the Geographic Accident Argument because it is one of the most compelling ones for a believer who refuses to analyze his own belief system because of the assumption that he is irrefutably correct. The idea is simple: your draw in the lottery of birth essentially determines - through both time and place - what you will believe. Summing it up better than I is this guy, who states:
A fundamentalist Christian, he notes, would in another draw from the birth lottery just as likely be a fundamentalist Muslim. Coming to terms with this idea necessarily prompts analysis of one's own belief system to determine whether or not their belief is inspired by truth or a direct result of the circumstances of their birth.
So what's stopping people from this analysis?
and there you have it.
So you're saying religious beliefs are mostly about where one is born, and that these beliefs are not accepted based on truth or evidence. Also that in order to maintain these beliefs, it's best not to ask questions. (Correct me if I'm wrong) For the comment of intellectual analysis leading to spiritual paralysis, most people who are of a religion would take offense to that statement, perhaps for the wrong reason. Yet it's definitely a good thing if it paralyzes a belief that has no reason. For instance, almost no one believes any longer that the greek gods are real. So any belief that has zero evidence, should be discarded. Yet at the same time, I personally argue the same intellectual analysis should lead one to believe something else other than a scientific law of nature, brought nature into existence.
From everything that we study so far, all of it had a beginning. This universe had a beginning, which means all the laws that govern it came into being. Most physicists are speculating now that there may be many universes out there, and this universe was perhaps created by two outside universes colliding together. If that's true, we come down to the logical/intellectual question of what got it all started? I also ask myself another question that if all of existence came from laws of nature, how is it possible for sentient beings to exist from purely non-sentient material? Is the universe a thinking being? I'm sure we all believe it is not. Most of the things in the universe is not. So why am I? Am I not apart of the universe, and yet here I am able to think and do my own thing. I'm able to sit down when I feel like it. I'm able to stand when I feel like sitting down. My thinking doesn't follow a law of nature, or in other words you can't predict what I'm thinking. (Now obviously you can effect what I do, and I'm limited to the things I can do, but to say you can predict my thinking down to a science like you can predict the process of erosion would be absurd. By the way, in all reality I'm only limited by nature until I find a way around nature.)
It just doesn't make sound logical sense to say sentient beings came about from the governing laws of nature. It's like saying nature found a way to know itself, and to say that would be saying nature is a thinking being. So ultimately, I would say intellectual analysis discards beliefs where evidence is not required, but accepts beliefs where there is evidence. It narrows the thing down to one truth. On a sidenote, is Christianity the one truth? I'll make that argument. One thing that many christians fail to do that we are told to do, is to give a reason for our faith. Many see that reason as just believing against all odds. Yet it literally means what it says, to give a reason, one that can't be argued against. I can argue against someone who just says they believe in the christian faith just because we have Paul's writings, who he says Jesus rose from the dead. (We have millions of accounts of other beliefs who claim extraordinary things as well. If we were to believe something just because someone wrote a claim, we would have to believe all the other claims as well) I'll also start a new topic concerning Christianity in a little bit. It should be a good one where everyone can participate with much fervor.
Posted by Matthias on 21 October 2013 - 09:58 PM
Where does the text describe their doubt? It seems to me the Israelites are doing all the work. Is it reasonable to assume that if you have an invincible weapon that one would not use it when faced with the opponent's best weapon? Especially considering one KNOWS that his weapon is capable of flooding the entire planet, creating magical plagues, and making the universe from nothing?
Where did you take your explanation from? Did you just make it all up or is there a source?
It would be more like if Bill Gates offered to pay your light bill but you were still scared of a couple of zeros.
It's my interpretation from the text. Of course like I said before, not everyone would accept it, it is an interpretation. Yet I believe this one takes in the whole situation. For instance, if we were to just say God is powerless against iron chariots, then He must be powerless against iron chariots all the time. Iron chariots are God's kryptonite. (By the way, I was watching a show on the science channel called "How the Universe Works". In it they were talking about the inner workings of a red supergiant star, and how they are able to fuse heavier elements than our sun. They mentioned the moment iron is created/fused, the star only has seconds to live before gravity collaspses it and explodes. So I guess in this instance, a star is no match for iron)
Is God powerless against iron chariots all throughout Scripture? The answer is no. I mentioned before how Sisera's army, who was armed with 900 iron chariots, was wiped out by Israel. (Assuming God was with Israel) This story is mentioned in chapter 4 of Judges. So we can't say God is powerless against iron chariots. So what's the explanation for Judges 1: 19? When we read the whole first chapter, we can see the people begin to compromise in driving the Canaanite tribes out of the promised land. Verse 19 mentions they couldn't drive out the people with iron chariots. Later on we see the tribe of Benjamin letting the Jebusites stay in Jerusalem. The reason as for why is not given. Then you have a third mention in that first chapter with the people of Manasseh letting different Canaanite tribes stay in the land in verse 27. It goes on from there.
So finally you have in chapter 2, where God makes the statement that Israel disobeyed Him by making covenants with the people and not driving them out of the land. With that, God says He will not drive the people out, but they would be a thorn in Israel's side. My interpretation takes this into account, and I assume concerning verse 19, that Judah doubted God's strength versus the iron chariots. You asked me why would they doubt God's strength? It's a little hard to explain but it's more so they trusted their own strength more than God's strength. Again it's hard to explain, but if you look at Israel's disobedience before this time, you'll see how much they doubted God even after all the miracles He did in their presence. They were previously afraid of the giants in the land, in spite of God being able to part the red sea. That fear kept them out of the promise land for 40 years.
So that is where I get my interpretation. God was with them, but God wasn/t readily visible to the people, nor was His strength visible to them. They saw the iron chariots, and they probably doubted God was with them at the sight of the chariots. Going back to my Bill Gates analogy, it would be like me doubting Bill putting a million dollars in my account. I wouldn't believe it until I saw verification of it. (looking at my account online or something) Israel's verification was the past miracles, and even their existence of moving into the promised land. Yet I say they doubted at the sight of the chariots, and if they fought, they fought with their own strength and not God's. Sorry for the long post.
Posted by Matthias on 19 October 2013 - 04:08 PM
Let me say this. Those gamecocks know how to ruin a good opportunity to be in the SEC championship with Georgia losing today. Vanderbilt fought with all their heart and soul, and we screw it up by losing to an inferior team in Tennessee. So that was the nail in the coffin for SC.