Captain is out this Sunday, will not travel with team

[uncfan888]

2 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

I’m not sure if this is supposed to make us more or less worried about them? So now we’re comparing them to a 1-9 team who also has a very underwhelming offense...who we beat handily earlier this year and put up 3 points against us ?

It means there's no excuse to lose this game

[MasterAwesome]

12 minutes ago, Saca312 said:

good point.

i forgot mccown's their qb. he's probably worse than hoyer tbh

How can you make these posts warning us about their aerial attack and you didn’t even remember who their QB was? I know your argument was more about their scheme...but your scheme is kind of sort of still going to weigh heavily upon that QB person running that entire offense on the field. It is getting harder to take you seriously when your analysis seems so half-assed now.

[BuckNaked]

Our offense has hopefully got the confidence they need now too. That bears game was a complete poo show on offense.  If we can continue to run the ball with Cam, Stew, and MC and we don't make terrible mistakes we should be fine without Captain.  The D will do their job.  If we convert in the red zone it should be a fairly easy win. Does anyone know if the Jets primarily play man or zone coverage?  If its man Cam will eat them up on the ground.

[Saca312]

7 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

I know your argument was more about their scheme...

and this is why i don't take kids like you seriously.

i warned about their scheme, which has made them competitive despite talent. never did i ever say their talent was any good, hence my whole argument being about scheme.

but then you proceed and act like I said their team's made up of prime peyton manning and jerry rices all around lmao. i just said their scheme will make it a competitive game no matter the talent.

like I said, I expect us to win handily. But I won't be surprised to see an upset.

but then kids like you try and put words in my mouth. that's why no one here takes the electros, gooby, or you seriously.

[Paintballr]

$10 we probably see Colin Jones in the slot a lot tomorrow 

[iamhubby1]

16 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

How can you make these posts warning us about their aerial attack and you didn’t even remember who their QB was? I know your argument was more about their scheme...but your scheme is kind of sort of still going to weigh heavily upon that QB person running that entire offense on the field. It is getting harder to take you seriously when your analysis seems so half-assed now.

 

    Way to throw that shade Mr. Devils' Advocate. 

[TheSpecialJuan]

[MasterAwesome]

59 minutes ago, Saca312 said:

and this is why i don't take kids like you seriously.

i warned about their scheme, which has made them competitive despite talent. never did i ever say their talent was any good, hence my whole argument being about scheme.

but then you proceed and act like I said their team's made up of prime peyton manning and jerry rices all around lmao. i just said their scheme will make it a competitive game no matter the talent.

like I said, I expect us to win handily. But I won't be surprised to see an upset.

but then kids like you try and put words in my mouth. that's why no one here takes the electros, gooby, or you seriously.

Woah woah deep breaths dude...I’m sure you can appreciate the irony of calling someone a kid and then throwing a tantrum.

I realized you’re not the type of person to acknowledge an opposing argument that you do not have an answer to, so this was a bit of a “social experiment” if you will, in that I attempted to provoke a response out of you...guess you could say it worked. I’m sorry to get you riled up, I know I was being a dick...but it was all in the spirit of continued discussion. The ends justify the means for me.

Back to the point: your argument is the equivalent of if someone said “hey watch out for the Cowboys’ offense. Yeah they’ve scored 0 touchdowns in the last three weeks and have looked absolutely terrible offensively, but as long as they have Dez Bryant then they should be feared”. You’ve ignored the objective statistics of their comprehensive offensive success in favor of one of the many, many individual variables that account for offensive success. I’m not sure why you’re pushing the latter when the former is far and away the most useful tool for gauging an offense. You dumb-head ...(sorry, I had to throw that in to ensure a response).

[MasterAwesome]

1 hour ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

    Way to throw that shade Mr. Devils' Advocate. 

I’m not sure why my use of the term “Devil’s Advocate” in the other thread seemed to have triggered you lol, but I apologize. I did not know you had some kind of traumatic history with the term.

 

I do not have any personal feelings towards you, but the level of passive-aggression that you’ve shown sort of enforces what the others are criticizing you for in that thread.

[iamhubby1]

32 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

I’m not sure why my use of the term “Devil’s Advocate” in the other thread seemed to have triggered you lol, but I apologize. I did not know you had some kind of traumatic history with the term.

 

I do not have any personal feelings towards you, but the level of passive-aggression that you’ve shown sort of enforces what the others are criticizing you for in that thread.

 

    You threw two long posts at me, explaining how you like being the Devils' Advocate to stimulate conversation. I even asked why you don't post your own opinions. 

 

    You then proceeded to throw shade at @Saca312, of which you were wrong by the way. 

 

    And it wasn't passive aggression. I flat called you out. You can't have it both ways.  

 

    Don't worry. I won't fall for it a second time.

 

 

[iamhubby1]

44 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

Woah woah deep breaths dude...I’m sure you can appreciate the irony of calling someone a kid and then throwing a tantrum.

I realized you’re not the type of person to acknowledge an opposing argument that you do not have an answer to, so this was a bit of a “social experiment” if you will, in that I attempted to provoke a response out of you...guess you could say it worked. I’m sorry to get you riled up, I know I was being a dick...but it was all in the spirit of continued discussion. The ends justify the means for me.

Back to the point: your argument is the equivalent of if someone said “hey watch out for the Cowboys’ offense. Yeah they’ve scored 0 touchdowns in the last three weeks and have looked absolutely terrible offensively, but as long as they have Dez Bryant then they should be feared”. You’ve ignored the objective statistics of their comprehensive offensive success in favor of one of the many, many individual variables that account for offensive success. I’m not sure why you’re pushing the latter when the former is far and away the most useful tool for gauging an offense. You dumb-head ...(sorry, I had to throw that in to ensure a response).

 

    My Zod you are so full of it. LOL

 

    That bolded part is pure bunk. You admit to eliciting a response. Then when you get it you go "Hey slow down, don't throw a tantrum". 

 

    Stupid shiit is stupid shiit. Doesn't matter if it is a "Social Experiment" may azz. 

 

    How's that for a response you piece of .....

[MasterAwesome]

43 minutes ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

    You threw two long posts at me, explaining how you like being the Devils' Advocate to stimulate conversation. I even asked why you don't post your own opinions. 

 

    You then proceeded to throw shade at @Saca312, of which you were wrong by the way. 

 

    And it wasn't passive aggression. I flat called you out. You can't have it both ways.  

 

    Don't worry. I won't fall for it a second time.

 

 

Exactly...I humored what I thought were silly, asinine, irrelevant questions with some long and apparently wasted responses explaining myself, because I actually thought you were going somewhere with it. But then you just ended with something like a 3-word response... that’s what my girlfriend does when she realizes she was wrong and wants to end an argument. Very disappointing hubby, tsk tsk.

Still haven’t been told how I am wrong in my argument btw, but I welcome you to take a crack at it. If you can get past the emotional trauma caused by the Devil’s Advocate comment and get back to logical discussion.

[MasterAwesome]

37 minutes ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

    My Zod you are so full of it. LOL

 

    That bolded part is pure bunk. You admit to eliciting a response. Then when you get it you go "Hey slow down, don't throw a tantrum". 

 

    Stupid shiit is stupid shiit. Doesn't matter if it is a "Social Experiment" may azz. 

 

    How's that for a response you piece of .....

FYI you can illicit a response without it being an emotional tirade. I get that you want to come to his defense in your recently shared bond in your disdain towards me, as well as your shared ability to get very emotional on the Interwebzz.

Just place emotion aside and you can learn to appreciate the little things in life. Such as Saca using the term “kid” as an insult when it is quite obvious, to anyone with a brain, that he is one of the youngest posters on this site. That’s like someone who is homosexual using the word “gay” as an attack to someone else. Only in the magical and enigmatic land of the Internet...

[iamhubby1]

4 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

Exactly...I humored what I thought were silly, asinine, irrelevant questions with some long and apparently wasted responses explaining myself, because I actually thought you were going somewhere with it. But then you just ended with something like a 3-word response... that’s what my girlfriend does when she realizes she was wrong and wants to end an argument. Very disappointing hubby, tsk tsk.

Still haven’t been told how I am wrong in my argument btw, but I welcome you to take a crack at it. If you can get past the emotional trauma caused by the Devil’s Advocate comment and get back to logical discussion.

 

    Please quit quoting me. Life is too short to waste my time, and energy on someone like you.