Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Why nothing matters anymore


RIPTreyLance
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Mr Mojo Risin said:

My post had absolutely nothing to do with Deshaun Watson.

Sure it did.

You said every decision Tepper made blew up in his face.  One of his decisions was to pursue Watson, and (partly) because of this you have no faith in him.

The only way you can hold Tepper accountable for the decision to pursue Watson is if he had beforehand knowledge of all these civil cases popping up out of the blue.

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tepper's Chest Hair said:

Doesn't negate what?

That they weren't tanking?

How can you claim they were tanking when they were actively trying to win games..and did?

 

They...won...games.

Panthers didn't tank because they won *1* game.

Fins went 5-4 to end the season, and you are saying they tanked.

Are you listening to yourself?  They had the same exact record as the Panthers.  But you are telling me they were actively trying to lose.

I didn't say he was fired for tanking, but it was obviously the last straw.  My point is the 2 times last year a coach actively tanked a game..they were also fired.

I sound dumb?  You are saying that a team with the *same record as Carolina* was actively tanking while ending the season on a 5-4 run.

What the hell do you consider tanking?  Obviously you can some how tank while winning games?

I swear.  You can't honestly believe the words you are saying.

I went out of my way to look up the definition of tanking for you and literally the dolphins picture popped up.. I can't make this much clearer for for you.. Screenshot_20210328-101947_Chrome.thumb.jpg.71573d766f5f51f69a8968f650d1bbbc.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, micnificent28 said:

I went out of my way to look up the definition of tanking for you and literally the dolphins picture popped up.. I can't make this much clearer for for you..

...you.  You can't be serious.

qUG0Edv.gif

Ok. You win.

I am not on enough drugs for this conversation to make sense.  You are using a huge double standard when you talk about "tanking".  And your rebuttal to the dolphins tanking in 2019..is a picture from a google search?  Did you even see what the picture was for?

https://time.com/5735424/sports-teams-tanking/

Its an article from the early 2019 season before the Dolphins turned it around.  Its also an article about how tanking does not work.

 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Tepper's Chest Hair said:

...you.  You can't be serious.

qUG0Edv.gif

Ok. You win.

I am not on enough drugs for this conversation to make sense.  You are using a huge double standard when you talk about "tanking".  And your rebuttal to the dolphins tanking in 2019..is a picture from a google search?  Did you even see what the picture was for?

https://time.com/5735424/sports-teams-tanking/

Its an article from the early 2019 season before the Dolphins turned it around.  Its also an article about how tanking does not work.

 

You link to an article I did not use in my explanation. I just used the picture. When I looked up the definition of tanking the picture* came up. Another thing who said 2019 to be exact, but the point of does tanking work or not is subjective. I just said they tanked. Which they did and used them as an example. The whole tanking process hanges on who you get and if they work out.

You can't just put the whole process under some systematic does tanking work formula. Big difference in landing Andrew luck or Trevor Lawrence vs random year Jake fisher is the number 1 selection. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, micnificent28 said:

You link to an article I did not use in my explanation

...The picture you posted was literally a link to the article.

I found the article by doing the same exact search you did and clicking on the picture you referenced/posted.

You can't be this silly.  

 

45 minutes ago, micnificent28 said:

Another thing who said 2019 to be exact

When you talk about the recent Miami Dolphins tanking..you are talking about 2019.

At this point I have no confidence you have any clue as to what you are talking about.  

46 minutes ago, micnificent28 said:

I just said they tanked. Which they did and used them as an example

They did not intentionally lose their games and not try to win.  

You don't end the last 9 games of the season (more than half) with a winning record if you are intentionally trying to lose.

You can't be this stupid.  I refuse to believe it.

This is one of the reasons I've been avoiding the huddle lately. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tepper's Chest Hair said:

Doesn't negate what?

That they weren't tanking?

How can you claim they were tanking when they were actively trying to win games..and did?

 

They...won...games.

Panthers didn't tank because they won *1* game.

Fins went 5-4 to end the season, and you are saying they tanked.

Are you listening to yourself?  They had the same exact record as the Panthers.  But you are telling me they were actively trying to lose.

I didn't say he was fired for tanking, but it was obviously the last straw.  My point is the 2 times last year a coach actively tanked a game..they were also fired.

I sound dumb?  You are saying that a team with the *same record as Carolina* was actively tanking while ending the season on a 5-4 run.

What the hell do you consider tanking?  Obviously you can some how tank while winning games?

I swear.  You can't honestly believe the words you are saying.

There’s 2 ways to tank. That seems to be what you’re missing. Way 1. Play backups. Eagles did this as already mentioned 

Way 2. Trade away good players for draft picks thus making your team worse . Ie, trading away minkah Fitzpatrick, tunsil etc. 

 

just because you won games after utilizing the second method doesn’t mean you didn’t try to tank. It just means it didn’t work as well as you thought it did. Additionally, the GM really controls the 2nd method where as the HC would be in charge of the first. Hope that clears things up for you

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tepper's Chest Hair said:

...you.  You can't be serious.

qUG0Edv.gif

Ok. You win.

I am not on enough drugs for this conversation to make sense.  You are using a huge double standard when you talk about "tanking".  And your rebuttal to the dolphins tanking in 2019..is a picture from a google search?  Did you even see what the picture was for?

https://time.com/5735424/sports-teams-tanking/

Its an article from the early 2019 season before the Dolphins turned it around.  Its also an article about how tanking does not work.

 

It’s because you, like many, don’t understand the difference in throwing a football game and the “tanking(rebuilding)” the Dolphins did. It’s about not using all available resources to win 5 games instead of 2. We saw what happens when a coach tries that. The Dolphins traded or cut everyone with value, accumulated picks and cap space, and played hard in every game. Now they are loaded after one rebuild year. 
 

   The Panthers spent 80M extra in cap space to finish with the same record. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Toomers said:

It’s because you, like many, don’t understand the difference in throwing a football game and the “tanking(rebuilding)” the Dolphins did. It’s about not using all available resources to win 5 games instead of 2. We saw what happens when a coach tries that. The Dolphins traded or cut everyone with value, accumulated picks and cap space, and played hard in every game. Now they are loaded after one rebuild year. 

You must lack basic reading comprehension, because that has nothing to do with the conversation you are replying to in context.

The people I am responding to are talking specifically about the Panthers throwing a single football game.

The Dolphins did win 5 games...not 2.  So I don't know what you are talking about in your entire paragraph.

 

I am running out of ways to nicely call people silly that aren't even attempting to put enough critical thinking into these sorta statements that would help you pass middle school.

Edited by Tepper's Chest Hair
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Panthers8969 said:

There’s 2 ways to tank. That seems to be what you’re missing. Way 1. Play backups. Eagles did this as already mentioned 

Way 2. Trade away good players for draft picks thus making your team worse . Ie, trading away minkah Fitzpatrick, tunsil etc. 

 

just because you won games after utilizing the second method doesn’t mean you didn’t try to tank. It just means it didn’t work as well as you thought it did. Additionally, the GM really controls the 2nd method where as the HC would be in charge of the first. Hope that clears things up for you

Awesome.  So Miami failed at tanking.  

They failed so badly at tanking they are considered doing great at what they did do.

You aren't really helping the argument that the Panthers should have tanked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tepper's Chest Hair said:

You must lack basic reading comprehension, because that has nothing to do with the conversation you are replying to in context.

The people I am responding to are talking specifically about the Panthers throwing a single football game.

The Dolphins did win 5 games...not 2.  So I don't know what you are talking about in your entire paragraph.

 

I am running out of ways to nicely call people silly that aren't even attempting to put enough critical thinking into these sorta statements that would help you pass middle school.

No, like others, we perfectly understand that you don’t understand the differences in what you’re stating. Not using all your resources in a given year is nothing near throwing games. 
 

  I’m not the only one that doesn’t understand your opinion. Seems many on here are having trouble with the goalposts moving in your theories. What is it anyhow? Is your theory that a team should put every available resource into to winning the next game and nothing else? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, micnificent28 said:

I went out of my way to look up the definition of tanking for you and literally the dolphins picture popped up.. I can't make this much clearer for for you.. Screenshot_20210328-101947_Chrome.thumb.jpg.71573d766f5f51f69a8968f650d1bbbc.jpg

I would love to see somebody try to argue this as being a legitimate citation for a research paper.

I just want to see the professor's reaction.

poo, I might do it now just to see if I can get away with it.

EDIT: If they say yes, I'm totally buying you a drink.

Edited by Icege
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Icege said:

I would love to see somebody try to argue this as being a legitimate citation for a research paper.

I just want to see the professor's reaction.

poo, I might do it now just to see if I can get away with it.

EDIT: If they say yes, I'm totally buying you a drink.

This isn't a research paper. I did a quick google search and showed the first thing that came up.There isn't a Websters definition for tanking in sports exactly..what are you trying to prove with this explanation of nothing to do with nothing. I STATED my point and proved what I was trying to say. You one of those guys who come into threads and say grammer*

Please take several seats.

Edited by micnificent28
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Legette is a nice prospect, with lots of upside.  But this guy saying he is better than Harrison, Odunze, and Nabors, sorry but he's out of his ever loving mind.  
    • That albatross still hung around our neck. We paid 20 million in dead cap for a second round pick and lost cmc. Paid 16 million in dead cap for moore to be traded to Chicago   Owed burns nothing but wouldn't trade him for 2 first round picks. Shitterer was beyond the most incompetent gm I've ever seen.
    • I did a lot of research on Xavier Legette for the past few weeks, and as some of you know, I was in favor of making him our first pick. I must say that I got tired of going back and forth seemingly every other day about X, and was so ready for the draft to come in order for the team to "put up or shut up" where X was concerned, and enable discussions on X to move forward. X was (is) the most polarizing player discussed on the Huddle in terms pick 33, and that brought a lot of contentious discussion as well as information. See, you never know what to believe during the draft season, and ever since the Senior Bowl, hints and outright stories of the Panthers' and X's mutual attraction appeared and ramped up so easily, that it was almost unbelievable. So, even though I liked X, and really figured that he should be the pick, the ease of which everything fell into place and the outside noise of different analysts made me lose a little conviction. But one ex-scout developed unshakable conviction all the way through.  Dan Kelly, who used to scout for the Jets back in the day, chose Xavier Legette as the top receiver in the 2024 draft class. I came across his thoughts weeks ago, but I'm sharing them now just to give you some positive food for thought since X is indeed a Panther. There is no boom-or-bust aspect to X in Kelly's estimation, as X is reminiscent of a damned good one. "This Gamecocks receiver conjures memories of how Pro Football Hall of Fame wide receiver Art Monk — the former Washington star — ran his routes." "Legette's sudden and spontaneous moves win initial route leverage against corners and then he wins again at route breakpoints." For as critical as some have been of X's release off the line, when I look at X work, I can't say that Kelly is wrong here. X certainly seems to get open (though admittedly sometimes he just out-physicals the DBs ). "Legette is the best in this draft class at "Mossin'" defenders — that is acrobatically outjumping corners for passes and coming down with circus catches. Legette isn't the next Moss, but he is darn good. He can go deep or sell the deep route well before settling back underneath and making those vitally important chain-moving intermediate-level receptions (11-19 yards)." https://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/scouts_view_the_top_receiver_in_the_nfl_draft_isnt_who_you_think/s1_13132_39987216 On Kelly's own site, First Round Mock, he was a little more specific: "Legette has this spontaneous and impulsive ability to put little moves on corners, whether releasing from the line of scrimmage...or...when going deep. Either way, it’s enough to earn Legette route leverage (position advantage against the cornerback he’s matched up against)." There's that term again: route leverage. Say what you want about X, but he knows how to get it. Lastly, within the scouting report, Kelly really mentions the term again without saying it. "Strong target who showed high-level receiving skills beyond his years...Runs routes to get open rather than well-defined routes which makes him tough to cover. Gets to the spot..." That's ironic, no? X in his roughness makes it ugly for defensive backs to cover him. For me, this was an epiphany when I was looking at some of his clips. Yeah, he may not be the technician that a Diontae Johnson or (dare I say) a Ladd McConkey is, but he always seemed to get where he needed to be. He just simply is not built to be bullied or redirected from the task at hand, and I don't think that's a characteristic or talent (if you will) that can be taught. Sure, he'll be polished up as best that the coaches can, and perhaps that will allow him a smoother release. And I'm sure that the coaches will devise ways to scheme him open, but he's built---physically and mentally to get to where he's going. You saw it last season, and you're going to see it in the pros. Watch what I'm saying. https://firstroundmock.com/2024/02/xavier-legette-reminds-former-nfl-scout-of-these-legends/
×
×
  • Create New...