If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   Eli Manning humiliates DeAngelo Hall. This is not a repeat from Sunday   (espn.go.com) divider line 216
    More: Amusing, DeAngelo Hall, Eli Manning, DeAngelo Willingham, Observer-Reporter, Justin Tuck, WFAN, Redskins, Giants  
•       •       •

3858 clicks; posted to Sports » on 25 Oct 2012 at 11:21 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



216 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-25 05:02:01 PM

js34603: thecpt: js34603: That team is the best according to the rules and parameters of the NFL.

I'm sorry, but TG has already explained the fallacy here. There is no rule on who is the best. The rules are on who can get to, and win a season ending tournament. I think how I view the argument is you can look at a team and you can consider which one had the most potential, ability, talent, and best performances consistently throughout the season and not just 4 games at the end.

So you basically look at a bunch of subjective criteria and decide who you think is best?

And it is not just 4 games at the end, it's 16 games before that. Of you go back to my original post I tried to make the point you cannot objectively define the BEST team absent some parameters. Since we're talking about the NFL it makes sense to use the parameters and rules they set up right? Well those rules set up the goal of the league as winning the Super Bowl. Only one team does that, but every team wants to do it. That team is the best as far as we can objectively determine by the rules and parameters of the NFL.

We can make up different parameters and say the goal of the season is the best regular season record, or most yards, or least points given up. If you do that you can then objectively say Team A met that criteria they are the best. We can also make subjective judgments like who has the most talent, potential, and performed consistently and try to call those teams the best. But since those are subjective judgments, what you're really saying is "my opinion is Team A is the best because...".

The only objective "best" team is the one that won the league under the rules they're playing with. We can hypothesize about what the result of a 1001 game series or 600 game regular season would be and try to say the winners of those would be the best. But that's just fantasy.


Okay there are some logical leaps and bounds in there. Imagine if the the 10 Seahawks won the superbowl. I cannot, as a fan and admirer of the sport, condone calling them the best that year. You can have your justification though technicality, but I'm going to call the best team the one that I thought played the most impressive football that year. Yes, it can't be proven. Did you notice upthread when the question was asked and a lot of people posted the same teams?
 
2012-10-25 05:02:30 PM

js34603: The only objective way to say who was best that year is within the framework of the NFL league system. And according to that system the team that accomplished the goal of every NFL season was the Giants.


OR... or. And this is a big "OR" here.

There is no objective way to say who is the best team. You can objectively say who won the Super Bowl, but that doesn't make them "the best team."

Mind = Blown
 
2012-10-25 05:06:40 PM

Gunny Highway: This thread sucks.


Yeah, well look who's shiatting all over an Eli thread like he always does and that's the reason.

And back to the original topic, DeAngelo did some pretty fancy tap-dancing away from his idiotic remarks today.
 
2012-10-25 05:08:38 PM

Treygreen13: js34603: It's not an opinion, do you understand what objective means? We're talking about the NFL. The goal of the NFL is to win the Super Bowl. Only one team does that. That team is the best according to the rules and parameters of the NFL. There's no opinion there, the most you can say is it might be more accurate to say "that team is the best at accomplishing the goal of an NFL season." But that's pretty wordy.

The team, that year, was the best at winning The Super Bowl.

js34603: As for your question, the Falcons objectively had a better regular season than the Browns in your scenario. When you ask if they are better, you're asking me a subjective question. Which team looks best? Which team has more talented players? Subjective, I could subjectively think the Browns are "better" but have been really unlucky or had a much harder schedule than the Falcons.

And we could argue based on Strength of Schedule, or compare statistics (which are objective) and make arguments which team was "better" between those two.
Winning the Super Bowl doesn't nullify statistics and comparisons between teams. If you can subjectively compare two NFL teams, then you can also subjectively compare the team that won the tournament at the end of the year to another and make an argument that they're not "better".

js34603: That is why there cannot be an objective best team without some system in place. If the parameters are which team won more regular season games, then I can say objectively the Falcons are better under those terms. If the parameters are who is better in terms of the franchises' future maybe the Browns are better. See how the parameters alter the answer?

And that's why we have mouths to talk and fingers to type and brains to send signals to both of them. Because we can look at performance outside of what happens in a tournament and make judgements based on things other than the outcome of a single-elimination tournament.


Of course you can argue and judge anything you want. Those are subjective opinions. In other words they're not even worth the time it took to type them. All the stats in the world don't decide anything, you can use them as support or as criticism of your position that Team X is best because that is what you believe.

But there is only one objective way to determine the best team in the NFL, as I've I said 900 times. The point if an NFL season is to win the Super Bowl, every team wants to do that, only one team does. Objectively, that team accomplished its goal to the exclusion of all the others. It is "the best" in those terms, the only objective way to measure it. Doesn't mean you can't argue that your team was better because of this stat or that stat. But that's you inserting your subjective judgment to justify your feelings. In other words its an opinion, and like assholes everyone had one.
 
2012-10-25 05:13:18 PM

js34603: But there is only one objective way to determine the best team in the NFL, as I've I said 900 times.


I know. You've made the exact same argument for 15 minutes and so have I. You think that the Super Bowl is "objectively" the way to determine the best team. I don't think there is a way to "objectively" determine the best team because I reject a single-elimination tournament as grounds for qualifying as the "Best Team".

And speaking of opinions, ours are both *gasp* opinions.

Are we done here?
 
2012-10-25 05:14:31 PM

Treygreen13: js34603: The only objective way to say who was best that year is within the framework of the NFL league system. And according to that system the team that accomplished the goal of every NFL season was the Giants.

OR... or. And this is a big "OR" here.

There is no objective way to say who is the best team. You can objectively say who won the Super Bowl, but that doesn't make them "the best team."

Mind = Blown


The farking NFL determines who is the best team by handing them a trophy at the end of the year. You're feelings about who are the best team are completely that, your feelings.

The NFL says here's your goal. One team can do it. That team accomplished the goal, the others didn't. No matter how much you want to feel and believe the other teams are just as good because you believe if to be true, there is one team that wins the NFL every year. That team is objectively the best, because any other definition of the best is just the opinion of people who don't matter. It's fine to have your own opinion, but you're being completely obtuse over the fact it is quite easy to see which team did what every NFL team is trying to do every year.
 
2012-10-25 05:19:28 PM

Treygreen13: js34603: But there is only one objective way to determine the best team in the NFL, as I've I said 900 times.

I know. You've made the exact same argument for 15 minutes and so have I. You think that the Super Bowl is "objectively" the way to determine the best team. I don't think there is a way to "objectively" determine the best team because I reject a single-elimination tournament as grounds for qualifying as the "Best Team".

And speaking of opinions, ours are both *gasp* opinions.

Are we done here?


I guess so until you learn the difference between subjective and objective. If you think it is my opinion that the goal of every NFL team is to win the Super Bowl and only one team does it every year so they are objectively the best under the terms of the NFL, then yeah we're done.
 
2012-10-25 05:21:14 PM

js34603: Treygreen13: js34603: The only objective way to say who was best that year is within the framework of the NFL league system. And according to that system the team that accomplished the goal of every NFL season was the Giants.

OR... or. And this is a big "OR" here.

There is no objective way to say who is the best team. You can objectively say who won the Super Bowl, but that doesn't make them "the best team."

Mind = Blown

The farking NFL determines who is the best team by handing them a trophy at the end of the year. You're feelings about who are the best team are completely that, your feelings.

The NFL says here's your goal. One team can do it. That team accomplished the goal, the others didn't. No matter how much you want to feel and believe the other teams are just as good because you believe if to be true, there is one team that wins the NFL every year. That team is objectively the best, because any other definition of the best is just the opinion of people who don't matter. It's fine to have your own opinion, but you're being completely obtuse over the fact it is quite easy to see which team did what every NFL team is trying to do every year.


The Lombardi trophy is not given to the best team. The Lombardi trophy is given to the team that wins a tournament at the end of the year. The teams do want to win the trophy at the end of the year. It is their goal to win that trophy.

But your idea that the team that wins the Super Bowl is the "best team" is an opinion.

Just like my argument is an opinion. We both have opinions. Now let's drop it.
 
2012-10-25 05:25:55 PM

js34603: Treygreen13: js34603: But there is only one objective way to determine the best team in the NFL, as I've I said 900 times.

I know. You've made the exact same argument for 15 minutes and so have I. You think that the Super Bowl is "objectively" the way to determine the best team. I don't think there is a way to "objectively" determine the best team because I reject a single-elimination tournament as grounds for qualifying as the "Best Team".

And speaking of opinions, ours are both *gasp* opinions.

Are we done here?

I guess so until you learn the difference between subjective and objective. If you think it is my opinion that the goal of every NFL team is to win the Super Bowl and only one team does it every year so they are objectively the best under the terms of the NFL, then yeah we're done.


Maybe you're stuck on the word "objective".

The teams all have an "objective" to win the Super Bowl. Objective as in "something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target"

But "objective" as you're using it is "of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality".

So yes, the Giants reached their "Objective" to win the Super Bowl.

But they're not "objectively better than all other teams." Unless you're arguing that they're "objectively better at winning the Super Bowl in a season".
 
2012-10-25 05:28:13 PM
I wish Fark paid me per post. I'm sure by now I've paid for a server at least with just my clicks.
 
2012-10-25 06:18:24 PM
Aw man...

I thought this was one of those Photochop Threads...
 
2012-10-25 08:27:07 PM
I had both Eli and Cruz on my fantasy team so I am getting a kick . . . .
 
2012-10-25 08:54:13 PM
All you need to know about this thread.

Eli Manning.

Threadshat by butthurt Packers/Rodgers fans.
Threadshat by Cowboys fans.

The Giants aren't my #1 team, but hey if my team can't win it all, I hope the Giants do for the lulz.
 
2012-10-25 10:16:54 PM

js34603: we can' do that within a season until the Super Bowl is over, then that team accomplished the goal of that season and are the best at "winning" the league


It's kinda like those reality shows where sometimes a guy can be a sh*tbird the whole time, so people don't vote him off and don't vote him off and then he wins...meanwhile, a guy kicks ass every week until toward the very end and slips on an event, doesn't have immunity, and gets voted off.

Is the guy who was good at everything and had a slip-up the best performer? Or the f*ckup who won? Maybe the f*ckup was sandbagging it the whole time as part of the overarching game to win. You can make that argument. Just like you can make the argument that the Giants were the best team in each of their recent SB years. But there's legitimate arguments for other teams.

/but in the end, for the players, the only thing that counts is the trophy. The rest of us don't get trophies, so we might as well argue that our teams were the best.

js34603: But there is only one objective way to determine the best team in the NFL, as I've I said 900 times.


Actually, you started off by saying there is no objective way to determine the best team in the NFL. And that was correct. Then you went off claiming that there was one.
 
2012-10-26 02:38:44 AM

Dr Quest DFA: I would certianly agree that RGIII had been the biggest and most pelasant surprise of the NFL season thus far (even if my team has to play him twice). And in the Giants game he did put up a better stat line that Eli (that strnage statistical duck QBR aside), but I wonder if it is sustainable. Can he still be as effective if the run game gets stuffed or reduced to merely average? Right now he is 24th in pass attempts. If he had to put the team on his arm, how would he do? I don't know and it will be interesting to see how he performs when he has to put it up 34+ times a game (happened twice already, 1 win and 1 loss) or when teams have a year or two worth of tape on him.

I hope he doesn't go the way of Cam Newton (no one deserves that fate and I am sick of being forced to watch boring Redskins games in NoVa), but I don't think it would be fair to compare him to other QBs until he has had at least a few years under his belt.

In any event, I hope you kick the Cowboys' and Eagles' keysters when you finally end up playing them!


First things first: I'm a Ravens fan & I traditionally cannot stand the Redskins. But since they've sucked so much recently, my hatred has simmered down & either way I'd still have to give Griffin props.

Washington is indeed the top-rated rushing offense in the league, but you have to factor in that about 37% of their run yards come from Griffin himself; if you knock his contributions down to a more normal QB range of 100 yards so far, then they fall to 9th in the league. You could also argue that at least part of Alfred Morris' success this year is the fact that opposing teams always have a linebacker or safety spying Griffin, in effect giving him one free block on most plays.

Two things about Griffin as a passer stand out to me: the first is his 70.4% completions (best in the NFL), which is astounding for a rookie quarterback, even more so given the relative lack of talent they have at wide receiver. Even more impressive than that, though, is that his completion percentage actually goes up on deeper routes; 68.6% on routes under 10 yards, 70.8 from 11-19, and 72.2 on 20+ yards...and it's a fairly even split in terms of attempts (70-65-54, respectively). Tack on the lack of turnovers (only 5 in his first 7 starts) and the fact that he's actually got that team to a 3-4 record and it's difficult to even think of him as a rookie.

There's obviously no way to know about sustainability; the record books are littered with young quarterbacks who put together a run of good games over a season or less and then disappeared. But the results he's posting so far definitely trend towards him being the real deal.
 
2012-10-26 02:08:23 PM

Harv72b: Two things about Griffin as a passer stand out to me: the first is his 70.4% completions (best in the NFL), which is astounding for a rookie quarterback, even more so given the relative lack of talent they have at wide receiver. Even more impressive than that, though, is that his completion percentage actually goes up on deeper routes; 68.6% on routes under 10 yards, 70.8 from 11-19, and 72.2 on 20+ yards...and it's a fairly even split in terms of attempts (70-65-54, respectively). Tack on the lack of turnovers (only 5 in his first 7 starts) and the fact that he's actually got that team to a 3-4 record and it's difficult to even think of him as a rookie.


Please disregard this as I'm a dumbass & was looking at attempts #11-19, etc, rather than yards thrown. Griffin still has very good numbers on deep routes, but they account for a much smaller percentage of his total throws & are not better than his stats on short patterns.
 
Displayed 16 of 216 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report