Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 115
  1. #81
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,216

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "PurpleGator" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    "PurpleGator" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    "ultravikingfan" wrote:
    [quote author=PurpleGator link=topic=40142.msg682910#msg682910 date=1196472723]
    [quote author=ultravikingfan link=topic=40142.msg682908#msg682908 date=1196472554]
    So now we moved onto Favre as an MVP candidate if Brady was not.
    Interesting.

    Screw numbers and stats, Favre is a candidate.
    Lets be realistic.
    Ultra, you are losing cool points.


    Favre is not a candidate.
    Brady and Romo are way ahead of him.
    If I am losing cool points from you...ouch.

    So, you can only have 2 candidates?
    I said he was a candidate.
    I never said he was in front of those 2.


    Continue on with your bad self and read into posts a little more than you should.
    I guess knowing that pretty much ruins your weekend huh?

    You must be devastated.
    I highly doubt Ultra is devestated.
    He was probably drinking a beer and laughing about it.


    Obviously, Mr. Obvious. Did I need to slam a smiley on my sarcastic remark?
    :P
    [/quote]

    Yeah that would have helped.


    Thanks,

    Mr. Obvious
    [/quote]

    LMAO! Did you really think I would feel Ultra was devestated because you think of him as being less cool?

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  2. #82
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,179

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "rttsbgtgb" wrote:
    "Caine" wrote:
    We all saw what Rodgers did.
    So, you guys aren't impressed with what Favre has done this season, but what Rogers does in one half impresses you?

    I thought he played well, but I think you're giving him a little too much credit. He's not ready to step in and be a Brett Favre. He's just not that good.


    "Caine" wrote:
    In Dallas, Romo has a stable of talent around him, but who's behind Romo....Brad Johnson.
    Are you going to come to a Vikings forum and tell us that Brad Johnson can slide into Tony Romo's spot and carry on?
    No. Dallas would be worse. But I just think Green Bay would lose more in Favre than Dallas would lose in Romo. I'm not saying Brad Johnson could match Romo. Just saying Dallas is more complete in more areas, not to mention the intangibles Favre brings.

    "Caine" wrote:
    As for "most Valuable to his TEAM"....look no further than AP.
    But what about factoring in standings?


    "Caine" wrote:
    In my honest opinion, MVP is simply a popularity contest.
    It goes to whomever the media has their current love affair with.
    I agree. Which makes me believe it'll go to Brady.

    In all honesty, I think Favre should get it. I think he truly is the most valuable to his team, and factoring in the record, I think he should get it.

    I know you all think that's biased, but keeping my Packer bias out of it, I truly think he should get it.


    "Caine" wrote:
    Well, a case could be made for Derek Anderson of the Browns.
    Where would they be without him?
    Brian Westbrook...he IS the Eagles offense.
    Derek Anderson is playing well, but they could never justify that over Romo, Favre, and Brady.
    Standings should have nothing to do with the MVP award!

  3. #83
    rttsbgtgb's Avatar
    rttsbgtgb is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    130

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "marstc09" wrote:
    Standings should have nothing to do with the MVP award!
    Why? MVP should be the most valuable to his team, and if you have a valuable player to a team with a good record, and a valuable player to a team with a bad record, it should go to the guy on the team with the good record.
    "We want the ball, and we're gonna score." - Matt Hasselbeck

  4. #84
    ultravikingfan's Avatar
    ultravikingfan is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    24,514

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "marstc09" wrote:
    "ultravikingfan" wrote:
    So now we moved onto Favre as an MVP candidate if Brady was not.
    Interesting.

    Screw numbers and stats, Favre is a candidate.
    Lets be realistic.
    Definitely a candidate but will not be unless he wins the Super Bowl.
    Like I said...a candidate.

  5. #85
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,135

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "rttsbgtgb" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:
    Standings should have nothing to do with the MVP award!
    Why? MVP should be the most valuable to his team, and if you have a valuable player to a team with a good record, and a valuable player to a team with a bad record, it should go to the guy on the team with the good record.
    Why?

    This is exactly why we're still "debating" this.
    It seems that you're dead set on arrainging the criteria so that Favre is a candidate and we all get to say, "Oh, yeah, Favre could be MVP again...".
    Nope.


    Why should it go to the guy with the best TEAM record?
    Isn't MVP an individual award?


    Are you, by chance, in politics?

    Caine

  6. #86
    rttsbgtgb's Avatar
    rttsbgtgb is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    130

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "Caine" wrote:
    Why?

    This is exactly why we're still "debating" this.
    It seems that you're dead set on arrainging the criteria so that Favre is a candidate and we all get to say, "Oh, yeah, Favre could be MVP again...".
    Nope.
    First of all, am I not entitled to my opinion?

    Second of all, all of you are entitled to your opinion, so I could care less who you feel should be MVP. I already said I understand your point about Anderson when you said he should be MVP. I'm not endlessly trying to convince you of Favre.

    You, on the other hand, are trying to get me to shut up and accept what you're saying, which is the same thing I'm saying. If you're just trying to get the last word, then let me know and I'll stop responding.

    Third of all, I'm not in charge of deciding who's MVP. So it doesn't matter what I think or try to "arrange".

    Besides, I believe I already said Brady would get it. I said I would give it to Favre. That doesn't mean I don't think Brady should get it. It's just my opinion. If you have a problem accepting my opinion as my opinion and not fact, then ignore me.

    "Caine" wrote:
    Why should it go to the guy with the best TEAM record?
    Isn't MVP an individual award?
    You're twisting my words. I said, it should go to the best individual player who is most valuable to his team, while FACTORING IN team record. If you have a valuable player on a good team, and a valuable player on a bad team, it should go to the one on the good team. That's where record comes in.


    "Caine" wrote:
    Are you, by chance, in politics?
    Interested, yes. "In", no.
    "We want the ball, and we're gonna score." - Matt Hasselbeck

  7. #87
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,135

    Re: shows how good packers are

    rttsbgtgb wrote:
    First of all, am I not entitled to my opinion?
    Yes, you are.
    However, it helps move the discussion along if you stick with one throughout the entire debate.
    The whole shifting criteria thing really confuses the issue.

    rttsbgtgb wrote:
    Second of all, all of you are entitled to your opinion, so I could care less who you feel should be MVP. I already said I understand your point about Anderson when you said he should be MVP. I'm not endlessly trying to convince you of Favre.
    No, you're simply continueing to alter the proposed criteria in order to favor Favre.


    rttsbgtgb wrote:
    You, on the other hand, are trying to get me to shut up and accept what you're saying, which is the same thing I'm saying. If you're just trying to get the last word, then let me know and I'll stop responding.
    Not really.
    I hope you keep posting.
    I rather enjoy the circus.
    And don't get all mad and run away...you wanted to discuss football with intelligent people, remember?
    Is I 2 dum fer youz?

    rttsbgtgb wrote:
    Third of all, I'm not in charge of deciding who's MVP. So it doesn't matter what I think or try to "arrange".
    It's called credibility and consistancy.
    You gain the first by having the second.
    So, when the sitauation or scenario is constantly altering and changing, I tend to continue questioning.
    Further, this is a forum, and this is what people do on forums.
    You post, I post, you reply, I reply, others jump in, rinse and repeat.


    rttsbgtgb wrote:
    Besides, I believe I already said Brady would get it. I said I would give it to Favre. That doesn't mean I don't think Brady should get it. It's just my opinion. If you have a problem accepting my opinion as my opinion and not fact, then ignore me.
    If Brady should get it, why would you give it to Favre?
    That is what you just posted, isn't it?
    That even though Brady deserves it, you would give it to Favre?
    Let me see....oh, there it is..."I said I would give it to Favre. That doesn't mean I don't think Brady should get it. It's just my opinion."
    Yup, that's what you said.
    Yet previously you stated that you were keeping your Packer bias out of it?
    So what justifies your decision to award it to Favre over Brady if you think Brady deserves it?

    And I am well aware that your opinions aren't facts.
    I got that right away....it's a gift, I can't control it.


    rttsbgtgb wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    Why should it go to the guy with the best TEAM record?
    Isn't MVP an individual award?
    You're twisting my words. I said, it should go to the best individual player who is most valuable to his team, while FACTORING IN team record. If you have a valuable player on a good team, and a valuable player on a bad team, it should go to the one on the good team. That's where record comes in.
    Why?
    You still haven't answered that.
    Why should record matter when earlier you stated that stats shouldn't.
    Is it so that you can claim that Favre is an MVP candidate and justify it by altering the standards to favor Favre?
    (I'm guessing, "yes" on that one although I doubt you'll admit it).

    rttsbgtgb wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    Are you, by chance, in politics?
    Interested, yes. "In", no.
    Yup...it shows.
    Were you by chance a Kerry supporter?
    I only ask because he flip-flopped a lot too.

    Caine

  8. #88
    rttsbgtgb's Avatar
    rttsbgtgb is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    130

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "Caine" wrote:
    No, you're simply continueing to alter the proposed criteria in order to favor Favre.
    No I'm not. I've stated throughout the discussion that I think the most valuable player to his team should get it while FACTORING IN the team's record. That's what I have said and I have never shifted away from that. Read all of my posts before you make that claim.

    "Caine" wrote:
    Is I 2 dum fer youz?
    Really uncalled for. Be mature or don't talk to me.

    "Caine" wrote:
    It's called credibility and consistancy.
    You gain the first by having the second.
    So, when the sitauation or scenario is constantly altering and changing, I tend to continue questioning.
    I have held to my opinion the whole time. You're just having an issue understanding it, or possibly it's that you're not reading all of my posts.

    "Caine" wrote:
    If Brady should get it, why would you give it to Favre?
    I said Brady would get it. Meaning, he will get it this year. That's different from me saying that I would give it to Favre. Unless I'm the one that hands out MVP's, those two statements are different. Don't twist my words.

    "Caine" wrote:
    So what justifies your decision to award it to Favre over Brady if you think Brady deserves it?
    More than one player can "deserve" it. That's what you're having trouble understanding.

    It's not like one player starts having an MVP season, and the rest have to start sucking, because only one player can deserve it. Only one player can GET it. But more than one player can DESERVE it.

    I'm saying Brady does deserve it, meaning he's played well enough to be a top candidate. But I personally would give it to Favre.

    So once again, you're either attempting to twist my words and failing miserably, or you're misreading what I'm saying. If you're misreading what I'm saying, ask for clarification before you make assumptions. It doesn't help your argument.

    And about 'Packer bias', does that mean if I say anything good about the Packers, it's bias just because I'm a Packers fan? By saying Favre is good and he's an MVP candidate, because I said that, and because I'm a Packers fan, that makes it un-true and just biased opinion?

    "Caine" wrote:
    Why?
    You still haven't answered that.
    I have. I said a player being valuable to a good team is overall more valuable than a valuable player to a bad team.

    "Caine" wrote:
    Why should record matter when earlier you stated that stats shouldn't.
    I've stated that the valuable player should get it, while factoring in that team's record. If a player is valuable to a team with a good record, then clearly he helped out that team and was valuable. If he was valuable and helped out, then he clearly had good stats.

    I'm not saying stats shouldn't matter. What I meant was it shouldn't be based solely on stats. They need to factor in how valuable he was to that team and factor in that team's record.

    Good stats are inevitable for a valuable player. But it's the intangibles that player brings to his team. You have to factor in his role, how well he brings the team together, how big of a piece he is, how much he contributed to their good year.

    You can't just give it to a guy that throws for 4 TD's a game on a 2-14 team where that's all he does. You have to give it to the guy who throws 4 TD's, leading his team to victory, and being a major part of the puzzle.

    That's what I'm saying. That's what you aren't understanding. That's as good as I can sum it up for you. So if you still have trouble with understanding what I'm saying, then I'll just take it that you're not in this to have a serious discussion and I'll ignore you.


    "Caine" wrote:
    Is it so that you can claim that Favre is an MVP candidate and justify it by altering the standards to favor Favre?
    The fact that you think he's not an MVP candidate damages your credibility.

    "Caine" wrote:
    Were you by chance a Kerry supporter?
    No
    "We want the ball, and we're gonna score." - Matt Hasselbeck

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,130

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "rttsbgtgb" wrote:
    "Caine" wrote:
    No, you're simply continueing to alter the proposed criteria in order to favor Favre.
    No I'm not. I've stated throughout the discussion that I think the most valuable player to his team should get it while FACTORING IN the team's record. That's what I have said and I have never shifted away from that. Read all of my posts before you make that claim.

    "Caine" wrote:
    Is I 2 dum fer youz?
    Really uncalled for. Be mature or don't talk to me.

    "Caine" wrote:
    It's called credibility and consistancy.
    You gain the first by having the second.
    So, when the sitauation or scenario is constantly altering and changing, I tend to continue questioning.
    I have held to my opinion the whole time. You're just having an issue understanding it, or possibly it's that you're not reading all of my posts.

    "Caine" wrote:
    If Brady should get it, why would you give it to Favre?
    I said Brady would get it. Meaning, he will get it this year. That's different from me saying that I would give it to Favre. Unless I'm the one that hands out MVP's, those two statements are different. Don't twist my words.

    "Caine" wrote:
    So what justifies your decision to award it to Favre over Brady if you think Brady deserves it?
    More than one player can "deserve" it. That's what you're having trouble understanding.

    It's not like one player starts having an MVP season, and the rest have to start sucking, because only one player can deserve it. Only one player can GET it. But more than one player can DESERVE it.

    I'm saying Brady does deserve it, meaning he's played well enough to be a top candidate. But I personally would give it to Favre.

    So once again, you're either attempting to twist my words and failing miserably, or you're misreading what I'm saying. If you're misreading what I'm saying, ask for clarification before you make assumptions. It doesn't help your argument.

    And about 'Packer bias', does that mean if I say anything good about the Packers, it's bias just because I'm a Packers fan? By saying Favre is good and he's an MVP candidate, because I said that, and because I'm a Packers fan, that makes it un-true and just biased opinion?

    "Caine" wrote:
    Why?
    You still haven't answered that.
    I have. I said a player being valuable to a good team is overall more valuable than a valuable player to a bad team.

    "Caine" wrote:
    Why should record matter when earlier you stated that stats shouldn't.
    I've stated that the valuable player should get it, while factoring in that team's record. If a player is valuable to a team with a good record, then clearly he helped out that team and was valuable. If he was valuable and helped out, then he clearly had good stats.

    That's what I'm saying. That's what you aren't understanding. That's as good as I can sum it up for you. So if you still have trouble with understanding what I'm saying, then I'll just take it that you're not in this to have a serious discussion and I'll ignore you.


    "Caine" wrote:
    Is it so that you can claim that Favre is an MVP candidate and justify it by altering the standards to favor Favre?
    The fact that you think he's not an MVP candidate damages your credibility.

    "Caine" wrote:
    Were you by chance a Kerry supporter?
    No
    I think Favre should roll over and die. After careful consideration of all the mitigating factors, I stand by my point and I'm not gonna flip flop. Fuck Favre-old vicodin loving, greedy record wanting dirtbag pissass
    Wait, if there's cat food in this bag............................
    I HAVE TO CHECK ON JOLLY!!!!

  10. #90
    rttsbgtgb's Avatar
    rttsbgtgb is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    130

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "FreakinVikingsBaby" wrote:
    I think Favre should roll over and die. After careful consideration of all the mitigating factors, I stand by my point and I'm not gonna flip flop. Fuck Favre-old vicodin loving, greedy record wanting dirtbag pissass
    I'm sure that if your team ever gets a good quarterback I'll be saying the same thing.

    I guess I won't have to worry about that in the near future.

    I find it funny how people find faults in others' past to make fun of them, even though normal every day people do it all the time. The all mighty tv has created this second reality for you where everyone on it is supposed to be perfect and if that doesn't happen, you're outraged and attempt to use that as your ammunition.

    I'm sure someone in your family has had their problems. I'm sure you wouldn't want someone making fun of them for it either.

    And you're only mad about the records because you were probably one of those people who jumped on the bandwagon of him being washed up, so you're disappointed he's not gone yet. He can still play, he can still produce, so his records are legit. It's not like he's stayed long after he should have and is padding his stats. He's still producing, so it's all a part of the game.

    Get over it.
    "We want the ball, and we're gonna score." - Matt Hasselbeck

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 64
    Last Post: 03-30-2009, 08:54 PM
  2. MOVED: shows how good packers are
    By ultravikingfan in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-29-2007, 09:30 PM
  3. Packers: Aaron Rodgers shows signs of greatness
    By singersp in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-14-2007, 02:57 AM
  4. Good shows coming to town
    By renovikesfan in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-27-2006, 12:29 PM
  5. Research shows Packers to be the dumbest team in the NFL.
    By fred3105 in forum Trash the Pack
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-06-2005, 07:37 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •