La Canfora: Pats trying hard to keep Bodden - Texans and Steelers in it

[Deus Irae]

Re: La Canfora: Pats making late push for Bodden - Texans and Steelers in it

I agree that I do respond to your posts that pidgeon hole everything into a negative slant. As I said I no longer care to diminish my enjoyment of the board by having you reduce everything to an argument that anyone who disagrees with you has an agenda.

I don't pigeon hole everything with a negative slant, though, which you well know. It's not my fault that the Patriots have made a lot of major mistakes over the past couple of seasons. Take that up with BB.

See the difference is that BB is right way more than wrong. You know as well as I do that I have never said he is always right.

Oh, please.... you're one of the biggest homers on this board, along with Emoney and MoLewisRocks. As long as it's BB, it must be right, at least until he says or does something which concedes the point (hell, sometimes even after that).

I usemy objectivity to recognize that when the facts are not yet in, BB is more likely to be right than wrong, so the sanest approach is to give him the benefit of the doubt. You, on the other hand, have decided to use this board as a vehicle to raise your self esteem by trashing BB and then making the circular argument that anyone who doesnt agree with your criticism has a pro-Patriot agenda.

You don't use objectivity at all, though. That's the problem. Of course, the irony of your claims is that I used to be one of Belichick's staunchest defenders. That would have been all the way back in 2008. You know, before he started screwing up royally. It's been my objectivity that has allowed me to admit that he's been making a lot more mistakes since the end of 2008, just as it was my objectivity that allowed me to defend him in spygate, defend the Cassel decision, disagree with the decision to let Graham go, defend the offense in the 2006 AFCCG, defend McDaniels, question O'Connell and Crable, etc....

Despite what you seem to think objectivity is, objectivity is not "well, BB is right more than he's wrong, so he must be always right until proven wrong". you might want to look to the definition of the word for help in this matter, because you've got it exactly backwards. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is essentially the opposite of objectivity.

As I said carry on....I already know the script:
Deus trashes the Pats
Poster points out he is wrong (or just gives another side)
Deus 'proves he is right' by saying anyone who disagrees with his trashing has a homer agenda.
Its a perfect approach, you can never be wrong because you are the only person in the world who honestly gives an objective opinion. Must be lonely in that ivory tower of yours.

Again, see above.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: La Canfora: Pats making late push for Bodden - Texans and Steelers in it

I don't pigeon hole everything with a negative slant, though, which you well know. It's not my fault that the Patriots have made a lot of major mistakes over the past couple of seasons. Take that up with BB.



Oh, please.... you're one of the biggest homers on this board, along with Emoney and MoLewisRocks. As long as it's BB, it must be right, at least until he says or does something which concedes the point (hell, sometimes even after that).



You don't use objectivity at all, though. That's the problem. Of course, the irony of your claims is that I used to be one of Belichick's staunchest defenders. That would have been all the way back in 2008. You know, before he started screwing up royally. It's been my objectivity that has allowed me to admit that he's been making a lot more mistakes since the end of 2008, just as it was my objectivity that allowed me to defend him in spygate, defend the Cassel decision, disagree with the decision to let Graham go, defend the offense in the 2006 AFCCG, defend McDaniels, question O'Connell and Crable, etc....

Despite what you seem to think objectivity is, objectivity is not "well, BB is right more than he's wrong, so he must be always right until proven wrong". you might want to look to the definition of the word for help in this matter, because you've got it exactly backwards. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is essentially the opposite of objectivity.



Again, see above.

Objectivity does not require ignoring the facts, in fact it requires considering them.
To conside the future impact of a decision that has not yet played out without considering the decision makers record of success in similar decisions is as far from objective as possible.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: La Canfora: Pats making late push for Bodden - Texans and Steelers in it

Objectivity does not require ignoring the facts, in fact it requires considering them.
To conside the future impact of a decision that has not yet played out without considering the decision makers record of success in similar decisions is as far from objective as possible.

Again, you need to learn the definition of objectivity. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: La Canfora: Pats making late push for Bodden - Texans and Steelers in it

Objectivity does not require ignoring the facts, in fact it requires considering them.
To conside the future impact of a decision that has not yet played out without considering the decision makers record of success in similar decisions is as far from objective as possible.

Now go ahead and get the last word.
Make sure you take your time so you can really build up that self image because I will not respond.
I mean really, Im not going to respond any more, so try to do better than
reducing the argument to you have to be right because i have no intelectual integrity and am solely a homer, because I have a secret for you, check the threads, people are seeing through it.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

ESPNBoston's Mike Reiss writes Bodden could command money in the $4-$5 million per season range
Home | ProFootballTalk.com

What??? Lock him up already WTF!

 

[captain stone]

ESPNBoston's Mike Reiss writes Bodden could command money in the $4-$5 million per season range
Home | ProFootballTalk.com


Um, that seems like a fair amt of money for his talent? I know people here were talking about 7+ million.. I hope they bring him back..

Fair enough for me, too.

No more excuses, Bill. You over-paid for mediocre JAGs like Burgess, Sanders, Kaczur & TBC; now how about slightly over-paying for your #1 CB in a seller's market?

 

[Ring 6]

Re: La Canfora: Pats making late push for Bodden - Texans and Steelers in it

Again, you need to learn the definition of objectivity. I'll leave it at that.

There you go

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion


note the based upon facts portion, which is what i just said

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: La Canfora: Pats making late push for Bodden - Texans and Steelers in it

There you go

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion


note the based upon facts portion, which is what i just said

Exactly! Now that you've looked up the definition, try following it. And "facts portion" does not include a prejudice due to past performance, save when one is in a comparative mode. Even then, it's not truly objective but, rather, an attempt to quantify and validate subjectivity.

Learn it. Live it. Love it.

 

[spacecrime]

Although I have a few people on ignore, they are being quoted and I can't help but see key words.

One of the things I noticed was the resident internegator saying he is objective, and that BB has made a lot of mistakes.

People like him ignore the fact the it is a philosophy that makes the Pats (and Colts, etc) perennial winners.

They point to a decision that didn't work out anc all it a mistake.

But was it?

Ever play blackjack? There is a good winning philosohy there, based on when to take a hit. It doesn't work every time, but it is still a good philosophy.

So BB holds 12 a takes a hit. It is a 10. Bummer. Then he has 19 and stands pat. The dealer dealer flips his cards. he has 16. He draws and it's a deuce.

According the DI view of BB, he had two bad misses. Oh, you have to change taking a hit on 12 to signing AD, and standing pat on 19 with not re-signed Jabar gafney or whatever, but the rules are the same.

You go back over every move that didn't work out and say it was a mistake. It is the same as saying, "He should have stood pat with 12," and "He should have taken a hit at 19."

What the Negatories are fussing about are the minority of situations that didn't work. But like blackjack, the winning philosophy isn't designed to work 100% of the time. It can't. The success or failure of the phiosophy is how well you do over the long haul.

And how well have the Pats done over the long haul? Pretty damn good.

And yet, these maroons who say BB should has stood pat at 12 howl at those who understand how keeping the course with a winning philosophy works, and call us homers, as though to say we aren't thinking.

The whole purpose of the Negatories is not to be objective. It is to find those occurences where a hit would have worked at 19 and say, "See. BB screwed up again."

There are some trolls who understand this, but post anyway because their goal is to stir the pot. They aren't stupid, they are just looking to annoy. Sadly, that is not the case with out resident negatories. They really think they are being objective, and point to that deuce coming up as proof that BB made a horrible mistake. He should have taken the card at 19.

 

[Deus Irae]

There are some trolls who understand this, but post anyway because their goal is to stir the pot. They aren't stupid, they are just looking to annoy. Sadly, that is not the case with out resident negatories. They really think they are being objective, and point to that deuce coming up as proof that BB made a horrible mistake. He should have taken the card at 19.

There was no "hit on 19" issue involved with my commenting on the trade of Seymour. Your point, therefore, makes no sense as a response.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: La Canfora: Pats making late push for Bodden - Texans and Steelers in it

Exactly! Now that you've looked up the definition, try following it. And "facts portion" does not include a prejudice due to past performance, save when one is in a comparative mode. Even then, it's not truly objective but, rather, an attempt to quantify and validate subjectivity.

Learn it. Live it. Love it.

Considering past performance is a requirement in being objective, not a prejudice.
Its a prejudice to spewing arrogance, which is your forte.
Facing your opinion vs BBs opinion, it would not be objective to consider the education, training, track record, knowledge, intelligence and agenda in that analysis.
BBs exceeds yours in the first 5 and while you have shown that in the 6th area yours is ego, I trust thats BBs is what he has always said it is, what is in the best interest of the team.

To put it another way, if I had a question about football that I was trying to answer, I believe that getting BBs opinion would be more likely to make me correct. I feel that way because he has proven he is knowledgable and a strong decision maker on football matters. Just as if BB had a question on my profession asking me would make him more likely to be correct.
You are saying that you have a more sound analysis by ignoring the opinion of someone who has successfully done what you are commenting on but never done.

The real antithesis of objectivity is arrogance. You are the poster boy.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: La Canfora: Pats making late push for Bodden - Texans and Steelers in it

Considering past performance is a requirement in being objective, not a prejudice.
Its a prejudice to spewing arrogance, which is your forte.
Facing your opinion vs BBs opinion, it would not be objective to consider the education, training, track record, knowledge, intelligence and agenda in that analysis.
BBs exceeds yours in the first 5 and while you have shown that in the 6th area yours is ego, I trust thats BBs is what he has always said it is, what is in the best interest of the team.

To put it another way, if I had a question about football that I was trying to answer, I believe that getting BBs opinion would be more likely to make me correct. I feel that way because he has proven he is knowledgable and a strong decision maker on football matters. Just as if BB had a question on my profession asking me would make him more likely to be correct.
You are saying that you have a more sound analysis by ignoring the opinion of someone who has successfully done what you are commenting on but never done.

The real antithesis of objectivity is arrogance. You are the poster boy.

What you're continuing to demonstrate here is that you have no idea of what objectivity is. This has nothing to do with arrogance on my part. It has everything to do with you not understanding the definition of objectivity.

 

[Sleeping King]

At this point in the off-season there is no reason for me to believe that Bodden will not be returning since they have done well with TBC and Wilfork. That said unless Bodden chooses to leave because he likes another team's situation more there is no excuse for not keeping him. They can front load the contract so heavily that it will not have any dire effect on a new cap should it be put into place for next year. I can accept not breaking the bank for some of the free agents but to not bring back an extremely important player to the Pats 2010/11 success is not acceptable. A top 3 revenue team should not have problems re-signing their own free agents in an uncapped environment.

 

[Joker]

A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.

In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.

 

[flycessna]

Re: La Canfora: Pats making late push for Bodden - Texans and Steelers in it

I trust thats BBs is what he has always said it is, what is in the best interest of the team.

I am not getting involved in your debate as I really do not have an opinion either way.. But when read this I had to think about it because we have all heard this.. IN BB WE TRUST.. and really for the most part I do.. I mean look at the track record with this team and it is abovious he is truley a genious.. of course lets balance that with a little luck too.. having guys like Brady, Troy Brown, and Teddy Bruschi also helped a lot

But to get back to that statment that BB does what he feels is in the best interest of the "team" I had to think about what that really is?? I thought about risk reward or in this cicrumstance investment reward and the idea that maybe there is a lot more at play here then anyone of us could understand.

It is the absolute objective for any team in the NFL to make money. And for the most part creating a winning program consitutes more money.. But there in lies the quagmire that is "business"... in the realm of "winning" is there a bigger gray area... Does a team who wins the SB always make more money then a team who almost made it?? maybe, or maybe there are other factors like creating a competative team with the least amount of investment or even team with a friendly face.. we all know how and why this is a QB league.. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are money...

I have not always agreed with BB decision's. I think they should have spent the money on Asante Samual... now I do not think the CB position is one where we need to go out at any cost a get playmaker or a shut down corner.. But in the QB league and the changes in our own division we should have at least held on to such a proven talant.. In addition to missing his play abilities on the field I think he could have made a difference in the locker room this past year.

So I will leave all of the big decisions to the ones who are getting paid millions to make them but I will still keep a balanced viewpoint of what exactley is going on there.

IMHO about Bodden... he did a good job for us this year and I would not want to lose him unless they specifically had another proven player to take his place.. My guess is they want to fall back on their drafted CB and address the front line more. Again not disagreeing but still wonder if come next season when the Jets, Peyton, Saints?? are slinging the ball on us we wont be asking why we couldn't have spent some extra money on the CB spot.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Is this thread really about Bodden anymore? Because I'm not seeing it...

 

[Joker]

Is this thread really about Bodden anymore? Because I'm not seeing it...

we won't sign Bodden because he isn't objective

see what I mean?

 

[VJCPatriot]

we won't sign Bodden because he isn't objective

see what I mean?

LOL... ummk.

 

[Willie55]

Is this thread really about Bodden anymore? Because I'm not seeing it...

It had turned into such a big pissing match I actually forgot it was about Bodden. I thought it was a contest to see who could get the last word.

 

[JMarr]

At this point in the off-season there is no reason for me to believe that Bodden will not be returning since they have done well with TBC and Wilfork. That said unless Bodden chooses to leave because he likes another team's situation more there is no excuse for not keeping him. They can front load the contract so heavily that it will not have any dire effect on a new cap should it be put into place for next year. I can accept not breaking the bank for some of the free agents but to not bring back an extremely important player to the Pats 2010/11 success is not acceptable. A top 3 revenue team should not have problems re-signing their own free agents in an uncapped environment.

:ditto:

Amen brother! What, like 25 pages of back and forth and you come in and hit the nail squarely on the head. Nothing more really needs to be said. Thanks.