- Joined
- Aug 13, 2005
- Messages
- 19,301
- Reaction score
- 12,889
Da Bruinz - or should I say, Da Pot calling the kettle black?
Who is putting words in to who's mouths?
My original point was that certain fans (usually Raider fans) tend to claim that had the tuck rule not been called then the Pats would have won no Super Bowls. Here are my exact words in comment #1:One thing I have never understood is those people that say that if the tuck rule had not been called then the Patriots would have no Super Bowl victories. What does that have to do with what happened two and three years later?
In comment #11 you then responded:
Nothing would have been the same from then on.
In comment #13 I acknowledged, that with a change of timeline you cannot assume the results would be the same. I attempted (but apparently failed) to offer my opinion that the most likely scenario would be that the Pats would still win those Super Bowls:
While I agree that because of the change in the timeline one cannot assume the Pats go on to win SB 38 and 39, my issue is with those that claim that without the win against Oakland, then they assume the Patriots do not win those two Super Bowls. I would contend that there is a more of a chance that they would still win SB 38 and 39 than they would not.
At that point you countered in comment #16 with How can you say that if Oakland wins that the Patriots are still likely to win SBs 38 and 39? You are making assumptions that you can't make.
First of all I was talking about fans who assume the Pats would not have won those other Super Bowls. Second of all I was not an assuming the Pats would still win. I already acknowledged there were other possible outcomes. Regardless, you went ahead and implied over the next several paragraphs that I was only considering one possible outcome and was guaranteeing that result. Thanks for twisting my words.
In comment #17 I again attempted (and again apparently failed) to point out that I was talking about what I felt was the most likely outcome in my opinion, given what did actually occur in real life and not in some alternate parallel universe, based on what the Patriots did those years: How the team did the previous year doesn't make a team do better or worse the following year. Each year is different, each game is different. Winning (or losing) one year does not mean the team is more (or less) likely to win the next year - skill, preparation and execution (with a bit of luck) determines those outcomes. For example if 2008 was determined by 2007, then how do you explain the Falcons, Dolphins, Ravens and Cardinals?
In conclusion I was attempting (and once again apparently failing to get back on track by asking I'm not talking about the infinite amount of possibilities of what might happen when a change occurs during that timeline. What I am asking is 'what would be the most likely to happen'? And I would say that the Pats winning is still the most likely outcome based on the events that did actually occur.
Did you answer that question?
No.
Instead you veered off couse and asked in comment #19 What part of "all that can be said is that if the Patriots lost to Oakland, that no one could know what would have happened down the line" didn't you understand?
Next you asked How is that me "making an assumption that the Pats would be worse off?" That goes way back to my original comment - about fans that assume if they lost to the Raiders then they would never win any of those Super Bowls. If you notice my response directed to you, I did not say you were making that assumption; I asked if you were. The reason I asked that question was because in all you had written, it seemed to me that the only outcome you were talking about at that point was that the Pats would not have won SB 38 & 39. Therefore I asked you the question, to clarify your viewpoint.
In regards to the draft pick debate that follows, again you put words in my mouth by saying you can't assume that the Patriots would have been better with a better draft pick. What I was saying is that with all else equal, with a better draft pick the most likely outcome is a better player and better performance. It's a function of probabilities and not absolute outcomes. Yes, they may have still traded for and drafted Chad Jackson. But a better pick also opens up possibilities of other players that were not available when the Pats drafted that year. Unless you feel higher rated draft picks are a bad thing, or the draft is a complete crapshoot, then having a better pick should increase the probabilities of a team ending up with a more productive player.
Towards the end you appear (don't shoot me, I'm not assuming) to become defensive in regards to the idea that I thought you may be implying that the more likely outcome was that the Pats would not win those other Super Bowls. Perhaps I got that idea from your last line in the last paragraph of comment #16:
Basically, all that can be said is that if the Patriots lost to Oakland, that no one could know what would have happened down the line. Just remember, if the Pats lose to Oakland, Oakland would play Pittsburgh. And its a toss up who would have one. But in either case, neither would have beat the Rams. And THEIR dynasty probably would have started instead of being short-circuited by the Pats.
My theory is that the most likely outcome would be that the Pats still win SB 38 & 39. Quite obviously I don't know that for a fact. My logic for that theory is based on what did occur. Yes, there are an infinite number of possibilities, and yes, none of us have any way of knowing what would have happened. All I am saying is that in my opinion, of all the trillions of possible outcomes, I believe the most likely one would have been the Patriot organization assembling a team that would win those Super Bowls.
I know there's no way of knowing for sure what would have happened with a different set of circumstances; that's irrelevant. What I was trying to get at (and will probably again fail to do) is ask, if you disagree, then what in your opinion would be a more likely outcome, and why?
Who is putting words in to who's mouths?
My original point was that certain fans (usually Raider fans) tend to claim that had the tuck rule not been called then the Pats would have won no Super Bowls. Here are my exact words in comment #1:One thing I have never understood is those people that say that if the tuck rule had not been called then the Patriots would have no Super Bowl victories. What does that have to do with what happened two and three years later?
In comment #11 you then responded:
Nothing would have been the same from then on.
In comment #13 I acknowledged, that with a change of timeline you cannot assume the results would be the same. I attempted (but apparently failed) to offer my opinion that the most likely scenario would be that the Pats would still win those Super Bowls:
While I agree that because of the change in the timeline one cannot assume the Pats go on to win SB 38 and 39, my issue is with those that claim that without the win against Oakland, then they assume the Patriots do not win those two Super Bowls. I would contend that there is a more of a chance that they would still win SB 38 and 39 than they would not.
At that point you countered in comment #16 with How can you say that if Oakland wins that the Patriots are still likely to win SBs 38 and 39? You are making assumptions that you can't make.
First of all I was talking about fans who assume the Pats would not have won those other Super Bowls. Second of all I was not an assuming the Pats would still win. I already acknowledged there were other possible outcomes. Regardless, you went ahead and implied over the next several paragraphs that I was only considering one possible outcome and was guaranteeing that result. Thanks for twisting my words.
In comment #17 I again attempted (and again apparently failed) to point out that I was talking about what I felt was the most likely outcome in my opinion, given what did actually occur in real life and not in some alternate parallel universe, based on what the Patriots did those years: How the team did the previous year doesn't make a team do better or worse the following year. Each year is different, each game is different. Winning (or losing) one year does not mean the team is more (or less) likely to win the next year - skill, preparation and execution (with a bit of luck) determines those outcomes. For example if 2008 was determined by 2007, then how do you explain the Falcons, Dolphins, Ravens and Cardinals?
In conclusion I was attempting (and once again apparently failing to get back on track by asking I'm not talking about the infinite amount of possibilities of what might happen when a change occurs during that timeline. What I am asking is 'what would be the most likely to happen'? And I would say that the Pats winning is still the most likely outcome based on the events that did actually occur.
Did you answer that question?
No.
Instead you veered off couse and asked in comment #19 What part of "all that can be said is that if the Patriots lost to Oakland, that no one could know what would have happened down the line" didn't you understand?
Next you asked How is that me "making an assumption that the Pats would be worse off?" That goes way back to my original comment - about fans that assume if they lost to the Raiders then they would never win any of those Super Bowls. If you notice my response directed to you, I did not say you were making that assumption; I asked if you were. The reason I asked that question was because in all you had written, it seemed to me that the only outcome you were talking about at that point was that the Pats would not have won SB 38 & 39. Therefore I asked you the question, to clarify your viewpoint.
In regards to the draft pick debate that follows, again you put words in my mouth by saying you can't assume that the Patriots would have been better with a better draft pick. What I was saying is that with all else equal, with a better draft pick the most likely outcome is a better player and better performance. It's a function of probabilities and not absolute outcomes. Yes, they may have still traded for and drafted Chad Jackson. But a better pick also opens up possibilities of other players that were not available when the Pats drafted that year. Unless you feel higher rated draft picks are a bad thing, or the draft is a complete crapshoot, then having a better pick should increase the probabilities of a team ending up with a more productive player.
Towards the end you appear (don't shoot me, I'm not assuming) to become defensive in regards to the idea that I thought you may be implying that the more likely outcome was that the Pats would not win those other Super Bowls. Perhaps I got that idea from your last line in the last paragraph of comment #16:
Basically, all that can be said is that if the Patriots lost to Oakland, that no one could know what would have happened down the line. Just remember, if the Pats lose to Oakland, Oakland would play Pittsburgh. And its a toss up who would have one. But in either case, neither would have beat the Rams. And THEIR dynasty probably would have started instead of being short-circuited by the Pats.
My theory is that the most likely outcome would be that the Pats still win SB 38 & 39. Quite obviously I don't know that for a fact. My logic for that theory is based on what did occur. Yes, there are an infinite number of possibilities, and yes, none of us have any way of knowing what would have happened. All I am saying is that in my opinion, of all the trillions of possible outcomes, I believe the most likely one would have been the Patriot organization assembling a team that would win those Super Bowls.
I know there's no way of knowing for sure what would have happened with a different set of circumstances; that's irrelevant. What I was trying to get at (and will probably again fail to do) is ask, if you disagree, then what in your opinion would be a more likely outcome, and why?
Last edited:
