Tavon Wilson????

[NEGoldenAge]

Neal going out hurt the RUN game, but not the passing game, which is what Slappy was claiming. Sorry that neither you nor he can't reconcile the difference. It's typical..

That's hilarious man.... well played. I genuinely thought you were serious at first. My bad.

 

[bruinator]

What do the past few pages have to do with Tavon Wilson?

 

[Deus Irae]

What do the past few pages have to do with Tavon Wilson?

 

[NEGoldenAge]

What do the past few pages have to do with Tavon Wilson?

Isn't it obvious? If the Pats didn't draft Wilson, they would have won in 07.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

F*@#ing Ben Affleck - YouTube

 

[Ring 6]

That's rich coming from you.. The guy who has never admitted to being wrong in his life.

Aha, so claiming I never admit I am wrong is your dodge to allow you to not admit how blatantly wrong you are here?

Neal going out didn't cause Koppen to miss a stunt that led directly to a Brady sack.

Ummm, who was it that brought Neal being out as the first reason you listed for losing that game? It was YOU.

Yates being in there didn't cause Koppen to miss a stunt that led directly to a Brady sack.

See above.

Neal going out hurt the RUN game, but not the passing game, which is what Slappy was claiming.

Wrong. YOU were the one who blamed Neal being out, and now you are saying the guy in his place had nothing to do with the loss.
How could not having your starting RG be a primary reason for losing, but the play of the backup had nothing to do with it? That would mean Neal's injury had nothing to do with it.
You are making 2 statements that conflict directly with each other, and you are too weak to admit one or the other must be wrong. That is very sad.
You posted the words. I am simply pointing it out. But I'm sure you will try to make it about me, since the only alternative is to admit you are wrong.
I'll just accept your next attempt of making it about me as your admission that you are too weak to admit your error.

Sorry that neither you nor he can't reconcile the difference. It's typical..

There is no difference.
If the RG going out is a primary reason for the loss, then the play of the replacement RG, by definition, has to be a primary reason for the loss, otherwise the first half of the statement could not be correct.

 

[mayoclinic]

BB would make the whole team run 3 laps in the heat for all the fighting that's going on in this thread. As Bobby Carpenter would put it, competition is good, fighting is bad. You guys are all too smart and have too much to contribute to spend so much time sniping at one another.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

BB would make the whole team run 3 laps in the heat for all the fighting that's going on in this thread. As Bobby Carpenter would put it, competition is good, fighting is bad. You guys are all too smart and have too much to contribute to spend so much time sniping at one another.

Sowwy Mayo. I've been bitter ever since that Rabi took the first snip out of me.

 

[DaBruinz]

Aha, so claiming I never admit I am wrong is your dodge to allow you to not admit how blatantly wrong you are here?

No dodge. Per usual, you aren't capable of understanding basic logic.

Ummm, who was it that brought Neal being out as the first reason you listed for losing that game? It was YOU.

OMG, you really are that friggin dense. I stated them in no particular order. I also stated that there were a FEW reasons. No where did I claim that NEAL was the PRIMARY reason. And my response was in a rebuttal to Slappy claiming that YATES was the only reason we lost. Do yourself a favor and know what you are talking about when you decide to respond.

See above.

See Above.

Wrong. YOU were the one who blamed Neal being out, and now you are saying the guy in his place had nothing to do with the loss.
How could not having your starting RG be a primary reason for losing, but the play of the backup had nothing to do with it? That would mean Neal's injury had nothing to do with it.
You are making 2 statements that conflict directly with each other, and you are too weak to admit one or the other must be wrong. That is very sad.
You posted the words. I am simply pointing it out. But I'm sure you will try to make it about me, since the only alternative is to admit you are wrong.
I'll just accept your next attempt of making it about me as your admission that you are too weak to admit your error.

I never said that not having Neal was a PRIMARY reason. That was YOU making a SWA assumption.

And no, they don't necessarily conflict with one another. Fact is that Yates played well in passing plays, but not as well on running plays. That doesn't mean he played BAD. And his play didn't affect Koppen or Mankins play.

No, I didn't post the words. What you are claiming and what I actually said are two different things.

Unlike you, Andy, I admit my errors. Always have.

There is no difference.
If the RG going out is a primary reason for the loss, then the play of the replacement RG, by definition, has to be a primary reason for the loss, otherwise the first half of the statement could not be correct.

Again, never claiming it was a PRIMARY reason. I said it was one of a few. Helps if you actually read what was posted and don't put words in people's mouths. But, then, that is the only way you "win" arguments on here. Make erroneous claims and then build a weak argument around it.

 

[Ring 6]

No dodge. Per usual, you aren't capable of understanding basic logic.

Basic logic is when you won't admit you are wrong when you contradict yourself, you critize me? OK.

OMG, you really are that friggin dense. I stated them in no particular order. I also stated that there were a FEW reasons. No where did I claim that NEAL was the PRIMARY reason. And my response was in a rebuttal to Slappy claiming that YATES was the only reason we lost. Do yourself a favor and know what you are talking about when you decide to respond.

No, you stated them in order. You did not say, in no particular order. But regardless of order, you state that reason clearly.
If you listed a couple of reasons, clearly they were primary reasons.

I never said that not having Neal was a PRIMARY reason. That was YOU making a SWA assumption.

You listed him as one of 3. The other 2 were the OL being sick (ie excuse) and the in the grasp. If there are 3 reasons in your mind, and one is a single play how do you claim the loss of a player that you listed as one of the only 3 reasons you came up with is not a primary reason?

And no, they don't necessarily conflict with one another.

Only to someone who refuses to admit they are wrong.

Fact is that Yates played well in passing plays, but not as well on running plays. That doesn't mean he played BAD. And his play didn't affect Koppen or Mankins play

.
By definition if Yates play wasn't a reason we lost, then your claim that losing Neal was is wrong.
It is intellectually impossible for Neal being lost to be a reason we lost and the play of his replacement to not be a reason we lost. You are claiming both and it is literally impossible for you to be right about both.
You are saying 2+2=4 AND 2+2=5 and both are right. Grow a set and admit it.

No, I didn't post the words. What you are claiming and what I actually said are two different things.

A lie.

Unlike you, Andy, I admit my errors. Always have.

If that were the case, you could easily find multiple examples where you posted on this board that you were wrong.
I challenge your credibility to find 3 posts where you admitted to being wrong on this board. I challenge you. I'm asking for 3 out of thousands of posts.
I'm sure you will come up with some excuse about how hard it is to find them, but I CHALLENGE your credibility to find 3 examples where you admit you were wrong becuase you just said you always do.

Again, never claiming it was a PRIMARY reason.

When you name 3 only, they are all primary.

I said it was one of a few.

Same thing but if you want to call it that, it STILL contradicts your statement that Neal not playing was a reason, yet the play of Yates was not. That is physicallly and intellectually impossible.

Helps if you actually read what was posted and don't put words in people's mouths.

I did read it, and in fact used your own words in my reply.

But, then, that is the only way you "win" arguments on here. Make erroneous claims and then build a weak argument around it.

I could care less about 'winning arguments' which is why you dont see my posts, unlike yours, ripping and insulting everyone who replies.
You are a one trick pony. Every one who disagrees either 'is wrong' or gets insulted. You bring no insight, you simpy post a ****eyed opinion, and insult anyone who (correctly) disagrees.
Perhaps you should drop the anger and defenisvieness and post your opinion, then respect the opinions that do not agree. You are disagreed with more than anyone on this board, yet you act like a total dlck to anyone who disagrees. That is a you problem. I have tried to explain that to you before, and you just seem to want to fight everyone.
Good luck with all of that.

 

[DaBruinz]

Basic logic is when you won't admit you are wrong when you contradict yourself, you critize me? OK.

As is typical, you talk out your rear end despite having been shown to be wrong.

No, you stated them in order. You did not say, in no particular order. But regardless of order, you state that reason clearly.
If you listed a couple of reasons, clearly they were primary reasons.

Wrong again. I listed a few reasons and put them in no particular order with no emphasis one way or the other on it. Had I actually put them in order, I would have numbered them. I did no such thing.

You listed him as one of 3. The other 2 were the OL being sick (ie excuse) and the in the grasp. If there are 3 reasons in your mind, and one is a single play how do you claim the loss of a player that you listed as one of the only 3 reasons you came up with is not a primary reason?

Which is it? A couple or 1 of 3. You talk about contradicting oneself. And you ignored the Hobbs on Burress reason which I chose not to bother to repeat..

Only to someone who refuses to admit they are wrong.[

By definition if Yates play wasn't a reason we lost, then your claim that losing Neal was is wrong.
It is intellectually impossible for Neal being lost to be a reason we lost and the play of his replacement to not be a reason we lost. You are claiming both and it is literally impossible for you to be right about both.
You are saying 2+2=4 AND 2+2=5 and both are right. Grow a set and admit it.

It is only "intellectually impossible" if someone like you refuses to look at all the facts. Which you do on a regular basis.

Here it is for you Andy. The Pats changed their gameplan with Neal out. They stopped running the ball. That isn't Yates fault.

So, no, it's not literally impossible unless you ignore things. Like you do. I don't need to admit anything since I'm not the one who is wrong.

A lie.

I leave the lying to you. Sorry, but what you claim I said and what was actually said are two different things. It's a fact you can't deny no matter how hard you try.

If that were the case, you could easily find multiple examples where you posted on this board that you were wrong.
I challenge your credibility to find 3 posts where you admitted to being wrong on this board. I challenge you. I'm asking for 3 out of thousands of posts.
I'm sure you will come up with some excuse about how hard it is to find them, but I CHALLENGE your credibility to find 3 examples where you admit you were wrong becuase you just said you always do.

I was wrong about Moss, Dillon, BJGE and Chad Johnson. And I openly admitted it each time. You really should be careful what you wish for, Andy. You might get it.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england.../920893-ocho-released-page12.html#post3057713

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/689416-kudos-bjge.html#post2314820

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...012-senior-bowl-thread-page7.html#post2929766


You challenging anyone else's credibility is a joke. Especially when you were closing threads as a mod only to continue to post in them so you could have the last word.

When you name 3 only, they are all primary.

No, they aren't all "primary" reasons. And there were other reasons mentioned in the thread that I didn't repeat.

Same thing but if you want to call it that, it STILL contradicts your statement that Neal not playing was a reason, yet the play of Yates was not. That is physicallly and intellectually impossible.

It doesn't contradict my statement as I mentioned above.

I did read it, and in fact used your own words in my reply.

No, actually, you didn't use my own words against me. As I said, you put words in my mouth and said I made claims that I actually didn't.. Such as you claiming I said the reasons I mentioned were all primary reasons. They weren't.

I could care less about 'winning arguments' which is why you dont see my posts, unlike yours, ripping and insulting everyone who replies.
You are a one trick pony. Every one who disagrees either 'is wrong' or gets insulted. You bring no insight, you simpy post a ****eyed opinion, and insult anyone who (correctly) disagrees.
Perhaps you should drop the anger and defenisvieness and post your opinion, then respect the opinions that do not agree. You are disagreed with more than anyone on this board, yet you act like a total dlck to anyone who disagrees. That is a you problem. I have tried to explain that to you before, and you just seem to want to fight everyone.
Good luck with all of that.

More lies on your part. YOU are the one who is disagreed with more than anyone else on this board. The only person who is worse than you is NEM and he's no longer here.

Oh, if you cared less about winning arguments, you wouldn't have closed off threads while you were a mod and then continued to post in them so others couldn't reply. That is the modus operandi of a person who has to have the last word and "win" an argument.

And now, since you are no longer a MOD, I am going to enjoy putting you on IGNORE so I don't have to listen to your blathering lies. I hope you put me on ignore as well. It would make this board so much better. People wouldn't have to worry about you lying or making claims that I said things that I didn't.