2 things lost in this faux controversy

[PatriotsReign]

Yeahhhhh, well, I'm thinking that if you found that flattering, you might be missing a shade of meaning.

In any event, it's good that you're a good sport. You'd have to be, being wrong so often.

Why have thick skin on opinion boards where we’re all anonymous and what we post is pretty much meaningless?

Real life, person to person interaction is all that matters. PFiVA and PatriotsReign are just internet figures.

Lastly, anyone that doesn’t have thick skin on the internet needs some serious counceling

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Period.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

By the way, you mean “counseling.”

 

[PatriotsReign]

Period.

Word

 

[PatriotsReign]

By the way, you mean “counseling.”

That’s what I said....spellcheck messed up!

So glad we agree anyone with thin skin on the internet needs help!

 

[PatsFanInVa]

That’s what I said....spellcheck messed up!

So glad we agree anyone with thin skin on the internet needs help!

I don’t think I said that, though it may be true. Long story short, anywhere PR starts a sentence with “so glad we agree,” “we can all agree,” etc., it seems like an attempt to paper over inconsistencies and beg consensus.

It’s a little like a liar sprinkling in “believe me” every other sentence

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I should have started with “No due disrespect but...”

 

[PatriotsReign]

I don’t think I said that, though it may be true. Long story short, anywhere PR starts a sentence with “so glad we agree,” “we can all agree,” etc., it seems like an attempt to paper over inconsistencies and beg consensus.

It’s a little like a liar sprinkling in “believe me” every other sentence

Always keep in mind when you respond to a poster, you’re adressing him or her. You don’t have an additional audience.

So your use of “anywhere PR...” was incorrect grammatically.

You don’t have an audience, period.

 

[PatriotsReign]

I should have started with “No due disrespect but...”

Ironically, I respect you. You’re one of the only people I know that can crank out a thousand word response to a 30 word post like it’s nothing!

 

[brdmaverick]

What was Gilmore supposed to go? Keeping following hogan, not get near him , but give you no reason to rip him?
He had no chance.

I'll address the three highlighted sections.

What was he supposed to do? Easy, either attempt a tackle or try to punch the ball out........or to simplify it further...PLAY DEFENSE!

Not get near him? Why would you suggest he is not near him when the video and still frames clearly indicate otherwise?

He had no chance?.......Was he likely to stop Hogan from scoring? I'll concede his chances of stopping him were not high, but he certainly had a chance. He gave himself ZERO chance by doing what he did.

Come on, Andy, you're better than this.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Ironically, I respect you. You’re one of the only people I know that can crank out a thousand word response to a 30 word post like it’s nothing!

Comes in handy when writing for an audience.

 

[1960Pats]

I'll address the three sections highlighted sections.

What was he supposed to do? Easy, either attempt a tackle or try to punch the ball out........or to simplify it further...PLAY DEFENSE!

Not get near him? Why would you suggest he is not near him when the video and still frames clearly indicate otherwise?

He had no chance?.......Was he likely to stop Hogan from scoring? I'll concede his chances of stopping him were not high, but he certainly had a chance. He gave himself ZERO chance by doing what he did.

Come on, Andy, you're better than this.

I decided to give the Gilmore-Hogan play a closer look. I only gave it a glance when I first saw it, but this time I watched it repeatedly.

Just before the moment that Gilmore first gave up on the pass and started to turn back, Hogan was pulling away from him but slowed down to get the pass. If Gilmore was going hard right to the end and paying attention, he would have had a shot at Hogan.

What makes it worse to me is the reason Gilmore slowed down, to turn around and blame someone else. Even if that was the case it's a very bad look.

 

[luuked]

And of course we have people obsessing over a play for much longer than one of the most detail-obsessed coaches in history who went out and signed the player that people are obsessing about in here for a record contract.

Seriously what are you guys trying to prove ? That you understand player attitudes better than BB by talking about one freaking play for 7 pages ? What is the goal here ?

 

[patfanken]

I decided to give the Gilmore-Hogan play a closer look. I only gave it a glance when I first saw it, but this time I watched it repeatedly.

Just before the moment that Gilmore first gave up on the pass and started to turn back, Hogan was pulling away from him but slowed down to get the pass. If Gilmore was going hard right to the end and paying attention, he would have had a shot at Hogan.

What makes it worse to me is the reason Gilmore slowed down, to turn around and blame someone else. Even if that was the case it's a very bad look.

I can see how you might interpret the play that way, HOWEVER, have you considered that the reason he slowed was that he THOUGHT he was handing over Hogan to the S, and that he had another responsibility underneath that he would have left open IF he had taken off with Hogan unilaterally.

That's the thing when you don't know the actual responsibilities of a play. We are all just guessing. You might be right, but you could be wrong as well. Just sayin'

 

[brdmaverick]

And of course we have people obsessing over a play for much longer than one of the most detail-obsessed coaches in history who went out and signed the player that people are obsessing about in here for a record contract.

Seriously what are you guys trying to prove ? That you understand player attitudes better than BB by talking about one freaking play for 7 pages ? What is the goal here ?

What am I trying to prove? At this point, my sanity.

After all, I made the original post as more of an observation. It only became an obsession when the overwhelming response was that my observation was wrong despite the clear, indisputable evidence to the contrary.

Yes, I realize that in defending my statement it probably looks as though I'm the president of the "Anti-Gilmore" fan club when that's not the case at all. There is no alternate agenda. I don't blame him for the defenses short comings.

It was just a relevant observation that was relevant given the topic of the thread (Butler's extra effort). You have to admit, though, the play 'looked odd'. After all, some players give up or 'half ass it' all the time. This stuck out because he literally turned his back on the play. It was a mere observation that has only morphed into an obsession because people for some reason want to deny it even happened.

This isn't a smear campaign against him. I would like to think this isn't his normal style. After all, I'd agree that Bill probably wouldn't have signed him otherwise. This play still did happen though, and again I thought it was worth pointing out given the discussion of the thread. After all, Butler does play past the whistle and I think that should be appreciated.

 

[luuked]

What am I trying to prove? At this point, my sanity.

After all, I made the original post as more of an observation. It only became an obsession when the overwhelming response was that my observation was wrong despite the clear, indisputable evidence to the contrary.

Yes, I realize that in defending my statement it probably looks as though I'm the president of the "Anti-Gilmore" fan club when that's not the case at all. There is no alternate agenda. I don't blame him for the defenses short comings.

It was just a relevant observation that was relevant given the topic of the thread (Butler's extra effort). You have to admit, though, the play 'looked odd'. After all, some players give up or 'half ass it' all the time. This stuck out because he literally turned his back on the play. It was a mere observation that has only morphed into an obsession because people for some reason want to deny it even happened.

This isn't a smear campaign against him. I would like to think this isn't his normal style. After all, I'd agree that Bill probably wouldn't have signed him otherwise. This play still did happen though, and again I thought it was worth pointing out given the discussion of the thread. After all, Butler does play past the whistle and I think that should be appreciated.

I dont have an issue with your initial post, even though I dont agree with very much but at least you put an considerate amount of effort into making your point which is a striking difference to some of the other ****posts we get around here. I am just baffled that it devolved into this 7 page drama where it has just turned into winning an online conversation for both sides based on one freaking play.

 

[1960Pats]

I can see how you might interpret the play that way, HOWEVER, have you considered that the reason he slowed was that he THOUGHT he was handing over Hogan to the S, and that he had another responsibility underneath that he would have left open IF he had taken off with Hogan unilaterally.

That's the thing when you don't know the actual responsibilities of a play. We are all just guessing. You might be right, but you could be wrong as well. Just sayin'

No matter what it's one play and it was against the Pats so we liked it. Now we're all hoping to see him make more plays that we like.

 

[brdmaverick]

I dont have an issue with your initial post, even though I dont agree with very much but at least you put an considerate amount of effort into making your point which is a striking difference to some of the other ****posts we get around here. I am just baffled that it devolved into this 7 page drama where it has just turned into winning an online conversation for both sides based on one freaking play.

That's fair enough.

 

[Ring 6]

I'll address the three highlighted sections.

What was he supposed to do? Easy, either attempt a tackle or try to punch the ball out........or to simplify it further...PLAY DEFENSE!

Not get near him? Why would you suggest he is not near him when the video and still frames clearly indicate otherwise?

He had no chance?.......Was he likely to stop Hogan from scoring? I'll concede his chances of stopping him were not high, but he certainly had a chance. He gave himself ZERO chance by doing what he did.

Come on, Andy, you're better than this.

It doesnt look like he could one hand touch Hogan.
And stop with the passive aggressive bs comments YOU SHOULD BE better than THAT.

 

[brdmaverick]

It doesnt look like he could one hand touch Hogan.
And stop with the passive aggressive bs comments YOU SHOULD BE better than THAT.

Chill dude, believe it or not I thought it was more respectful to provide a response that insinuated that I generally agree or appreciate our back and forths (but just not in this case).........as opposed to just outright disagreeing.

I mean, c'mon, within that post you were literally asking what a defender should do when the ball carrier is right in front of him.

Isn't the obvious answer: play defense?

If you had to answer your own question would your answer be: stop and blatantly turn your back to the play?

That is why I found your post disappointing from a veteran poster such as yourself.