Patriots offense has become far too scheme heavy

[Ring 6]

So there are no such things as upsets in championship games? The better team is always the one that wins the championship games?

What is an upset? When the team you EXPECT to win doesn't. That means what you EXPECTED was wrong, not that the result was wrong.

Andy, you're working very hard to argue a pointless point.

I'm not working hard at all, I am simply responding to your comments.
It isn't pointless, otherwise you are also working really hard to argue a pointless point, since you keep responding as well. Duh.

The goal is to win the championship, not some mythical "best" team title.

Exactly

The team that wins the championship is the *CHAMPION*, by definition.

And also best, since you don't need a 'mythical' best when you determine it on the field. The team that is better at winning non-Championship games is not better than the team that is better at winning Championship games if we agree the goal and singular purpose of every team is to win a championship. We agree on that right?

If the goal is Championships, the best team is the one that is best at winning Championships and every other consideration pales in comparison.

But we all know that there are occasions where a worse team wins a single game, even if that game is the championship.

This is not correct, because you are considering every game equal to a championship which simply isn't realistic.

Villanova was not a better team than Georgetown. They were worse in every single way

No they weren't.
They were better at achieving their ultimate goal. They were equal at getting to Championships, and Villanova was better at winning Championship games.
You don't need to guess at who was better. You don't need to look at stats and other performances to figure out who would win. They played the game.

but on one magical night they played a once-in-a-generation perfect game, performing in a way that they could never hope to reproduce if they tried a hundred, or even a thousand, times.

Teams get one chance. The one that would be better with multiple chances is irrelevant.

So they deserved to be the NCAA Champions. That was the goal, and they achieved it. But they were not *better*. They were better that one magical night, and that's all that matters to them.

So you would rather be a member of Georgetown than Villanova?
You would rather be good at getting there and looking pretty doing it than actually winning?
Thats fine if that's what you prefer, but I just don't understand how you can define success by 'shoulda won'.

Clearly we are not going to agree on this.

Then why do you continue to insist on not accepting what my defition of 'better' is? I've explained it clearly.
I dismiss that your definition of who you think should win is better than mine of who actually achieves the singular goal shared by all teams.
Its OK, but just if you wish to dismiss my defintion, which one to do offer in its place?
None of the examples you gave are better by my definition, yet you keep giving them, and don't offer an alternative (clear) definition.

 

[Deus Irae]

So are you saying that Andy is just jerking us around or that he's incapable of rational thought?

I've got him on ignore, so I'd only seen what you've quoted, but we both know that Andy will continue to argue points long after he knows he's wrong. From what I've seen (and I went back and read all his responses in an attempt to be sure I had the full set of posts from both sides), this particular point isn't even debatable, as the sports that have much longer schedules than football prove pretty clearly, yet he's arguing it.

Take that for what it's worth, in terms of answering your question.

 

[ivanvamp]

So you would rather be a member of Georgetown than Villanova?
You would rather be good at getting there and looking pretty doing it than actually winning?
Thats fine if that's what you prefer, but I just don't understand how you can define success by 'shoulda won'.

No, I'd prefer to be on Villanova's championship team. Duh. The goal is to win the championship, and I'd rather be on a worse team that somehow manages to win the championship, than on a better team that plays poorly in a championship game and loses. And I wouldn't care at all if anyone called my team the "best", because I'd have a championship ring, and nobody could ever take that away.

Then why do you continue to insist on not accepting what my defition of 'better' is? I've explained it clearly.

Because I think it's wrong.

I dismiss that your definition of who you think should win is better than mine of who actually achieves the singular goal shared by all teams.
Its OK, but just if you wish to dismiss my defintion, which one to do offer in its place?
None of the examples you gave are better by my definition, yet you keep giving them, and don't offer an alternative (clear) definition.

I don't need to "define" it because I've already said that determining the "best" is more complex than you claim it is. You don't agree. Fine.

 

[Ring 6]

Everyone capable of rational thought and who's been exposed to sports on some regular basis understands that sometimes the better teams lose, and that the loss doesn't mean that they aren't the better team. And, by everyone, I mean everyone. The 18-1 2007 Patriots are an example of this. The 1985 18-1 Bears are an example of this. The examples are found throughout sports. You and I both understand that to be true.

We are talking about what the definition of 'best' is.

My defintion is the team that achieves the singular goal that all teams share
Feel free to count moral victories in your criteria of best, I choose not to.

Each team starts the season with the goal of winning the SB.
Each must go through a season to qualify for post season.
Then they go out on the field and compete.
Then the last team standing achieves the goal.
The real definition of best is achieving that goal.
Playing better in less meaningful games doesn't outweigh that.
I'm sure that every member of the 18-1 2007 Patriots would have preferred a 9-7 season that ended by achieving its goal and winning the SB.

IMO, the better team isn't the one you think would win most times, but the one that went out on the field and achieved its goal. Its not that complicated really.

 

[Ring 6]

No, I'd prefer to be on Villanova's championship team. Duh. The goal is to win the championship, and I'd rather be on a worse team that somehow manages to win the championship, than on a better team that plays poorly in a championship game and loses. And I wouldn't care at all if anyone called my team the "best", because I'd have a championship ring, and nobody could ever take that away.

You just, without realizing showed why my pov is correct.
You just seem to be hung up on best being subjective when there is a widely accepted method of determining it in competition.

Because I think it's wrong.

And you don't have to agree, but why would you argue as if I am approaching it from a different defition than I am.
Again, feel free to offer your own.

I don't need to "define" it because I've already said that determining the "best" is more complex than you claim it is. You don't agree. Fine.

So, your definiton of best is subjective.
Mine is that the league has a proceedure to determine a champion and the best team isthe one that goes on the field, competes and achieves the goal.
Clearly we will have different answers to who is best.
That is fine.

 

[Ring 6]

I've got him on ignore, so I'd only seen what you've quoted, but we both know that Andy will continue to argue points long after he knows he's wrong. From what I've seen (and I went back and read all his responses in an attempt to be sure I had the full set of posts from both sides), this particular point isn't even debatable, as the sports that have much longer schedules than football prove pretty clearly, yet he's arguing it.

Take that for what it's worth, in terms of answering your question.

How incredibly cowardly of you.
You pretend to put someone on ignore, so you can avoid being accountable to them pointing out what you are wrong about.
So then you still post in response to them, and don't have to be accountable to their answers.
You are the first internet coward I have ever met,

 

[ivanvamp]

We are talking about what the definition of 'best' is.

My defintion is the team that achieves the singular goal that all teams share
Feel free to count moral victories in your criteria of best, I choose not to.

Each team starts the season with the goal of winning the SB.
Each must go through a season to qualify for post season.
Then they go out on the field and compete.
Then the last team standing achieves the goal.
The real definition of best is achieving that goal.
Playing better in less meaningful games doesn't outweigh that.
I'm sure that every member of the 18-1 2007 Patriots would have preferred a 9-7 season that ended by achieving its goal and winning the SB.

IMO, the better team isn't the one you think would win most times, but the one that went out on the field and achieved its goal. Its not that complicated really.

Just to see how far you'd go to support your line of thinking, here's a thought experiment.

An NFL team wins its division with an overall record of 3-13 (which is technically possible). They have a point differential of -20.0 per game. They have the #30 offense and the #32 defense. In their first playoff game the other team's top 4 players all get injured in the first quarter and they pull out a 10-9 win on a wind-blown FG on the last play of the game. In their second playoff game the refs make ten horrific calls, all game-changers, and all in favor of this one particular team. And they win by one point again. In their conference championship game, the other team has the flu and they play at about 30% of their capacity and once again, our fortunate team wins by one. And finally, in the Super Bowl, against a 16-0 team that beat them by 50 during the regular season and was #1 in offense and #1 in defense, is missing its top 20 players due to injury. Refs make 10 more horrific calls in our team's favor. Every single bounce of the ball goes right into the hands of our team. And they win by one.

In this obviously hypothetical scenario, you would still consider our fortunate team to be the best team in the league. I've painted this ridiculous picture to see if you really would believe that this team is the "best".

 

[ivanvamp]

You just, without realizing showed why my pov is correct.
You just seem to be hung up on best being subjective when there is a widely accepted method of determining it in competition.




And you don't have to agree, but why would you argue as if I am approaching it from a different defition than I am.
Again, feel free to offer your own.


So, your definiton of best is subjective.
Mine is that the league has a proceedure to determine a champion and the best team isthe one that goes on the field, competes and achieves the goal.
Clearly we will have different answers to who is best.
That is fine.

Yes, it is subjective. "Best" is actually a subjective term. Think of it this way:

Temperature is absolute. It is an absolute, objective measurement. But whether it is "warm" or "cold" is subjective. 58 degrees in Florida in July is really, really cold. 58 degrees in Anchorage in January is incredibly warm.

The *CHAMPION* is objective. The "best" is subjective. They are not the same things necessarily.

After all, who is the best quarterback in the NFL? Is it Joe Flacco? He is, after all, the *champion* QB. But do you think he's the "best"?

 

[Ring 6]

Just to see how far you'd go to support your line of thinking, here's a thought experiment.

An NFL team wins its division with an overall record of 3-13 (which is technically possible). They have a point differential of -20.0 per game. They have the #30 offense and the #32 defense. In their first playoff game the other team's top 4 players all get injured in the first quarter and they pull out a 10-9 win on a wind-blown FG on the last play of the game. In their second playoff game the refs make ten horrific calls, all game-changers, and all in favor of this one particular team. And they win by one point again. In their conference championship game, the other team has the flu and they play at about 30% of their capacity and once again, our fortunate team wins by one. And finally, in the Super Bowl, against a 16-0 team that beat them by 50 during the regular season and was #1 in offense and #1 in defense, is missing its top 20 players due to injury. Refs make 10 more horrific calls in our team's favor. Every single bounce of the ball goes right into the hands of our team. And they win by one.

In this obviously hypothetical scenario, you would still consider our fortunate team to be the best team in the league. I've painted this ridiculous picture to see if you really would believe that this team is the "best".

Its a ridiculous scenario, and you know that.
As I said, I have clearly stated what I define as best, and it is very reasonable, more reasonable than your 'I can't define it'.
This post simply proves that you do not have reasonable discussion in mind here and are just trolling. Have a great night.

 

[ivanvamp]

Its a ridiculous scenario, and you know that.
As I said, I have clearly stated what I define as best, and it is very reasonable, more reasonable than your 'I can't define it'.
This post simply proves that you do not have reasonable discussion in mind here and are just trolling. Have a great night.

Hmmmm...interesting response. It is telling that you won't address this point. You KNOW that in this scenario, the 3-13 team is not the best team in the league, but you can't say that because it goes against your objective claim that the champion is automatically the best.

But objective is objective, no matter how silly the situation seems to be. So this thought experiment puts you in a box, and your response is to avoid it. Because once you agree that this 3-13 team is not the best, poof, there goes your objective definition. And you don't want to stick to your objective definition in this case because you know you'd look ridiculous clinging to it in this scenario.

I think most people understand that "best" is subjective. It's why people argue about it. But nobody argues over who the *champion* is. That you cannot see the distinction between the two is puzzling to me.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, it is subjective. "Best" is actually a subjective term.

Not when there is an agreed upon way to deternine it.

Think of it this way:

Temperature is absolute. It is an absolute, objective measurement. But whether it is "warm" or "cold" is subjective. 58 degrees in Florida in July is really, really cold. 58 degrees in Anchorage in January is incredibly warm.

That has nothing to do with this subject

The *CHAMPION* is objective. The "best" is subjective. They are not the same things necessarily.

One more time. When the goal is a championship, the champion is the best. I don't know how you determine best without basing it on goal and acievement.

After all, who is the best quarterback in the NFL? Is it Joe Flacco? He is, after all, the *champion* QB. But do you think he's the "best"?

He is the QB of the best team. The definition of best QB and best team are not the same thing. The best QB does his job best. The QB who plays best doesn't always win. The best team does its job best and the job is to win a championship. The team is an entity that is the sum of the parts, so its collective goal and achievement, IMO, is the only way to define it.

 

[Ring 6]

Hmmmm...interesting response. It is telling that you won't address this point. You KNOW that in this scenario, the 3-13 team is not the best team in the league, but you can't say that because it goes against your objective claim that the champion is automatically the best.

But objective is objective, no matter how silly the situation seems to be. So this thought experiment puts you in a box, and your response is to avoid it. Because once you agree that this 3-13 team is not the best, poof, there goes your objective definition. And you don't want to stick to your objective definition in this case because you know you'd look ridiculous clinging to it in this scenario.

I think most people understand that "best" is subjective. It's why people argue about it. But nobody argues over who the *champion* is. That you cannot see the distinction between the two is puzzling to me.

The goal of every team is to win a championship.
Best = best at achieving its purpose.
Best = champion.

Accept it or don't but just stopping trolling.

 

[ivanvamp]

Not when there is an agreed upon way to deternine it.

You are wrong here. There is an agreed upon way to determine the CHAMPION. That's not necessarily the same thing as "best".

One more time. When the goal is a championship, the champion is the best. I don't know how you determine best without basing it on goal and acievement.

No, the champion is the champion. That's it. The winner of the Super Bowl is crowned the NFL Champion. The winner of the Super Bowl is not crowned the "best team in the NFL". They are not necessarily the same thing.

He is the QB of the best team. The definition of best QB and best team are not the same thing. The best QB does his job best. The QB who plays best doesn't always win. The best team does its job best and the job is to win a championship. The team is an entity that is the sum of the parts, so its collective goal and achievement, IMO, is the only way to define it.

 

[ivanvamp]

The goal of every team is to win a championship.

Correct.

Best = best at achieving its purpose.
Best = champion.

Accept it or don't but just stopping trolling.

How is us having a discussion equivalent to me "trolling"?

 

[Ring 6]

Hmmmm...interesting response. It is telling that you won't address this point. You KNOW that in this scenario, the 3-13 team is not the best team in the league, but you can't say that because it goes against your objective claim that the champion is automatically the best.

But objective is objective, no matter how silly the situation seems to be. So this thought experiment puts you in a box, and your response is to avoid it. Because once you agree that this 3-13 team is not the best, poof, there goes your objective definition. And you don't want to stick to your objective definition in this case because you know you'd look ridiculous clinging to it in this scenario.

I think most people understand that "best" is subjective. It's why people argue about it. But nobody argues over who the *champion* is. That you cannot see the distinction between the two is puzzling to me.

By the way, I am not debating. I am not telling you that your opinion is wrong. I am not coming up with stupid examples that are totally unrealistic and asking you to either concur with something stupid or change your opinion (ie if you say you wouldn't bang Roseanne, then I said if Roseanne was the only woman in the world you would either bang her or be gay, so are you gay or do you want to bang Roseanne).
Use all the silly tactics you want.
I am telling you what my opinion is. I am explaining my opinion.
You can feel free to agree or disagree, but it is a valid opinion that is supported sensibly.
What you are trying to accomplish, I don't know.

 

[Ring 6]

Correct.



How is us having a discussion equivalent to me "trolling"?

Read your last few ridiculous posts. You aren't having a discussion, you are trolling.

 

[Ring 6]

You are wrong here. There is an agreed upon way to determine the CHAMPION. That's not necessarily the same thing as "best".

If everyone is trying to accomplish the same thing, what other than accomplishing it makes you better?
You are trying to say that if 32 teams start on an even playing field, and all 32 clearly feel the only objective is to win the SB that one who doesn't is better than one who does.
I will ask again. Better how? What could they be better at that outweighs reaching the only goal they all share?

No, the champion is the champion. That's it. The winner of the Super Bowl is crowned the NFL Champion. The winner of the Super Bowl is not crowned the "best team in the NFL". They are not necessarily the same thing.

I say they are.
A team exists for the purpose of winning a championship. What can it do that is more important?
You do realize a team is made up of its accomplishments, not its potential right?

 

[ivanvamp]

Read your last few ridiculous posts. You aren't having a discussion, you are trolling.

They aren't ridiculous posts. If you've ever taken a philosophy course you know that thought experiments are used all the time to test the validity of various propositions.

Here, you are making an absolute claim, that the champion is always the best team, and the best team is always the champion. By the very definitions of the terms. I am testing that claim of yours by offering a scenario that puts serious strain on your claim.

But it should be easy for you to answer, right? After all, if the best team is defined as the one that achieves the ultimate goal (winning the SB), then that is true *NO MATTER WHAT*. So in order to be consistent, you'd have to say that our hypothetical 3-13 champion team is, in fact, the best team in the league.

So why not answer the question? Why not be logically consistent and just say, yeah, that's what you think? After all, you've made a very strong absolutist case here with no room for any deviation whatsoever.

 

[ivanvamp]

If everyone is trying to accomplish the same thing, what other than accomplishing it makes you better?
You are trying to say that if 32 teams start on an even playing field, and all 32 clearly feel the only objective is to win the SB that one who doesn't is better than one who does.
I will ask again. Better how? What could they be better at that outweighs reaching the only goal they all share?




I say they are.
A team exists for the purpose of winning a championship. What can it do that is more important?
You do realize a team is made up of its accomplishments, not its potential right?

My position, as I've stated already, is that winning the SB gives a team the title of *Champion*, but that the title of "best" is far more complex. Obviously winning a championship is one major factor in determining the "best". The goal of each team is to win the championship, not necessarily to lay claim to some subjective title of "best". They don't care about who is "best". They do care about being a champion.

Now, though, again, we see that you are making an absolutist claim with no exceptions. The best is the champion, and the champion is the best. So you should have no problem addressing my 3-13 champion thought experiment. I look forward to your answer there.

 

[Ring 6]

They aren't ridiculous posts. If you've ever taken a philosophy course you know that thought experiments are used all the time to test the validity of various propositions.

This isnt a philosophy course.
I have explained my position clearly and in great detail.
Coming up with an example that is stupid and unrealistic is ridiculous and you know that.

Here, you are making an absolute claim, that the champion is always the best team, and the best team is always the champion. By the very definitions of the terms. I am testing that claim of yours by offering a scenario that puts serious strain on your claim.

It is an absolute claim, because there is a way that is agreed upon to determine the best team.
You seem to feel best should be used to identify a team that meets some other criteria than achieving its goal. I disagree.

If I work at a company that sells widgets, and we are required to sell as many widgets as we can, if I sell the most widget, I am the best salesman.
You can argue about the definition of what qualities the best salesman has, and what you would expect him to do, but it is pointless, because you have a result.
I would argue that your subjective criteria of best must be flawed because the team your criteria calls best didn't achieve its only real goal.

But it should be easy for you to answer, right? After all, if the best team is defined as the one that achieves the ultimate goal (winning the SB), then that is true *NO MATTER WHAT*. So in order to be consistent, you'd have to say that our hypothetical 3-13 champion team is, in fact, the best team in the league.


So why not answer the question? Why not be logically consistent and just say, yeah, that's what you think? After all, you've made a very strong absolutist case here with no room for any deviation whatsoever.

I', just going to stop responding if you can get by childish harping on this silly example. Seriously, you are better than this lame trolling.