Post Game Thread..... Chargers @ Pats

[Oswlek]

Call me crazy but, as a rule, I do not believe things I read on the internet when it is an anonymous person quoting an anonymous source.

That rule has steered me quite well in my years of posting.

And, as a rule, I don't post things like this unless I feel they are properly vetted.

But, like I said before, you are free to ignore it if you like. I can only share data, I can't make you believe it.

 

[Ring 6]

I won't dispute your reasoning for asking but I will say that Oswlek has been a quality poster since I've been here. So for me that gives his post some credibility.

His post says someone he thinks had a source posted something. A link to the post would be a good starting point.
Bring a quality poster doesn’t mean your interpretation of what someone else said is infallible.

 

[XLIX]

And, as a rule, I don't post things like this unless I feel they are properly vetted.

"Properly vetted" by whom? Another anonymous individual?

 

[Ring 6]

And, as a rule, I don't post things like this unless I feel they are properly vetted.

But, like I said before, you are free to ignore it if you like. I can only share data, I can't make you believe it.

How did you “vet” a message board post by a guy who claims he had a source?
Vetting would be confirming with the source, wouldn’t it?
I get you believe the guy but linking the post is a reasonable request.

 

[Tony2046]

His post says someone he thinks had a source posted something. A link to the post would be a good starting point.
Bring a quality poster doesn’t mean your interpretation of what someone else said is infallible.

That's true. And I understand why you're asking for a link.

I'm just saying after reading his post I was a little more concerned about Gilmore's situation.

 

[Ring 6]

That's true. And I understand why you're asking for a link.

I'm just saying after reading his post I was a little more concerned about Gilmore's situation.

How? Because some guy, who we don’t know who he is claims to have a source and said something but we don’t really know what he said, when he said it or what the context was?

If it’s so believable why do we not have a link?
My experience by the way is oftentimes people put their own spin on quoting what someone else said which is why links to hearsay matter.

 

[Tony2046]

How did you “vet” a message board post by a guy who claims he had a source?
Vetting would be confirming with the source, wouldn’t it?
I get you believe the guy but linking the post is a reasonable request.

Have to add that I have never read a post from him that turned out to be BS. So that's my perspective. He's not a hawt take type of poster.

 

[Ring 6]

Have to add that I have never read a post from him that turned out to be BS. So that's my perspective. He's not a hawt take type of poster.

It’s not a post from him. It’s him saying some other guy said something and he thinks the guy had an inside source but we don’t know even if we believe there is a source what the source said or what the guy with the source said.
If this were real why is it so cryptic.

And as pointed out before one anonymous guy vouching for another anonymous guy’s belief that a third anonymous guy had s good anonymous inside source is stretching things quite far.

 

[Tony2046]

How? Because some guy, who we don’t know who he is claims to have a source and said something but we don’t really know what he said, when he said it or what the context was?

I've been reading his posts for over two years Andy. He's not a hawt take type of poster. That I know. Could he be wrong? Sure. But he's been a good poster so I give him more credibility.

Like you. I'm pretty sure most members know you understand football at a very high level and if you post something, even if it's against the grain, most will give your point of view a serious look because you have that credibility.

Anyways I have no problem with you asking for a link either.

 

[Ring 6]

And, as a rule, I don't post things like this unless I feel they are properly vetted.

But, like I said before, you are free to ignore it if you like. I can only share data, I can't make you believe it.

By alll means please share the data so we can all read it and make our own judgments.

 

[Tony2046]

It’s not a post from him. It’s him saying some other guy said something and he thinks the guy had an inside source but we don’t know even if we believe there is a source what the source said or what the guy with the source said.
If this were real why is it so cryptic.

And as pointed out before one anonymous guy vouching for another anonymous guy’s belief that a third anonymous guy had s good anonymous inside source is stretching things quite far.

No problems with this Andy. I am just saying that Oswlek has been a good poster since I've been here. If he thinks something is true I'm going to seriously consider it.

 

[Ring 6]

I've been reading his posts for over two years Andy. He's not a hawt take type of poster. That I know. Could he be wrong? Sure. But he's been a good poster so I give him more credibility.

What are you talking about?
He doesn’t have credibility one way or another here, he is telling us he read something.

Like you. I'm pretty sure most members know you understand football at a very high level and if you post something, even if it's against the grain, most will give your point of view a serious look because you have that credibility.

He isn’t posting anything that he knows about football. He said he read something. He has no accountability good or bad to someone else’s comments.

Anyways I have no problem with you asking for a link either.

Considering he didn’t even describe what was said of course we need a link if we are going to form an opinion

 

[Ring 6]

No problems with this Andy. I am just saying that Oswlek has been a good poster since I've been here. If he thinks something is true I'm going to seriously consider it.

Ok got it you like the guy.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

It’s always a consideration of how you will bring back a player who missed time but the last time we saw Gilmore he had an excellent game in Tampa so unless it’s a rust issue he should be out there full time.

If Gilmore isn't active for the Denver game then it's worrisome for Gilmore the man. I believe the protocol is no symptoms for something like 1 week then clearance by an "independent" medical service(?). So if Gilmore is still seeing symptoms and/or isn't getting clearance 10 days from now (approaching a month)? That suggests he could have a serious side effect going on. It then could become "will he be IR'd", something I don't think anyone would have first thought would happen).
I recall the the very unfortunate case of Mike Wright ending in IR. Also, I believe Bryan Stork was IR'd for a concussion in a preseason game (I think the next season Stork retired from football based on precaution -- not ongoing active symptoms) . But given the high incidence of concussion in the NFL, I don't recall it often causes prolonged absence unless there is a serious side effect happening (I certainly could be wrong about that).

 

[Tony2046]

Ok got it you like the guy.

Yes that's it. He has been trustworthy imo. But you're not wrong asking for sources or links.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes that's it. He has been trustworthy imo. But you're not wrong asking for sources or links.

But they appear to not be coming.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

I'm not sure why some of you are having a hard time with this. There is nothing to belittle or scoff at, the members have inside sources that have been known for some time.

You can choose to not believe it, but that doesn't make the information any less reliable.

Relax Oswlek, no offense intended. I was just trying to inject some humor.

To the information: this is secondhand, or more, repeating of what they, the website, were told. By itself that should cause skepticism. But further, they leave it with a mystery (another red flag -- a clickbait type move). There is another reason than concussion for why Gilmore is out? What is that reason? Why can it be revealed there's another reason for his absence yet the reason must remain secret?

Of course, 100%, you posting it is perfectly ok. No worries. The board is here for that kind of chat. And hey, it may end up 100% true but skepticism is absolutely warranted. OTOH if they explain what the other reason for Gilmore's absence is (a big mystery??) IMHO that would at least give it an A and B to dive a bit more into.

 

[Deus Irae]

These breakdowns happened with Rowe, McCourty butler Harmon etc in the dirks as well in many cases more likely to be the culprit on the particular plays. The breakdowns stopped while Gilmore was healthy in the Tampa game when they play 50/50 man and zone.
To blame Gilmore without citing specific plays that were his fault is lazy analysis.

I've read your "analysis". With my having read it, and seen how flawed it was, excuse me if I don't worry about your take on mine.

 

[fnordcircle]

I don't have an leg to stand on so I'm taking my ball and going home in the most smug way possible.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I'm just glad there are enough people out here old enough to get the reference.