The optimism thread

[iapatsfan]

It amazes me how so many posters think they can have a serious discussion calling things “garbage” “trash” “worthless” etc.

What words would you prefer? Is a team that gets manhandled by the Detroit Lions after giving up nearly 400 yards to Blake Bortles something other than trash or garbage?

 

[Coolade2]

What words would you prefer? Is a team that gets manhandled by the Detroit Lions after giving up nearly 400 yards to Blake Bortles something other than trash or garbage?

They're people ..too...

 

[brdmaverick]

I mean honestly, you are posting on a fan board of a team and you can’t be mature enough to be disappointed with it using terms like garbage and trash.
Think about that. Who calls people trash?

I really hope you are joking because if not that's just absolutely pathetic. It's 2018 and you think "garbage" or "trash" is an outrageous insult?!?!?

There are hundreds of explitive-combinations that could have been used to describe their performance, and you want to cry about "trash"? My suggestion, if that bothers you then there is no hope for you. I hate to break it to you but "trash" and "garbage" is actually putting their performance nicely. You think it's outrageous for a fan to refer to their performance as trash, do you honestly think Belichick didn't have harsher words to say straight to their faces?

 

[brdmaverick]

Truth hurts I guess.

You know what's funny, is I actually kind of agree that it was juvenile to call them garbage....but in a good way. I could have gone off on bleep show tirade on how I really feel, but felt I showed restraint in keeping it ultra PG. So for you to take offense at the ultra-pg/juvenile insult says way more about you than it does me.

Watch out, I hope for your sake no one refers to you as 'not nice' today. That might really throw you in a tizzy.

 

[Bruins29]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. AJ is pointing out calling "players" trash is the issue. Calling their performance trash is a little better but I still think there are better terms to use. The performance was kinda trash. But players themselves shouldnt be called that. They are still elite athletes and paid well and are professionals trying to make a living.

I see these types of terms used like garbage om here and I think they are out of line when discussing players. Its not a good way to refer to a player.

 

[Vindicate]

Well there was really not a big nickel option last week with no Chung.

Personally I think we are in the midst of a scheme change. The big nickel base from 2014-2016 was innovative. We were able to be good and at times dominant defending the run from nickel, which is much harder than it sounds.
You could see last year that against teams who were catching on with his to attack it, B.B. moved away from it. Teams that tried to attack it with speed (including TEs that are glorified WRs) he morphed into the 4 safety defense. Theoretically it was a smart innovation but in practice it just didn’t work.
This year through 3 games what we have seen is experimentation. The defense has looked different every week. And it’s not just opponent based. We are literally trying things to develop a defensive identity. Last week was the unveiling of a 3-4 look which we really havent used regularly in many years.
I am sure part of it is personell driven and there are a lot of new players to mild together into a unit.
I am confident he will figure it out though.

An example of what I am talking about is lb playing time.
Week 1 170 lb snaps in 74 plays 2.3 per play
Week 2 156 in 71 2.2
Week 3 219 73 3.1

We had an extra lb on the field essentially on 63 of the 73 plays compared to the week before against a team that throws more and uses the TE less.

Given the personnel we have, and it being attacked with playing faster, what scheme do you think/expect would show the strengths of this defense.

While the first few games have been rough, with the Lions game being a terrible watch, I feel like it has to pick up. Maybe not dominant, but there's a bundle of intelligence and success in this coaching staff that often gets it done.

 

[Ring 6]

I really hope you are joking because if not that's just absolutely pathetic. It's 2018 and you think "garbage" or "trash" is an outrageous insult?!?!?

There are hundreds of explitive-combinations that could have been used to describe their performance, and you want to cry about "trash"? My suggestion, if that bothers you then there is no hope for you. I hate to break it to you but "trash" and "garbage" is actually putting their performance nicely. You think it's outrageous for a fan to refer to their performance as trash, do you honestly think Belichick didn't have harsher words to say straight to their faces?

And you prove my point with your response. Have a nice day.

 

[Soliel]

This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Not one of arguing about who killed who

 

[brdmaverick]

And you prove my point with your response. Have a nice day.

As you have proven my point that you are as soft as they come, so yes, at least we agree it's best to go our separate ways.

 

[Sicilian]

People have different ways of expressing the same idea. I find it a bit strong to call players (or entire units) trash or garbage or some variation, because I'm of the philosophy that the difference between the best players and the worst players is smaller than people like to think. It's definitely there, don't get me wrong, and it doesn't take a big difference in talent/coaching/situation to result in impacts within the game. For example, a 1% difference in talent for a wide receiver might mean the extra few inches of separation needed to complete a pass on a crucial 3rd down that extends a drive. That does make a difference.

My rambling, early morning point is: Even though I agree that the verbiage is too strong, I'm not convinced that people are being literal when they say garbage or trash or the like. It's just their embellished way of saying the same thing: That the defense isn't playing the way we need it to win games.

 

[Kontradiction]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. AJ is pointing out calling "players" trash is the issue. Calling their performance trash is a little better but I still think there are better terms to use. The performance was kinda trash. But players themselves shouldnt be called that. They are still elite athletes and paid well and are professionals trying to make a living.

I see these types of terms used like garbage om here and I think they are out of line when discussing players. Its not a good way to refer to a player.

Eh, they may be at the top of their professions but they can still be labeled garbage or trash if they play as such. I can think of many of my old bosses that I could label that.

 

[Soliel]

For years I’ve watched belichick defenses get mauled in seprember, they start getting a bit better by October then become fair later on. With the exception of last year. I’ve had a bad time trying to take September seriously

 

[brdmaverick]

QUOTE="Bruins29, post: 5388225, member: 19791"]I think there is a misunderstanding here. AJ is pointing out calling "players" trash is the issue. Calling their performance trash is a little better but I still think there are better terms to users. [/QUOTE]


In my statement of 'they looked like trash' after mentioning how poorly they played don't you anyone with at least any signs of intelligent thought would know it was in reference to their play and not that I thought their physical appearance resembled my curbside garbage?

And even in describing their play you still think garbage is over the top? You people kill me. That's actually one of the most polite ways to put their play. I took how I really felt and translated it to a 2nd grade insult to actually put it nicely, and yt that's STILL too much for some o you. Unbelievable

 

[Soliel]

QUOTE="Bruins29, post: 5388225, member: 19791"]I think there is a misunderstanding here. AJ is pointing out calling "players" trash is the issue. Calling their performance trash is a little better but I still think there are better terms to users.

In my statement of 'they looked like trash' after mentioning how poorly they played don't you anyone with at least any signs of intelligent thought would know it was in reference to their play and not that I thought their physical appearance resembled my curbside garbage?

And even in describing their play you still think garbage is over the top? You people kill me. That's actually one of the most polite ways to put their play. I took how I really felt and translated it to a 2nd grade insult to actually put it nicely, and yt that's STILL too much for some o you. Unbelievable[/QUOTE]

Don’t let it bother you. Many Here like to argue semantics.

 

[Ring 6]

As you have proven my point that you are as soft as they come, so yes, at least we agree it's best to go our separate ways.

Soft lol. Takes a tough guy to call people garbage huh?

 

[Ring 6]

QUOTE="Bruins29, post: 5388225, member: 19791"]I think there is a misunderstanding here. AJ is pointing out calling "players" trash is the issue. Calling their performance trash is a little better but I still think there are better terms to users.

In my statement of 'they looked like trash' after mentioning how poorly they played don't you anyone with at least any signs of intelligent thought would know it was in reference to their play and not that I thought their physical appearance resembled my curbside garbage?

And even in describing their play you still think garbage is over the top? You people kill me. That's actually one of the most polite ways to put their play. I took how I really felt and translated it to a 2nd grade insult to actually put it nicely, and yt that's STILL too much for some o you. Unbelievable

At least you recognize you are acting like a child, which was the point all along.

 

[Ring 6]

People have different ways of expressing the same idea. I find it a bit strong to call players (or entire units) trash or garbage or some variation, because I'm of the philosophy that the difference between the best players and the worst players is smaller than people like to think. It's definitely there, don't get me wrong, and it doesn't take a big difference in talent/coaching/situation to result in impacts within the game. For example, a 1% difference in talent for a wide receiver might mean the extra few inches of separation needed to complete a pass on a crucial 3rd down that extends a drive. That does make a difference.

My rambling, early morning point is: Even though I agree that the verbiage is too strong, I'm not convinced that people are being literal when they say garbage or trash or the like. It's just their embellished way of saying the same thing: That the defense isn't playing the way we need it to win games.

It’s not really an issue of name calling to me. It’s a matter of being a childish way to have a discussion. This board is just a big cry fest whenever anything goes wrong as the entitled who can’t put together a thought throw out crap like that.

 

[Sicilian]

It’s not really an issue of name calling to me. It’s a matter of being a childish way to have a discussion. This board is just a big cry fest whenever anything goes wrong as the entitled who can’t put together a thought throw out crap like that.

I don't disagree entirely, but I see it more as a tendency to view things black and white, which is not exclusive to sports discussion. It's kind of a blanket trend across a lot of human thought. In many ways it's given rise to the "hot takes" style of sports radio, as the idea of trying to see a nuanced view is often regarded as being soft on the teams, and somehow not holding them accountable for anything. So rather than looking at what went wrong and how it could be fixed, it's easier to just say the defense is garbage.

I agree that it's not how I prefer to look at things, but I also don't think my preference is the only way to approach it. For some people, that's just a better way to look at it.

 

[Bruins29]

And even in describing their play you still think garbage is over the top? You people kill me. That's actually one of the most polite ways to put their play. I took how I really felt and translated it to a 2nd grade insult to actually put it nicely, and yt that's STILL too much for some o you. Unbelievable

No not really. I just think its a weird term. I prefer dog ****

 

[brdmaverick]

At least you recognize you are acting like a child, which was the point all along.

It only further validates your softness. You think a 'second grade / insanely PG" insult is over the top and outrageous.

Let's recap.......

The Patriots spend the last two weeks (and 3 of the last 4) getting absolutely owned defensively. Like not just bad, insanely bad, so bad that it deserves every insult in the book.

I make a comment about how they looked like garbage in three of their last four games.

A comment, that in my opinion, is harmless and what I thought to be indisputable....in fact, so obvious it probably didnt' even need to be said.

But here comes big bad Andy Johnson, who's one goal in life is to find a dissenting viewpoint on everything.....and you continue to out-do yourself. I mean, to find fault in that original comment is comical.

Has the Pats D been bad? Yes, atrocious, so there is no disagreeing there. But wait, I know, I'm going to make a stand that calling them "garbage" is a low blow, like that's the worst thing you can call someone when in fact that's probably the nicest way their performance can be described.

Go ahead, go tell all your friends and co-workers. Wait 'til you see their reaction when you tell them 'hey guys, you wouldn't believe what this guy on the internet is saying. This guy is a real piece of work, he had the audacity and nerve to call the Pats defense performance garbage. Where is humanity going?'

They will first be so confused and then utterly laugh in your face over your position. If you stick with it, it may even spurn an Allen Iverson-esque rant of "wait, we're not talking about the c word or any four letter words, but "garbage"?!?!?! ....not a swear, but we're talking about 'garbage'? You've got to be kidding me."