This defense

[PatriotsReign]

The above is what the poster was choosing not to engage with.

It should be said that not all forms of confrontation/debate are healthy, and there will be variance from individual to individual as well. Certainly not an automatic sign someone has social anxiety, or if they do, that their social anxiety is the reason for their unwillingness to debate.

Sometimes it's clear that the energy invested in a discussion is not worth the trouble if the other individual is engaging in the discussion in such a way as to ensure it's stressful and/or unproductive.

Maybe that's why Ring bowed out.

I really don’t want to debate this!

 

[SammyBlueCat]

A long way toward what? I’m not trying to convince anyone I am just stating my opinion.
Personally I think the reasons are obvious, if you don’t, that’s fine.

A long way toward having a coherent and fruitful discussion. If the reasons are so obvious, and you have absolutely no doubt Belichick is running the defense, it should not be difficult to write one reason down when asked to explain your position. We really want to know how you come to your dogmatic conclusion. Please explain what you are seeing that a lot of us are missing. Fair?

 

[DropKickFlutie]

How do you know he's any good?

His only job has been through his dad. I'd like to see an actual reason before feeling good about him as HC of the Pats. Let's face it, everyone in that building is real nice to him for one central reason.......

He's coached Harmon, McCourty, Chung to one of the most elite safety units ever. Then he's sharing some secondary play call duties and this secondary is one of the best ever. Sure maybe it's just player talent.

How do you know he doesn't have potential ?

 

[Ring 6]

A long way toward having a coherent and fruitful discussion. If the reasons are so obvious, and you have absolutely no doubt Belichick is running the defense, it should not be difficult to write one reason down when asked to explain your position. We really want to know how you come to your dogmatic conclusion. Please explain what you are seeing that a lot of us are missing. Fair?

You illustrate exactly why i have no interest.
A fruitful discussion does not include calling an opinion “dogmatic”.
If you seriously can’t understand why it’s obvious that Belichick is running the defense it wouldn’t go well from here anyway. On the other hand, you may just be trying to find an argument and I’m not here for that.

 

[Wordsmyth]

A long way toward having a coherent and fruitful discussion. If the reasons are so obvious, and you have absolutely no doubt Belichick is running the defense, it should not be difficult to write one reason down when asked to explain your position. We really want to know how you come to your dogmatic conclusion. Please explain what you are seeing that a lot of us are missing. Fair?

Considering Steve and Jerod are the only ones covering their mouths when discussing strategerie, they are most likely the ones running the D.

 

[SammyBlueCat]

You illustrate exactly why i have no interest.
A fruitful discussion does not include calling an opinion “dogmatic”.

Dogmatic means inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true. You say it is obvious and you have no doubts and yet cannot provide one fact that supports your idea. Why do you believe what you believe is true? For example I can state that I believe Pedro Martinez was greatest pitcher to play baseball. If you ask why I can write about his command and control of his fastball and his changeup and his curveball. On the other hand someone else can weigh in on why he or she believes Randy Johnson (or fill in the blank player) was better.

If you seriously can’t understand why it’s obvious that Belichick is running the defense it wouldn’t go well from here anyway. On the other hand, you may just be trying to find an argument and I’m not here for that.

You are right! I cannot understand your deep thoughts.
Don't even try to write them.

No you are not arguing. Not at all...

 

[mgteich]

All true; but let's revisit after the coming 5 game stretch.

 

[Ring 6]

Dogmatic means inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true. You say it is obvious and you have no doubts and yet cannot provide one fact that supports your idea. Why do you believe what you believe is true? For example I can state that I believe Pedro Martinez was greatest pitcher to play baseball. If you ask why I can write about his command and control of his fastball and his changeup and his curveball. On the other hand someone else can weigh in on why he or she believes Randy Johnson (or fill in the blank player) was better.



No you are not arguing. Not at all...

I gave my opinion.
I have stated numerous times I am not here to argue yet people want to turn me not arguing into an argument.
I will say one more time. I am not here to argue. I stated my opinion. You are free to agree, disagree, ignore, or print it and light it on fire. It matters not to me.
Going forward i will just not respond because explaining that I do not wish to have the voluminous back and forth evidently around here leads to a voluminous back and forth.
Have a great day. Go pats!!

 

[SammyBlueCat]

Considering Steve and Jerod are the only ones covering their mouths when discussing strategerie, they are most likely the ones running the D.

*** BINGO!!! ***

 

[SammyBlueCat]

I gave my opinion.
I have stated numerous times I am not here to argue yet people want to turn me not arguing into an argument.
I will say one more time. I am not here to argue. I stated my opinion. You are free to agree, disagree, ignore, or print it and light it on fire. It matters not to me.
Going forward i will just not respond because explaining that I do not wish to have the voluminous back and forth evidently around here leads to a voluminous back and forth.
Have a great day. Go pats!!

I did not ask you to argue (yet here you are arguing) I asked for you to provide (1) fact.

Considering the amount of time that you spent being self righteous about arguments, you could have used that time to provide (1) fact.

Never mind...

 

[SammyBlueCat]

Hopefully no hard feelings.

No trick questions were asked.

 

[Simpelton]

A long way toward having a coherent and fruitful discussion. If the reasons are so obvious, and you have absolutely no doubt Belichick is running the defense, it should not be difficult to write one reason down when asked to explain your position. We really want to know how you come to your dogmatic conclusion. Please explain what you are seeing that a lot of us are missing. Fair?

Not a shock to me that you hate dogma

 

[Simpelton]

*** BINGO!!! ***

Our future HC and his future DC

 

[Simpelton]

How do you know he's any good?

His only job has been through his dad. I'd like to see an actual reason before feeling good about him as HC of the Pats. Let's face it, everyone in that building is real nice to him for one central reason.......

What is Steve Belichick's primary responsibility as a coach?

The secondary.

What is our strongest defensive unit and probably the strongest unit on the team?

You guessed it, the secondary.

Even if he wasn't a Belichick, after 3 rings as a roleplaying coach, people would be talking about promoting the guy. I honestly think that the only reason he's here and not DCing for someone else by now is because he likes working with his dad.

 

[shmessy]

He's coached Harmon, McCourty, Chung to one of the most elite safety units ever. Then he's sharing some secondary play call duties and this secondary is one of the best ever. Sure maybe it's just player talent.

How do you know he doesn't have potential ?

We don't know either way. The guy works for his dad. The proof will come when he performs out there in the real world on his own. Maybe he's a great coach, it's hard to fully tell yet.

 

[njpatsfan]

The above is what the poster was choosing not to engage with.

Wrong. He disliked another post, was politely asked why. He responded with a dismissive, weasely post and said it was not to be debated. So he earned all the approbation he got on this thread.

I would also like point out that Mr “Absolutely Sure BB was calling the plays” was definitively proved wrong with the Steve B post/article today.

Not anything that anyone who ACTUALLY WATCHED the game and saw Steve with the card covering the mouth didn’t already know.

 

[catent]

Wrong. He disliked another post, was politely asked why. He responded with a dismissive, weasely post and said it was not to be debated. So he earned all the approbation he got on this thread.

I would also like point out that Mr “Absolutely Sure BB was calling the plays” was definitively proved wrong with the Steve B post/article today.

Not anything that anyone who ACTUALLY WATCHED the game and saw Steve with the card covering the mouth didn’t already know.

Disagreed with another post.

An apparently an important detail (since this entire discussion was based on the fact that such a 'reaction' occurred in the first place).

 

[Joker]

My personal opinion of this thread...

 

[BUSTAMOVE]

If I'm Ja'Whuan Bentley, I'm really pissed off about this t-shirt. Who the &uck is #36 and #48??????
Post edit: Oops, just saw the full version without the right side cut off. My man made it onto the shirt! Still who is 36 and 48??????? King is on IR and is really a ST/Safety......

48 is Taylor McCuller LB. no clue. 36 King makes no sense.

Flawed

 

[SammyBlueCat]

Wrong. He disliked another post, was politely asked why. He responded with a dismissive, weasely post and said it was not to be debated. So he earned all the approbation he got on this thread.

I would also like point out that Mr “Absolutely Sure BB was calling the plays” was definitively proved wrong with the Steve B post/article today.

Not anything that anyone who ACTUALLY WATCHED the game and saw Steve with the card covering the mouth didn’t already know.

I usually do not take joy in seeing people with silly ideas discredited but I must say

*** BINGO!!! ***

Again!