SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.
Well I guess you got me if I said I never made an argument. Of course you know you are full of crap.
Neither. It’s the statements that I made.
it’s not an argument at all
Of course it’s hard to tell because there isn’t any inconsistency. Some bozo decided to post my responses to different questions and try to make it appear they are different. They are not.
They are comments made months apart in response to different questions.
Question 1 last year, should Newton play.
Question 2, now, why did BELICHICK okay Newton.
You should agree with both.If I would say that I agree, would that be to the statements you made last year or this year?
You should agree with both.
Nothing hypocritical at all. ( ps you can’t spell very well)But if I did I would be a Hippoclyt.
Nothing hypocritical at all. ( ps you can’t spell very well)
Please explain how
I would play Stidham because I think newton blows
and Belichick played Newton because he has a higher opinion of him and felt he gave him the best chance to win is inconsistent in any way.
Bit you aren’t interested in reality you just want to troll.
Are you defending your first position or prosecuting your second position? Hard to tell.
At least you recognize you failings.Exactly.
Cam sucked. Stid wasn’t much better if he was at all. A QB switch was pointless.Nothing hypocritical at all. ( ps you can’t spell very well)
Please explain how
I would play Stidham because I think newton blows
and Belichick played Newton because he has a higher opinion of him and felt he gave him the best chance to win is inconsistent in any way.
Bit you aren’t interested in reality you just want to troll.
I don’t see the relation between 1 and 3. Stidham is fine as a backup but he’s not an NFL caliber starting QB.There is no confusion where I stand.
1) winning always matters
2) belichick played newton because of 1
3) I wanted belichick to play Stidham because of 1
At a .457% win rate he'll need 101 games to catch Shula. That puts him at 75 years old. I don't see it.
At the current 0.462% win rate he'll now need 93 games to catch Shula. That puts him at 75 years old. I still don't see it.This is aging well.
At the current 0.462% win rate he'll now need 93 games to catch Shula. That puts him at 75 years old. I still don't see it.
Just listing numbers. Not sure why you're so triggered by numbers. Who is Triump?That’s because you are a moron with an agenda, which never works out well. Case in point, Triump. It’s just sad, even when you know he’s a total douchebag.
Just listing numbers. Not sure why you're so triggered by numbers. Who is Triump?
I'm listing numbers based on actual stats, not made up crap. You on the other hand have called me a moron and Ahole for no apparent reason. It's truly sad how pathetically weak you come across, triggered by #s on a football forum. Grow up.So now are just trolling ?what an @sshole.