Calling out - NFL KICKERS

[Patler]

So, let's get this straight...you post a long diatribe about the differences in style and era, which i noted. Basically talking about something that has no bearing on my post..since my post was about hornung. Then, why not just post it and not respond to my post. Then you post that i'm easily baited. Why are you trying to bait someone, if you arent' trying to establish a position. Hmm.

Just to see you rant uncontrollably and illogically, as you are.

I saw what was originally posted.......and the person then hedged. But, the ORIGINAL comment was not as you say. The original was "Shouldn't that be Paul Hornung?" Followed by his hedge. Nice try, though. The original comment was in response to longwell being the best/greatest kicker. You are wrong. The argument is about that. The poster then notes he was the greatest player who kicked.

You saw it? Really? He Hedged? Doesn't look like it to me. A single, unequivocal, two sentence statement:

Shouldn't that be Paul Hornung? He was certainly the greatest Packer who was also a kicker.

Ooops!

And, if we are going on the subtle..then I could argue Kramer was the greatest who also kicked.

Well, you could do that sure. It would be a pretty darn weak argument, in my opinion.

Hornung was not our top kicker nor our greatest kicker....and all the rest of your patler argument is just bs, and you know it.

I would never argue that Hornung was, nor did I argue that he was. The only bs I see here is coming from you, as you scramble to recover from getting caught with a long-winded argument against nothing more than Lurker's humorous comment.

And, Ty NEVER compared percentages then to today. Didn't do it...didn't "seemingly" either. Find it. Ty merely posted his numbers.

.
Oh Really??? When your post was:

Longwell IMO was the Packers greatest kicker

Shouldn't that be Paul Hornung? He was certainly the greatest Packer who was also a kicker.

nice call.

Bad call on both of you.

Hornung kicked for 4 years for the pack..and if you guys think Mason had problems..then Hornung sucked. Ty is excluding the 2 years he just kicked extra points.

(Stats deleted by Patler for brevity)

Even factoring in the different kicking style and the dual role (hornung is not alone in that) he wasn't a very good kicker..and certainly doesn't even deserve to be listed anywhere close to the top packer kicker.

You intended no comparison. Riiiiiiiiight! I believ you Ty, sure.
If you weren't comparing him to today, then why state "he wasn't a very good kicker..and certainly doesn't even deserve to be listed anywhere close to the top packer kicker." Doesn't that require a comparison to the kickers of today???????

The simple fact is that good kickers of any era...well, can't speak of the 40s and such made their field goal inside the 20. Kramer did it, Cox did it, Groza did it, etc. Hornung wasn't good inside the 20. And, that is all Ty needs to establish that he wasn't our greatest kicker.

good afternoon.

There you go again with the comparison. I have no idea who you are arguing the point with.

Good night Ty.

[MOBB DEEP]

it's rare than anybody gives an ex Packer credit once they leave.

which is amazing to me; im jus the opposite, i appreciate what the did for the Pack. Alot of times its not in their control or makes good business sense to stay

I LOVED javon walkers play for us so i wanted to see him do well even though i dislike broncs ONLY less than cowgirls

I liked jacke a lil more than longy

As a side note, Javon Walker has been subpoenaed in Denver to testify in the Darrent Williams murder trial.

didnt even know the trial hadnt been completed yet; funny how so many things are so news worthy at first then falls to the wayside nationally....

so tragic

[Tyrone Bigguns]

So, let's get this straight...you post a long diatribe about the differences in style and era, which i noted. Basically talking about something that has no bearing on my post..since my post was about hornung. Then, why not just post it and not respond to my post. Then you post that i'm easily baited. Why are you trying to bait someone, if you arent' trying to establish a position. Hmm.

Just to see you rant uncontrollably and illogically, as you are.

I saw what was originally posted.......and the person then hedged. But, the ORIGINAL comment was not as you say. The original was "Shouldn't that be Paul Hornung?" Followed by his hedge. Nice try, though. The original comment was in response to longwell being the best/greatest kicker. You are wrong. The argument is about that. The poster then notes he was the greatest player who kicked.

You saw it? Really? He Hedged? Doesn't look like it to me. A single, unequivocal, two sentence statement:

Shouldn't that be Paul Hornung? He was certainly the greatest Packer who was also a kicker.

Ooops!

And, if we are going on the subtle..then I could argue Kramer was the greatest who also kicked.

Well, you could do that sure. It would be a pretty darn weak argument, in my opinion.

Hornung was not our top kicker nor our greatest kicker....and all the rest of your patler argument is just bs, and you know it.

I would never argue that Hornung was, nor did I argue that he was. The only bs I see here is coming from you, as you scramble to recover from getting caught with a long-winded argument against nothing more than Lurker's humorous comment.

And, Ty NEVER compared percentages then to today. Didn't do it...didn't "seemingly" either. Find it. Ty merely posted his numbers.

.
Oh Really??? When your post was:

Longwell IMO was the Packers greatest kicker

Shouldn't that be Paul Hornung? He was certainly the greatest Packer who was also a kicker.

nice call.

Bad call on both of you.

Hornung kicked for 4 years for the pack..and if you guys think Mason had problems..then Hornung sucked. Ty is excluding the 2 years he just kicked extra points.

(Stats deleted by Patler for brevity)

Even factoring in the different kicking style and the dual role (hornung is not alone in that) he wasn't a very good kicker..and certainly doesn't even deserve to be listed anywhere close to the top packer kicker.

You intended no comparison. Riiiiiiiiight! I believ you Ty, sure.
If you weren't comparing him to today, then why state "he wasn't a very good kicker..and certainly doesn't even deserve to be listed anywhere close to the top packer kicker." Doesn't that require a comparison to the kickers of today???????

The simple fact is that good kickers of any era...well, can't speak of the 40s and such made their field goal inside the 20. Kramer did it, Cox did it, Groza did it, etc. Hornung wasn't good inside the 20. And, that is all Ty needs to establish that he wasn't our greatest kicker.

good afternoon.

There you go again with the comparison. I have no idea who you are arguing the point with.

Good night Ty.

1. Rant. That is hilarious. Illogical. Care to point where that is..nope. You would rather just insult. 2 can play the patler game.
2. Just cause you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. The post was in repsonse to Longwell. He stated shouldn't that be Hornung. The hedge is if he isn't then he is the greatest player who kicked. That is hedging on the first sentence. Sorry.
3. Your oops denies the first sentence..and that it was a response to Longwell being stated as the best kicker.
3. Weak argument. LOL Yes, it would be weak to mention a player that was in the 50 greatest when the list came out in 69 ty believes. Don't think Hornung was on the list. A player that was 5 time pro bowl to 2x for Hornung. Sorry, but it ain't weak. Hornung was great and so was Kramer.
4. Recover. Right. What i see is you backpedaling. You attempted to educate those who didn't need educating. You responded to my post..which implies a position regarding my post. And, you have now assumed lurker was being humorous..despite the fact that there is no emoticon or reason to believe that. He responded to the proposition that longwell was our best kicker. What is humorous about mentioning Hornung. Please explain the humor. Humor would be mentioning a sucky kicker or someone who kicked once in their career.
5. Comparson. Nope. It means you look at who was good in their time period and you look at who was good in this time period. You dont' compare distinct time periods. Nice try.

That is why is stated it the way i did. I put it into context for his time. I didn't say, look at this percentage made by mason/longwell/jack vs. Hornungs. My god, it really is that simple. You are reading WAY more into it than i ever thought possible.

And, i stated that those who thought mason was problematic..didn't say what i thought of mason. THe issue wasn't comparing mason to hornung on percentage..but, that those that thought mason was missing makeable kicks would be complaining about hornung missing makeable kicks. It really shouldn't be this hard for you to understand. Problems vs. problems. Not stats vs. stats.

It is simple. You can admit you have read more into it..anytime you want. And, you can admit that i didn't use stats..as you said i did. You stated it and you were wrong. I purposefully left those out. Just as i wouldn't compare passing #s or reception #s. Different eras, different rules, different coaching, etc. That doesn't mean that one can't say player X was great in his era and player Y was great in another. And player X was average in his era and player Y was average in his. 20 tds tossed in 1960 may have been great (dont' know..this is just an example) but would be average today..but, that doesn't make 20 tds in 1960 average.

I let Hornungs #s speak for themselves.

And, no..it doesn't require comparing to today..it requires comparing to other kickers of his time..which is the reason i listed them in response. I have never attempted to compare today to yesterday...EXCEPT stating that good kickers of that time period made their field goals inside the 20, just as they should today.

Good nite, patler.

[Patler]

So, let's get this straight...you post a long diatribe about the differences in style and era, which i noted. Basically talking about something that has no bearing on my post..since my post was about hornung. Then, why not just post it and not respond to my post. Then you post that i'm easily baited. Why are you trying to bait someone, if you arent' trying to establish a position. Hmm.

Just to see you rant uncontrollably and illogically, as you are.

I saw what was originally posted.......and the person then hedged. But, the ORIGINAL comment was not as you say. The original was "Shouldn't that be Paul Hornung?" Followed by his hedge. Nice try, though. The original comment was in response to longwell being the best/greatest kicker. You are wrong. The argument is about that. The poster then notes he was the greatest player who kicked.

You saw it? Really? He Hedged? Doesn't look like it to me. A single, unequivocal, two sentence statement:

Shouldn't that be Paul Hornung? He was certainly the greatest Packer who was also a kicker.

Ooops!

And, if we are going on the subtle..then I could argue Kramer was the greatest who also kicked.

Well, you could do that sure. It would be a pretty darn weak argument, in my opinion.

Hornung was not our top kicker nor our greatest kicker....and all the rest of your patler argument is just bs, and you know it.

I would never argue that Hornung was, nor did I argue that he was. The only bs I see here is coming from you, as you scramble to recover from getting caught with a long-winded argument against nothing more than Lurker's humorous comment.

And, Ty NEVER compared percentages then to today. Didn't do it...didn't "seemingly" either. Find it. Ty merely posted his numbers.

.
Oh Really??? When your post was:

Longwell IMO was the Packers greatest kicker

Shouldn't that be Paul Hornung? He was certainly the greatest Packer who was also a kicker.

nice call.

Bad call on both of you.

Hornung kicked for 4 years for the pack..and if you guys think Mason had problems..then Hornung sucked. Ty is excluding the 2 years he just kicked extra points.

(Stats deleted by Patler for brevity)

Even factoring in the different kicking style and the dual role (hornung is not alone in that) he wasn't a very good kicker..and certainly doesn't even deserve to be listed anywhere close to the top packer kicker.

You intended no comparison. Riiiiiiiiight! I believ you Ty, sure.
If you weren't comparing him to today, then why state "he wasn't a very good kicker..and certainly doesn't even deserve to be listed anywhere close to the top packer kicker." Doesn't that require a comparison to the kickers of today???????

The simple fact is that good kickers of any era...well, can't speak of the 40s and such made their field goal inside the 20. Kramer did it, Cox did it, Groza did it, etc. Hornung wasn't good inside the 20. And, that is all Ty needs to establish that he wasn't our greatest kicker.

good afternoon.

There you go again with the comparison. I have no idea who you are arguing the point with.

Good night Ty.

1. Rant. That is hilarious. Illogical. Care to point where that is..nope. You would rather just insult. 2 can play the patler game.
2. Just cause you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. The post was in repsonse to Longwell. He stated shouldn't that be Hornung. The hedge is if he isn't then he is the greatest player who kicked. That is hedging on the first sentence. Sorry.
3. Your oops denies the first sentence..and that it was a response to Longwell being stated as the best kicker.
3. Weak argument. LOL Yes, it would be weak to mention a player that was in the 50 greatest when the list came out in 69 ty believes. Don't think Hornung was on the list. A player that was 5 time pro bowl to 2x for Hornung. Sorry, but it ain't weak. Hornung was great and so was Kramer.
4. Recover. Right. What i see is you backpedaling. You attempted to educate those who didn't need educating. You responded to my post..which implies a position regarding my post. And, you have now assumed lurker was being humorous..despite the fact that there is no emoticon or reason to believe that. He responded to the proposition that longwell was our best kicker. What is humorous about mentioning Hornung. Please explain the humor. Humor would be mentioning a sucky kicker or someone who kicked once in their career.
5. Comparson. Nope. It means you look at who was good in their time period and you look at who was good in this time period. You dont' compare distinct time periods. Nice try.

That is why is stated it the way i did. I put it into context for his time. I didn't say, look at this percentage made by mason/longwell/jack vs. Hornungs. My god, it really is that simple. You are reading WAY more into it than i ever thought possible.

And, i stated that those who thought mason was problematic..didn't say what i thought of mason. THe issue wasn't comparing mason to hornung on percentage..but, that those that thought mason was missing makeable kicks would be complaining about hornung missing makeable kicks. It really shouldn't be this hard for you to understand. Problems vs. problems. Not stats vs. stats.

It is simple. You can admit you have read more into it..anytime you want. And, you can admit that i didn't use stats..as you said i did. You stated it and you were wrong. I purposefully left those out. Just as i wouldn't compare passing #s or reception #s. Different eras, different rules, different coaching, etc. That doesn't mean that one can't say player X was great in his era and player Y was great in another. And player X was average in his era and player Y was average in his. 20 tds tossed in 1960 may have been great (dont' know..this is just an example) but would be average today..but, that doesn't make 20 tds in 1960 average.

I let Hornungs #s speak for themselves.

And, no..it doesn't require comparing to today..it requires comparing to other kickers of his time..which is the reason i listed them in response. I have never attempted to compare today to yesterday...EXCEPT stating that good kickers of that time period made their field goals inside the 20, just as they should today.

Good nite, patler.

I see, no ranting on your part!
The hole you are digger for yourself is getting deeper.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Translation:

I can't admit i was wrong.

[Patler]

Translation:

I can't admit i was wrong.

I suspected that you can not!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Translation:

I can't admit i was wrong.

I suspected that you can not!

Translation:

I still can't admit i was wrong so i will go for humor.

P.S. why don't you explain why my list answering yours is a rant whereas yours is not. This ought to be good. We all need a laugh after the packer loss.

[Patler]

Volume and venom.
But, we've beaten this dead horse sufficiently, don't you agree?
We've ruined this thread sufficiently, don't you agree?
We've turned away potential respondents to the thread sufficiently, don't you agree?

Go ahead, have the last word if you must, as you often do. I'm done and bored with it. I tried to let it go light heartedly. You refused. Fine.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Volume and venom.
But, we've beaten this dead horse sufficiently, don't you agree?
We've ruined this thread sufficiently, don't you agree?
We've turned away potential respondents to the thread sufficiently, don't you agree?

Go ahead, have the last word if you must, as you often do. I'm done and bored with it. I tried to let it go light heartedly. You refused. Fine.

You are ridiculous. Venom? You have really lost it.

Ty loves the picture you paint of yourself...you tried to let it go, you tried lightheartedly. Ty refused. What a victim you are.

[Fritz]

Ty, you got Patlerized.

Don't worry about it so much. Happens to the best of us.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ty, you got Patlerized.

Don't worry about it so much. Happens to the best of us.

Sorry Fritz, but Ty didn't.

Hornung wasn't the greatest packer kicker. Hornung wasn't even a good kicker in his day. Ty never compared him to modern day kickers, etc.

Patler can be wrong. It happens to the best of them.

[Freak Out]

[Fritz]

Ty, you got Patlerized.

Don't worry about it so much. Happens to the best of us.

Sorry Fritz, but Ty didn't.

Hornung wasn't the greatest packer kicker. Hornung wasn't even a good kicker in his day. Ty never compared him to modern day kickers, etc.

Patler can be wrong. It happens to the best of them.

Allow me to quote Lurker, whose post about Hornung you disagreed with: "He was certainly the greatest Packer who was also a kicker."

Neither Lurker nor Patler was claiming that Hornung was the greatest Packer kicker. Your use of Lurker's first line to set up a strawman doesn't change that.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ty, you got Patlerized.

Don't worry about it so much. Happens to the best of us.

Sorry Fritz, but Ty didn't.

Hornung wasn't the greatest packer kicker. Hornung wasn't even a good kicker in his day. Ty never compared him to modern day kickers, etc.

Patler can be wrong. It happens to the best of them.

Allow me to quote Lurker, whose post about Hornung you disagreed with: "He was certainly the greatest Packer who was also a kicker."

Neither Lurker nor Patler was claiming that Hornung was the greatest Packer kicker. Your use of Lurker's first line to set up a strawman doesn't change that.

Sorry. The first sentence is in response to the question. Lurker said "shouldn't that be hornung..." Then, he hedges by saying the second.

And, Patler was certainly wrong when he said Lurker was making a joke. You can't have it both ways.

And, Patler certainly said that i compared kickers and their stats...which ty didn't.