This guy looks like a moron now

[PlantPage55]

B) couldn't close out close games like Vince Young, whom you rate significantly lower

This is SUCH transparent bullshit that it gives me diabetes.

How many times did VY's explosive special teams or defense close-out those games for him. I'll do the work for you for 2007, since I'm sure you won't:

The defense closed out the Saints game with a INT return, against Atl (despite 5 offensive turnovers!!!), against the Raiders, against the Panthers (Tennessee's defense had a good game as they sacked Carr 7 times and limited Carolina's offense to just 191 total yards.), against the Jets (For the rest of the game, Tennessee's defense kept New York from being any kind of threat.),

So there's 5 games that the Tennessee defense was described by recap articles as having held up in the final quarter of the game. How different would Rodgers be looked at, if his own defense could have done the same for him just a few more times?

Couple that with that fact that Vince Young had games in which he played to ridiculous levels of "awful" and a bad attitude, and you've got a guy that I wouldn't want leading my team ever.

[PlantPage55]

It's actually really frustrating to be asked this, when it has no relevance.

Maybe I wasn't very clear in what I was trying to get across. I wasn't calling you out, I was opening thinking about the possibility, however remote, that this ARod think doesn't work out the way we think it will.

That's it. Apologies if it sounded like anything else.

Yeah okay, well if that's the case, I'll still be around to say I was wrong.

Hell, I'll admit right now that I was wrong about the Jim Bates defense. I used to be a huge supporter of it. Now, I see that it is a VERY limited scheme (especially with a douche like Sanders running it). Even with a competent DC, the scheme can only go so far unless you have the perfect players for it. I was wrong.

I wish I was using the internet more when Sherman was coaching/GMing. Then, everyone would see that I'm not a homer or a jobber to the organization. Now THERE'S a guy that I couldn't see eye to eye with about running this team.

[RashanGary]

I wish I was using the internet more when Sherman was coaching/GMing. Then, everyone would see that I'm not a homer or a jobber to the organization. Now THERE'S a guy that I couldn't see eye to eye with about running this team.

Haha. I don't think that would do you much good with RG

[Partial]

You better all hope like hell he doesn't put up an 85 QB rating next year..................

And this would make you happy because...................???

This is the part that pisses me off. It seems like P would be happy if the Packers fail this year so he can be right.

Absolutely after taking everyone's crap for months now. I don't think you people realize how offensive half the stuff you say is. I'm ashamed to be lumped in with "Packer fans' like a good amount of you, who cannot look at things objectively or accept that someone may have a differing opinion.

I would much rather have the Packers fail and have all the douches leave the forum. Absolutely.

[Scott Campbell]

I would much rather have the Packers fail and have all the douches leave the forum. Absolutely.

[falco]

I respectfully disagree with Administrator concerning the "bashing" quoted. Most of us have been around each other for years. Asking that we all forget our history together kind of defeats the purpose of remaining together. If claiming another poster who has a history of holding his idea of moral authority over other poster's heads (no offense RG, that's simply how some view you) is on a high horse is "personal" then I don't think we're going to have any kind of discussion here that doesn't turn "personal" without everyone being logged in as "guest." Even then it wouldn't take more than a couple posts to have everyone sorted out. As a group, we're not terribly complicated communicators.

Similarly, most people here probably "jumped" on Partial's argument because he has a history of making some rather... er... strange claims and has tended to argue them in an unyielding and less than respectful manner regarding other poster's points of view. And there's nothing wrong with that. People talk football that way all the time. But he's built his own reputation here over the years, so that's how people will respond to him. Obviously the same goes for anyone here.

I'm assuming people keep coming back here because he have a diverse group of strong personalities and tangled relationships that weave through just about every discussion here and it keeps things interesting. Reading "I think Rodgers is already an awesome QB" is far less interesting than reading "I think Rodgers is already an awesome QB even if that crazy cootie Partial hates him." I'm all for people not being personally attacked. But I don't think we can equate mocking, barbing, or nettling a poster based on his or her history of posts to attacking the person making the posts - even if things become a little heated sometimes.

I can see coming down on people for throwing nasty curses around, but for simply referencing past discussions and differences of opinion? That seems kind of heavy handed. Not that my opinion matters, because the SkinBasket is a pervert. And I'm okay with that.

Although I do feel like Forum Utopia is materializing before our very eyes...

Skinbasket, not sure if you are directly defending or me not, but if you are I am appreciative. I agree that my comment was certainly not a kind one, but it was certainly not calling anyone a moron - retailguy has shown himself to be an egocentric poster (I avoid the word pretentious since I mistakenly used it to describe KYPack, of whom I have become recently much more fond) - and I was referencing that fact based on his recent escapade.

But admin, it is your forum and I will bend to your request. This place is going to be getting pretty boring soon...

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Should we have a cap on supportable argument and a quota for inane babble to strike some kind of humanisticly appropriate balance that won't offend those who are habitually wrong?

Yes. Every post should be met with encouragement and gold stars.

Ringo: Look guys I wrote a song

Paul: thats great Ringo, I'm gonna put it here on the fridge so we can look at it every day.

Partial is our Ringo.

Piss poor analogy. Ringo had a modicum of talent.

Partail is our Stuart Sutcliffe.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

uh oh, kool aid man is on his high horse again

Are you suggesting at some point in time he dismounted?

It took me a long time to read through this thread. Very passionate on both sides.

I picked this series of posts to respond to, because I can find no way that these contributed to the discussion, other than to personally bash one of the posters. Falco, was there another reason that I'm unaware of? Tyrone? How is this different than the Brando WV references?.

Is it not fair to note when someone is acting stubborn, erratic, arrogant?

RG has a long history of appearing to be on a high horse. Someone is noting that.

My comment isn't bashing him. My comment is that he has always been this way..and most likely will continue to appear that way.

If someone thinks my posts are condesceding...is noting that bad?

BTW, i find it funny, amusing, interesting that you have chosen to note this post. Yet, I never see you noting or asking about this when Kiwon is feminizing my name, calling me gay, or calling me transgendered.

All of which are completely true, but still!!!

Or, when mranyrand calls me condescending.

Or, when sheephead routinely gets personal.

I'm not saying that you have singled me out for persecution, just that in the scheme of things..these 2 posts are mild mannered compared to what else is posted.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You guys take and twist words. Dump him now? For whom, exactly? I said they should continue to look to improve the position actively, because in my opinion, unless you have a top 5 QB, its tough to have consistent annual long term success.

My god, you people think that I'm a hater for thinking he's in the 12-14 range? That is awfully generous given he's A) done it once and B) couldn't close out close games like Vince Young, whom you rate significantly lower, and C) injury prone.

You better all hope like hell he doesn't put up an 85 QB rating next year or you better be men and be prepared to take your massive serving of crow.

This is it in a nutshell.

1. Partial tells us not to use numbers, wins and losses are how you judge a QB, but then we should be prepared for massive crow if he doesn't put up an 85. But, i thought wins and losses defined a QB.
2. Makes a comparison to VY and closing out games. VY doesn't have a large enough sample size to draw conclusions about his ability to close out games.
3. Compares VY to Arod...how?
4. Comes back with the injury prone argument. Did he miss any games last year? No. Brett was always injured, but Brett is a warrior.
5. Be prepared to eat massive crow. Admin...if you don't see how he is asking for it then..well, you are just being kind. If we are suppose to be ready for crow..then he and you should be prepared for us to serve him crow...right now, since he is foolish.

[falco]

I'm not sure what's worse, that I'm being lumped in a category with Tyrone or that the forum policing has gone to a new level of invasiveness...

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You better all hope like hell he doesn't put up an 85 QB rating next year..................

And this would make you happy because...................???

This is the part that pisses me off. It seems like P would be happy if the Packers fail this year so he can be right.

Absolutely after taking everyone's crap for months now. I don't think you people realize how offensive half the stuff you say is. I'm ashamed to be lumped in with "Packer fans' like a good amount of you, who cannot look at things objectively or accept that someone may have a differing opinion.

I would much rather have the Packers fail and have all the douches leave the forum. Absolutely.

And, there it is.

1. Poor, poor partial. Taking all this crap. Partial has nothing to do with it. He never gives crap. Partial never makes stupid statements. Never bumps old posts to proclaim a victory. NEVER!!!
2. Partial never says anything offensive. Never. He is like Hamlet..suffers the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
3. Partail is always objective. To deny this is to be unobjective.
4. Others are douches, not him. BTW, admin....i dont' think douche is a compliment, but i could be wrong. And, even if it isn't said, but implied thru his posts, is that not offensive...and should we not mention it?

Partial is like Hamlet..our forum/team is so wretched that complete non-existence would be decidedly preferable to what we have.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I would much rather have the Packers fail and have all the douches leave the forum. Absolutely.

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Partial when the packer season is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I'm not sure what's worse, that I'm being lumped in a category with Tyrone or that the forum policing has gone to a new level of invasiveness...

I thought you were going to respect the admin's desires.

Admin, this post hurt my feelings. It was directly personal. I will expect a swift and summary banning.

[RashanGary]

Admin seems to be doing a fair job here. It looks like he just wanted to end this messy little Partial, RG -v- Forum fight.

[falco]

I thought you were going to respect the admin's desires.

starting now, I promise!