Skins @ Jets Post Game Catharsis....!!!

[riggofan]

Never get into a quote/respond battle with Deadskins. One of my personal philosophies.

[markshark84]

Yes, but saying that's what I do doesn't mean that it's true.

Unless (as is the case here) it is.......

No, they aren't. Posting about something means that is the focus of your post. I was posting about the game being winnable. I made the comment to support my contention, that had Kirk had even had a mediocre, game-manager type performance, the W was well within the realm of possibility. Yes, I understand that it's an argument over semantics, but it wouldn't be the first time.

Disagree. I consider the language within a post to be a "post". I consider items meant as a side note to be more of a comment --- like when you provide an "i.e." or something in "()" or for me personally, when I do one of the "---" things.

But yes, it's all semantics and I find you quarrel over this thing quite often with posters.

Finally, if "narrowing the gap to one score (or having plenty of time to do so)" = the definition of a game being winnable. Then -- in reality (opposed to hypotheticals) and by YOUR definition --- the game was never winnable based on what actually happened.

Hmm, we were "never" within one score? I think you might want to check your facts. But, at that point, after all the other options were exhausted, you would be correct, the game wasn't winnable. Your premise was that the game wasn't winnable because the Jets were just playing too well. The fact that we led at halftime, and could have been within a score at the end, despite Kirk's horrible play, clearly showed me that was not the case.

Well, looking past the fact my rationale (see below) is on point, the term "winnable" is ambiguous --- until you yourself decided to define "winnable". So when you did, I applied YOUR definition and, oddly enough, it fit closer to my position..... so I was correct in both forms (although my opinion based position was NOT because "the Jets were just playing too well" --- again go back and read my posts, I lay out numerous reasons why; I didn't generalize it, there was the rushing game, NYJs OFF production, Kirk's play, etc.).

Also, with regards to your "one score, check the facts" comment, by those standards every game in the history of the NFL was "winnable" on both sides --- since they start 0-0 or (if the standard is applied at half, which you don't provide) are down by less than roughly 50 at half. By that effect, HOU was in a "winnable" game vs. MIA this past sunday....... After all, they were only down 41-0 and would have 6 possessions in the second half (so they could have won 48-41).....

Finally, "could have been" don't count for crap. Silly hypos where you create facts (e.g., if we had not been assessed a bad RIK penalty) don't make things real --- especially when they are the result (in football terms) of a lack of execution.

Can't wait to get your semantics-laden response!!!!!! And if you respond ---- please include your position on whether RGIII is injury-prone!!!!!

[Countertrey]

This would be a good time to dial back the snarkiness... or take it to smack.

[Deadskins]

Yes, but saying that's what I do doesn't mean that it's true.

Unless (as is the case here) it is.......

No, they aren't. Posting about something means that is the focus of your post. I was posting about the game being winnable. I made the comment to support my contention, that had Kirk had even had a mediocre, game-manager type performance, the W was well within the realm of possibility. Yes, I understand that it's an argument over semantics, but it wouldn't be the first time.

Disagree. I consider the language within a post to be a "post". I consider items meant as a side note to be more of a comment --- like when you provide an "i.e." or something in "()" or for me personally, when I do one of the "---" things.

You say you disagree, and then go on to give examples that say the exact same thing as what you are disagreeing with. To wit:

Kirk could have played better. If he did, would we have won? Almost certainly not. They are a much better team and it showed. However, we need to have standards for Kirk. This game wasn't winnable, IMHO, but Kirk's play made it worse.

I don't know how you can say the game wasn't winnable. If Kirk doesn't throw those picks, and hits even a few receivers in stride, we could have easily come away with a W. As it was, we reduced the lead to two scores, missed an easy onside kick recovery, and committed a penalty (I thought it was a dubious running into the kicker call), that kept us from possibly making it one score with several minutes left. I understand the Jets took their foot off the gas at the end, but it's not like a win was out of the question with some decent QB play.

Note the "()". Also note that I did not take any of your post out of context, or invent positions you did not take so that I could refute them.

But yes, it's all semantics and I find you quarrel over this thing quite often with posters.

Both of these points I made in my last post.

Finally, if "narrowing the gap to one score (or having plenty of time to do so)" = the definition of a game being winnable. Then -- in reality (opposed to hypotheticals) and by YOUR definition --- the game was never winnable based on what actually happened.

Hmm, we were "never" within one score? I think you might want to check your facts. But, at that point, after all the other options were exhausted, you would be correct, the game wasn't winnable. Your premise was that the game wasn't winnable because the Jets were just playing too well. The fact that we led at halftime, and could have been within a score at the end, despite Kirk's horrible play, clearly showed me that was not the case.

Well, looking past the fact my rationale (see below) is on point, the term "winnable" is ambiguous --- until you yourself decided to define "winnable". So when you did, I applied YOUR definition and, oddly enough, it fit closer to my position..... so I was correct in both forms (although my opinion based position was NOT because "the Jets were just playing too well" --- again go back and read my posts, I lay out numerous reasons why; I didn't generalize it, there was the rushing game, NYJs OFF production, Kirk's play, etc.).

Also, with regards to your "one score, check the facts" comment, by those standards every game in the history of the NFL was "winnable" on both sides --- since they start 0-0 or (if the standard is applied at half, which you don't provide) are down by less than roughly 50 at half. By that effect, HOU was in a "winnable" game vs. MIA this past sunday....... After all, they were only down 41-0 and would have 6 possessions in the second half (so they could have won 48-41).....

Yes, every game is winnable at the start. I thought that was obvious. I suppose a half is possibly enough time to come back from that deficit, but that situation doesn't apply to my "one score gap" definition, does it?

Finally, "could have been" don't count for crap. Silly hypos where you create facts (e.g., if we had not been assessed a bad RIK penalty) don't make things real --- especially when they are the result (in football terms) of a lack of execution.

Can't wait to get your semantics-laden response!!!!!! And if you respond ---- please include your position on whether RGIII is injury-prone!!!!!

I like how you always point out that "could have beens" don't count because they are hypotheticals, when your original argument includes hypotheticals. (i.e. "If he did, would we have won? Almost certainly not."). I hope that's not too semantic.

It is my position (and always has been, btw) that RGIII can not be labeled injury prone at this time. He may be, but I don't think there is enough evidence to prove that. I would say that label could fairly be applied to Jordan Reed or even DJax.

[markshark84]

I think I've proven all I need to here. I agree with Countertrey in this has gotten to the point it is no longer constructive in any way. We are no longer even discussing football, which is what this forum is all about.

Tons of things I could come back on, but I think I'm good on where our exchange stands.

[Deadskins]

I think I'm good on where our exchange stands.

Me too.

[Burgundy&GoldForever]

Thanks, gentlemen, because the Jets game was almost two weeks ago now and this thread should have long been dead. There are new threads to argue in.