Leverage

[The Hogster]

@ the Hogster
Yeah, I read it when you posted it two and a half weeks ago too. And my opinion was the same then. Seems you are the one who doesn't understand tense.

My sense is Manning will have several teams interested despite his recent medical issues. And those options may include the Redskins and Dolphins... Options create leverage.

See, he was saying that once Peyton has those options, then he will get the leverage. At the time he said it, Peyton didn't yet have those options. Do you get it now?

Also, I love how you didn't address my other points. Typical Hogster BS

No dude. Read this really slowly. Let it sink in, and try not to confuse yourself.

Brandt wrote:

Unfortunately for Irsay, he is not the party with leverage in this negotiation.

THIS NEGOTIATION. Meaning the one between Peyton & Irsay--just like the sentence says in plain English. The subject of the sentence is "Irsay"--remember that from elementary school? The subject usually comes in the front of the sentence--thus when he says "this" in the second clause, he's talking about the negotiation with Irsay.

Read it again. A third time if need be. It doesn't get much plainer than that. Brandt is saying what I and everyone else in the world has been. Peyton had the leverage in the negotiation with the Colts because he didn't have to do anything. There was no reason for him to take less money to stay in Indy.

He could simply sit back and wait for Irsay to hold em or fold em. The team had already been blown up. And, they have the #1 pick. He didn't want to restructure to stay in a rebuild with Luck. For what? What was he gonna do, have them re-hire the staff & FO and ask them to trade the #1 pick to contend? Common sense. This may have been different if the Colts had the 20th pick. But, you can't ignore the fact that they're drafting Luck.

He and his agent knew that once he was an UFA, he would have suitors. And, yes having options in free agency creates leverage, but not IN THIS NEGOTIATION. It creates leverage with the other teams genius. For instance, knowing that the Jets and Broncos are interested gives Manning LEVERAGE with the Dolphins. He can create a bidding war even though he's likely got a preference in mind.

Good lord dude.

As for your point on Manning not wanting to stay--DUH. I already acknowledged you for making my point for me. That's what I've been saying all along. That's a part of the argument against restructuring. Why would he want to stay there? You didn't make any other points to address.

[Deadskins]

Brandt wrote:

Unfortunately for Irsay, he is not the party with leverage in this negotiation.

THIS NEGOTIATION. Meaning the one between Peyton & Irsay--just like the sentence says in plain English.

Damn it's hilarious how you constantly post stuff that directly contradicts the point you are trying to make. Your point all along has been that there are no negotiations between Manning and Irsay (Colts) because it would give the Colts the leverage. Now, in an effort to save face, you grasp at the straw of saying Brandt meant something by that first sentence, which the rest of the quote blatantly shows he did not mean.

And as for the Condon business, you were trying to make the specious argument that because Condon wasn't negotiating with the Colts, it was because it wouldn't be in Peyton's interests to do so. I said back then that it was true Condon wasn't negotiating, but not for the reasons you thought. You never even considered the option that Condon might not be negotiating with the Colts because Peyton told him not to. Don't make me dig up the quotes, or you'll just get embarrassed again.

[The Hogster]

Brandt wrote:

Unfortunately for Irsay, he is not the party with leverage in this negotiation.

THIS NEGOTIATION. Meaning the one between Peyton & Irsay--just like the sentence says in plain English.

Damn it's hilarious how you constantly post stuff that directly contradicts the point you are trying to make. Your point all along has been that there are no negotiations between Manning and Irsay (Colts) because it would give the Colts the leverage. Now, in an effort to save face, you grasp at the straw of saying Brandt meant something by that first sentence, which the rest of the quote blatantly shows he did not mean.

And as for the Condon business, you were trying to make the specious argument that because Condon wasn't negotiating with the Colts, it was because it wouldn't be in Peyton's interests to do so. I said back then that it was true Condon wasn't negotiating, but not for the reasons you thought. You never even considered the option that Condon might not be negotiating with the Colts because Peyton told him not to. Don't make me dig up the quotes, or you'll just get embarrassed again.

Here's the shovel. While you're digging, you will find that I said that Peyton should not offer to restructure his contract as 1niksder suggested. The term "negotiation" does not imply anything. I can negotiate a release, an extension, to push back the date for the bonus, or any number of things.

What I said was Peyton has all of the leverage because he doesn't have to do any of the above. He could just do nothing and become a free agent. Look up restructure, then take a nap. Let that soak in. Then next week, we will go over negotiation. Just your past 2 posts show that you can't even make one coherent argument flow from one post to the next. Now you're jumping around like a dog on hot pavement and it's pretty hilarious. Dance Deadskins! Or since you prefer to dig, go ahead and dig a hole. Bury yourself.

[Deadskins]

[The Hogster]

Deadskins Ladies & Gentlemen. And for his next trick, he'll make even less sense!

[Deadskins]

The Hogster: author of such astute posts as "Peyton can't restructure without renegotiating."

[KazooSkinsFan]

The Hogster: author of such astute posts as "Peyton can't restructure without renegotiating."

It's his keen business sense...

[SkinsJock]

Right now the ONLY leverage that really matters is the leverage a franchise gets by adding Manning to the roster

That leverage is due to the free agent players that will be attracted to be on the same offense as Manning - Manning will be able to play and will help any franchise that he's on - he will also give the franchise that lands him a lot of leverage to bring in other players because they know he's a winning QB

I'd love to get Manning - he'd be a huge boost to any offense ... BUT, that would be short lived


WE NEED R.G.III .... AND, hopefully Manning goes to the Dolphins and Flynn goes to the Browns

NOW .... that's LEVERAGE I'd like

[The Hogster]

I love this. Some hate it when I'm right. And, when we see Peyton's new contract, I'll be right yet again. I should start a running log of my victories in argument and drop it in my sig.

Hogster v. Kazoo (Jay Cutler trade proposal) W
Hogster v. 1niksder (Adam Archuletta) W
Hogster v. 1niksder (Brandon Banks roster) W
Hogster v. 1niksder (Peyton better restructure b/c he'll be shopping at the dollar store) W

etc etc

You guys may cherish trolling for your Internet Rep. I enjoy beating you over the head with pure football facts. According to 1niksder (i) the Colts had all of the leverage, (ii) Peyton should have restructured to stay in Indy and (iii) he would be unemployed with no chance to get anything more than an incentive based contract. That's 3 fails in one thread. Enjoy fail guys! BTW - I don't think I'm smarter than everyone-- but you guys for sure. :moon:

[Mississippiskinsfan2]

I love this. Some hate it when I'm right. And, when we see Peyton's new contract, I'll be right yet again. I should start a running log of my victories in argument and drop it in my sig.

Hogster v. Kazoo (Jay Cutler trade proposal) W
Hogster v. 1niksder (Adam Archuletta) W
Hogster v. 1niksder (Brandon Banks roster) W
Hogster v. 1niksder (Peyton better restructure b/c he'll be shopping at the dollar store) W

etc etc

You guys may cherish trolling for your Internet Rep. I enjoy beating you over the head with pure football facts. According to 1niksder (i) the Colts had all of the leverage, (ii) Peyton should have restructured to stay in Indy and (iii) he would be unemployed with no chance to get anything more than an incentive based contract. That's 3 fails in one thread. Enjoy fail guys! BTW - I don't think I'm smarter than everyone-- but you guys for sure. :moon:

Who cares and grow up

[The Hogster]

I love this. Some hate it when I'm right. And, when we see Peyton's new contract, I'll be right yet again. I should start a running log of my victories in argument and drop it in my sig.

Hogster v. Kazoo (Jay Cutler trade proposal) W
Hogster v. 1niksder (Adam Archuletta) W
Hogster v. 1niksder (Brandon Banks roster) W
Hogster v. 1niksder (Peyton better restructure b/c he'll be shopping at the dollar store) W

etc etc

You guys may cherish trolling for your Internet Rep. I enjoy beating you over the head with pure football facts. According to 1niksder (i) the Colts had all of the leverage, (ii) Peyton should have restructured to stay in Indy and (iii) he would be unemployed with no chance to get anything more than an incentive based contract. That's 3 fails in one thread. Enjoy fail guys! BTW - I don't think I'm smarter than everyone-- but you guys for sure. :moon:

Who cares and grow up

You cared enough to comment there buddy. And, unless you're a troll account, nobody cares what you think dude. You don't know the history here. Take a seat.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Hogster v. Kazoo (Jay Cutler trade proposal) W

Wow, I've only known women who keep score like that.

1) You keep track of the Cutler debate.

2) You forgot you were wrong at the time. You made a specific claim that was wrong. It was still wrong at the end of the discussion. You chalked it up as a win because I agreed the Bears had been dumber then I thought. But your specific claim I challenged you on was still wrong.

[The Hogster]

Hogster v. Kazoo (Jay Cutler trade proposal) W

Wow, I've only known women who keep score like that.

1) You keep track of the Cutler debate.

2) You forgot you were wrong at the time. You made a specific claim that was wrong. It was still wrong at the end of the discussion. You chalked it up as a win because a piece of it was true. But I didn't say that every piece was wrong, I said your claim was wrong. It was.

No sir. You said that I didn't know what was offered for Cutler by Cerratto etc. The trade proposal included 2 1sts. Don't make me bump that.



When you got F's in school, just because you drew two curves on the edge didn't make it a B. You still fail.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I love this. Some hate it when I'm right. And, when we see Peyton's new contract, I'll be right yet again. I should start a running log of my victories in argument and drop it in my sig.

Hogster v. Kazoo (Jay Cutler trade proposal) W
Hogster v. 1niksder (Adam Archuletta) W
Hogster v. 1niksder (Brandon Banks roster) W
Hogster v. 1niksder (Peyton better restructure b/c he'll be shopping at the dollar store) W

etc etc

You guys may cherish trolling for your Internet Rep. I enjoy beating you over the head with pure football facts. According to 1niksder (i) the Colts had all of the leverage, (ii) Peyton should have restructured to stay in Indy and (iii) he would be unemployed with no chance to get anything more than an incentive based contract. That's 3 fails in one thread. Enjoy fail guys! BTW - I don't think I'm smarter than everyone-- but you guys for sure. :moon:

Who cares and grow up

You cared enough to comment there buddy. And, unless you're a troll account, nobody cares what you think dude. You don't know the history here. Take a seat.

It seems he knows the history perfectly fine.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Hogster v. Kazoo (Jay Cutler trade proposal) W

Wow, I've only known women who keep score like that.

1) You keep track of the Cutler debate.

2) You forgot you were wrong at the time. You made a specific claim that was wrong. It was still wrong at the end of the discussion. You chalked it up as a win because a piece of it was true. But I didn't say that every piece was wrong, I said your claim was wrong. It was.

No sir. You said that I didn't know what was offered for Cutler by Cerratto etc. The trade proposal included 2 1sts. Don't make me bump that.



When you got F's in school, just because you drew two curves on the edge didn't make it a B. You still fail. The irony is, in that thread, 1niksder is the one who actually dug up Adam Schefter's Tweet that proved my argument versus yours. I know you forgot that because you've been stuck so far....ah nevermind.

Go ahead and bump it

[The Hogster]

The irony is, in that thread, 1niksder is the one who actually dug up Adam Schefter's Tweet that proved my argument versus yours. I know you forgot that because you've been stuck so far....ah nevermind.

[Deadskins]

The thing that is the most funny about all of this is that the Hogster truly believes he is winning these arguments, and anyone who doesn't see that is a hater.

[The Hogster]

The thing that is the most funny about all of this is that the Hogster truly believes he is winning these arguments, and anyone who doesn't see that is a hater.

We have the benefit of hindsight genius. It's pretty clear that Peyton didn't restructure. He got released. And, there are at least 5 teams interested in him. DUH

[The Hogster]

Here you go Kazoo. Maybe this was the moment that you fell in love with 1niksder. The way he came in and provided a link that destroyed your argument. He had you at hello. You've been following him around ever since.

But, here--in this very thread, you proclaimed that I was wrong. Yet the proof is in the posts. You have a history of attempting to rewrite history. Enjoy fail. It's a short thread, and you got owned throughout it so, feel free to read it all. But, 1niksder's post on Page 5 pretty much ended it for you.

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic. ... 523#569523

On Page 2 SAP Pete tried to advise you that you were wrong. But, in typical Kazoo fashion, you refuted his facts in favor of your own opinion. Then 1niksder delivered the kill shot. You're welcome. 5 pages of thread wasting time educating you--then you ran to Smack and created Lawyer Jokes. Go run your "businesses"

[DarthMonk]

Hog man:

One of the problems is even when your posts are right they are undermined by other posts of yours which are either inane or condescending ... or both.

For instance, in a Gano argument you didn't seem to understand how 26 of 36 became 26 of 31 when we went from FG% to FG% on unblocked attempts. You said I was counting those blocks as makes when all I did was subtract the attempts (inane). You clearly either had not read the link supplying the stats before responding or you did not understand those stats. You compounded things by telling me I had no analytic ability:

But, because you lack analytical ability, you're just going to add 5 makes to his percentages.

The beauty of this post was the combination of inanity, condescension, and irony as you displayed that weakness (lack of analytic ability) in your own thinking.

You should count that exchange as a big L in your scorekeeping.

DarthMonk

PS - I tried fairly hard here to attack the posts and not the poster. My apologies if I crossed a line.

[The Hogster]

Hog man:

One of the problems is even when your posts are right they are undermined by other posts of yours which are either inane or condescending ... or both.

For instance, in a Gano argument you didn't seem to understand how 26 of 36 became 26 of 31 when we went from FG% to FG% on unblocked attempts. You said I was counting those blocks as makes when all I did was subtract the attempts (inane). You clearly either had not read the link supplying the stats before responding or you did not understand those stats. You compounded things by telling me I had no analytic ability:

But, because you lack analytical ability, you're just going to add 5 makes to his percentages.

The beauty of this post was the combination of inanity, condescension, and irony as you displayed that weakness (lack of analytic ability) in your own thinking.

You should count that exchange as a big L in your scorekeeping.

DarthMonk

PS - I tried fairly hard here to attack the posts and not the poster. My apologies if I crossed a line.

Dude, I'll discuss this in the proper thread. I stand by my opinion. Yes Gano had a lot of blocks this year, but his percentages sucked last year too. Also, you can't give him credit for the blocks without giving the other kickers the same concession. He's been dead last in FG% 2 years in a row and one of those years he didn't have 5 blocks. In any event, this post is way off topic. I don't care if I sound condascending--it's not like I'm trying to. I'm stating what I know to be true, and when posters like Kazoo argue it just for the sake of arguing it, apparently people get offended by the tone.

It's not Dr. Phil--we don't have to care about each other's feelings when talking football. Of course I understand that if you subtract his blocks, his percentage goes up. But, the point is, he's ranked near the bottom of the league over 2 years. And, other kickers deal with blocks. You can't just erase his blocks, give him an 85% rate, and then rank him based on that adjusted figure, if you're not going to adjust the figures for everyone else.

I will concede the point that Gano played well towards the end of the year, after I made that post. If he continues to kick well when it counts, then of course I want him here. Time will tell.

[DarthMonk]

Hog man:

One of the problems is even when your posts are right they are undermined by other posts of yours which are either inane or condescending ... or both.

For instance, in a Gano argument you didn't seem to understand how 26 of 36 became 26 of 31 when we went from FG% to FG% on unblocked attempts. You said I was counting those blocks as makes when all I did was subtract the attempts (inane). You clearly either had not read the link supplying the stats before responding or you did not understand those stats. You compounded things by telling me I had no analytic ability:

But, because you lack analytical ability, you're just going to add 5 makes to his percentages.

The beauty of this post was the combination of inanity, condescension, and irony as you displayed that weakness (lack of analytic ability) in your own thinking.

You should count that exchange as a big L in your scorekeeping.

DarthMonk

PS - I tried fairly hard here to attack the posts and not the poster. My apologies if I crossed a line.

Dude, I'll discuss this in the proper thread. I stand by my opinion. Yes Gano had a lot of blocks THIS year, but his percentages sucked last year too. Also, you can't give him credit for the blocks without giving the other kickers the same concession. He's been dead last in FG% 2 years in a row and one of those years he didn't have 5 blocks. In any event, this post is way off topic. I don't care if I sound condascending. It's not Dr. Phil--we don't have to care about each other's feelings when talking football. Of course I understand that if you subtract his blocks, his percentage goes up. But, the point is, he's ranked near the bottom of the league over 2 years. And, other kickers deal with blocks. You can't just erase his blocks, give him an 85% rate, and then rank him based on that adjusted figure, if you're not going to adjust the figures for everyone else.

Predictably, this post did it ALL again. I highlighted where. The stats I provided did the very things you say I didn't do.

I agree we don't/shouldn't care about feelings here. I was simply explaining why even your good posts are held up to extra scrutiny.

Out.

DarthMonk

[The Hogster]

Hog man:

One of the problems is even when your posts are right they are undermined by other posts of yours which are either inane or condescending ... or both.

For instance, in a Gano argument you didn't seem to understand how 26 of 36 became 26 of 31 when we went from FG% to FG% on unblocked attempts. You said I was counting those blocks as makes when all I did was subtract the attempts (inane). You clearly either had not read the link supplying the stats before responding or you did not understand those stats. You compounded things by telling me I had no analytic ability:

But, because you lack analytical ability, you're just going to add 5 makes to his percentages.

The beauty of this post was the combination of inanity, condescension, and irony as you displayed that weakness (lack of analytic ability) in your own thinking.

You should count that exchange as a big L in your scorekeeping.

DarthMonk

PS - I tried fairly hard here to attack the posts and not the poster. My apologies if I crossed a line.

Dude, I'll discuss this in the proper thread. I stand by my opinion. Yes Gano had a lot of blocks THIS year, but his percentages sucked last year too. Also, you can't give him credit for the blocks without giving the other kickers the same concession. He's been dead last in FG% 2 years in a row and one of those years he didn't have 5 blocks. In any event, this post is way off topic. I don't care if I sound condascending. It's not Dr. Phil--we don't have to care about each other's feelings when talking football. Of course I understand that if you subtract his blocks, his percentage goes up. But, the point is, he's ranked near the bottom of the league over 2 years. And, other kickers deal with blocks. You can't just erase his blocks, give him an 85% rate, and then rank him based on that adjusted figure, if you're not going to adjust the figures for everyone else.

Predictably, this post did it ALL again. I highlighted where. The stats I provided did the very things you say I didn't do.

I agree we don't/shouldn't care about feelings here. I was simply explaining why even your good posts are held up to extra scrutiny.

Out.

DarthMonk

This is why this should be discussed in the proper thread, where I could look at the stats you're referring to.

Anyways, Kazoo--enjoy FAIL Part Deaux

[DarthMonk]

My last 2 posts addressing The Hogster are on topic becuase they explain why he undermines his own leverage. He knows where the other thread is and can review his own inane and condescending posts there to verify why he has less leverage now than he did before posting those condescending inanities.



DarthMonk

[The Hogster]

My last 2 posts addressing The Hogster are on topic becuase they explain why he undermines his own leverage. He knows where the other thread is and can review his own inane and condescending posts there to verify why he has less leverage now than he did before posting those condescending inanities.



DarthMonk

lame