Green Bay Packers Forum

Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
26 Pages«<1314151617>»
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline beast  
#141 Posted : Friday, July 18, 2014 2:33:54 PM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

Joined: 10/5/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 440
Applause Received: 525
uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
Highlighted text is textbook IRONY. I shouldn't tell you what to do, but you'll tell me what I really mean?


It would be irony if it were the same thing... but you already explained that they're different an not the same... one is telling someone to do something, the other one isn't.

uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
How dare I ask you to look.


That the thing, you didn't ask... you ordered and wanted a report back.

uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
If you're referring to Elvis Dumervil being cut you have left out a HUGE part of the story...a paperwork error caused his release. They didn't want to have to release him.


Oh so now the details are important to the end result when backing your guy Elway... but when talking about Thompson it's just results that matter and details of all the injuries which he had no control over don't matter?

If they didn't want to release him (which I believe) then why did they release him? Because they would of been in cap trouble if they didn't... which is who's fault? Can NFL teams control how they manage the cap? YES... so isn't that partly the Broncos fault? Yet you want to make excuses for that, yet you won't take excuse for players getting injured on the field... and teams have no control over that.

So based on that logic, excuses are acceptable for things they can control but not acceptable for things they can't control? That doesn't mean logical sense... then again many people have said common sense is dead, so many.


uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
Our approach is non-aggressive toward winning it all and all about long term stability in having a chance.


I agree with that some what... but there is a big problem with that... how many teams have went aggressively all in and won nothing? Just because you get aggressive trying to win it all doesn't mean you will... just look at Rex Ryan early years as head coach with the Jets, he went all in, they didn't get and have had NO CHANCE of winning it the last couple of years.

So there are two main approaches... long term stability, trying to give the team a chance to win it every season, or the more aggressive style of giving yourself a better chance for a few year and then not even having a shot at winning it for even more years after that... but I still see that as style more than substance because either way there are going to be a number of years that you don't win it.


uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
I favor and all out assault at WINNING IT ALL. Denver is doing that this year despite you not realizing it.


I realize it, and if they don't get it then they might be in trouble... and might have to rebuild and not have a shot at winning it for even more season than Manning has played for them...

uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
Soon our long term stability model will go by the wayside when Aaron is done. You will regret, as a fan, that your GM didn't go for it more with the greatest of all time while we had him. You'll see.


That's assuming I would feel like they could of won more if they went into the all out aggressiveness style...

But I remember the Sherman years when he did go out in an aggressive mode trying to help win another one before Favre retired and that got them zero Super Bowl wins and cost them as they didn't have a chance to win the Super Bowl in Favre's later years with the Packers until 2007...


Getting more aggressive doesn't mean you win more... it might help your chances some, but it will also mean there are years you have no chance... it didn't help Sherman or Rex Ryan win one... and many many other are the same way.


I think most of the teams that have won the Super Bowl are ones that went with the less aggressive long term stability method... most of those that go with the short term aggressive burn out with out getting a Super Bowl ring.
Offline uffda udfa  
#142 Posted : Friday, July 18, 2014 3:13:06 PM(UTC)
Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 4/25/2014(UTC)
Location: Texas
Applause Given: 316
Applause Received: 359
I would like to ask pretty please with sugar on top that you read these two links...

http://www.foxsports.com...l-paperwork-delay-031513

http://espn.go.com/nfl/s...dly-investigate-incident

The disconnect comes in often when someone tells me something they believe that has no basis in reality but that is the perception they have without looking into things at all. If I've looked into or know it offhand and you don't but you make just as strong proclamations how do you think that is going to end up?

You are incorrect about what happened with Elvis and incorrect with what happened this offseason in Denver and Green Bay...they are not similar. If you want to debate I ask that you at least have an understanding of the things going on around the myopic view you have of just a simple result. Yes, the Broncos released Elvis. You conclude they wanted to do it because they did. That is not how it went down at all. If you want to argue without knowledge that makes it awfully tough to go forward. If I ask you to look into it you'll tell me you're not my "bitch". You aren't...you are also not informed, though.

EDIT: As to the irony thing that you "set me straight" on... I see it like this...You can tell me something, but I can't tell you. That is...IRONY. I don't care that one of the vehicles is a Ford and one's a Chevy... it's that you think it's wrong for me to tell you something (without asking), but in that same post you told me something (without asking)...without asking was your criterion for going off.

BTW...What aggressive things did Mike Sherman do trying to win one for Brett? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. You made a statement in your argument. What makes you say this?
Offline beast  
#143 Posted : Friday, July 18, 2014 5:40:47 PM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

Joined: 10/5/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 440
Applause Received: 525
uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
The disconnect comes in often when someone tells me something they believe that has no basis in reality but that is the perception they have without looking into things at all.


So if someone doesn't agree with you they have no basis in reality?

I do look into things and I know what I'm talking about... the Broncos had cap space to sign their rookies draft picks... until they made an another aggressive play and signed Wes Welker.... once they signed him, they no longer had cap space to sign their rookies, so the Broncos needed to make cap space somewhere, they decided to make it by cutting Dumervil salary... but had to get the Dumervil to sign the paperwork and get it into the NFL by the deadline.

Based on your own article... they were forced to cut Dumervil... why were they forced to do that? ... Because they needed more cap space to sign the rookie draft picks... so the Broncos aggressive play on Wes Welker back fired when shit happened (just like shit happens when the Packers get injured and you won't let that go as an excuse so I'm not letting this go as an excuse) and the Broncos aggressiveness backfired... if they didn't sign Welker they wouldn't of need Dumervil to take a pay cut and they wouldn't of been forced into cutting him.


Since you like articles so much... and disbelieve anyone who doesn't agree with you...

denverpost said:
The Broncos were only about $50,000 below the cap as of Friday morning, their dead money was offset by the subtraction of Dumervil's $12 million salary. So the Broncos now have a little more than $8 million in cap room after Dumervil's release.


They needed cap space to sign rookies... they wasted it with the signing of Welker... and were betting on getting it back one way and lost that bet and had to get it back another. That is what happened. There are excuses to why that lose the bet but either way... they took a gamble and lost.





Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#144 Posted : Friday, July 18, 2014 6:03:06 PM(UTC)
Rank: Registered

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)
Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266
beast said: Go to Quoted Post
So if someone doesn't agree with you they have no basis in reality?

I do look into things and I know what I'm talking about... the Broncos had cap space to sign their rookies draft picks... until they made an another aggressive play and signed Wes Welker.... once they signed him, they no longer had cap space to sign their rookies, so the Broncos needed to make cap space somewhere, they decided to make it by cutting Dumervil salary... but had to get the Dumervil to sign the paperwork and get it into the NFL by the deadline.

Based on your own article... they were forced to cut Dumervil... why were they forced to do that? ... Because they needed more cap space to sign the rookie draft picks... so the Broncos aggressive play on Wes Welker back fired when shit happened (just like shit happens when the Packers get injured and you won't let that go as an excuse so I'm not letting this go as an excuse) and the Broncos aggressiveness backfired... if they didn't sign Welker they wouldn't of need Dumervil to take a pay cut and they wouldn't of been forced into cutting him.


Since you like articles so much... and disbelieve anyone who doesn't agree with you...



They needed cap space to sign rookies... they wasted it with the signing of Welker... and were betting on getting it back one way and lost that bet and had to get it back another. That is what happened. There are excuses to why that lose the bet but either way... they took a gamble and lost.







I can't believe you bothered. It is a complete waste of energy.

Arguing with him is like pushing on a rope. He won't push back, he will double back, revisit disproven arguments, use supposition as fact, cite opinion as evidence, etc, etc... ad nauseum ad infinitim.
thanks Post received 2 applause.
DoddPower on 7/18/2014(UTC), beast on 7/19/2014(UTC)
Offline uffda udfa  
#145 Posted : Friday, July 18, 2014 6:13:05 PM(UTC)
Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 4/25/2014(UTC)
Location: Texas
Applause Given: 316
Applause Received: 359
beast said: Go to Quoted Post
So if someone doesn't agree with you they have no basis in reality?

I do look into things and I know what I'm talking about... the Broncos had cap space to sign their rookies draft picks... until they made an another aggressive play and signed Wes Welker.... once they signed him, they no longer had cap space to sign their rookies, so the Broncos needed to make cap space somewhere, they decided to make it by cutting Dumervil salary... but had to get the Dumervil to sign the paperwork and get it into the NFL by the deadline.

Based on your own article... they were forced to cut Dumervil... why were they forced to do that? ... Because they needed more cap space to sign the rookie draft picks... so the Broncos aggressive play on Wes Welker back fired when shit happened (just like shit happens when the Packers get injured and you won't let that go as an excuse so I'm not letting this go as an excuse) and the Broncos aggressiveness backfired... if they didn't sign Welker they wouldn't of need Dumervil to take a pay cut and they wouldn't of been forced into cutting him.


Since you like articles so much... and disbelieve anyone who doesn't agree with you...



They needed cap space to sign rookies... they wasted it with the signing of Welker... and were betting on getting it back one way and lost that bet and had to get it back another. That is what happened. There are excuses to why that lose the bet but either way... they took a gamble and lost.







beast....please. If you're being honest, you would have dropped this a long time ago. The Broncos had RESTRUCTURED Elvis to KEEP him...not RELEASE him You make it sound as though it was the Broncos goal to release him and he had to go to do other things they wanted to do. You used his release as some kind of wash to what Denver added..."they added "x" but subtracted "y"... all to try and wrongfully say Denver isn't aggressive and going for it. You completely tried to obfuscate the reality of the situation...the Broncos not only wanted to but fully intended to and THOUGHT they had retained Dumervil but his agent screwed it all up and Elvis ultimately fired his agent. Your liberty and license with the reality of the situation is dizzying.

So, a pretty simple question... Did the Broncos wish to cut Dumervil? YES or NO? Please.

Explain to me why Denver restructured Elvis and Elvis was on board with it. Both parties intended for him to be a Bronco. What was the reason he wasn't a Bronco? Paperwork snafu? OR They just wanted cap space and didn't intend on retaining Elvis for Welker? Which one? Please, answer.

It's unreal the lengths some will go to remain wrong knowing they're wrong. You aren't saving face you're just digging a deeper hole. Here are your own words: oh yeah Elway also signed a 3rd WR in Wes Welker and cut his 2nd best pass rusher for him.---- That is a total hatchet job to the reality of what transpired. You stated Elway ditched Dumervil so he could sign Welker. That is nowhere near what happened. So, after not knowing the situation at all and getting called on it... you go out and then finally research it and come back and start talking about ROOKIES needing to be signed and no cap to do it???? Where was this in your original contention that Dumervil was jettisoned for Welker? How do you continue to dig deeper holes? You didn't know the situation at all. You made an erroneous statement to try and win an argument. I have to say something at that point because it's pretty hard debating with people who make things up when I know the reality of the situation.

If someone doesn't agree with me on issues of FACTS IE: Dumervil wasn't released because the Broncos or Dumervil wanted rather they just cut him so they could bring in Welker....yes, there is no basis in reality. Opinions are fine and it's fun when they're different but you're trying to rewrite history with your presented "facts" from this situation.
Offline uffda udfa  
#146 Posted : Friday, July 18, 2014 6:21:18 PM(UTC)
Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 4/25/2014(UTC)
Location: Texas
Applause Given: 316
Applause Received: 359
Dexter_Sinister said: Go to Quoted Post
I can't believe you bothered. It is complete waste of energy.

Arguing with him is like pushing on a rope. He won't push back, he will double back, revisit disproven arguments, use supposition as fact, cite opinion as evidence, etc, etc... ad nauseum ad infinitim.
7

Insults from the guy who took his ball and went home when asked directly... Is Jarrett Boykin Alshon Jeffery's equal. Still, no answer...but insults aplenty.

In your case, and the reason you're taking this tack is you used some stats from a site like PFF to try and justify Boykin was as good as Alshon. When I did the EXACT SAME THING showing Andrew Luck was really a better running QB than RGIII or CK7 and Donald Brown was a much better RB than Adrian Peterson you had the audacity to question my debate style saying it lacked integrity???? I then asked you to settle it... Is Jarrett Boykin Alshon Jeffery's equal... crickets, then insults and now more insults.
Offline beast  
#147 Posted : Friday, July 18, 2014 6:22:51 PM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

Joined: 10/5/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 440
Applause Received: 525
uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
beast....please. If you're being honest, you would have dropped this a long time ago.


WTF? So now you're saying I'm lying? ... the facts are right that... the Broncos took an aggressive gamble and lost... simple as that... and I'm a lying?

First off that's bad logic, second off, using that same logic reversed on you, it means if you were being honest, you would have dropped this a long time ago.... which shows why it's bad logic because you're being honest correct?

You're applying one set of logic to me, and another set of logic to yourself.


The Broncos did not want to cut the DE... they just aggressively took a chance which is a gamble... and simply put they lost the gamble. You talked about wanting to be more aggressive... that was more aggressive and it back fired on them.

If you're going to be more aggressive, then you have to take more chances, and if you're taking more chances all of the might not be smart ones...

And for the record I am being honest...
Offline uffda udfa  
#148 Posted : Friday, July 18, 2014 6:33:00 PM(UTC)
Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 4/25/2014(UTC)
Location: Texas
Applause Given: 316
Applause Received: 359
beast said: Go to Quoted Post
WTF? So now you're saying I'm lying? ... the facts are right that... the Broncos took an aggressive gamble and lost... simple as that... and I'm a lying?

First off that's bad logic, second off, using that same logic reversed on you, it means if you were being honest, you would have dropped this a long time ago.... which shows why it's bad logic because you're being honest correct?

You're applying one set of logic to me, and another set of logic to yourself.


The Broncos did not want to cut the DE... they just aggressively took a chance which is a gamble... and simply put they lost the gamble. You talked about wanting to be more aggressive... that was more aggressive and it back fired on them.

If you're going to be more aggressive, then you have to take more chances, and if you're taking more chances all of the might not be smart ones...

And for the record I am being honest...


You're well over half way to China, now. Am I saying you're lying? I'm saying you had NO CLUE what happened with Elvis Dumervil. I'm still not certain that you do. Your digging hole deeper characterization in this response really makes me wonder. Denver got aggressive and it backfired? What? It was a PAPERWORK ERROR by Dumervil's agent that caused this...not aggression or lack thereof. It was a very rare event that should not have happened that caused Dumervil to be released. There was no intention on either party's side of Elvis not playing for Denver. It was a terrible accident. You've turned something that is black and white and simple to comprehend and turned it into some mystical failed tactic of aggression? No. No. No. No.

You see, had you understood the Dumervil fiasco from the beginning you wouldn't have posted he was cut to bring in Welker...you wouldn't have moved on to he was cut because they needed space for rookies.... and then you wouldn't have moved onto, finally, I hope... that he was released due to a failed act of aggression. You've had 3 cracks to understand what happened and you swung and missed each time. You are officially struck out. Please, put the bat in the rack and sit down and watch the game.

I'm now pouring on the sarcasm because I know exactly what you're about and what you're trying to do and I don't like it anymore than you don't like the result of it. Man, I dislike being pushed into typing things like this but if you would only admit you didn't know what you were talking about instead of continuing the charade that you did none of this gets to where we are at now.
Offline beast  
#149 Posted : Friday, July 18, 2014 7:00:17 PM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

Joined: 10/5/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 440
Applause Received: 525
Forget it... I think I could say the sky is normally looks blue and you're find some way to disagree...

Though it's pretty simple... all the articles say the Broncos were "forced"... they wouldn't of been forced if they just handled their business well before the deadline like most teams do... and if they wouldn't have signed Welker they could of kept working with Dumerville after the deadline... but screw trying to explain the cap to you because you don't seem like you care. You seem to just like arguing... and not letting excuses be used unless it's for your guys...
Offline uffda udfa  
#150 Posted : Friday, July 18, 2014 7:10:34 PM(UTC)
Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 4/25/2014(UTC)
Location: Texas
Applause Given: 316
Applause Received: 359
beast said: Go to Quoted Post
Forget it... I think I could say the sky is normally looks blue and you're find some way to disagree...

Though it's pretty simple... all the articles say the Broncos were forced... if they wouldn't have signed Welker they wouldn't of been in a position to be forced... could of kept Dumville though the cap deadline and kept trying to get him to reduce his deal. It's pretty simple, but somebody trying to make it hard...


You're the one trying to change the sky's color...not me. I understood exactly what happened with Dumervil. You didn't and still don't.

Now, you're back to your original contention? What happened to the draft pick angle? The aggression angle? Full circle.

A REAL man can admit his errors. You however will cling tooth and nail to being wrong all the while trying to justify you aren't knowing deep down that you are.

Enjoy China! You're there!

Chew on this: denver-broncos-forced-to-cut-elvis-dumervil-paperwork-delay

What? The headline is WRONG! It should read...Broncos cut Dumervil because they signed Welker?

or... Broncos cut Dumervil, Need Space for Rookies

or... Broncos cut Dumervil in Failed Act of Aggression

PAPERWORK ISSUE caused his release, man! [palm]
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
26 Pages«<1314151617>»
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error


Fan Shout
uffda udfa: Hey Kevin...can you change my moniker to: Unfrozen Caveman Poster? No more uffda udfa. Possible?
Zero2Cool: Today's Birthdays: Smokey (59)
Porforis: Because clearly having bi-weekly distractions in the form of antics and crimes wouldn't hurt the team
yooperfan: together. He is a waste of oxygen
yooperfan: Manziel is a very disturbed young man who is looking down the barrel of a prison sentence not too far down the road unless he gets his act t
TheKanataThrilla: He's better than what we currently have backing up AR.
Smokey: A backup what, bartender ?
TheKanataThrilla: Looks like Manziel is getting cut. I'd be interested in him as a back-up.
Zero2Cool: Dunno.
Smokey: WILL WE HAVE A SB "CHAT", Zero2Cool ?
Mucky Tundra: I wonder if Stat Padford will follow Johnson to the retirement center?
uffda udfa: Winston Moss has a better all time win % than MM at 1000%. Let's make this permanent. :)
uffda udfa: We should take note and realize our Jordy might not be Jordy at 31 this season.
uffda udfa: I think Detroit has a way of doing that to players.
Zero2Cool: Calvin is retiring at age 30, just like the great Barry Sanders.
uffda udfa: He'd be 31 just like Jordy but his body is done.
uffda udfa: Sources: Calvin Johnson told Lions he's retiring.
Zero2Cool: Today's Birthdays: BobBrews (70)
uffda udfa: Who doesn't love Bolt Travolta?
Smokey: Lightning "Bolt" ( Chargers )
Zero2Cool: WTF is a Bolt? BOLT The Super Dog?
uffda udfa: All you closet bolts fans: BREAKING: Chargers chairman Dean Spanos says team will remain in San Diego for 2016 season.
Zero2Cool: Today's Birthdays: Yerko (31)
Zero2Cool: Contest winners are sent a Packers related prize. It's not huge, just a token of appreciation so-to-speak.
Smokey: Prize ?
Mucky Tundra: Oh! I thought for a minute it got lost in the mail
Zero2Cool: Your prize. I feel bad. It's just been so chaotic with personal life and work stuff and my girls. I need to clone myself! lol
Mucky Tundra: No problem Zero! (Psst, what are we talking about?)
uffda udfa: We aren't going to go 19-0 for 4 straight seasons with this regime! I fully believe there's one that could get us closer.
Zero2Cool: Mucky, I haven't forgot. Just been really busy. Hopefully this weekend.
Mucky Tundra: Only four undefeated seasons? Such low standards!
Zero2Cool: .. or in SOME folks eyes ... go 19 - 0 four seasons in a row, nothing less is acceptable with potential HOF QB at helm. :massiveEyeRoll:
nerdmann: To become a truly GREAT coach, Mike needs to learn how to put other teams away.
uffda udfa: MM has always been secondary to my concerns as to what's wrong in Green Bay. Now, it appears he's speaking out just like guys like Dakota a
uffda udfa: Yup.. George Seifert and Barry Switzer won SB's. Do you honestly think MM is a great head coach? No need to cite any stats...just your op
Please sign in to use Fan Shout

Road To Super Bowl 50
Sunday, Sep 13 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Sunday, Sep 20 @ 7:30 PM
SEAHAWKS
Monday, Sep 28 @ 7:30 PM
CHIEFS
Sunday, Oct 4 @ 3:25 PM
at 49ers
Sunday, Oct 11 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Oct 18 @ 3:25 PM
CHARGERS
Sunday, Oct 25 @ 12:00 AM
- BYE -
Sunday, Nov 1 @ 7:30 PM
at Broncos
Sunday, Nov 8 @ 12:00 PM
at Panthers
Sunday, Nov 15 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 22 @ 3:25 PM
at Vikings
Thursday, Nov 26 @ 7:30 PM
BEARS
Thursday, Dec 3 @ 7:25 PM
at Lions
Sunday, Dec 13 @ 3:25 PM
COWBOYS
Sunday, Dec 20 @ 3:05 PM
at Raiders
Sunday, Dec 27 @ 3:25 PM
at Cardinals
Sunday, Jan 3 @ 7:30 PM
VIKINGS

Think About It
Think About It

Recent Topics
49m / Green Bay Packers Talk / 68md

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

6-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

6-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

5-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

5-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / musccy

4-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

4-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

4-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

3-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackerTraxx

2-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan


Tweeter