NFL 2009 Season Thread - Page 138

**Jeritron** · 02-08-2010, 03:47 AM

140225 point(s) total Latest Reputation Received
	Thread	Date	Posted By	Comment
	NFL 2009 Season Thread	02-08-2010 03:45 AM	Requiem	None of this has been a 'spaz' so I don't know what you're on about. You think you're being clever and 'getting under my skin', but you're failing quite miserably even if you're in denial.

**Requiem** · 02-08-2010, 03:55 AM

The stats are in plain text. The Colts' players put up better numbers.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/weeklyleaders

As for your question. There is nothing to answer. As I said in the first post, that you instantly took out of context, the Saints made more KEY plays. Do you know what KEY means? They made more IMPORTANT plays. I didn't say the yardage mattered, which is why I clarified again by saying 'if it did, the Colts would have won'. I said statistically, the Colts played better. And they did. But when it mattered, the Saints played better, and it won them the game.

What is so hard to grasp about that that you feel the need to argue about it?

**SammyG** · 02-08-2010, 04:00 AM

oh god, and this is with req. wait till rp gets in here.

**Requiem** · 02-08-2010, 04:00 AM

Also, you whine about red dots more than kane86 on his period.

**Jeritron** · 02-08-2010, 04:01 AM

This is what's funny. I had to ask you to answer these things, and you still haven't.

What in this link is supposed to be relevant? Makes no sense. The Colts did not play better statistically, or in any facet. They got smoked after a strong first quarter.

The other thing, you complain about me instead of addressing whats at hand. You claim I've twisted your words, but I haven't at all.

You came in with a lame response about how the Colts played better statistically. I asked you to explain this, and stated my case for why they didn't.
No twisting present here.

You then claimed you didn't make any excuses. Since when is posting a congratulations, with a "we played better" comment attached to it not a bullshit excuse?

No twisting. You just would rather complain about my motives than actually debunk the argument. You're backtracking for contradicting yourself, by claiming that I'm "transparent" and "twisting your words."

**Jeritron** · 02-08-2010, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Requiem

Also, you whine about red dots more than kane86 on his period.

I could care less. When you sent the first one, I said "who negs?", because honestly why would someone care to.
After that I sent you a few. You didn't seem to like that very much and started firing them back consistently.

I posted the one in this thread, not because I cared, but because it's hilarious and I want everyone to see it.
The irony of what it says, in the format it's presented, is a laugh riot.

**D Mac** · 02-08-2010, 04:05 AM

There's only one stat that matters. The score.

**thecc** · 02-08-2010, 04:07 AM

Manning threw under 50 yards more and only had one touchdown. That's really not much better.

**Requiem** · 02-08-2010, 04:08 AM

'No twisting' my ass.

Your argument WAS debunked. Learn to read. There was no question to answer, and I explained why there wasn't.

Everything in that link is relevant. It states cold hard numbers, which is EXACTLY what you asked for. It shows that the Colts' players put up better numbers. In plain text. You do know how to read, right?

Just gonna refer you back to post #5483 from now on.

**thecc** · 02-08-2010, 04:08 AM

Anyone who has followed football for more than a year realizes this.

**FearedSanctity** · 02-08-2010, 04:08 AM

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201002...ts#tab:analyze

k so looking at those stats and discounting yard related ones (since you both agreed "they don't matter") I don't really see much that shows the Colts did all that much better. If anything they're really close. And even with yards, Colts only had 100 more and almost all of that came with no response from the Saints, from the Colts driving when it was 24-17 and 31-17

**Requiem** · 02-08-2010, 04:10 AM

Post #5483

**thecc** · 02-08-2010, 04:12 AM

I quit. Apparently the guy who just started watching football knows wayyy more than the guys who've been watching it for years. :sigh:

**Jeritron** · 02-08-2010, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Requiem

'No twisting' my ass.

Your argument WAS debunked. Learn to read. There was no question to answer, and I explained why there wasn't.

Everything in that link is relevant. It states cold hard numbers, which is EXACTLY what you asked for. It shows that the Colts' players put up better numbers. In plain text. You do know how to read, right?

Just gonna refer you back to post #5483 from now on.

The only thing it proves is that they were better for yardage. Nothing else. I thought we established that didn't matter?

This is all bullshit. They did not play better statistically, and you did make a bullshit excuse. You didn't debunk anything.

Keep trying to weasle out of it

**Requiem** · 02-08-2010, 04:15 AM

And Jeritron - It is an observation I made about the game. Why is that so hard for you to handle without jumping down my throat and turning it into something you can 'best' me at like some kind of football big shot?

Fuck off thecc. You've had no part of this conversation, and I couldn't give two shits about your cock-faced comments.

**FearedSanctity** · 02-08-2010, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Requiem

Post #5483

OK but again, those stats are somewhat skewed by what basically amounted to those last two "free drives" for the Colts. Most of the players were driven up from them. Had the Saints had to (didn't because of pick 6) or bothered to (didn't due to kneeling) respond with a drive, those categories would've been more balanced or possibly have gone the other way

**Jeritron** · 02-08-2010, 04:17 AM

Don't even bother arguing logic with him because he'll claim you're attacking him and refer you to a vague link that he thinks absolves him

**Requiem** · 02-08-2010, 04:18 AM

Ok, but again, there's more to post #5483 than the link in it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeritron

I thought we established that didn't matter?

EXACTLY.

Which is why I said that in my FIRST RESPONSE, which you took a completely different manner, and brought us full circle back to it.

Fuck's sake.

**Jeritron** · 02-08-2010, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Requiem

And Jeritron - It is an observation I made about the game. Why is that so hard for you to handle without jumping down my throat and turning it into something you can 'best' me at like some kind of football big shot?

Fuck off thecc. You've had no part of this conversation, and I couldn't give two shits about your cock-faced comments.

It's not an observation. It's a bullshit lie. The team got outscored 34-7 from the first quarter on. Brees didn't have as many yards, but he played far better statistically in every other facet.

Look at redzone numbers, and conversions. How about kicking? Does that even matter to you?

You stated they played better statistically, and they didn't.

Then you claimed you took the high road and came in here to congratulate The Saints, and didn't make any excuses.
That's bullshit too. You tried to throw in that "your team" played better, but didn't win. That's a bullshit excuse, shrouded in a congratulations.

I called you on both. You didn't, and still haven't debunked either. You can't because they are both factual.
So you claim that I'm twisting your words, and complain about me and my motives. It's a great red herring argument to try and weasle out of the point at hand.
It's not working though.

**D Mac** · 02-08-2010, 04:21 AM

I miss football already.

**Jeritron** · 02-08-2010, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Requiem

Ok, but again, there's more to post #5483 than the link in it.

EXACTLY.

Which is why I said that in my FIRST RESPONSE, which you took a completely different manner, and brought us full circle back to it.

Fuck's sake.

I took it in the manner it was presented. After the fact, you said you were referring to the "yards don't matter" comment.
So I accepted that. From that point on, it was established.

Nice try.

**thecc** · 02-08-2010, 04:23 AM

**FearedSanctity** · 02-08-2010, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel Mac

I miss football already.

Indeed. Willing to take whatever I can get now. Free agency and the draft but even those are a month and 2 months away

**Jeritron** · 02-08-2010, 04:25 AM

Peyton Manning does nothing but bitch and moan at his own teamates when they mess up.
Why don't they do the same to him when he throws picks, or fails to get a touchdown with first and goal?

**Juan** · 02-08-2010, 04:27 AM

Requiem shouldn't have to explain himself to a bunch of faggots on a wrestling forum

**Requiem** · 02-08-2010, 04:27 AM

There is nothing to debunk because you've taken everything out of context. Just because you insist that I am making an excuse by saying that doesn't mean it's true.

That is what I meant by twisting my words. You took something I said and spun it to sound negative, when that is not at all how I meant it. Or even said it.

Again. I didn't say the Colts played better. In fact, I specifically said the Saints played better. But you STILL can't get that in your head. You've got the selective reading of a preschooler. The book says 'A for Apple', but you're reading it as 'A for Asshole'.

**Jeritron** · 02-08-2010, 04:28 AM

Requiem, you also have not addressed my response to you about the neg repping.

You seem to think me posting one of your negs was a complaint. When I burst your bubble and revealed that it was obviously for everyone else to see and enjoy with me, you didn't say any more.
What are your thoughts?

**Jeritron** · 02-08-2010, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Requiem

There is nothing to debunk because you've taken everything out of context. Just because you insist that I am making an excuse by saying that doesn't mean it's true.

That is what I meant by twisting my words. You took something I said and spun it to sound negative, when that is not at all how I meant it. Or even said it.

Again. I didn't say the Colts played better. In fact, I specifically said the Saints played better. But you STILL can't get that in your head. You've got the selective reading of a preschooler. The book says 'A for Apple', but you're reading it as 'A for Asshole'.

Here it is again.

No it was not taken out of context.

You're claiming that you didn't state The Colts played better? The whole argument we've been having is about statistics. I'm not twisting it the other way, or arguing it the other way. The whole fucking argument has specifically dealt with their statistical play.
You say they played better statistically. That's bullshit.
I may say "played better" instead of throwing in "statistically" every post. Clinging to that is bullshit since it's just shortening the sentence.
So what say you?

You're also saying that you didn't claim to not be making excuses?

I'm really curious if you're going to keep lying about this, because it's all up there for everyone to read.

**Requiem** · 02-08-2010, 04:42 AM

What about the neg repping? I don't care. lol The fact that you're trying to irk a response from me on the situation is laughable.

The whole argument HASN'T been about statistics, because YOU tried to turn it into an argument about something other than statistics.

I NEVER said the Colts played better football and deserved to win due to the statistics they put up. I stated that statistically, the Colts played better. I then stated that it didn't matter, because the Saints played better when it mattered. Playing better when it matters.. is well... what matters. The Saints won the Super Bowl.

YOU tried to spin it as if I was saying the Colts played better and should have won because of it.

I can repeat that in a hundred different ways, but I guess it will never sink in to your thick head that there was no malice or ill intentions in the original post that started this whole argument.

**Requiem** · 02-08-2010, 04:44 AM

I am not lying about anything. Have been absolutely straight forward in everything I've said here tonight. You are just reading things how you want to read them, so that you can have a fight and feel better about yourself.

**Jeritron** · 02-08-2010, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Requiem

What about the neg repping? I don't care. lol The fact that you're trying to irk a response from me on the situation is laughable.

The whole argument HASN'T been about statistics, because YOU tried to turn it into an argument about something other than statistics.

I NEVER said the Colts played better football and deserved to win due to the statistics they put up. I stated that statistically, the Colts played better. I then stated that it didn't matter, because the Saints played better when it mattered. Playing better when it matters.. is well... what matters. The Saints won the Super Bowl.

YOU tried to spin it as if I was saying the Colts played better and should have won because of it.

I can repeat that in a hundred different ways, but I guess it will never sink in to your thick head that there was no malice or ill intentions in the original post that started this whole argument.

Still no spin. It will not sink into my head because it's a steaming pile of bullshit.
Coming into the thread and saying The Colts played better (statistically, just so you don't grasp to it), is a bullshit comment. It's an excuse. How can you claim you this after throwing a comment like that in there?

Also, it's false to begin with, so it doesn't even matter.

In other news, you're absurd.

Finally, I thought you were just going to refer me to post 5783 or whatever? I thought that covered everything, and you had nothing left to say to debunk me?
Those were the statistics we were talking about weren't they?

Why, after my last string of posts, do you need to spin more yarns and throw out more red herring to try to get out of this argument?
Surely the all-important post 5783 would take care of this for you if it carried any weight to begin with

**Jeritron** · 02-08-2010, 04:53 AM

The Colts did not play better than The Saints statistically.

You're an asshole for saying this, and later claiming your post wasn't laced with an excuse.

I hope you continue to amuse me in the future.

**Requiem** · 02-08-2010, 05:05 AM

And you're an asshole for saying they didn't, because it is not true. At this point, you're amusing yourself. Half of what you've said has been pulled from your own ass.

Going to bed on this note:

I am proud to be a Colts fan, regardless of what anyone here thinks. They played one hell of a season, and I am certainly not angry about the loss today. It was a disappointing end to the season, sure, but the Saints deserve credit where credit is due, and they did everything right tonight.

In my first post, I MEANT what I said about them and I will not take back my words. Though some people would take my words out of context, there was no malice in them. It was an observation I made in disappointment. The Colts put up the numbers, but the Saints made theirs count, and deserved the win. There should be only one way to take that, but some people would turn it into something it wasn't.

I got what I wanted out of this season. I watched games with friends, laughed about them, cheered about them, and enjoyed myself. From the perspective of someone who doesn't take sports as seriously as some other people...

Chill out.

**Jeritron** · 02-08-2010, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Requiem

I am proud to be a Colts fan, regardless of what anyone here thinks. They played one hell of a season, and I am certainly not angry about the loss today.

I knew you'd play this card. You should be angry. The team you claim to love lost the fucking Super Bowl. I'd be angry. I've been there and I was angry.

Also, The Colts did not play better statistically. Stop lying

**Jeritron** · 02-08-2010, 05:11 AM

I'm going to bed on this note:

**Juan** · 02-08-2010, 05:17 AM

I've clicked your link, Req, but I'm still left wondering how exactly the Colts played a better game statistically.

**Gonzo** · 02-08-2010, 08:21 AM

The Colts did not play better statistically. You're just trying to make yourself feel better about the defeat Req, it's natural. When you initially said that they played statistically better I think that implies yardage is included, but even after you both agreed to discount yardage, it doesn't make the argument favor the Colts.

I fail to see how Jeritron twisted anything.

RP · 02-08-2010, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeritron

You said looking at the numbers The Colts played better. They got outscored 34-7 after the first quarter

This all means you're a monumental asshole

The Saints didnt even score 34 points you ignorant ass. Atleast know the fucking score before calling someone a monumental asshole. Wow.

**Loose Cannon** · 02-08-2010, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeritron

I'm going to bed on this note:

LOL

**Loose Cannon** · 02-08-2010, 09:27 AM

so many captions can come out of that picture.

Brady: nope nope, this is the 3 Superbowl rings only section

02-08-2010, 05:11 AM	#5515
Jeritron Get a poke on Posts: 35,234	I'm going to bed on this note: Last edited by Jeritron; 02-08-2010 at 05:16 AM.

02-08-2010, 03:55 AM	#5482
Requiem Posts: 19,294	The stats are in plain text. The Colts' players put up better numbers. http://www.nfl.com/stats/weeklyleaders As for your question. There is nothing to answer. As I said in the first post, that you instantly took out of context, the Saints made more KEY plays. Do you know what KEY means? They made more IMPORTANT plays. I didn't say the yardage mattered, which is why I clarified again by saying 'if it did, the Colts would have won'. I said statistically, the Colts played better. And they did. But when it mattered, the Saints played better, and it won them the game. What is so hard to grasp about that that you feel the need to argue about it?

02-08-2010, 04:00 AM	#5483
SammyG LAKE SHOW HOES Posts: 25,764	oh god, and this is with req. wait till rp gets in here.

02-08-2010, 04:00 AM	#5484
Requiem Posts: 19,294	Also, you whine about red dots more than kane86 on his period.

02-08-2010, 04:01 AM	#5485
Jeritron Get a poke on Posts: 35,234	This is what's funny. I had to ask you to answer these things, and you still haven't. What in this link is supposed to be relevant? Makes no sense. The Colts did not play better statistically, or in any facet. They got smoked after a strong first quarter. The other thing, you complain about me instead of addressing whats at hand. You claim I've twisted your words, but I haven't at all. You came in with a lame response about how the Colts played better statistically. I asked you to explain this, and stated my case for why they didn't. No twisting present here. You then claimed you didn't make any excuses. Since when is posting a congratulations, with a "we played better" comment attached to it not a bullshit excuse? No twisting. You just would rather complain about my motives than actually debunk the argument. You're backtracking for contradicting yourself, by claiming that I'm "transparent" and "twisting your words."

02-08-2010, 04:05 AM	#5487
D Mac Posts: 21,603	There's only one stat that matters. The score.

02-08-2010, 04:07 AM	#5488
thecc Polyam cult member #420 Posts: 2,966	Manning threw under 50 yards more and only had one touchdown. That's really not much better.

02-08-2010, 04:08 AM	#5489
Requiem Posts: 19,294	'No twisting' my ass. Your argument WAS debunked. Learn to read. There was no question to answer, and I explained why there wasn't. Everything in that link is relevant. It states cold hard numbers, which is EXACTLY what you asked for. It shows that the Colts' players put up better numbers. In plain text. You do know how to read, right? Just gonna refer you back to post #5483 from now on.

02-08-2010, 04:08 AM	#5490
thecc Polyam cult member #420 Posts: 2,966	Anyone who has followed football for more than a year realizes this.

02-08-2010, 04:08 AM	#5491
FearedSanctity Von Killer Posts: 4,471	http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201002...ts#tab:analyze k so looking at those stats and discounting yard related ones (since you both agreed "they don't matter") I don't really see much that shows the Colts did all that much better. If anything they're really close. And even with yards, Colts only had 100 more and almost all of that came with no response from the Saints, from the Colts driving when it was 24-17 and 31-17

02-08-2010, 04:10 AM	#5492
Requiem Posts: 19,294	Post #5483

02-08-2010, 04:12 AM	#5493
thecc Polyam cult member #420 Posts: 2,966	I quit. Apparently the guy who just started watching football knows wayyy more than the guys who've been watching it for years. :sigh:

02-08-2010, 04:15 AM	#5495
Requiem Posts: 19,294	And Jeritron - It is an observation I made about the game. Why is that so hard for you to handle without jumping down my throat and turning it into something you can 'best' me at like some kind of football big shot? Fuck off thecc. You've had no part of this conversation, and I couldn't give two shits about your cock-faced comments.

02-08-2010, 04:17 AM	#5497
Jeritron Get a poke on Posts: 35,234	Don't even bother arguing logic with him because he'll claim you're attacking him and refer you to a vague link that he thinks absolves him

02-08-2010, 04:21 AM	#5500
D Mac Posts: 21,603	I miss football already.

02-08-2010, 04:23 AM	#5502
thecc Polyam cult member #420 Posts: 2,966

02-08-2010, 04:25 AM	#5504
Jeritron Get a poke on Posts: 35,234	Peyton Manning does nothing but bitch and moan at his own teamates when they mess up. Why don't they do the same to him when he throws picks, or fails to get a touchdown with first and goal?

02-08-2010, 04:27 AM	#5505
Juan Doin' It Right Posts: 35,460	Requiem shouldn't have to explain himself to a bunch of faggots on a wrestling forum

02-08-2010, 04:27 AM	#5506
Requiem Posts: 19,294	There is nothing to debunk because you've taken everything out of context. Just because you insist that I am making an excuse by saying that doesn't mean it's true. That is what I meant by twisting my words. You took something I said and spun it to sound negative, when that is not at all how I meant it. Or even said it. Again. I didn't say the Colts played better. In fact, I specifically said the Saints played better. But you STILL can't get that in your head. You've got the selective reading of a preschooler. The book says 'A for Apple', but you're reading it as 'A for Asshole'.

02-08-2010, 04:28 AM	#5507
Jeritron Get a poke on Posts: 35,234	Requiem, you also have not addressed my response to you about the neg repping. You seem to think me posting one of your negs was a complaint. When I burst your bubble and revealed that it was obviously for everyone else to see and enjoy with me, you didn't say any more. What are your thoughts?

02-08-2010, 04:42 AM	#5509
Requiem Posts: 19,294	What about the neg repping? I don't care. lol The fact that you're trying to irk a response from me on the situation is laughable. The whole argument HASN'T been about statistics, because YOU tried to turn it into an argument about something other than statistics. I NEVER said the Colts played better football and deserved to win due to the statistics they put up. I stated that statistically, the Colts played better. I then stated that it didn't matter, because the Saints played better when it mattered. Playing better when it matters.. is well... what matters. The Saints won the Super Bowl. YOU tried to spin it as if I was saying the Colts played better and should have won because of it. I can repeat that in a hundred different ways, but I guess it will never sink in to your thick head that there was no malice or ill intentions in the original post that started this whole argument.

02-08-2010, 04:44 AM	#5510
Requiem Posts: 19,294	I am not lying about anything. Have been absolutely straight forward in everything I've said here tonight. You are just reading things how you want to read them, so that you can have a fight and feel better about yourself.

02-08-2010, 04:53 AM	#5512
Jeritron Get a poke on Posts: 35,234	The Colts did not play better than The Saints statistically. You're an asshole for saying this, and later claiming your post wasn't laced with an excuse. I hope you continue to amuse me in the future.

02-08-2010, 05:05 AM	#5513
Requiem Posts: 19,294	And you're an asshole for saying they didn't, because it is not true. At this point, you're amusing yourself. Half of what you've said has been pulled from your own ass. Going to bed on this note: I am proud to be a Colts fan, regardless of what anyone here thinks. They played one hell of a season, and I am certainly not angry about the loss today. It was a disappointing end to the season, sure, but the Saints deserve credit where credit is due, and they did everything right tonight. In my first post, I MEANT what I said about them and I will not take back my words. Though some people would take my words out of context, there was no malice in them. It was an observation I made in disappointment. The Colts put up the numbers, but the Saints made theirs count, and deserved the win. There should be only one way to take that, but some people would turn it into something it wasn't. I got what I wanted out of this season. I watched games with friends, laughed about them, cheered about them, and enjoyed myself. From the perspective of someone who doesn't take sports as seriously as some other people... Chill out.

02-08-2010, 05:17 AM	#5516
Juan Doin' It Right Posts: 35,460	I've clicked your link, Req, but I'm still left wondering how exactly the Colts played a better game statistically.

02-08-2010, 08:21 AM	#5517
Gonzo feel the madness Posts: 11,360	The Colts did not play better statistically. You're just trying to make yourself feel better about the defeat Req, it's natural. When you initially said that they played statistically better I think that implies yardage is included, but even after you both agreed to discount yardage, it doesn't make the argument favor the Colts. I fail to see how Jeritron twisted anything.

02-08-2010, 09:27 AM	#5520
Loose Cannon I'm all there is Posts: 31,811	so many captions can come out of that picture. Brady: nope nope, this is the 3 Superbowl rings only section