And just so you know... this is the simple post I made, back in May 2009 while browsing a Favre to Vikings thread which is what prompted The Cat to ATTACK. That wasn't so bad was it?
I'll up it to $500, if you want. I didn't attack you when you said Favre would have a good season. I attacked you when you said he would have a better season than Matt Schaub. What am I going to apologize or admit I was wrong for? I'm pretty sure most fans still think Schaub is the better QB and expect him to have the better season. Favre had a great game last night, against a team that allows more points per game than the much-maligned Texans defense. It was at home, he was highly motivated, and it was early in the season. I don't think anyone on the planet didn't expect Favre to play well in that scenario. Unfortunately for you, I never said he wouldn't, and I didn't bet on that. I said Schaub would outperform Favre for the season. Can you specifically tell me what I was wrong or need to apologize for?
You are absolutely lying out your ass right now. Here's the thread where you made the post you quoted: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=167887&page=4 Post #62. I did not even respond to you. You are saying that prompted me to ATTACK you -- there's the evidence right there. Attack? I did not even say a single word. I have no problem with you saying Favre is a good QB who will have a good season. I think the same. My only problem is when you went silly and started acting like he was superior to Matt Schaub. By the way, here's some fun hypocrisy. When Schaub clearly outperforms Favre, as he did in Week 3, here's your party line: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=4776684#post4776684 So, when Schaub outperforms Favre, we should drop the Schaub/Favre talk. But when Favre outperforms Schaub, it's time for a board callout, lies, shouting from the rafters -- the whole enchilada. Hypocritical much?
Anyway, Vinsanity, you need to stop blatantly lying, for starters. But other than that, let's set a couple of ground rules. The reason I didn't come in this thread is that you specifically told me you wanted to drop the Schaub/Favre talk for now -- see above. The bet was for the full season, so to me, it's a little pointless to micro-analyze everything on a week-by-week basis, especially when the biggest question mark for both (durability) usually doesn't come into play until the second half of the year. But don't tell me to "drop" the talk when Schaub outplays Favre one week if you're going to come in here pounding your chest and glorifying yourself when the reverse happens. Decide how you want to play it and let me know.
Actually at one point you compared him to Dampier and said durability doesn't matter if you're not good. You also said that thinking Schaub and Favre are comparable is ridiculous. Just sayin'.
Premature mouthing off is never a good idea, it either sets you up for landing in someone's sig when the tables turn or it cheapens your eventual "win" in the eyes of anyone watching. The commish of my fantasy league has a hard time drawing the line between fun trash talk and unfortunate arrogance, right now he's 1-3 with regrettable top draft choices, a banged up roster, and taking a decent amount of abuse for it.
The Dampier analogy was just an attempt to show the fallacy of the argument that games played in and of itself meant something. In no way did I compare Favre to Dampier. I still don't think Schaub and Favre are comparable - you're acting like I'm trying to backtrack, and I'm not. I think Favre is an above average to good QB who isn't on Schaub's level (for a full season) at this point in his career. All I've ever said. Some of you act like I said he sucks, and that's not close to the case.
I want you to admit you were wrong about Favre, contribute $25 to the tip jar and I'll let you off the hook on the bet. This is your last chance. There are many many many Favre threads on this board where you are mouthing off about him and yes you did compare him to Dampier. And I don't care about Schaub vs Favre, and I never even mentioned Schaub's name in this thread. Did I? What I do care about is how you ridiculed those of us who said Favre would have a good year with the Vikings and how you would never want him on the Texans when the topic was brought up. So far, YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT FAVRE. Admit it.
Admit what? SHOW OR QUOTE ONE THING I SAID RIDICULING THOSE WHO SAID FAVRE WOULD HAVE A GOOD YEAR. SHOW OR QUOTE ONE THING WHERE I WAS WRONG.. If there are "many many Favre threads on this board where I am mouthing off about him," why can't you find one?!? That's all I'm asking. Stop talking out of your ass and provide one single example. As far as who brought Schaub in the thread -- you did by default, by mentioning the bet! I don't want out of the bet. I'll add more to it. I would not want Favre on the Texans -- because they have Matt Schaub! Is it possible for you to get through your dense skull that just because I think Schaub > Favre doesn't mean I think the guy sucks?
You're really, really stretching on this one, by the way. I went back and looked up the thread -- here's the exchange in question: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=173879&page=13&pp=20&highlight=favre+dampier All it was was a simple extreme analogy to show the ridiculousness of the logic of focusing on games played alone. msn posted this comment right below mine: Do you really think msn was comparing Brett Favre to David Carr? I hope you don't. It's just an analogy to show how ridiculous the logic could be if you applied it exclusively. Here's what I said later on that same page: Which is basically what I've said all along. Favre does not suck. He is a good QB. The Vikings will win the division. He's just not as good as Matt Schaub. The reason I keep bringing Schaub into the discussion is because I can't even remember participating in a Favre discussion that didn't involve Schaub. I never said he's a bad QB. I challenge you or Vinsanity to find any example to the contrary.
After only doing a very quick search, I found these two gems. And the second one is why I choose to go at it with you. You act like you are some superior being when it comes to sports knowledge and that the rest of us are stupid and base everything because of star power and ESPN. That's the smug know it all attitutude you have that irritates those of us who are irritated by you. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=3781662&postcount=21 http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=3804779&postcount=381
Was Tony Romo Lost During Last Play of Cowboys-Broncos Game? Quarterback May Have Thought 4th Down Was 3rd Published : Tuesday, 06 Oct 2009, 9:55 AM CDT By Alice Kalthoff, MYFOXDFW.COM DENVER - Was Tony Romo confused during the final play of Sunday's Cowboys game against the Denver Broncos? Video shot by FOX 4 photographer Larry Rodriguez seems to show a confused Cowboys quarterback during a crucial moment. During the final seconds of the game, Romo motions his linemen to get ready for the next play, then holds up three fingers, as if he thought the team had just completed the third down play. But when he learns that the previous play was actually the fourth -- and last -- chance for the Cowboys, Romo reacts with a curse. Romo tried twice to throw to receiver Sam Hurd to tie the score, but both attempts were incomplete. The Cowboys lost to the Broncos 17-10. Romo has not yet spoken with reporters about whether there was any confusion on the field. Stay with FOX 4 for further updates on this story. Video posted previously has been removed due to NFL regulations. http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/sports/nfl/cowboys/Was_Tony_Romo_Lost_During_Las I am more surprised that the NFL has gone Lebron on all the video and demanded they remove the video of him doing this.
^^ So Tony Romo and Lance Berkman have a lot in common. Then again, Berkman constantly forgetting how many outs there are hasn't yet cost the Astros a game...
Speak for yourself, not others. I don't act like the "rest of us" are stupid and base everything on star power and ESPN. I act like you do that. Who gave you the authority to speak for the board? OK, where in there did I ridicule anyone who said Favre would have a good year? What is wrong or has been proven wrong about that quote? It's like you have zero reading comprehension, and whenever you read anything that isn't gushing with praise over your boyhood crush, assume that person is saying he sucks. Brett Favre has been a good quarterback, as a whole (though not all years), since 1999. He has not been a great quarterback, as many analysts and fans have said, which makes him overrated in my opinion. You do not have to be a bad player to be overrated. You do realize this, correct? Most of this quote isn't even talking about Favre. As for the only statement that is, you do realize it is possible that there are more than 16 good quarterbacks on planet earth, correct? Nowhere do I say I think Favre is a bad player or isn't a good player. I just said that for a full season (not a game, a season), there are at least 16 guys I can think of I'd prefer starting for my team. Where in either of those quotes, or any quotes, have I said that Favre was not a good quarterback or would not have a good year? You have still absolutely failed at finding the slightest shred of evidence to that point. I said Favre has been overrated since 1999. He has been. I said I'd prefer at least 16 other quarterbacks for a full season if I were building a team. I still feel that way. Neither of these statements says I think Favre is a bad quarterback and nothing from a month's worth of games can be conclusive enough to determine either. Want to try again? Go read Stuart Scott's latest chat, maybe he'll give you some "gems" to use...
You were speaking directly to Mr. Clutch when you said that, NOT ME. Name them. You would take 16 QBs over Favre for one season on a competitive team? That was your original post, now you are throwing in the term "building a team". Please name me 16 QBs right now that are ANYONE would take over Brett Favre. I could probably name 6-7, but 16? Come on. You're out of control. And you keep showing your true colors by bringing up ESPN. Face it, I'm not judging my opinion of Favre based on what Stuart Scott says, and admit that your opinion of Favre has changed over the years simply because you HATE ESPN, not because of Favre's performances. YOU, as a sports journalist are letting a TV network sway your rational thoughts in a negative direction towards a player's performance instead of looking at what Favre does on the field, like last night for example. It's the very same reason why you hate USC. Exactly the same reason. Admit it.
You really have an elementary reading comprehension level. It's astounding. I was referring to you in the past you quoted of me. As for what I was saying to Mr. Clutch (a different post), I was talking about casual sports fans in general, not him or any specific member(s) of this BBS. Can you show otherwise? Off the top of my head, Brady, Manning, Brees, Schaub, Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Manning, McNabb, Romo, Cutler, Rivers, Flacco, Palmer, Ryan, Warner, Hasselbeck. You're dead wrong. I like ESPN. I have friends that work there and I love and respect what they do. But as a fan, I use ESPN to complement the knowledge I receiver from watching the game as well as statistics and other methods, not to give me everything. I only use ESPN in a negative context to describe a segment of sports fans that think they know everything (or a whole lot) by simply watching highlights and nothing else, and Favre is the posterboy for that. Yes, he has wonderful highlights. I love the guy. The Packers were my team until the Texans came along. I was in the Superdome for his Super Bowl win over New England. But over the past decade or so, his negatives and mistake-prone tendancies have almost balanced out his positives. He's not an efficient quarterback overall. He's reportedly divided locker rooms by his attitude. But to the highlight-driven fan, all that matters is the miraculous throw he made to Greg Lewis to end the San Francisco game. They don't realize that he barely completed 50 percent of his passes otherwise, or that he should've been picked off several times. They just see the highlight and assume he had a brilliant game, without checking the body of work. That's all I mean when I refer to ESPN -- it's not a slight against them as an organization at all. It's just a term I use to refer to a segment of the public whose understanding is shallow. My opinion of players is based on the most thorough evaluation I can possibly find. If I hated players/teams based on ESPN hype, why have I been branded at times on this board as a homer for Tom Brady, the New England Patriots, Boston Red Sox and Notre Dame, among others? I think it's safe to say ESPN hypes them just like they do Brett Favre and USC.
