SouthNYfan

meh. not at all really. : )

I wasn't here to "dump on Christianity". I was merely pointing out the absurdity of "faith" as a whole, which is the belief in something without actual proof. It was pointing out the silliness that if you tell a devout Christian that you can shoot laser beams from your eyes, he will want proof, but yet he believes extraordinary things written in a book by an invisible being with no tangible proof whatsoever. I am willing to bet I have done more research on Christianity, as well as many other religions, than yourself. Go read some books by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. They're pretty enlightening.

The thread is literally about whether or not there is a place on McDermott's roster for those who do not have "faith" in regards to Christianity. I'm sorry if bringing up how I feel about "faith" with regards to religion is devoid of reason, and how I feel that it shouldn't have a place in the locker room. Funny how it seems the same people who are completely against Kaepernick, Rosen, etc brining their political views into the locker room are okay with Christianity/faith being brought into the locker room, and against anybody who feels otherwise.

This thread is about "faith" in regards to God/Christianity. I'm not derailing anything. Faith in religion/God and reason/logic are absolutely like oil and water. Believing in something without proof, and when objective reasoning says opposite is what "faith" is.

"Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence what so ever." -Sam Harris

? Ohright. Good point. Good tactic. Say somebody else told you that, so then you can't ever be held accountable. #nailedit

Obviously all the SBs before Jimmy G arrived were due to Brady getting in the delorean and seeing the future of him being drafted. Duh.

3 speculation articles, assuming Brady was motivated by Jimmy G, when Brady is a guy who has been motivated to win his entire NFL career. I can link articles too the contrary of what you said. http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/patriots/the_blitz/2018/01/tom_brady_says_he_doesnt_think_about_motivation_jimmy_garoppolo https://nesn.com/2018/01/why-tom-brady-never-thought-about-jimmy-garoppolo-someday-taking-his-job/ Crazy huh? Brady didn't give a crap.

You linked one article about it, yet acted like much of the media said he was motivated by it. So you clearly went with one article and exaggerated. One article, maybe two. That's not much.

Where am I wrong? Your article cherry picks one season that wasn't up to his normal numbers. Uses TD:int ratio and quarterback rating like they are the only things that matter. A season which he lost Welker and Hernandez in the off-season and had to adjust to new receivers. It's much more likely that it was a single season blip in a stellar career, not Brady suddenly not caring about winning anymore, and needing Jimmy G to motivate him. Why should I apologize? Are your feelings hurt that somebody didn't agree with you?

So you googled an opinion article that jumps to the conclusion that Brady had ONE season not up to his usual standards (yet still made the pro bowl), an article that completely ignores the fact that in 2013 he lost Welker and Hernandez, and take that as gospel? "Be better."? Please. You're ignoring facts.

Stop making things up to fit your narrative. Brady's threw a couple more ints that year than prior. It was a slight down year. He was adjusting to an entire new receiving crew, having lost Welker and Aaron Hernandez. His actual qbr was just as high as before, or since. Just stop. He's always been driven to win.

Who said that? It's hogwash. Brady has never needed motivation to win.

Yeah you do add 96 I think we said that earlier It's a lot of #s lol You do have to assume one of the picks, prob #22, is a CB to replace White. So really it's white for #56, #65, #96. That's why I think it's a bad deal, esp as you said, a "bird in the hand" with White, who is a known top10 cb.

Their 3-1 record was against Ravens, Texans, browns (with the loss against ne) Really 3-2 including playoffs over their last 5 The final 4 they gave up about 1600 total of their yearly 4900, or about 33% in 4 games Their passing defense gave up 450+ to flacco and Bortles if you include the playoffs. They had to stack the box without Shazier to stop the run I took this from a Steelers analytics site also: " After that shaky start to the 2017 season, the Steelers run defense did show signs of improvement in their next five games. During that 5-0 run the Steelers defense allowed just 2.75 yards per carry and a successful run rate of 33.3%, both of which are fantastic numbers. At that point there was hope that that unit had solved their run game woes. Shazier, as most of you remember, was injured early in the Steelers Week 13 game. From that point forward, the Steelers run defense fell apart. Including that game against the Bengals and through their playoff loss to the Jacksonville Jaguars, the Steelers run defense allowed 4.89 yards per carry and a horrible successful run rate of 50.4%. While the defense only gave up two runs of 20 yards or more in those 6 games, they did allow 16 runs of 10 yards or more. Shazier not being on the field for those six games was certainly noticeably in more ways than one and especially against the run and certainly in the playoff loss to the Jaguars." Their defense wasn't good enough once he went down. You're right, they still had a chance, I was exaggerating, but they definitely weren't a 13-3 team without him, and were definitely not a favorite after him going down.

Their defense took a few games to gel last year, then was in a great stretch and looked to have it figured out, in a 5-0 run, then Shazier went down, and they plummeted to league worst against the run and I think league worst overall for the remaining games, including the playoffs. They were a SB contender with him, and had no chance without him. On the Rudolph side, I agree with you, since there was no LB available there that would have replaced Shazier, so they went with a guy who at worst looks to be a solid backup, and might be an average starter after Ben, for little to no risk/cost. Was he a first round talent, sure thing to be Ben's heir? No way. Was he good enough to take in the third and hope he develops? Yes. Good pick where they got him.

I misread your original sentence. The point still stands that even if you remove the cap considerations, your trade basically means: White For #22 #56 #65 That's basically what you're proposing since we would probably be taking Phillips at #53. White For #22 #56 #65 White is a TOP 10 CORNER As a rookie It's an almost certainty that any cb, taken with one of those 3 picks, that we got would be a downgrade. So again, the trade is bad.

No to everything you said. My cap #s are 100% correct. They are total salary, not year by year. YOU are incorrect. Rookie deals are mostly backloaded, look at white. His cap hits are: $1.8 yr 1 $2.3 yr 2 $2.7 yr 3 $3.2 yr 4 I'm not sure why you think they are up front, they aren't. We are you talking about saving $$ on the QB? If we took Allen at #4 then he costs more than taking him at #7. That's just a fact. My assessment of your scenario assumes we take Allen @4 and edmunds @12 then a CB who is inferior and costs more than White @22 who was taken later and I'm sure wont be as good. Phillips had a second round grade from the bills, so they would most likely take him in there. Yes, that adds #96 to the mix somewhere, but you need to replace White, which is why I took the cb at #22. The trade your suggested is absolutely terrible for the bills. It costs them +$20 million over 4 years in salary for Allen, edmunds, Phillips and the #22 over Allen, Edmunds, Phillips, white... And it downgrades white (a top10 cb) to an unknown, most likely worse, more expensive cb Alexander. You are only adding a second and a third round pick, since they would take Phillips in the second. I'm not sure why you think this would have been a good trade. You've been shown multiple ways it's worse. Allen Edmunds Phillips White $20+ mil in cap space over 4 years MUCH BETTER than Allen Edmunds Phillips Alexander #65 #96

Can summarize even better: Since they still want Phillips, probably at #53 because they were high on him, you're now left with this: Gone: Tre White Received: #22 #56 #65 So you're selecting a CB there, to replace White, who was available? Let's just assume it was jaire Alexander, who went to gb at #18 because they took Ward there, since they wanted a CB. You also have to factor in the salary differences: Using the rookie wage scale for this year you have: #4 @ $29.439 vs. #7 @ $21.374 #12 @ $14.95 vs. #16 @ $12.73 #53 @ $5.2 vs #96 @ $3.4 Tree white total was @ $10 (3 years left $2.3 this year, $7.5 left over 3) The #22 pick, which you would most likely be replacing tre white with was: #22 @ $13.3 Those differences add up to: +$8 million for Allen +$4 million for Edmunds +$2 million for Phillips +$5.2 for Alexander, and +1 year So now, you have: Tree white For Alexander #56 #65 +$19.2 in extra salary SPENT over 4 years, or about $4.8 million each year (AKA less cap) James Washington (wr) and dj chark (wr) both available @ #56, and #65 is a wildcard position, probably another cb. All for what? A massive downgrade at CB#1 (white to Alexander), Washington/chark, #65, and LESS cap space? I'll stick with what we have. Please put this to bed.

What is there to get?

So basically, you're upset that a mod called you out, and asked you to cease modifying your insulting text, text which you know is against forum policy, into tiny, camouflage colored words, so as to not be seen by the mods, then claiming that your "personality" is being censored? Jesus Christ dude. What you're doing is basically the extent of mumbling insults behind your bosses back, or giving your parents the finger behind their back as they leave the room after grounding you, then being upset that they saw you do it in the mirror.

Ben for Mason I believe you mean, Flacco for Lamar. I get your drift though. The incumbent guy at ANY job never wants to see his potential replacement hired, even if it's not intended to happen for 3 years by management, it still puts a definitive "end date" to your tenure.

Damn, he looks good in shorts.

I've said this 5 different ways He refuses to acknowledge it

"Being Compared to" and calling two things "comparable" are not the same thing Which I said Again, your reading comprehension is terrible