March 25, 2019, 03:30:24 AM

Author Topic: Moved posts from hitnhope  (Read 929 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LMG

  • Administrator
  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4587
  • Karma: +10/-5
    • Where are we?
Moved posts from hitnhope
« on: October 22, 2014, 08:54:28 AM »
I cc: a couple of posts of yours here from another thread where you were trying to keep your agenda going. changing the tone of the Topic and calling us out for not liking how we do things in the PC Forums.


In your last paragraph;
Quote
I wont respond as I am done, the owner and moderator don't have to deal with me anymore.


I'll hold you to that.



******************************************************************************************



Quote from: big ror on October 20, 2014, 07:20:33 PM
Quote from: hitnhope on October 20, 2014, 06:40:03 PM
[


Thanks for adding to the conversation.  What makes you believe Capers has pulled it together?
quote author=big ror link=topic=3200.msg86429#msg86429 date=1413854222]
Feel better now buddy?




You're welcome.


And thanks for assuming I think Capers has it pulled together.  Strawmans are just as entertaining as the drivel you posted above.


Look, I realize I'm being condescending here, but I'm just tired of your "argument" and the others like it.


Let's grapple with it a bit.


Quote from: hitnhope on October 20, 2014, 06:14:39 PM
Cant wait to see this package in goal line against a strong running team.  It worked yesterday, which is great.  But now I fear Capers will fall in love with it and use it at the wrong times.


What makes you think Capers would employ this formation on the goal line?  It's clearly a formation designed to apply pressure on obvious passing downs.  In positing an improbable hypothetical, you're suggesting Capers has a history of "falling in love" with other successful schemes, only to "use [them] at the wrong times."  Do you have examples to substantiate the history you're fabricating?  Did he ever utilize the psycho package on the goal line?  Your desperate attempts to undermine Capers' success have resulted in you constructing false tendencies to forward your biased agenda.  If you want to critique Capers, at least do so for things he's actually done, of which there are plenty.


Quote from: hitnhope on October 20, 2014, 06:14:39 PM
I simply do not understand how people can have confidence in Dom Capers defensive schemes anymore.  We have had the best QB in the league the last 3 years and have nothing to show for it.


Nobody in this thread said s/he has faith in Capers' schemes.  Thus, once again, you need to materialize a nonexistent phenomenon in order to criticize Capers.


Also, the idea that having the best QB means you are guaranteed anything isn't true either.  What did having the best QB in the league net the Broncos last year?  What has it netted the Patriots over the past decade?


Quote from: hitnhope on October 20, 2014, 06:14:39 PM
Did people miss the Arizona Cardinals moving the ball at will against us, winning a shootout?  The one time the offense doesn't score costs us losing the ball game and ending the season.


Did people miss our game plan against a young Kapernick where it looked the option play was a new invention?  It wasn't even an un-scouted view, it was the talk in the week leading up to the game.   It was an embarrassing effort.


Watching Frank Gore jam the ball down our throat and there wasn't a thing we could do about it.  especially sitting in a 2 man DL nickel defense.


These aren't bright spots on Capers' resume.  Moreover, these poor performances have come at the worst of moments.  But you're creating a narrative that ignores the success he had.


Did you forget how the defense played in 2010, both during the regular season and the post-season?  Or how about the numerous other games in which he was quite successful?


Quote from: hitnhope on October 20, 2014, 06:14:39 PM
We have dedicated 3 straight drafts to improving the defense and are sitting at 31st in the league against the run.  We lost at Seattle playing gimmick defenses and having the ball jammed down our throat.


Have they really devoted three straight drafts?  I'd agree that Thompson uncharacteristically devoted the 2012 Draft to the defensive side of the ball by selecting six straight defensive players, but that year was an anomaly.


But let's say he did do what you purport he did:  is the fault then with Capers or Thompson?  I don't pose that rhetorical question to suggest it's an either/or but rather to show that defensive performance is a product of personnel, scheme, coaching, and execution.


Quote from: hitnhope on October 20, 2014, 06:14:39 PM
Even this year-  If the offense doesn't dominate, we do not win.  Detroit played a strong defensive game against us and held our offense down.  We lose.  When is the defense going to dominate in a big game and carry the offense to a victory?  It needs to happen.


The offense didn't dominate against the Jets.  It didn't dominate against the Dolphins.  It didn't dominate against the Vikings.  It had solid quarters, just as the defense had solid quarters in all of those contests.  If anything, I'd say both the offense and the defense are inconsistent; both have had moments of greatness and mediocrity.  I think both are improving slightly, however.


Quote from: hitnhope on October 20, 2014, 06:14:39 PM
Capers talks about total points given up as a barometer.  Sounds nice, but he plays our defense in a bend and sometimes break fashion that keeps our offense off the field for long stretches at a time.  We are 25th in TOP with AR.   He misses the fact that while the defense is on the field for 32 minutes a game, there are points we cannot score because of the approach.


Does the defense keep the offense off the field for long stretches or does the offense's quick-strike mentality and no-huddle tempo keep the defense on the field for long stretches?  One way of seeing is another way of not seeing.


Quote from: hitnhope on October 20, 2014, 06:14:39 PM
To date we have played against 1 team with a winning record.  We lost to the Lions.  We have played against 2 teams at .500,  We lost 1 of them, and won the other on a last second touchdown.  Our defense hasn't proven anything, and Capers has a long way to go to earn my trust.


The Jets were 1-0 when the Packers played them.
The Bears were 2-1 when the Packers played them.
The Panthers were 3-2-1.


In fact, the Packers have yet to play a below .500 team at the time in which they were playing them. 


The defense isn't perfect, and each defense is different year to year.  This one is quite different from the ones in years past, and it's already quite different from the one that went to Seattle and was embarrassed.  It's still developing its identity.  Early on, it looked like one that was incapable of stopping the run.  However, it has done a fairly decent job of doing just that the past couple of games.  Also, it's generating turnovers.


Nobody is asking you to trust the defense.  But you'd be blind not to acknowledge that it seems to be improving, even if it's doing so a bit erratically at times.



Why does this post remain?   


If my posts are going to be butchered and moved then this condescending response to my deleted post needs to be deleted as well.  We have discussion threads that have been changed and manipulated to the point that is impossible to see the original context in which other posts have been written.  Goebbels would be proud.


It is not right that this is left in the main forum while the other half of the discussion isn't allowed to remain within the original context. 


We all know that if I respond it will be deleted.  It remaining proves my point that if a post follows the owners/moderators thought line it remains, but if it is an opinion he doesn't follow it is removed.  So much for open discussion.




From Big Ror;


I'm not a mod, so I can't speak for their actions.


However, this is how I understand it:


LMG removed your post in this thread because, as I recall, you submitted the same exact post in the thread about Guion in the "Ranting and Venting" forum.  Maybe you didn't post it twice and LMG moved your original post there, but I remember seeing LMG say that's the reason why he deleted your post in this thread.


Also, while my post is condescending (and I admit as much), I'm not sure why mine would need to be deleted.  My post works not only to illustrate why your post was riddled with logical fallacies and biased arguments but also to offer some additional perspectives that run counter to your narrative, one I argue is mostly fabricated.


Also, what is butchered?  What valuable context did I omit?  I quoted you step-by-step.  I provided the context you claim is absent.


Lastly, if LMG wants to move my response to your post into the thread within the "Ranting and Venting" forum that currently hosts your post, that's fine by me.  Regardless, I consider it quite telling that, rather than try to engage with my rebuttal (despite its admittedly pedantic tone), you instead resorted to more kvetching.




From hithhope;


Quote from: big ror on October 21, 2014, 07:19:32 PM
I'm not a mod, so I can't speak for their actions.


However, this is how I understand it:


LMG removed your post in this thread because, as I recall, you submitted the same exact post in the thread about Guion in the "Ranting and Venting" forum.  Maybe you didn't post it twice and LMG moved your original post there, but I remember seeing LMG say that's the reason why he deleted your post in this thread.


Also, while my post is condescending (and I admit as much), I'm not sure why mine would need to be deleted.  My post works not only to illustrate why your post was riddled with logical fallacies and biased arguments but also to offer some additional perspectives that run counter to your narrative, one I argue is mostly fabricated.


Also, what is butchered?  What valuable context did I omit?  I quoted you step-by-step.  I provided the context you claim is absent.


Lastly, if LMG wants to move my response to your post into the thread within the "Ranting and Venting" forum that currently hosts your post, that's fine by me.  Regardless, I consider it quite telling that, rather than try to engage with my rebuttal (despite its admittedly pedantic tone), you instead resorted to more kvetching.


I will stick to my point.


The fact that your self admitted condescending post remains here while the others were moved to "Rant and Vent" speaks volumes of the ridiculous moderation of the forum.


He moved my post - On topic- to another forum but left yours.  If they wanted to erase, why not erase the post in "Rant and Vent" in the dead zone of the forum?  Why would that be?  Why don't you actually stop and think about it.


You responded, but ignored facts and used pretzel logic in trying to debunk the arguments made.  You say my post had logical fallacies, but it was simply a run down of actual stats.  My post contained facts, you interjected with logical fallacies to try and construct some sort of a failed argument.  Our defense is ranked 27th overall.  Our defense is 31st against the rush.  We have lost to the only team we have played with an above .500 record.  we are 1-1 against teams with a .500 record.  You ridiculed my point about Capers playing trick defenses at inappropriate times when the facts for anyone who paid attention the past several years is that Capers had us in a 2 man DL nickel defense unsuccessfully on numerous occasions.  2 DL nickel formations against SF in short yardage and goal line. Good luck with that.   If you need the actual times and situations pointed out I suggest you need to spend a lot more time watching the games, and less time posting about it.  the only other possibility is that you are related to Dom Capers.


You ignored our performance for the past 3 years to pretend the last couple games, (also forgetting the Miami 2nd half) are a better indicator of the future then the last 3 years of history, and performance this year against good teams.  You say I talked in too general of terms when I trusted we all watched the games over the past few years.  Taking more time to post year, game, time information is not going to happen on a forum where your post has a great likelihood of getting deleted or moved simply because the moderators only want cheerleaders posting.


The facts I presented were all in response to a MODERATOR being a gluteus maximus calling out people who have been critical of our defense, all after the team having 1 good game on defense.  That is the context missing from the post.   I wasn't talking about your condescending ill thought out post.


You may be tired of the arguments I made, but they are valid.  It seems this forum only wants to rehash the article in the daily paper and talk positively about how great things are.   Look at a weakness, criticize the approach taken,  use past failures to build your argument and people here don't want to hear it.  Post such as these get banished to the unread portion of the forum with insulting names created simply to stifle conversation.


I will go elsewhere where people have enough maturity to have meaningful discussions about the team we all love.  Where people can take a stand opposite Packer management, or forum management and make their arguments, ang get real unedited responses.  Lord forbid a decent argument could have been crafted to change my concerns.


Go ahead and put your heads in the sand, grab your PomPons and be the little cheerleaders you are all groomed to be.  This forum would be better labeled the Packer sycophants forum, sub folder Green Bay Packer cheerleaders talk.  The fact Mark Lawrence can handle himself the way he does on the forum and remain a moderator, (his days of moderating should have been terminated long ago)means this is a little boys club where certain can act, do and say what they want, while others have different rules.  No Thanks. 


I wont respond as I am done, the owner and moderator don't have to deal with me anymore.  Everywhere else I want to talk Packers will be an improvement.  The days here of insider information, intelligent posting on all sides of a discussion., excellent information regarding the draft, and the like are obviously over.  I can go to the Packers web site to get their slant on a story.
If you are not the lead dog the view never changes.