lhslep134;1571210 wrote:Yes, you essentially are. By harping on the effects of the weather, you're discounting the Bronco's ability to run the ball.

At the very least, you're circularly arguing both sides with the quoted text.

It is what it is man, we disagree. It happens. I've made and defended my argument, I don't see the point in going back in forth.

So you believe the Broncos can line up and execute a power running game? I tend to believe they run the ball effectively because they can spread the field, and everyone is a weapon because of Manning, leaving the running game open.

se-alum;1571249 wrote:So you believe the Broncos can line up and execute a power running game?

The Broncos have already done that this year. So either you're being sarcastically rhetorical or you're arguing against something that already occurred.


In all fairness though, the Broncos didn't do that against the #1 defense.

lhslep134;1571258 wrote:The Broncos have already done that this year. So either you're being sarcastically rhetorical or you're arguing against something that already occurred.


In all fairness though, the Broncos didn't do that against the #1 defense.

One game, and they lost. I'll take the 15 games that showed they're a spread passing team over the one game they ran the ball a lot and lost.

At first I was more with SE but ive thought about it some and came to the conclusion that no matter what the conditions are neither of these teams are going to blow the other out. The conditions will only determine the amount of points scored, not the winner IMO.

se-alum;1571276 wrote:One game, and they lost. I'll take the 15 games that showed they're a spread passing team over the one game they ran the ball a lot and lost.

I can't argue with you anymore on this topic....

1) Your question was if the Broncos could execute a power run game:
A: They already have proven they can

2) You disregard the answer to 1) because they lost the game:
That shows me that you place way too much importance on the outcome of a game and not its substance when making an argument attempting to explain away or negate the substance of the aforementioned game.

If you're going to completely disregard a valid argument, then it's not worth the time to argue with you on the topic.

If you had said "I don't think the Broncos can execute a power run game against the Seahawks if they absolutely have to, because of how good Seattle's defense is", well there's a good argumentative opinion. It's not an opinion I agree with, but at least it's incapable of being proven false.

Rotinaj;1571279 wrote:At first I was more with SE but ive thought about it some and came to the conclusion that no matter what the conditions are neither of these teams are going to blow the other out. The conditions will only determine the amount of points scored, not the winner IMO.

Luckily the SB has been pretty good games in recent memory. There was a time when it became blowout city.
I expect a close game, but if there is indeed a blowout I think it will be the broncos doing the blowing........

Black people are way too sensitive. Stop caring about a word that literally has no relation to you and all is well. You weren't a slave, and your parents weren't slaves. Just stop. I have black guys call me cracker all the time, not like I give a fuck.

se-alum;1571276 wrote:One game, and they lost. I'll take the 15 games that showed they're a spread passing team over the one game they ran the ball a lot and lost.

So they can't execute the run game. Doesn't sound like the best team to me.

lhslep134;1571280 wrote:I can't argue with you anymore on this topic....

1) Your question was if the Broncos could execute a power run game:
A: They already have proven they can

2) You disregard the answer to 1) because they lost the game:
That shows me that you place way too much importance on the outcome of a game and not its substance when making an argument attempting to explain away or negate the substance of the aforementioned game.

If you're going to completely disregard a valid argument, then it's not worth the time to argue with you on the topic.

If you had said "I don't think the Broncos can execute a power run game against the Seahawks if they absolutely have to, because of how good Seattle's defense is", well there's a good argumentative opinion. It's not an opinion I agree with, but at least it's incapable of being proven false.

Kinda like you disregarding the larger sample size showing that the Broncos are a team built to pass the ball. Also, if you watched that game, NE was more than content to let the Broncos run the ball and drop 8 into coverage, hence the 50 rush attempts by the Broncos.

WebFire;1571288 wrote:So they can't execute the run game. Doesn't sound like the best team to me.

This post is so full of stupid it's hilarious.

1) The end result (loss) is not indicative of the success or failure of a certain variable (the running game) when a lot more variables factor into the end result as well. This is simple logic, I shouldn't have to teach it to you.


2) The bolded part has nothing to do with anything and I'd love to hear your explanation of its relevancy.

se-alum;1571290 wrote:Kinda like you disregarding the larger sample size showing that the Broncos are a team built to pass the ball. Also, if you watched that game, NE was more than content to let the Broncos run the ball and drop 8 into coverage, hence the 50 rush attempts by the Broncos.

Please show me where I disregarded anything (I'll be waiting).

I think my posts and my argument speak for themselves. The Broncos are capable of running the ball if they need to, and their 10th ranked rushing attack isn't some incredibly inflated ranking.

lhslep134;1571292 wrote:This post is so full of stupid it's hilarious.

1) The end result (loss) is not indicative of the success or failure of a certain variable (the running game) when a lot more variables factor into the end result as well. This is simple logic, I shouldn't have to teach it to you.


2) The bolded part has nothing to do with anything and I'd love to hear your explanation of its relevancy.

My post is stupid? I'm not the one advocating that a team has to have perfect conditions in order to be effective. If that is the case, then that is a flaw in that team. It's the NFL, played indoors and outdoors, in different weather conditions. We shouldn't have to make conditions perfect so a team can excel in a championship.

lhslep134;1571292 wrote:This post is so full of stupid it's hilarious.

1) The end result (loss) is not indicative of the success or failure of a certain variable (the running game) when a lot more variables factor into the end result as well. This is simple logic, I shouldn't have to teach it to you.


2) The bolded part has nothing to do with anything and I'd love to hear your explanation of its relevancy.

You may have misunderstood my statement. Because I'm pretty sure we were arguing for the same side, that weather is not the big variable that a lot of people think it is.

lhslep134;1571295 wrote:Please show me where I disregarded anything (I'll be waiting).

I think my posts and my argument speak for themselves. The Broncos are capable of running the ball if they need to, and their 10th ranked rushing attack isn't some incredibly inflated ranking.

IF you go by total rushing yards, they are 15th. 11th in rush attempts/game. Tied for 17th in ypc. 7th in rushing TD's.

Everyone nows the broncos bread and butter is passing the ball, and the seahawks is defense and running..ALTHOUGH Sea only averages like 3 more rushes per game.
Broncos win by throwing the ball, surely (dont call me shirley) you can at least admit to that.

Worst SB chatter thread ever.

Ironman92;1571300 wrote:Worst SB chatter thread ever.

Oh, it could get worse!

Hell....the SB hasnt even garnered its own thread yet other than the one I started about how you watch it. STart a SB thread and see where it goes.

Prolly something like Richard Sherman is a thug and hates cold weather for Super Bowls

thavoice;1571299 wrote: Broncos win by throwing the ball, surely (dont call me shirley) you can at least admit to that.

Of course. I never intimated otherwise. Let's look at the sequence of events that happened here:

1) people started bitching about the weather
2) I said regardless the weather wouldn't seriously affect the team
3) SE suggested that bad weather would harm the Broncos considerably
4) I argued the teams are actually a lot closer in terms of running success, which they are, using DVOA
5) I said Broncos could run the ball if they needed to; SE and I proceeded to go back and forth

Nowhere did I suggest that the Bronco's passing attack isn't their key to victory.

lhslep134;1571321 wrote:
Nowhere did I suggest that the Bronco's passing attack isn't their key to victory.

Wait...

1) The end result (loss) is not indicative of the success or failure of a certain variable (the passing game) when a lot more variables factor into the end result as well. This is simple logic, I shouldn't have to teach it to you.

Where did I read such a thing?

WebFire;1571329 wrote:Wait...

1) The end result (loss) is not indicative of the success or failure of a certain variable (the passing game) when a lot more variables factor into the end result as well. This is simple logic, I shouldn't have to teach it to you.

Where did I read such a thing?

Your post necessarily dictates that this is your line of reasoning:

1) Person A says that a positive outcome is not dependent on any single variable
2) Person A also says that a strongly performing variable is a key to positive outcome

1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive, they can co-exist. You treating them as mutually exclusive means you're equating a key variable as the dispositive variable, after I've already made the conclusion that the outcome is dependent on multiple variables and not any singularly dispositive one.

If you can't understand any of that, I'll summarize: your attempt to call me a hypocrite is hilarious because you're being illogical.

lhslep134;1571334 wrote:Your post necessarily dictates that this is your line of reasoning:

1) Person A says that a positive outcome is not dependent on any single variable
2) Person A also says that a strongly performing variable is a key to positive outcome

1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive, they can co-exist. You treating them as mutually exclusive means you're equating a key variable as the dispositive variable, after I've already made the conclusion that the outcome is dependent on multiple variables and not any singularly dispositive one.

If you can't understand any of that, I'll summarize: your attempt to call me a hypocrite is hilarious because you're being illogical.

Let me put it to you simply. I've never claimed any of the above.

lhslep134;1571334 wrote:Your post necessarily dictates that this is your line of reasoning:

1) Person A says that a positive outcome is not dependent on any single variable
2) Person A also says that a strongly performing variable is a key to positive outcome

1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive, they can co-exist. You treating them as mutually exclusive means you're equating a key variable as the dispositive variable, after I've already made the conclusion that the outcome is dependent on multiple variables and not any singularly dispositive one.

If you can't understand any of that, I'll summarize: your attempt to call me a hypocrite is hilarious because you're being illogical.

BTW, you said "their key to victory", which indicates a single key. Had you said "a key to victory", that would have indicated one of many keys. So you basically called yourself a hypocrite. Good job.

WebFire;1571342 wrote:BTW, you said "their key to victory", which indicates a single key. Had you said "a key to victory", that would have indicated one of many keys. So you basically called yourself a hypocrite. Good job.

Sigh.

You're still equating a massively important variable to a dispositive variable. I don't need to make the distinction between "key" and "a key" because it's inherent in my "an outcome is not determined by a single variable" reasoning that more than one "key" is needed for victory.

Dumbed down version for you: A team cannot win with just one facet. The Broncos passing game is their key (most important facet) to victory. That means they need more than just their passing game to win (other facets).

Give it up dude, you're wrong and you're not going to beat me on this. I'd tell you to quit while you're ahead but I left you in the dust 3 posts ago.

I can't emphasize enough you need to quit arguing the logic of this with me.

God do I love winning arguments with Michigan fans.

lhslep134;1571345 wrote:Sigh.

You're still equating a massively important variable to a dispositive variable. I don't need to make the distinction between "key" and "a key" because it's inherent in my "an outcome is not determined by a single variable" reasoning that more than one "key" is needed for victory.

Dumbed down version for you: A team cannot win with just one facet. The Broncos passing game is their key (most important facet) to victory. That means they need more than just their passing game to win (other facets).

Give it up dude, you're wrong and you're not going to beat me on this. I'd tell you to quit while you're ahead but I left you in the dust 3 posts ago.

Haha. WTF.

For one, I NEVER have claimed any of the things you say I am claiming. In fact, if you any sort of reading comphrension, you would know I already agree with you. Because I think that a good team has to have more than one facet to their game to be a good team. That is why I think the weather complainers are wrong. You shouldn't be able to take away one thing from me and defeat me solely on that.

For two, the language you used does in fact conflict. But you are hell bent that everyone else is wrong.