-
Posts
3454 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by hpslugga
-
-
2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:
What, you think anything anyone says here means jack shit ?
I've never said nor implied that because such a contention is as ridiculous as your very best post that you've ever had. Once again, you're absolutely wrong about absolutely everything that you said and you're beyond delusional if you think you're gonna stand and trade with me. Slink away and move on to your next abject failure.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:
If all it takes to own the liberals is to flash a sign, my sign is a big middle finger fuck you idiots.
This is not a playground, go flashing your little wee wee elsewhere.
-
40 minutes ago, ousux said:
I'll just be brutally honest, I hope Herman can get his shit together and make this thing work, don't think I can go through another new coach transition this soon.
Yes, I know some of you don't like Herman and think he never should have been hired, idgaf, and yes he is a prick, but so are at least 90% of the names I've seen thrown around as replacements. You pretty much have to be a prick to run a high profile D1 program successfully..Not only that, but it's been proven that it's impossible to have sustained success when you keep changing HC's every 3 years and OC's every fucking season. To support such actions is to have an ADD brain mixed with a trailer park trash mindset.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, David Dennison said:
All of our running plays seem to develop at a snail's pace. I can't remember the last time we had a running back hit a hole at full speed.
What is this "hole" of which you speak?
-
I’m ready to draw fucking blood.
TEXAS!!!
-
17 minutes ago, Bevo VIII said:
How does them being at a strip club tirninto what Zach Smith did to his wife and urban Meyer failed to do anything about?
It doesn't. It just seems scandalous in a country that, collectively, can't help but scream and giggle when peepee parts are involved even in the most remote context. This is akin to Eloise going into great detail on what her nightly routine is and she just suddenly blurts out "Nanny has a mole." It'd read like this:
"Zach Smith beat his wife many times for many years.
And then Urban Meyer learned about it.
And then he kept Zach on staff despite learning about it, for Lord's sake.
And then Urban Meyer lied about learning about it.
And then he lied about lying about it.Â
Tom Herman went to see boobies with Zach Smith once."-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:
I agree abou the relative talent levels of the lions and cowboys in the 90s, but the Dallas offensive line wasn’t considered great before emmitt got there
And at no point would anyone with a functioning grey cell ever argue that the Lions' OL was even good, let alone great. That's the point.Â
8 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:And, how many of the Dallas OL are now in the HOF? Â Just Allen, right?
How many of the Detroit OL have even been seriously considered for nomination? Just Brown, right?And far beyond the OL, the surrounding skill players and QB were an outright joke. The reason Emmitt did so well is because that OL didn't have to deal with constant disadvantages in the numbers game. If you stacked the box with 8-9 guys against Dallas, yeah you might hold Emmitt to under 100 yards, but they'd still whip your ass for doing something that stupid. Detroit's offense was supposed to work like that on paper, but the collective suckitude of those skill players quickly took away what should have been an obviously inherent advantage.
Â
-
On 8/24/2018 at 3:23 PM, oSuJeff97 said:
And a HOF QB/WR combo to complement the running game. You couldn't just game plan to stop Emmitt or Troy and Michael would eat you up... (not to mention Novacek, Alvin Harper, etc.)
I don't think it's a stretch to say that every team who played the Lions during Barry's time had a defensive game plan that was singularly focused on slowing him down.
And I don't think people understand how damning that is to the Lions in general. Again, they were running that Double Slot Mouse Davis offense for a large chunk of his career. You're not supposed to focus on one person when you face those offenses, and if you do, it has to be the QB. If keying the RB is a viable strategy against a Double Slot offense, then you're facing a shitty offense. Any OL Detroit had not named Lomas or Glover was the shits, their WR corps was a joke (Aubrey Matthews wouldn't make 3rd string for any other NFL team, and he started for them), they rotated QB's like NASCAR drivers go through tires, and their defense didn't really do them a lot of favors either. Of course it's a useless hypothetical discussion, but it is nonetheless a valid point that Smith had a wealth of support that Barry simply did not have.
-
1 hour ago, oSuJeff97 said:
And a HOF QB/WR combo to complement the running game. You couldn't just game plan to stop Emmitt or Troy and Michael would eat you up... (not to mention Novacek, Alvin Harper, etc.)
I don't think it's a stretch to say that every team who played the Lions during Barry's time had a defensive game plan that was singularly focused on slowing him down.
Yep. They ran an offensive system that 27 NFL teams were better suited to run than the Lions were. On top of that, any OL on that team not named Glover or Brown was pretty much pure trash.Â
As productive of a career that Barry had, he’d have been stratospherically better had he played on:
Houston, Buffalo, San Francisco, Dallas, Philadelphia, Washington, NYG, Miami, both of the LA teams, Green Bay, Denver, Pittsburgh, and even fucking Cincinnati.
Can’t say that about Emmitt. He was on the perfect offense if ever there was one crafted for a particular player.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, BurntEyes said:
Yeah, I get that, and they rushed he snot out of him, but he was the NCAA career rushing yard record holder.Â
Timmy Chang was the NCAAÂ career passing yard record holder.
-
Oh look, she's using all 3 of her brain cells to come up with new ideas!
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:
History always repeats itself...you just need to wait long enough. If these new age Christians want to see how this goes down they can read a book...not that book, one on the fall of the Romans. Â
Why would they read a book that conflicts with their fixed beliefs? They've been raised since childhood to believe in a complete horseshit religion whose teachers instruct them that these beliefs are not to be questioned...
...the religion I speak of, of course, is American Exceptionalism.
-
1
-
-
On 8/13/2018 at 8:00 PM, David Dennison said:
Dan Patrick might be the worst human being to ever hold office in this state, and that's saying something.
He's the only one I've ever seen that literally declared open war on critical thinking. That's not rhetoric, that's a literal fact.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:
Over/under on what time it will be vandalized tonight?
Actually the last time this came up (unless there was one after OKC I'm not aware of), it was the so-called ten commandments on the wrong end of the vandalism.
-
-
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:
But that wasn't the case with hpslugga's statement. He wasn't framing a proveable positive assertion as a negative. He was very clearly saying, in effect, that if Jesus didn't exist then it can't be proven that he didn't exist. You seized on his wording of "you can't prove a negative" in order to take us on a little irrelevant tangent.Â
Actually, it's worse than you think.
See, I didn't say "you can't prove a negative." I didn't say that because I know that's not true. What I, in effect, did was point out to American Swindle that by saying "What proof do you have that Jesus did not exist?" he was effectively demanding (I said "asking," but that's splitting hairs) proof of a negative. So Aphellion's argument is a complete strawman, in addition to the things you said.
-
1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:
We are a constant stream of drivel congratulating ourselves on our generosity, greatness, and how we are the envy of the world. Her mistake about Japan is the cherry on top of the bullshit self-aggrandizement we feed ourselves all the time.Â
That didn't surprise me. It's incontrovertibly obvious that there isn't a living soul working for News Corp, or any of its subsidiaries, that has the first damned clue as to what socialism/communism is. They just throw around those words to describe anyone that they don't like (or that would hate them), and they've not an ounce of shame for being absolutely wrong about absolutely everything any of them has ever said about it.Â
Seriously, if you can portray Hirohito's Japan as "communist," then you can portray any government as communist because the word ceases to have meaning.
-
Oh and Clayton Williams' "If it's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it"
And on that similar note, Todd Akin's "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
-
3
-
-
I also nominate Jim Inhofe for bringing a snowball to the Senate floor and claiming that it was proof that global warming is a lie.
-
2
-
-
23 minutes ago, J.R. said:
You didnt build that was only stupid for phrasing it in a way that allowed the billions of pundits that now infest this planet to so easily and mindlessly take it completely out of context. Â
Far be it from me to ever defend something Obama said, but was it really on him to anticipate such a reaction? I mean I get it that the pundits to which you refer are intellectually impoverished to their core, but is their pathological ability to out-dumbass themselves continuously something that a person should (or even can) gauge before s/he utters 4 innocuous words?Â
-
Pretty much every sound Dan Quayle ever made.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:
It kind of has to do with who initially asserts a proposition.Â
Positive claims require positive evidence. Who says what first isn’t particularly relevant.
And if you think I’m wrong, consider the following scenario:
Suppose, for whatever reason, I say “there’s no such thing as Leprechauns.” Is it seriously incumbent upon me to prove that to the person who replies “nuh uh, they’re real!?”
-
25 minutes ago, Aphelion said:
I'm not merely picking nits over a turn of phrase; it is a false statement that often gets repeated and one that many people believe to be true. It should not be used because it is misleading and is the source for misconceptions.Â
One can give arguments & evidence for the non-existence of a non-existent entity. If I were to claim that there was a person named Jose Sanchez who was a founding father of the United States, could historians give arguments that such a person did not exist? Of course they could. Even within this subject (the fringe mythicist theory) arguments and evidence are presented by the mythicists for the non-existence of Jesus. These (very poor) arguments are presented as evidence for the non-existence of a presumed non-existent entity.
No serious person disputes that it’s possible to disprove something.
What people infer when they invoke the phrase “proof of a negative,” and this should have been obvious to you, is that it’s fallacious to try and shift the burden of proof to the person arguing in the negative. Yeah, a person can disprove a negative, but in a debate, they are not required to.Â
So in your Jose Sanchez analogy, is it possible for historians to literally prove you wrong? Of course. Are they required to? No; it is you who is required to prove that such a founder existed. Since you can’t actually do it, no one is going to take you seriously. It’s not like if you trotted out such nonsense that people would run away from historians they admired because they chose to ignore you.
Or to put it another way, this is precisely why a defendant in a criminal case is not required to prove his innocence. Does that mean that the defense can’t try? No. If they’ve exculpatory evidence, they’ll present it (to the extent the lawyer in question is worth a shit). But they’re not required to, and you as a juror are forbidden under the law to hold that against the defense.
Disproving a negative is permissible.
Demanding a person to do so is not.
-
2
-
-
Interesting you continue to take the route of focusing on the author rather than the text that was suggested.
Mark Mangino is fucking fat as fucking fuck
in Football
Posted
Would love for you to elaborate as I don’t know much about his tenure there and I doubt a lot of people here do either.Â