Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints

Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Originally Posted by GoofySaint "even though your own arguments seem weak at best to me." hmm. And I'M the one using superlatives? "Also, I wouldn't use superlatives like never and all , because it's really hard to defend a stance ...

Like Tree9Likes

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-02-2012, 08:18 PM   #41
I donate wisdom
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia
Posts: 3,953
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Originally Posted by GoofySaint View Post
"even though your own arguments seem weak at best to me."

hmm. And I'M the one using superlatives?


"Also, I wouldn't use superlatives like never and all, because it's really hard to defend a stance based on superlatives - like the Lakers and the Celtics never had any trouble - yeah I'm sure it was always a walk in the park for them without any problems whatsoever."

Boston Celtics 17 championships

Lakers 15 championships

Please stop nitpicking my argument. You know what I mean when I say they "never had trouble". Unless you can tell me a super bowl team with 17 rings.



And all of the Nfl network, all the analysts, all the players, all the coaches, and all

When NFL network and it's analysts, players, and coaches(including ones from who help write the rules books) get together to make a show called [b]TOP TEN DYNASTIES[b], then the majority of them probably all agree on dynasties.

Once again stop nitpicking me.


"there are 82 games in the NHL regular season"

There's 162 games in baseballs regular season.
There's 82 games in basketball.

"Sorry, but that to me is just ignorant. There are no players in the NHL that are just fighters, and if you knew about the sport, you'd know that the fights are about more than just giving the audience something to cheer about. They are very important strategical tools, which can be used to sway the momentum away from the other team, and in that way they can affect the whole outcome of the game."

Please. If hockey was an actual "strategic tactic" or was in the rulebooks then we'd see little kids in their elementary school hockey punching each other. Why don't we see that? Cause it's not part of the sport. We see kids tackling in peewee football. That's because that's an actual part of the sport. "Sway momentum"? You sway momentum because you just crippled the other team. It's the same thing as saying that beating up the other guy in golf is a strategic tool. It just happens to be legal in hockey.



"Also, there are 82 games in the NHL regular season and a team could potentially have to play in 28 playoff games to win the Stanley Cup if all of the playoff series went to the max 7 games. So, that's a total of 110 games in a winning season, and that's in within the timespan of 180 to 190 days (it varies a bit from year to year). So, 110 games in 190 days means that you have more game days than days off - tell me again how that's not that hard as opposed to football?! And, I'd even argue that the hits the players dish out and receive in the NHL can be more violent than they are in the NFL because of the speed of the game, which allows players to use the skating momentum to launch themselves into other players."

It's not hard because the players aren't getting much workout in the actual sport.

Who cares about the skating momentum? That sounds pretty lazy imo. You're not even running. You're skating across a small 200 ft rink(as opposed to a 100 yard field). You're basically having momentum do the work for you.


"And, I'd even argue that the hits the players dish out and receive in the NHL can be more violent than they are in the NFL because of the speed of the game"

The problem with that is players aren't SUPPOSED to do that. They're supposed to get the puck. Not the player. Football players are supposed to SUPPOSED to hurt each other. Not to mention that hockey players only sometimes hit each other. In football, 3 guys could be getting hit every 10 seconds. And it's much harder.
Clearly you haven't seen many punt returns. The players in football with how fast they run make hockey players look like snails. There's your momentum right there.
Plus I have something better than momentum. It's called gravity.
None of the hockey players can JUMP on each other. D players jumping at o players is common.



"To your point about touchdowns. It really isn't a valid argument and I just can't understand why you persist on using it?! Naturally, there was a time when no one had ever seen what a touchdown was like, but that was clearly in a time before they started to play for Super Bowls (1967). And your definition of a dynasty in football has been based on winning Super Bowls, so why would we even discuss a concept that has no bearing on the game as it is today or has been at least since 1967? That's all about the history of the game, and it among its rules developed the way they did because of the people involved and the events that unfolded, but naturally they could've developed another way - a way in which touchdowns were in fact worth 20 points."

You persist me to stop using touchdowns as an argument but then screw up with football knowledge so why should I?

Football has been around since 1876(WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY before super bowls). That's not the point.
You persist that I'm not listening to your arguments but you continue to ignore my argument and this statement right here is proof of that....



"And your definition of a dynasty in football has been based on winning Super Bowls, so why would we even discuss a concept that has no bearing on the game as it is today or has been at least since 1967?"

I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about the fact that you just keep making up your own opinions on what a "dynasty" is.


If you can do that NOW, then what exactly would have stopped a minor group back then from saying "hey touchdowns are 20 points"? if the circumstances changed?

You're a minor group right now with this dynasty talk. It's widely accepted in football what a football dynasty is. Michael Vick just made a comment about how he thinks the eagles could have one.

Dynasty is an unofficial term but so is tailgating, fan,etc.

Officially the saints had a bounty, but we all know the truth.






"This last part is a very good example of why it's probably best that we just let this thing lie as it is, because you seem to favor other tactics, than presenting valid arguments, to try and win the debate. I don't know if you are trying to refer to the fact that English isn't my native language or that I don't know enough about football to make arguments against your stance, but in either case, this seems like a lost cause."

This right here is just sad.

1. Nitpicking my words and twisting them to make me look like some close minded elitist is not a "valid argument".

2. I didn't even know that you were foreign.

3. I asked if you sounded "mad" about the term "dynasty" because that's been a common thing on this thread. What do you think I've been talking with black about this whole time? Many on here assume "dynasty" is just a term to make other teams have a bigger ego. It's not.

4. I used "sack" and "collision" as examples of how football makes simple things sound cool.

What was just 2 guys hitting each other has now become cool words like "SACK" AND "COLLISION". I was not referring to whether or not you knew nothing about football.

5. I've met people from Finland. And I'm sure they'd be disappointed that you're somehow using your nationality(which is not needed anyway) to twist my words and make me out to be a hater or something.

6. And when I say WE. I meant the rulebook(the same thing you've been preaching FOR). Are you saying you call it something other than a sack?

The end.

P.S.

I don't hate hockey. I actually enjoy it at times. But it's not football and it never will be to me.




Oh, and I apologize to my fellow Finns for the disappointment I've caused them!
FinSaint is offline  
Latest Blogs


Saints: A glimpse of the future Last Blog: 11-19-2014 By: lee909


What i tell you ! !! ! Last Blog: 11-02-2014 By: SAINTstunna


Old 09-03-2012, 07:09 AM   #42
10000 POST CLUB
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cypress Tx.
Posts: 16,193
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Originally Posted by GoofySaint View Post
Why are you taking it so literally?

Using the original term for dynasty to prove your argument is like saying that a "sack" in football is when someone hits the qb with a sack of potatoes.

It's not even just yahoo.

NFL network
Analysts
coaches
players

Nfl network even had the top 10 dynasties on their top 10 show.


You could easily say that the entire time period that the steelers have existed is their "era" if you just go out and say "As soon as you slap a time period on it, it becomes an era".

Time period = the time the steelers were founded to now.

So technically every team had an era.
Ok Goofy.. I am not quoting an 8 page diatribe or replying to this thread after this.. here goes for my amusement and your education.

1. Definitions are literal... Define is the root word, look up the definition of define.

2. No you cant define the existence of the Steelers an Era... Please re-read the definition provides of "Era".. DEFINED period... By "now" do you mean when you clicked post or when I am reading it... See, that is not clearly defined and this is getting paradoxical.

3. NFL Network... Analysts... Yaada Yaada,... You mean the same group of people that participate in a vote on who is going to be the best player in an "upcoming season"? Most of their discussions are for ratings, not reality.

4. And this covers everything else... Ben is not an elite QB only people north of I-10 think so. Underdog is meaning less... it just shows that the pundits and people like your self think the AFC is the dominant conference.


Not sure when you became a Saints fan, but what you are not necessarily seeing is that we the Saints fans... do not necessarily care to be thought of as a dynasty. We like being the under dog, off the radar, we like shoveling the sh1t that the talking heads spew back into their face.

Again... Roethlisberger, Flacco, P. Manning are not elite QB's. Manning was but has yet to prove he is still that. You may consider them Elite... My bar is much higher.


Where your discussions lead most of us to stop reading is when you flip flop justifications... One minute its Super Bowls that justify... the next minutes its a statement of an analyst on NFL.com... Words like "we", "Us"... denotes opinion, not fact.

If you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

Like and vote https://www.facebook.com/pages/Charl...44287815781246

Last edited by TheOak; 09-03-2012 at 07:12 AM..
TheOak is offline  
Old 09-03-2012, 07:11 AM   #43
500th Post
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 937
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

I'm hopeful, but it's so hard to win even one title that I can't say we'll become a dynasty. Let's just try to get number two first.
jcp026 is offline  
Old 09-03-2012, 07:37 AM   #44
Im BACK!!!!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The Barrio, H-town
Posts: 4,887
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

good Lord.
and silly cartoon faces too.
skymike is offline  
Old 09-03-2012, 09:25 AM   #45
Site Donor
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: in line with my ridiculous CLEAR PLASTIC BAG
Posts: 2,815
Blog Entries: 3
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

I just don't even like the word, because the only people I've ever heard mention it were either ridiculous sports commentators, people who are insecure and desperately want their team to be one, or arrogant fans of the Cowboys/Steelers/49ers who are living completely in the past. Those are the only ones I hear doing the dynasty talk. One other thing about it is that you can't really say your own team is a dynasty, while it is going on, that sounds ridiculous.It sorta has to be conferred on you by others. With all the "dynasty" teams, part of the definition of a dynasty we are talking about is that it's typically over, and I don't want it to be over for the current Saints. Ever.
skymike likes this.
SaintsBro is offline  
Old 09-03-2012, 12:29 PM   #46
Site Donor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 2,309
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Originally Posted by skymike View Post
good Lord.
and silly cartoon faces too.
C'mon man, the silly cartoon faces are the best part.
Utah_Saint is offline  
Old 09-03-2012, 02:43 PM   #47
100th Post
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Philipsburg, PA
Posts: 161
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Originally Posted by x626xBlack View Post
Ok Goofy.. I am not quoting an 8 page diatribe or replying to this thread after this.. here goes for my amusement and your education.

1. Definitions are literal... Define is the root word, look up the definition of define.

2. No you cant define the existence of the Steelers an Era... Please re-read the definition provides of "Era".. DEFINED period... By "now" do you mean when you clicked post or when I am reading it... See, that is not clearly defined and this is getting paradoxical.

3. NFL Network... Analysts... Yaada Yaada,... You mean the same group of people that participate in a vote on who is going to be the best player in an "upcoming season"? Most of their discussions are for ratings, not reality.

4. And this covers everything else... Ben is not an elite QB only people north of I-10 think so. Underdog is meaning less... it just shows that the pundits and people like your self think the AFC is the dominant conference.


Not sure when you became a Saints fan, but what you are not necessarily seeing is that we the Saints fans... do not necessarily care to be thought of as a dynasty. We like being the under dog, off the radar, we like shoveling the sh1t that the talking heads spew back into their face.

Again... Roethlisberger, Flacco, P. Manning are not elite QB's. Manning was but has yet to prove he is still that. You may consider them Elite... My bar is much higher.


Where your discussions lead most of us to stop reading is when you flip flop justifications... One minute its Super Bowls that justify... the next minutes its a statement of an analyst on NFL.com... Words like "we", "Us"... denotes opinion, not fact.


1. "Definitions are literal"

Yes which is why I never asked you to use definitions. Dynasty is an unofficial term. The more you pretend to use the "definition = this" argument, the more ignorant you sound because all it tells me is you're not even reading what I'm saying.

2. NFL Network... Analysts... Yaada Yaada,... You mean the same group of people that participate in a vote on who is going to be the best player in an "upcoming season"?

No I mean the people who have more to their argument than going off topic by bringing up "the definition of definition" or THE AFC and if you actually read my post, you'd know that I also mentioned players and coaches. Coaches and players don't care about NFL networks "ratings".

"Most of their discussions are for ratings, not reality."

And who are you? You're being overly aggressive and angry for no reason at all. It's pathetic.


"Underdog is meaning less... it just shows that the pundits and people like your self think the AFC is the dominant conference. "

Lol. Somebody is a little aggressive.

1. No I don't think the AFC is dominant. I just don't consider the NFC to be MORE dominant.

2. "And this covers everything else... Ben is not an elite QB only people north of I-10 think so."

If you're gonna be so technical about this then you're ignorant by saying THAT NOT ONE PERSON south considers BEN elite.

3. You''re pathetic. I never said Flacco was elite NOW.

So everybody but Brees, brady is not elite?

Peyton Manning = 4 time MVP when he had NOBODY around him(evidenced by the 2-14 colts last year).

Steelers had a crippled defense,running game, and 1 good receiver.
Big ben was still able to send them to the super bowl and then go 12-4 WHILE INJURED. He beat kurt warner in a QB battle in the super bowl. I should also mention that that ben has been hurt like 80% of his career.

Eli Manning blewout both rodgers and Brady(QBs who you consider better).

He beat the #1 defense.

Eli WAS? What? The season hasn't even started yet. Take the black and gold shades off and wake up.




"Not sure when you became a Saints fan, but what you are not necessarily seeing is that we the Saints fans... do not necessarily care to be thought of as a dynasty. We like being the under dog, off the radar, we like shoveling the sh1t that the talking heads spew back into their face."

Yeah I'm sure that's the same crap the steelers said in the 60s, or the 9ers in the 70s. Or the pats before the 2000s.

Not sure if you're an actual saints fan but if you would stop living in your own little world for just a few minutes you'd realize that the who dat nation doesn't revolve around you.

4.There's a dozen saints fans in this same thread who would LIKE for us to get a dynasty. You can still be an underdog and get a dynasty(the patriots did it). Stop saying "being thought of as a dynasty".

There is no "being thought of".

3-4 super bowls=dynasty.
It's an unofficial term yeah but if you cared about taking things officially, you would be believing that the saints had a full blown bounty system.


"Where your discussions lead most of us to stop reading is when you flip flop justifications... One minute its Super Bowls that justify... the next minutes its a statement of an analyst on NFL.com... Words like "we", "Us"... denotes opinion, not fact."

Honestly just stop. I'm THIS close to reporting you.

You've done nothing but ignore my posts.
Twist my words.
Just plain make up stuff.
And insult me and my character.

"Most of us to stop reading...."

You mean 2 people? That's not most of us. Just because there's a few spoiled apples doesn't mean I should let you spoil the other ones. We're just gonna forget the 15 OTHER PEOPLE I've been talking too? NO BECAUSE YOUR OPINION IS ALL THAT MATTERS.




"One minute its Super Bowls that justify... the next minutes its a statement of an analyst on NFL.com... Words like "we", "Us"... denotes opinion, not fact."

At least I'm coming up with sources. All you've done is disregard everything I typed to because you can't get over your own ego(which is funny cause that's what you accuse dynasties of being). Now you just rage quit?

No I never referred to NFL.com. I referred to NFL network.

I used the network as a source for where the term "sports dynasty" came from.
You would know this if you didn't just skim through my posts.

Where's your source that refers to the term "era" in sports that's used exactly as dynasty is used?

The more you use the literal definitions or use root words, the more ignorant you sound.

I've told you time and time again that "dynasty" is a subjective, unofficial term but you just sat in your own little world. STOP USING IT OBJECTIVELY.

No root words, no core definitions. Saying dynasty objectively is like saying the steelers were a powerful chinese kingdom. Stop nitpicking around it with this "era" crap. Era doesn't apply here because we're talking about subjective words.

I used WE and US when I was referring to sacks. Are you saying you call it something other than a sack? It's fact that hitting the QB is called a sack. Stop making stuff up.
God it's like talking to a tree.


"My bar is much higher."

You mean anybody with a fleur de lis on their jersey?


"but what you are not necessarily seeing is that WE the Saints fans... "

Oh don't make me laugh. You don't even live in LA. Don't make fun of me cause cause I live in PA when you're living in Texas which is Dallas cowboys heaven right now. You're not a hardcore fan one bit.



WE! Here you are using the "we" after telling me to stop. Hypocrite.
GoofySaint is offline  
Old 09-03-2012, 02:45 PM   #48
100th Post
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Philipsburg, PA
Posts: 161
Exclamation Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Originally Posted by FinSaint View Post


Oh, and I apologize to my fellow Finns for the disappointment I've caused them!
Scapegoating your own nationality for no reason and not caring? That's pathetic. I bet you're not even Finnish.
GoofySaint is offline  
Old 09-03-2012, 05:26 PM   #49
I donate wisdom
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia
Posts: 3,953
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Originally Posted by GoofySaint View Post
Scapegoating your own nationality for no reason and not caring? That's pathetic. I bet you're not even Finnish.

Oh, please. I won't even degrade myself by answering to you... all I was doing was laughing at your insanity.

Here's another gem of a laugh-o-riot from your reply to x626xBlack:


Originally Posted by GoofySaint View Post
Honestly just stop. I'm THIS close to reporting you.




Tell me, are you a comedian by trade or is it just something that comes naturally to you?
FinSaint is offline  
Old 09-03-2012, 05:30 PM   #50
Im BACK!!!!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The Barrio, H-town
Posts: 4,887
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

come on, lets quit now. enough.
you know this will just go on and on, and will just be a waste of your
time.
skymike is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: http://blackandgold.com/saints/49183-will-saints-have-dynasty-before-brees-retires.html
Posted By For Type Date Hits
Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires? This thread Refback 08-30-2012 03:41 PM 2


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:40 PM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts