Originally Posted by GoofySaint (Post 433551)

"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.

Originally Posted by GoofySaint (Post 433531)

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.

Originally Posted by skymike (Post 433667)

good Lord.
and silly cartoon faces too.

Originally Posted by x626xBlack (Post 433661)

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.

Originally Posted by FinSaint (Post 433582)

Oh, and I apologize to my fellow Finns for the disappointment I've caused them!

Originally Posted by GoofySaint (Post 433758)

Scapegoating your own nationality for no reason and not caring? That's pathetic. I bet you're not even Finnish.

Originally Posted by GoofySaint (Post 433757)

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

Originally Posted by FinSaint (Post 433810)

Oh, please. I won't even degrade myself by answering to you...

Originally Posted by Utah_Saint (Post 433815)

That ship may have already sailed.

:)

Originally Posted by FinSaint (Post 433810)

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:





http://smileys.on-my-web.com/reposit...ughing-019.gif


Tell me, are you a comedian by trade or is it just something that comes naturally to you?

Originally Posted by GoofySaint (Post 433817)

I don't see what's so funny. The one thing that found funny was you saying that you were done talking to me yet here you are still talking. Way to stick to your principles.
Tell me. Are you a saints fan or not?

Cause you seem to act as if you DON'T want the saints to win 3-4 super bowls.

dynasty is just an easier way to say "3 or more super bowls."

I should also remind you that YOU CAME HERE. This is my thread. I'm just here to be here.

Just go away for gods sakes.

Originally Posted by |Mitch| (Post 433821)

Per wiki:



Ya'll are all wrong! :bugeyes:

Originally Posted by FinSaint (Post 433825)

Exactly, and that was my original point - I don't personally see a dynasty as was initially given as the definition for it in this thread. I was only trying to get my definition across without necessarily saying that the other definitions were wrong - just that I don't agree with that definition.

Originally Posted by GoofySaint (Post 433827)

Yeah because trying to twist my words and make some idea that I was somehow making a racist comment and implying I'm some northern elitist sounds SOOOOOOOOOOO much like you were trying to have a healthy debate.

You're still here being a jerk for no reason. Or am I supposed to look "deeply" into those smiley faces to see their deep meaning?
Since you don't even know when football was founded then it seems appropriate to question your football IQ or your allegiance to the saints.

Plus. Why would you even go off topic in the first place?

The name of this thread isn't called "what is a dynasty?"

It's called "Will the saints have a dynasty before brees retires?"
I already explained in the top of the thread that there's probably other people who have different opinions on "dynasties".
I asked them to go by MY opinion(which is also the majority opinion evidenced by mitches quote and multiple sources) which was 3-4 rings in a short time. If I used a minority opinion then I would have more than just 2 PEOPLE disagreeing with me.

Did you see that? No. Cause you don't care about being reasonable.

It's basically the equivalent of trolling and you're still doing it right now.

Originally Posted by FinSaint (Post 433420)

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.

Originally Posted by FinSaint (Post 433857)

Look, I don't want to fight with you and I hope we can just put this thing behind us and act cordial towards each other. And I apologize to you if I hurt your feelings or if I belittled your opinions.

As for the "twisting of your words, making it seem like you were making a racist comment and implying that you were a northern elitist" - that was not my intention and if it came across that way it is very unfortunate.

This is what I said:




Like I wrote there, I wasn't sure if you were trying to do that, and because of it I tried to convey my reaction to what you wrote previously in a very tentative manner - because English isn't my native language, I sometimes do misunderstand the meaning of what people are trying to say, and, therefore, I started with the "I don't know" because I don't want to overreact if indeed I'm wrong in my interpretation. Nowhere did I say that you were a "northern elitist" in this post or any of the ones following it, nor would I ever say that, because that type of a thinking is not part of my world view.

I didn't appreciate the things you said about my nationality, but I'm willing to let it go because I'm sure you didn't really mean anything by those comments.

So, if you're game, let's just agree to disagree about the definition of a dynasty, and hope that the Saints will win many more Lombardi Trophies in the years to come.

:bng: