(02-10-2016, 07:38 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Do you respond in that manner with every post that ever asks what someone was thinking?  Usually they're a lot less objective than this and can't even begin to be answered in a way that people in this thread have offered.  

Not worth being a troll, which you are a well known one when it comes to my posts.

Actually, I am quite objective on most anything. 
It wasn't trolling. I answered with what I believed. Move along now, nothing to see here. 

(02-10-2016, 10:14 PM)Harmening Wrote: Actually, I am quite objective on most anything. 
It wasn't trolling. I answered with what I believed. Move along now, nothing to see here. 

HA!

Even going back to the old boards, you were a common troll!

Move along, though, there's nothing to see here.

Do you ever have anything original, or do you only know to repeat what someone else says in their previous post?

It's the classic childhood "I know you are, but what am I?" line. You're better than that, so try a little harder.

(02-11-2016, 09:33 AM)Harmening Wrote: Do you ever have anything original, or do you only know to repeat what someone else says in their previous post?

It's the classic childhood "I know you are, but what am I?" line.  You're better than that, so try a little harder.

I was mocking you with that last comment because you didn't have anything with any substance to post when you posted that, which is and always has been fairly common with you.

You're trying to deflect and draw attention off the point of that post, which was "Even going back to the old boards, you were a common troll!" 







Which you once again just proved that you can't put up a logical debate or post with this post.

(02-11-2016, 10:40 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I was mocking you with that last comment because you didn't have anything with any substance to post when you posted that, which is and always has been fairly common with you.

You're trying to deflect and draw attention off the point of that post, which was "Even going back to the old boards, you were a common troll!" 







Which you once again just proved that you can't put up a logical debate or post with this post.

What I asked wasn't limited to any one single post. I asked because you always respond that way, whether it be to me or anyone else. I wasn't trying to debate anything.  Just asking a simple question is all. 

(02-12-2016, 10:50 AM)Harmening Wrote: What I asked wasn't limited to any one single post. I asked because you always respond that way, whether it be to me or anyone else. I wasn't trying to debate anything.  Just asking a simple question is all. 

So then why would you bring it up in here instead of addressing what I posted?

You tried to post it in here as a scapegoat because you had no other argument because you're really, REALLY bad at debating.

Keep it up, though, because it's entertaining watching your attempts to bash me when you keep making no sense at all.

(02-09-2016, 10:59 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You'd think it would be common sense, as those of us that played football learned in the third grade, but, with Hill's fumbling problems, didn't the coaches preach that to him before he ran out onto the field? Before he went out, Marvin and Hue, along with the damn water boy, should have been in his ear saying "wrap up with two arms, We don't give a shit if you don't gain a single yard, just DON'T fumble."

And then even McCarron in the huddle should have been preaching it.

Why didn't they work on it in practice?

Like I said, it should have been common sense, but, when a guy has a fumblin problem, it's obviously not.

because hes not the sharpest tool in the shed or knife in the drawer or whatever...

Got overly excited i guess hes still pretty young.. so hopefully those issues dont last. of course if he doesnt get it going again he might not last.

(02-12-2016, 11:53 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: So then why would you bring it up in here instead of addressing what I posted?

You tried to post it in here as a scapegoat because you had no other argument because you're really, REALLY bad at debating.

Keep it up, though, because it's entertaining watching your attempts to bash me when you keep making no sense at all.

BRAD its a freaking message board... if you take everything personally the internet is not a place for you.

(02-12-2016, 02:19 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: because hes not the sharpest tool in the shed or knife in the drawer or whatever...

Got overly excited i guess  hes still pretty young.. so hopefully those issues dont last.  of course if he doesnt get it going again he might not last.

I still can't believe it.  We had the game WON and it was about to be the biggest day in Cincinnati in 25 years.

(02-12-2016, 02:21 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: BRAD its a freaking message board... if you take everything personally the internet is not a place for you.

He's the one that made it personal with his trolling, as is normal with him, and I simply responded.  

It's all fine and well when people take personal shots at me, but I fire back, and people freak out.

Hell, Fred takes personal shots at me all the time and then got me suspended when I fired back the one time.

(02-12-2016, 11:53 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: So then why would you bring it up in here instead of addressing what I posted?

You tried to post it in here as a scapegoat because you had no other argument because you're really, REALLY bad at debating.

Keep it up, though, because it's entertaining watching your attempts to bash me when you keep making no sense at all.

I did address what you posted.  You then sent a pissy response, followed by the supposed "mocking" of me.  That's when I asked if that was all you had, not only to me, but virtually anyone with whom you feel is trying to "bash" you.

BTW, this thread has no debate at all.  

(02-12-2016, 02:27 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: He's the one that made it personal with his trolling, as is normal with him, and I simply responded.  

Nothing was made personal.  I made a reply as to who I thought was the only one with the answer. 
It's all a matter of perception, I guess.

(02-09-2016, 10:59 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You'd think it would be common sense, as those of us that played football learned in the third grade, but, with Hill's fumbling problems, didn't the coaches preach that to him before he ran out onto the field?  Before he went out, Marvin and Hue, along with the damn water boy, should have been in his ear saying "wrap up with two arms,  We don't give a shit if you don't gain a single yard, just DON'T fumble."

And then even McCarron in the huddle should have been preaching it.

Why didn't they work on it in practice?  

Like I said, it should have been common sense, but, when a guy has a fumblin problem, it's obviously not.

This is like asking why didn't Adrian Peterson do so. It's a mistake and it's unacceptable... and it happens. If the players were machines who perfectly executed their basic job every single play we wouldn't be watching.
It's incredibly flawed to assume that him fumbling means that no one told him not to fumble anymore than you failing a test is because your teacher didnt tell you "Don't pick the wrong answers, chode."

(02-10-2016, 10:54 AM)Harmening Wrote: Is Jeremy Hill a member here?  I believe he is the only one who could answer this question.

(02-12-2016, 03:02 PM)Harmening Wrote: I did address what you posted.  You then sent a pissy response, followed by the supposed "mocking" of me.  That's when I asked if that was all you had, not only to me, but virtually anyone with whom you feel is trying to "bash" you.

BTW, this thread has no debate at all.  

You addressed it by asking if Hill is a member here (above), which was you trolling and contributing absolutely nothing to the thread other than trying to ridicule me, which failed horribly.

The debate in this thread was about whether or not the coaches had worked more with Hill on ball security and why they had not drilled it into his head that the most important play of his professional football life to that point came down to him holding on to the football. 

(02-12-2016, 03:05 PM)Harmening Wrote: Nothing was made personal.  I made a reply as to who I thought was the only one with the answer. 
It's all a matter of perception, I guess.

Like I said, your history of trolling, along with you having contributed absolutely nothing to the thread, made it personal.

You keep failing, and it was fun watching you go down in flames, but now it's just annoying.

(02-12-2016, 07:02 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You addressed it by asking if Hill is a member here (above), which was you trolling and contributing absolutely nothing to the thread other than trying to ridicule me, which failed horribly.

The debate in this thread was about whether or not the coaches had worked more with Hill on ball security and why they had not drilled it into his head that the most important play of his professional football life to that point came down to him holding on to the football. 

Like I said, your history of trolling, along with you having contributed absolutely nothing to the thread, made it personal.

You keep failing, and it was fun watching you go down in flames, but now it's just annoying.

Ridicule you? 
It was a harmless question preceding my belief that he would be the only one with the answer.
Stop always making things about you, because that wasn't even necessarily directed toward you alone.

As for your definition of debate: what is it exactly that you are going to debate?
All we know is that none of us know whether any of the things you said happened, actually did, so how could one take a stance on the subject either way to have a back and forth? (otherwise known as a debate)
Too bad Jeremy Hill wasn't a member here so he could chime in and explain.

(02-12-2016, 07:14 PM)Harmening Wrote: Ridicule you? 
It was a harmless question preceding my belief that he would be the only one with the answer.
Stop always making things about you, because that wasn't even necessarily directed toward you alone.

First you say it was a harmless question, but then say that it wasn't directed at me alone, which means it was directed at me and others in the thread.

Like I said, you're completely terrible at arguing a point.

Stop trying to take shots at me when you post things that have no value to anything and there would be nothing to take personally.  Just boils down to stop being a troll because it doesn't do much for your credibility.

(02-12-2016, 07:14 PM)Harmening Wrote: As for your definition of debate: what is it exactly that you are going to debate?
All we know is that none of us know whether any of the things you said happened, actually did, so how could one take a stance on the subject either way to have a back and forth? (otherwise known as a debate)
Too bad Jeremy Hill wasn't a member here so he could chime in and explain.

It could be debated by saying he was fighting for more yards, or he just hadn't done it all year, so the coaches mustn't have drilled it into his mind enough, or he was trying to soften his fall, or any number of other possibilities.  


How many things are discussed on a message board that don't have a definite answer?  Message boards would be boring if everyone knew the answer to every question.   

Other people were offering their opinions on the subject, and you littered the thread by being a troll, and you failed at it.

That's not debating. That's just offering an opinion.
And yes, it was directed at you and many others. It's a public message board.
You took something I typed on a message board personally. You shouldn't have.
Like I said earlier, nothing to see here. Move along.

BTW, care to respond to BeepBeepWoo?

(02-09-2016, 10:59 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You'd think it would be common sense, as those of us that played football learned in the third grade, but, with Hill's fumbling problems, didn't the coaches preach that to him before he ran out onto the field?  Before he went out, Marvin and Hue, along with the damn water boy, should have been in his ear saying "wrap up with two arms,  We don't give a shit if you don't gain a single yard, just DON'T fumble."

And then even McCarron in the huddle should have been preaching it.

Why didn't they work on it in practice?  

Like I said, it should have been common sense, but, when a guy has a fumblin problem, it's obviously not.



This is where I say... Sh***T happens. He had the opportunity to really turn things and make a name for himself. He's already got the respect but just add more value to his game. Things just didn't pan out. I know one thing he will always have two hands on the ball next season.

(02-12-2016, 11:24 PM)Harmening Wrote: That's not debating. That's just offering an opinion.
And yes, it was directed at you and many others. It's a public message board.
You took something I typed on a message board personally. You shouldn't have.
Like I said earlier, nothing to see here. Move along.

People offering their opinions on something is debating.

Like I said multiple times, you're not very good at this message board stuff.

Oh well......  trolls gonna troll.

Mr. Hill doesn't seem too bright.  Not being bright caught up to him.

There are two more "not too bright" guys who had that catch up to them as well.

Hope this answers your question.

Fighting for yards and not securing the ball, when forward progress is all that is needed = selfish and stupid.