(09-30-2015, 08:43 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: You're right.

We just need to get a torrential downpour every time Tom gets the ball.

Then we can probably beat him.

thats pretty lame... it rained 1 possession and he didnt do much before the rain either.

We did beat him last year AJ Sanu and company couldnt hold onto the ball or we had a game.

(09-29-2015, 02:54 PM)jj22 Wrote: He forgot coaching :/

BB will have us looking like we don't belong.

Maybe if we play them home at the 1:00 slot.

That was my first thought as well.

(09-29-2015, 03:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Who was coaching the Pats in '13?

Brady isplaying exactly like he did the year after spygate, and that may mean the Pats are not going to get beaten.  But when you just look at how the teams are playing the Bengals would match up with the Patriots just fine.  the Pats defense this year is not elite.

So you conveniently skip over the 2014 drubbing in NE to call out us beating them in 2013?  I guess this fits your narrative better.  If you want to play the "history game", Marvin Lewis is 1-5 all time against Bill Belichick.  Marvin Lewis is 0-6 in playoffs and Bill is 22-6.  Please tell me how that gives you confidence we can pull this off?  I really want to believe it.

(09-30-2015, 10:34 AM)BleedNOrange Wrote: So you conveniently skip over the 2014 drubbing in NE to call out us beating them in 2013?  I guess this fits your narrative better.  If you want to play the "history game", Marvin Lewis is 1-5 all time against Bill Belichick.  Marvin Lewis is 0-6 in playoffs and Bill is 22-6.  Please tell me how that gives you confidence we can pull this off?  I really want to believe it.

All I was pointing out is that it is not impossible for Marvin to beat the Pats.  He has done it.  That is a fact.

So it is wrong to say that Marvin can't beat Belichick.

(09-30-2015, 09:39 AM)xavierdude Wrote: you said pretty much the same thing last year at this time and new england clobbered us four days later

(09-30-2015, 09:41 AM)xavierdude Wrote: most of the time the "past" does dictate the future and  will until the team actually wins a playoff game..or two..

And negative people like you said we would never go to the playoffs 4 times in a row because history proved it could never happen.

And people like you said it was impossible for us to beat the Broncos in prime time because history proved it was impossible.

The past does not dictate the future.  If it did then you would be rich from betting on football games, and you are not.

(09-30-2015, 08:43 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: You're right.

We just need to get a torrential downpour every time Tom gets the ball.

Thanks for proving how limited your knowledge of that game really is.

It is funny when people try to attack the Bengals when they have no clue what they are talking about.

(09-30-2015, 10:57 AM)fredtoast Wrote: All I was pointing out is that it is not impossible for Marvin to beat the Pats.  He has done it.  That is a fact.

So it is wrong to say that Marvin can't beat Belichick.

Yeah, well, beating Belichick 1 in 6 tries while you also have an 0 in 6 playoff record isn't all that inspiring when you start talking about beating them in the playoffs.

Is it possible? Yes

Can we do it with the same ol' Lewis Bengals' playoff strategy? Not a chance

Will we go into this year's playoffs with a different attitude and philosophy? I sure hope so

BTW did Hoge say we could "beat" the Patriots, or just "compete with"?

(09-30-2015, 10:57 AM)fredtoast Wrote: All I was pointing out is that it is not impossible for Marvin to beat the Pats.  He has done it.  That is a fact.

So it is wrong to say that Marvin can't beat Belichick.

(09-30-2015, 11:01 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The past does not dictate the future.

I'm not sure which poster to agree with in this situation!

Oh, wait.....

(09-30-2015, 11:13 AM)djs7685 Wrote: I'm not sure which poster to agree with in this situation!

Oh, wait.....

You fail at reading comprehension.  There is no contradiction between those two statements.  Learn the difference between saying something is "possible" and "it will happen".

(09-30-2015, 11:09 AM)fredtoast Wrote: BTW did Hoge say we could "beat" the Patriots, or just "compete with"?

I think compete would mean that you ave a chance to win.

(09-30-2015, 11:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You fail at reading comprehension.  There is no contradiction between those two statements.  Learn the difference between saying something is "possible" and "it will happen".

You fail at not realizing that you contradicted yourself.

You said the past does not dictate the future. Using that logic, you can't bring up anything that has happened in the past, whether it means it has a "chance" to do something or not. This has nothing to do with guarantees or chance, the past doesn't dictate the future, remember? The fact that Marvin has beaten Bill in the past is 100% irrelevant even for the possibility of a future outcome if "the past does not dictate the future".

I know this may be difficult for you, but these words we're using have actual definitions, and you can't go around changing them and expect everyone to just agree with your new terms. Either use words properly or be prepared for someone that understands how to use them to educate you on them.

Nice try though.

(09-30-2015, 11:23 AM)djs7685 Wrote: You fail at not realizing that you contradicted yourself.

You said the past does not dictate the future. Using that logic, you can't bring up anything that has happened in the past, whether it means it has a "chance" to do something or not. This has nothing to do with guarantees or chance, the past doesn't dictate the future, remember? The fact that Marvin has beaten Bill in the past is 100% irrelevant even for the possibility of a future outcome if "the past does not dictate the future".

I know this may be difficult for you, but these words we're using have actual definitions, and you can't go around changing them and expect everyone to just agree with your new terms. Either use words properly or be prepared for someone that understands how to use them to educate you on them.

Nice try though.

Yup.  I was just about to write the same thing but you beat me to it.

Don't worry though, it is lawyer speak...talk in circles so no one knows what you are saying.

(09-30-2015, 11:23 AM)djs7685 Wrote: You fail at not realizing that you contradicted yourself.

You said the past does not dictate the future. Using that logic, you can't bring up anything that has happened in the past, whether it means it has a "chance" to do something or not. This has nothing to do with guarantees or chance, the past doesn't dictate the future, remember? The fact that Marvin has beaten Bill in the past is 100% irrelevant even for the possibility of a future outcome if "the past does not dictate the future".

I know this may be difficult for you, but these words we're using have actual definitions, and you can't go around changing them and expect everyone to just agree with your new terms. Either use words properly or be prepared for someone that understands how to use them to educate you on them.

Nice try though.

(09-30-2015, 11:29 AM)BleedNOrange Wrote: Yup.  I was just about to write the same thing but you beat me to it.

Don't worry though, it is lawyer speak...talk in circles so no one knows what you are saying.

I didn't change the meaning of any words in any way.  If the future does not dictate the past then anything is possible in the future.  And all I ever said was that it was possible for Marvin to beat Belichick.

You are just trying to twist two different arguments into one without offering the alternative which you claim is correct.

To prove my point all you have to do is answer two questions.

Is it possible for Marvin Lewis to beat Bill Belichick, and is your answer in any way based on what has happened in the past?

I am pretty sure that your answer will prove that you agree with both of my comments.  That is because there are no logical contradictions between my two comments when they are presented in the proper context. If you understood logical analysis you would understand that the two different comments were in response to two different claims that are not one and the same.

(09-30-2015, 11:23 AM)djs7685 Wrote: You fail at not realizing that you contradicted yourself.

You said the past does not dictate the future. Using that logic, you can't bring up anything that has happened in the past, whether it means it has a "chance" to do something or not. This has nothing to do with guarantees or chance, the past doesn't dictate the future, remember? The fact that Marvin has beaten Bill in the past is 100% irrelevant even for the possibility of a future outcome if "the past does not dictate the future".

I know this may be difficult for you, but these words we're using have actual definitions, and you can't go around changing them and expect everyone to just agree with your new terms. Either use words properly or be prepared for someone that understands how to use them to educate you on them.

Nice try though.

(09-30-2015, 11:29 AM)BleedNOrange Wrote: Yup.  I was just about to write the same thing but you beat me to it.

Don't worry though, it is lawyer speak...talk in circles so no one knows what you are saying.

Hard to disagree with you guys here about Fred, this is very true.

I still think we could play with the Pats with this team healthy, but lots of things would have to go
right for us and Marv would have to not lose us the game with stupid challenges and his inability to
coach with a guy like Belicheck.

If you claim my comments were contradictory then please tell me which one you agree with and which one you do not agree with because it is impossible for you to agree with both of them if there is ab true contradiction.

(09-29-2015, 06:44 PM)Anderson HOF Wrote: I agree with your post totally, the only thing i will add is who can coach against Belicheat.

Funny though.. I thought it was a terrible decision not to call timeout in the Super Bowl on the last drive.. he was not a great coaching decision that won that game.. it was a bad coaching decision by Seattle that did it.  If New England would have lost , many people would have critical of his coaching at end of game.. funny how things turned out 

Yeah, not saying BB has not made bad decisions, of course he has. But he still is miles ahead
of Marvin Lewis in terms of coaching in pretty much everyway except for maybe putting an
extremely talented team together where maybe Marv has the edge right now.

(09-30-2015, 12:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If you claim my comments were contradictory then please tell me which one you agree with and which one you do not agree with because it is impossible for you to agree with both of them if there is ab true contradiction.

You cannot claim that "the past does not dictate the future" and then use the past at the same time to try and prove your argument.

This is contradictory.

(09-30-2015, 12:12 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: You cannot claim that "the past does not dictate the future" and then use the past at the same time to try and prove your argument.

This is contradictory.

Wrong.  You are making the same mistake that DJS did.  You fail to see that the two different comments were in two different contexts.  If you are going to insist that there is a contradiction then you can not agree with both of these comments.


It is possible for Marvin to beat Belichick.

The past does not dictates the future.

So which one do you disagree with?  If your claim is correct then you can not agree with both.

(09-30-2015, 12:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Wrong.  You are making the same mistake that DJS did.  You fail to see that the two different comments were in two different contexts.  If you are going to insist that there is a contradiction then you can not agree with both of these comments.


It is possible for Marvin to beat Belichick.

The past does not dictates the future.

So which one do you disagree with?  If your claim is correct then you can not agree with both.

The past can absolutely dictate the future in certain ways. It doesn't in this case though, so I'm agreeing that Marvin can beat Bill. BUT....

The statements were 100% contradictory if you know the given definitions of the words that you keep using.

You can't say that Marvin beating Bill in the past means that it CAN happen, yet "the past doesn't dictate the future". Those contradict each other. I know that you'll never admit that you're wrong, but the people that understand the words' definitions can obviously see the hypocrisy.

I'm "twisting" a total of 0 things. You just don't understand the definitions of words that you're using and you can't admit that.

Let me make this really simple for you to understand. Marvin CAN beat Bill in the future, that's 100% correct, but it's not because of anything that happened in 2013 (which you used as your reasoning, herp derp).