Merril Hodge says Bengals can compete with the Patriots

[Atomic Orange]

We would need to cut them.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(09-29-2015, 09:12 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Merrill Hoge is a really great human being. I went to church with him for a while when I was younger, and he was always one of the nicest and most down-to-earth guys there.

He's always seemed like a good football analyst to me as well, though I may be a bit biased.

[fredtoast]

(09-30-2015, 12:38 PM)djs7685 Wrote: 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).

So let me get this straight.

You agree that Marvin can beat Belichick.

And you also agree that the past does not dictate the future.

But when I say it there is a contradiction, but when you say it there is no contradiction?

And this is somehow because i change the definitions of words? What word definition did I change to make the comments a contradiction when I say them, but not a contradiction when you say the?

The fact is that you took two different comments for two different arguments and tried to claim there was some sort of contradiction.......but only when I say it......when you say the exact same thing somehow there is no contradiction.

You fail at logic.

[djs7685]

(09-30-2015, 01:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So let me get this straight.

You agree that Marvin can beat Belichick.

And you also agree that the past does not dictate the future.

But when I say it there is a contradiction, but when you say it there is no contradiction?

And this is somehow because i change the definitions of words? What word definition did I change to make the comments a contradiction when I say them, but not a contradiction when you say the?

The fact is that you took two different comments for two different arguments and tried to claim there was some sort of contradiction.......but only when I say it......when you say the exact same thing somehow there is no contradiction.

You fail at logic.

Spinning bullshit 101, with Fredtoast. I know the following words may confuse you, and for that I apologize....


You said Marvin can beat Bill (and used 2013 as the reason why it's possible). Then you claim the past can't dictate the future. That's contradicting. There's no way to spin this bullshit, Freddy, it's contradicting if you understand the definitions of all of those words.

I said that Marvin can beat Bill, but it has nothing to do with the past, just the fact that literally any coach can beat any other coach because it's technically a possibility. I also said that the past can dictate the future in certain circumstances, just not this one. That's not contradicting in any way. We're saying different things, so no, we both don't have to be contradicting or not, just YOU.

I'm not going to sit here and give you an English lesson any longer. Have fun being ignorant, it obviously hasn't bothered you in your entire life up to this point, so why let it now. Carry on being a fool.

[xavierdude]

(09-30-2015, 11:01 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

fred ..stay on point..you said the very exact thing last year at this time and were proven wrong..you told us all how the bengals would handle the injured and off kilter patriots after the drubbing they received at kansas city..

twas not me that even spoke about making the playoffs ..although losing the last four playoff games speaks volumes

twas not me that said anything about the broncos last year..and by the way..the broncos aint that great anymore

[xavierdude]

(09-30-2015, 11:03 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

most people that critisize the bengals just deal with the facts.. a good football  team but not yet a very good football team that can win in the playoffs Fred..we do have a clue. It is you that is in denial.

It is people like you that feel that making the playoffs is a successful season. the real season  begins with the playoffs

[xavierdude]

(09-30-2015, 01:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So let me get this straight.

You agree that Marvin can beat Belichick.

And you also agree that the past does not dictate the future.

But when I say it there is a contradiction, but when you say it there is no contradiction?

And this is somehow because i change the definitions of words? What word definition did I change to make the comments a contradiction when I say them, but not a contradiction when you say the?

The fact is that you took two different comments for two different arguments and tried to claim there was some sort of contradiction.......but only when I say it......when you say the exact same thing somehow there is no contradiction.

You fail at logic.

fred..no offense sir but do you have a job..you are spending way to much time on boards like this fighting with complete strangers..  

you do realize this dude

[McC]

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

Oh, wait.....

I don't see why both can't be true.  In fact, both are true.  It is true that Marvin beat Bill, proving it's not impossible.  It is also true that the past doesn't dictate the future.

Yesterday, the baby couldn't walk.  Doesn't mean he won't in the future.

[Savagehenry54]

(09-29-2015, 02:38 PM)Trademark Wrote: He said on ESPN that the Bengals can compete with the Patriots and he called Eifert a mini Gronk he said there isn't any doubt that the Bengals can play with them defensively and offensively and he said that we are probably more explosive than the Patriots and showed our defense and said it would be an interesting matchup f they cross paths in the playoffs. Thought that was pretty good insight, thoughts ?

Key would be Atkins and Dunlap rattling Brady. Do that and they can be had.

[McC]

(09-30-2015, 05:07 PM)Savagehenry54 Wrote: Key would be Atkins and Dunlap rattling Brady.  Do that and they can be had.

That would be the ideal.  But I can almost guarantee their game plan will be for Brady to get the ball out lightning quick, so you will have to be able to stop that.

[djs7685]

(09-30-2015, 04:48 PM)McC Wrote: I don't see why both can't be true.  In fact, both are true.  It is true that Marvin beat Bill, proving it's not impossible.  It is also true that the past doesn't dictate the future.

Yesterday, the baby couldn't walk.  Doesn't mean he won't in the future.

If the past doesn't dictate the future, you can't use the past as the reason why something is possible in the future.

The two statements contradict each other. That's just the way it is with the wording of each sentence. I'm not the guy that created the words and I didn't define them. It's mind blowing that there are people that think certain words don't have absolutely defined meanings.

This has nothing to do with your baby analogy, completely different case here. I'll try to explain yet again...

Marvin CAN beat Bill, but it has absolutely nothing to do with 2013. The statement that Marvin can beat Bill is absolutely the truth, but not for the reason that you and Fred are claiming. 2013 has no bearing whatsoever on the possibility of the event happening in the 2015 playoffs. If you're going to claim the past doesn't dictate the future, you especially can't claim the reason Marvin can beat Bill has something to do with 2013. You'd be wrong on 2 different levels if that's your claim.

[fredtoast]

(09-30-2015, 06:29 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Marvin CAN beat Bill, but it has absolutely nothing to do with 2013. The statement that Marvin can beat Bill is absolutely the truth, but not for the reason that you and Fred are claiming. 

You are starting to get nit, bit I don't think you realize it.

There are two different arguments here, and you are trying to mash them  into one.  You are taking my comments out of context to create a contradiction that does not exist.

The statement that it is impossible for Marvin to beat Belichick is disproven by the fact that Marvin has already beaten Belichick.  That is a logical "proof".  if you want to disagree with this argument then lets have that conversation.  I want to here your argument that it is still impossible for Marvin to beat Belichick even though it has already happened.

The second argument is that the past dictates the future.  If you want to argue that the past DOES dictate the future then I will also gladly have that discussion with you.

But it is impossible for you to agree with BOTH of my statements and then say there is a contradiction.  You can't the argument used to disprove one simple claim and then try and apply it to a totally different claim.

And you can't claim a contradiction when you agree with BOTH comments.

[fredtoast]

(09-30-2015, 02:51 PM)xavierdude Wrote: most people that critisize the bengals just deal with the facts.. a good football  team but not yet a very good football team that can win in the playoffs Fred..we do have a clue. It is you that is in denial.

It is people like you that feel that making the playoffs is a successful season. the real season  begins with the playoffs

Most people might, but Crazydawg was not.  That is why I quted his post to respond to.

Don't know what the rest of that driviel has to do with Crazydawg not having a clue about what happened in the New England game.

[fredtoast]

(09-30-2015, 02:53 PM)xavierdude Wrote: fred..no offense sir but do you have a job..you are spending way to much time on boards like this fighting with complete strangers..  

you do realize this dude

I am self employed.  I can do what I want.  Maybe you should try it.

What are you doing with your free time?  Curing cancer?  Please tell us all so that we can understand why you think you have the right to criticize what other people do.

[fredtoast]

(09-30-2015, 02:46 PM)xavierdude Wrote: fred ..stay on point..you said the very exact thing last year at this time and were proven wrong..you told us all how the bengals would handle the injured and off kilter patriots after the drubbing they received at kansas city..

twas not me that even spoke about making the playoffs ..although losing the last four playoff games speaks volumes

twas not me that said anything about the broncos last year..and by the way..the broncos aint that great anymore

I have not gotten off point at all.

Are you claiming that you have never been wrong with any predictions about the Bengals?

Are you claiming that you predicted they would make the playoffs each of the last four years?

Are you claiming that you predicted we would beat the Broncos last year?

Are you man enough to admit, because it is pretty clear from all of your posts here that you have been wrong before.

[*ochocincos*]

The arguing over whether the Bengals could beat the Patriots can be argued different ways.

The Bengals have proven that they CAN because they've beaten the Patriots once in the six matchups since Belichick and Lewis have been the HCs for their respective teams (Bengals 13-6 in 2013).

However, it could easily be argued that the Bengals have hardly any chance to beat the Patriots for when Hodge is talking about, which is the postseason. The reason? Look at how the two teams have performed in the postseason since both HCs have taken over their respective franchises.

The fact of the matter is that if healthy, the Bengals have a VERY talented team that could compete with and possibly beat the Patriots. However, given the playoff records of both teams since 2003, there will be a ton of skepticism unless 1) the Bengals actually win 1 or more playoff games this year, and then 2) the Bengals actually play and beat the Patriots in the postseason.

I, for one, agree with Hodge that the Bengals could compete with the Patriots if the playoffs were this weekend and they were playing each other. But the season has to play out and injuries will happen to both teams in some way. It would be great for both Marvin Lewis and the Bengals to get a win against the Patriots in the posteason, but the Patriots would be a HUGE favorite going into such a game (rightfully so).

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(10-01-2015, 11:44 AM)ochocincos Wrote: The arguing over whether the Bengals could beat the Patriots can be argued different ways.

The Bengals have proven that they CAN because they've beaten the Patriots once in the six matchups since Belichick and Lewis have been the HCs for their respective teams (Bengals 13-6 in 2013).

However, it could easily be argued that the Bengals have hardly any chance to beat the Patriots for when Hodge is talking about, which is the postseason. The reason? Look at how the two teams have performed in the postseason since both HCs have taken over their respective franchises.

The fact of the matter is that if healthy, the Bengals have a VERY talented team that could compete with and possibly beat the Patriots. However, given the playoff records of both teams since 2003, there will be a ton of skepticism unless 1) the Bengals actually win 1 or more playoff games this year, and then 2) the Bengals actually play and beat the Patriots in the postseason.

I, for one, agree with Hodge that the Bengals could compete with the Patriots if the playoffs were this weekend and they were playing each other. But the season has to play out and injuries will happen to both teams in some way. It would be great for both Marvin Lewis and the Bengals to get a win against the Patriots in the posteason, but the Patriots would be a HUGE favorite going into such a game (rightfully so).

Cannot disagree with any of this Ochocincos. Plus if injuries pile up on both teams i could never see Marv outcoaching BB in that situation.

We have to be healthy to compete with them in the Postseason.

[Sweetness]

The majority of the last couple pages of this thread have been so facepalm. I think we're all losers here for either having to read it or for participating in it...

[Captain Happy Pants]

(09-29-2015, 03:37 PM)yellowxdiscipline Wrote: Hoodie > Giggles

always.

Bill will find a way to outcoach Marvin. That's our one glaring weakness in a matchup with the Patriots.

I wouldn't say that's the ONE glaring weakness.  Dalton looks good so far but let's not compare him to Brady

[McC]

(09-30-2015, 06:29 PM)djs7685 Wrote: If the past doesn't dictate the future, you can't use the past as the reason why something is possible in the future.

The two statements contradict each other. That's just the way it is with the wording of each sentence. I'm not the guy that created the words and I didn't define them. It's mind blowing that there are people that think certain words don't have absolutely defined meanings.

This has nothing to do with your baby analogy, completely different case here. I'll try to explain yet again...

Marvin CAN beat Bill, but it has absolutely nothing to do with 2013. The statement that Marvin can beat Bill is absolutely the truth, but not for the reason that you and Fred are claiming. 2013 has no bearing whatsoever on the possibility of the event happening in the 2015 playoffs. If you're going to claim the past doesn't dictate the future, you especially can't claim the reason Marvin can beat Bill has something to do with 2013. You'd be wrong on 2 different levels if that's your claim.

Once something has happened, the word impossible can never be applied to it ever again.    Ever.  Until the end of time.  That is the meaning of the word.  It doesn't have to happen again and again.  Once is all it takes.  That's not the past dictating the future.  That is the law of language dictating the meaning of a word.  That is the law of the universe dictating the way things work.

If something happens once, there is no guarantee it will ever happen again, just like something having never happened is no guarantee it can't happen.

But something happening is clearly and without a doubt proof that it is possible.  Marvin beating Bill is not proof that he ever will again but it is proof that it is not impossible.  Highly unlikely, once in a blue moon, really doubtful, snowball's chance in hell, maybe.  Impossible, absolutely not.