1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Shocking Danny stat

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by dirtylandry, Jul 6, 2017.

  1. Alex13

    Alex13 Tua Time !!! Club Member

    25,809
    39,060
    113
    Dec 21, 2007
    Berlin,Germany
    the only guy in here that should be destroyed for his posts is you
     
    Ohio Fanatic likes this.
  2. dirtylandry

    dirtylandry Well-Known Member

    4,214
    1,750
    113
    Aug 2, 2015
    Having a franchise qb pretty much kept us in most games and gave us a fighting chance for the playoffs. I guess that is all you can ask of. We have not had that since. Teams spend tons of money and make tons of trades and scout tons of hours building the perfect team. But all you need is the qb, the rest can be masked. A lot of people here that dog Marino forget what it was like to be spoiled for 17 years. Football was exciting. Some were too young. Was the line perfect? No. Was the defense great? Maybe a few years.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  3. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Jdang, I usually have great respect for your opinions but in this case I have to non-concur with your assessment of Marino. He wasn't magical for a few years and fell back to earth. He was magical his entire career.

    At the time of his retirement, only one other quarterback had more career wins than Dan Marino (155) and that was John Elway (162).
    At the time of his retirement, only one other quarterback had more regular season wins than Marino (147) and that was Elway (148).

    Now since his retirement, those numbers have been eclipsed by Favre, Manning and Brady but his numbers still eclipse Montana, Young, Cunningham and others you have mentioned and still eclipse the likes of Roethlisburger and Brees.

    In 17 seasons, Marino and the Dolphins appeared in 1 Super Bowl, 3 AFC Championship games and 8 Divisional Playoffs. Bottom line, when Dan Marino and the Miami Dolphins took the field, opposing teams were more apt to lose than win. The Dolphins were the team that no one wanted to face because with number 13 in the backfield, anything could happen.
     
    danmarino, dolphin25 and Silverphin like this.
  4. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Dan threw for 30 TDs 4 times, SY only twice, same as Jeff Garcia, so it's kind of an empty stat, and those 4 years SY led the league are the only years of his worth mentioning as far as production.

    Also, Dan carried his team, 36 4th qt comebacks and 51 GWDs, compared to SY, who had 14 4thQCs and 17 GWDs.

    SY was a cog in the machine, Dan was the machine, and saying he came down to earth is a bit misleading, he descended from space(the only QB to ever play there), to the upper stratosphere, would be more accurate imo, because he didn't become avg, as the saying suggests.
     
  5. dirtylandry

    dirtylandry Well-Known Member

    4,214
    1,750
    113
    Aug 2, 2015
    I have never been one to compare qb's or players from one era to another. The game changes between era's. The old Jordan vs Lebron is a waste. It is without a doubt, both of them are the greatest to ever play. Where you place them is a matter of opinion. When you have to chase those dudes for scoring or triple doubles, you know they were good.

    Back to the subject. Marino did what he did, without the stringent rules of coverage for 17 years, without a proper run game, and defenses that were average. Sure he made mistakes. But mistakes then cost more because teams seemed to be able to control the clock more with run games. today, being down by 10 with 1:34 remaining doesn't seem insurmountable. What Marino does not take credit for is redefining the aerial attack. People look today and it's a dime a dozen. But back then it wasn't. Is he one of the best? Sure is. Where he lies is a matter of opinion. But he has a yellow jacket and when you are in that class, no one is better than anyone else, you reach the epitome.

    Having Marino here for 17 years and thinking about it, puts it all in perspective for fans like me. We all know all you need is a qb. The rest is fluff. Sure you might win a title here and there, but give me the qb, elite play and all, and I know I'm in the mix every year. It makes a GM's job so much easier. In today's FA world, players will come and go, and fit into the system, but the qb, if he is elite, will give you success year in and year out. And sure the qb is as only good as the coach or philosophy. That's a wasted argument. BB needs TB just as TB needs BB.
     
    danmarino likes this.
  6. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    382
    507
    93
    Nov 16, 2013
    Actually I would say you are both right... because this is a made up game, you technically can only win by doing EXACTLY as the game defines winning, the game does not mention conceding in its rules. However, it is a known practice and considered appropriate/polite to allow an opponent to concede and not continue with the game. I'm not really interested in arguing the point, mainly felt like this was getting a little heated when maybe it didn't need to.
     
    resnor likes this.
  7. Ohio Fanatic

    Ohio Fanatic Twuaddle or bust Club Member

    32,070
    22,827
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Concord, MA
    First, it's Fin D. 2nd, your agenda to call out and attack Fin D on every occasion is getting old fast. Fin D has posted more quality in this forum than you - by a wide margin. try not to be as a## all the time.
     
    resnor likes this.
  8. dirtylandry

    dirtylandry Well-Known Member

    4,214
    1,750
    113
    Aug 2, 2015
    is that english?
    I just saw symbols
     
    Rickysabeast and dolphin25 like this.
  9. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Did Deep Blue win and Kasparov lose the first time a computer ever beat a chess champion?

    Every chess player answers yes, it's officially yes, but resnor's logic would say no because Kasparov resigned before his king got killed. So you can't lose if you resign before the last legal move???

    Did we win WW2? Germans and Japanese could have theoretically kept fighting after technically surrendering. No.. there's only one useful way to define winning here.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2017
  10. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    382
    507
    93
    Nov 16, 2013
    Again I'm really not taking sides. I believe a resign from connect four is a legit way to end the game.

    But a key element that is being overlooked here is that a game is made up, and when that game is made up there is generally a rule on what it takes to win. Connect 4 states the conditions that must be met to win a game. It does not allow for an option for conceding. It is generally accepted that you can do this, but if someone wants to be overly rigid in the rule you can claim with factual evidence that the game is not over with a conceded match. Obviously with a conceded match the person conceding is (most likely) claiming a loss, so why would the person that is being handed a win debate it?

    War does not come into play in this argument. There is no agreed upon winning criteria. You can concede, however the opponent can not accept your surrender and wipe out your civilization. At what point was the victory? You can claim it was when you conceded. However, the opponent will claim it was win they destroyed you.

    As for chess I don't claim to be an expert, but the wiki page states the rules as going till checkmated, player resigns, or a draw is declared. If that is the official rules then the rules themselves dictate that a resign can occur to end the game.

    The inventors of connect four didn't see the game as needing an out for their simple game. Once its known that you are going to lose, the game assumes you will take the extra 5 seconds to finish the game. Chess I can see why they add the rule. With the right sets of pieces on the board you could prolong a game for a very long time (at least with my level of expertise on the game I hate chasing that damn king).

    To add a twist to the logic, if someone starts a game and receives an emergency call and is forced to leave the game before any clear cut winner can be determined, is it a loss? You can argue both ways on it. In a tournament style it is most definitely a loss, however, those tournaments will have created tournament rules that most likely dictate that very event. Among friends though? I would never claim that as a victory.
     
    resnor likes this.
  11. dirtylandry

    dirtylandry Well-Known Member

    4,214
    1,750
    113
    Aug 2, 2015
    so basically you can win in less than four moves
     
  12. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Right. Someone can choose to concede, but they don't have to. My point is, IF the game were won after 3 moves, then it would mean that the opponent could not make another move. They can chose to concede, but the game technically was not over.
     
  13. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    382
    507
    93
    Nov 16, 2013
    LOL well if you were playing against me yes you can win in less then 4 moves. but I'm a rebel that way...
     
  14. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I don't think the scenario that was concocted is every realistic, but concession could happen after one move. Once the game is won, the opponent cannot make a move. After 3 moves, the opponent can still make a move.

    This is a simple concept.
     
  15. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Well.. first of all if you agree that "a resign from connect four is a legit way to end the game" (your first sentence) then you are taking sides. You're agreeing with me that it is theoretically possible to win in a game of connect 4 by resignation.

    As far as chess is concerned, it's a perfect analog to connect 4 in this debate because there are no rules of the game of chess itself that deal with "resignation". The only way to technically end a game in chess is through checkmate. The rules you're referencing are competition rules.

    Which brings us to the more important point here and the reason I got a bit upset before: we all speak the same language and you can't just argue that your personal definition of a word should be used by others without considering the consequences of people using that definition.

    If people use resnor's definition, you'd have to literally invent a new word that means what we generally understand by "win" today or you can't interpret all the official "wins" and "losses" (using the definition used before resnor's suggestion) in competitions where the game itself specifies a set of possible legal last moves that were never made.

    That's also the reason you can look at things like war or anything else where the word "win" is used even though there are no "legal" last moves (there are physical last moves though). "Win" is generally defined as "be successful or victorious in a contest or conflict". And we're not using two different definitions of that word when talking about war or chess. We would have to if we used resnor's definition.

    Point is, if we take resnor's definition seriously, it would be intellectual chaos.

    And thinking about it that way, I can just state that resnor is essentially wrong "by definition" because Deep Blue was officially successful/victorious in a contest against Kasparov proving that you can theoretically win a game without playing the last legal move.
     
  16. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    The point is, cbrad, my initial problem with this was the statement that you can win in 3 moves. Only through resignation, though, which wasn't specified, and, frankly, if your opponent can still technically make a move, then you haven't won. Once you have won, by connecting 4, then the opponent can no longer play a piece. Resignation is not really winning here, as you can resign at any point. In fact, if you are the second person to go, and your opponent starts in the middle, it's best to resign after that move, as its almost impossible to win at that point, and there is a mathematical study that shows that. But, it would be incorrect to state that I can win after one move based on that.

    Also note, this started with dirty having a pissing contest with FinD.
     
  17. MonstBlitz

    MonstBlitz Nobody's Fart Catcher

    21,176
    10,130
    113
    Jan 14, 2008
    Hornell, NY
    This. End thread. It's a pity that this comment that 100% completely addresses any question posed by the OP is getting buried in nonsense.
     
  18. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    There is definitely a legal "last move" in war. It's when one side signs the peace agreement. Its why we have a date that WWII ended, for instance.
     
  19. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    So you still don't agree that one can win the game as long as there is the possibility of technically making another move. Sorry dude, that's just provably not true.

    And yes I understand the context of the argument before I made a comment, but I focused only on one specific argument.

    And what date would that be? Japan and the Soviet Union never signed a peace treaty (the one in 1951). So if you wish WW2 never ended, yet the Allies (including the Soviets) definitely won. Also.. most people say WW2 ended in 1945, not when the peace treaty was signed.
     
  20. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    If the game can continue, is it won?

    You said there is no legal basis for the end of a war. There is.
     
  21. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    WWII ended on May 8, 1945, when we accepted the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers.
     
  22. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    There is no legal basis in the same manner as there is for a "made up" game of connect 4 or chess is what I was responding to. Proof of that is that fighting can go on after any "legal" end to the war.

    And yes, the game is won even though it could continue. That's why there's an official "win" for Deep Blue even though Kasparov's king was never killed.

    I see.. so WW2 according to you ended BEFORE both atomic bombs were dropped.
     
  23. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Its not according to me. That is the date WWII ended.
     
  24. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    What source are you looking at?

    Let me help you out a bit. There's something called the Potsdam Declaration calling on Japan's surrender that the Emperor of Japan in a broadcast on August 15th, 1945 agreed to. This was after the dropping of the atomic bombs on August 6th and August 9th, and after the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8th.

    The official surrender ceremony for Japan took place on September 2nd, 1945 though the occupation by the US (technically Allies, but we all know it's the US) started on August 28th.

    Here are some links:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Surrender

    You were referencing only the war in Europe.
     
  25. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Point was, Marino threw for 48 then 44 then never really came close again. He was magical then. All of a sudden he's never leading the league in TDs anymore. He came back down to earth. Hes throwing for 28 TDs but 23 INTS in his prime. Then 24 and 22. If you think that's upper stratosphere well that's your prerogative.

    48 TDs we can accept high INTS. 25 TDs not so much. When you look at Dans overall TD% it's 5.0%. Steve Youngs is 5.6%. When you break it down Dans career after 88 is pretty good. Not great. After 1997 his TD # is in the mid 4s or so. It's the magical 4-5 early years which lifts his entire career upwards.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2017
  26. dirtylandry

    dirtylandry Well-Known Member

    4,214
    1,750
    113
    Aug 2, 2015
    let's discount his last three years with JJ and 1993 when he got hurt. After his 44 TD year, he averaged:
    24 TD's and 15 Int's. I agree with your logic
     
    jdang307 likes this.
  27. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    So you found a legal basis for the end of a war?
     
  28. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Oh you just ignored post #102 where I explained to you that I was responding to the claim you don't have the same kind of agreed upon rules for war as in "made up" games like chess or connect 4 so that there's no "last legal move". As I said already, proof of that is fighting can still continue even after any such "legal end" to the war. In fact, the last Japanese soldier that was actively fighting WW2 surrendered in 1974!!

    No such possibility exists for the "made up" games like connect 4 or chess.
     
  29. dirtylandry

    dirtylandry Well-Known Member

    4,214
    1,750
    113
    Aug 2, 2015
    Im still fighting WW2 myself and it is 2017. I went to the sushi house the other day and was defending Merica
     
    Rickysabeast and resnor like this.
  30. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    382
    507
    93
    Nov 16, 2013
    I'm not taking sides, because I agree you can end a game this way, I would also agree to finish if the person I was playing said we had to finish for the game to be complete. For me, there are always rules we called "house rules". These rules aren't official, but both sides agree to play by them. resigning from the game when the game's required criteria for victory are not met, is a classic example of house rules.

    Its fine, I'm not sure why this is a sticking point, I will just agree to disagree while agreeing, but grudgingly... yep that covers it.
     
  31. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Here's my last post on Connect Four (from the official rules):

    To win Connect Four you must be the first player to get four of your colored checkers in a row either horizontally, vertically or diagonally.
     
  32. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Ah, but you're pointing out the reality of the situation: what determines "winning" is NOT the rules of the game of chess per se or the rules of connect 4 per se but instead the "competition" rules, which includes house rules. That's the way you, me and almost everyone else understands it.

    That is logically inconsistent with what resnor is saying and logically consistent with what I'm saying. Just to be clear, saying it's theoretically possible to win by resignation doesn't mean every set of competition rules must allow win by resignation even though every official competition I know of does that. It just means that you don't always have to play to the last legal move to win.

    So yes I agree.. you're grudgingly agreeing with me and disagreeing with resnor.
     
  33. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah we get it. For me, your inability to see that one can win without actually connecting four because the rules of deciding who wins or not are NOT the rules of the game per se but instead are competition rules is just a good non-stat example of something that you seem to have difficulty understanding.

    It's fine.. time to move on, but I wanted your position on this to be crystal clear for future reference before moving on.
     
  34. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Your position is the one that's odd. You are redefining winning at Connect Four, outside of the rules, and criticizing me because I disagree.
     
  35. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    he's actually just telling you what the universal rule is for any competition. If one forfeits the other wins. That rule is transcendent really.

    If you play to the end, yes you have to connect four. If one side sees defeat, and quits, the other side wins.

    Youre both right.
     
  36. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Just so it's clear, we can't both be right. resnor's position is logically inconsistent with mine. You're agreeing with me here.
     
  37. ChrisKo

    ChrisKo Season Ticket Holder

    3,304
    2,590
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Desert
    Holy crap, you guys are really starting to take what little fun remains from reading this forum. A thread about a Marino stat starts debates about Connect 4 and WWII? Can you guys just stop your constant rooster measuring contests and always having to "win" every little debate or disagreement?
     
    The_Dark_Knight likes this.
  38. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    You've complained about this before. I think you'll have a much better experience if you put me on ignore because I care a ton about getting things right. It's not a rooster measuring contest from my perspective. For me it's just about what's accurate, or the best way to approach analyzing a problem. And I have no personal animosity towards resnor or whoever else I'm debating with when I focus on a problem.

    Anyway.. try putting me on ignore to improve your experience.
     
    resnor likes this.
  39. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Yeah, neither one of us are angry or upset...and I'm much in the same boat, I get caught up in semantics sometimes.

    Sorry for ruining your experience, and I genuinely mean that.
     
    cbrad likes this.
  40. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    It's not about winning, it's about having conviction!

    I tell my wife that every time I prove her wrong.
     
    resnor likes this.

Share This Page