Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by bbqpitlover, Oct 16, 2019.
An elaborate experiment into how effective misinformation can be spread and believed.
It's actually a very simple comparison.
The physics and pictures from space point toward the Earth being round - The numbers and accomplishments point toward Brady being the GOAT
A lot of people were initially reluctant to believe the Earth was round - A lot of people were initially reluctant to believe Brady is the GOAT
A small vocal group of people still think the Earth is flat - A small vocal group of people still think Manning is better than Brady
It's simple math man
Actually, the Earth is an oblate spheroid.
One can test whether the Earth is more spherical or flat, but there's no way to actually "test" whether Brady is the GOAT.
How "great" someone is depends on how people values things, and people disagree on what the most important measures for greatness are. For you SB wins and popular opinion are what matter most (btw.. using popular opinion as "evidence" will inevitably backfire in future arguments when you disagree with popular opinion).
Me? I prefer to look at passing efficiency and wins added over a long career instead of something far more dependent on specific circumstances like number of SB wins. And of course other posters might value other things.
So there's no "truth" here like with the Earth being spherical.
In any case, a great deal of statistical evidence has been presented suggesting that it's not so clear cut who the GOAT is.
And weren’t you the guy who put up some garbage from 2009.... to express some point.
I’ve spoken to 4 astronauts (all Japanese) who have gone into space and told me what they saw from the ISS.
They are idiots and that is as factual as the earth not being flat.
I once had an argument with a flat earth believer and when I calmly explained to him that the idea was ludicrous (which it undeniably is unless you believe every satellite, GPS, photograph, space mission, other observed celestial objects are fake), he got offended that I had a closed mind and started cursing me out. I realized quickly that he was a moron beyond repair.
Flat earthers are of the same ilk of the conspiracy nuts that think every mass shooting is staged or these QAnon head cases. Probably suffering from paranoid delusions that everything is a grand conspiracy.
From what I have read it’s more about people not understanding non-euclidian geometry. We get taught in elementary school that it takes four 90 degree turns and equal distance travelled to return to your start point (i.e. a square). Which works on flat planes, and for most of human endeavors the part of the earth they on is functionally flat for Euclidian geometry to work.
However when you get to large distances, you need three 90 degree turns and an equal distance travelled to return to your origin point. [example: Start at the north pole, travel due south until you hit the tropic of cancer, turn 90 degrees left and you are facing East. Travel the same distance eastwards. Turn 90 degrees left, and you are facing north. Traveling the same distance returns you you to the north pole]. On a curved spheroid surface Euclidian geometry no longer works, but this is something flat Earthers cannot comprehend.
Regarding the moon landing. About 20 years ago I visited the Parkes radio telescope in Australia and it was at the time one of “The Moon landing was hoaxed” documentaries was out. One of the old technicians in his 60s was doing the tour and when the hoax documentary thing came up he stopped and said
“In 1969 we pointed this thing (points to the huge radio dish) at that thing (points to the moon in the sky) and got radio signals back. I was there. It happened.”
NB Parkes was one of the 2 stations who got and relayed the moon walk signal. The reason the picture is so snowy and grainy is that there was a gale blowing at the time and they were operating the radio telescope beyond its safe limits.
I think it is incorrect in calling them stupid. Studies show that many intelligent people can go down rabbit holes and come out in believing something that is very false.
A lot of these people are lonely and they find a community that accepts them. Then they go down a rabbit hole and start to get ostracized by the people who are outside their community. Then at a certain point, they risk losing the only community that accepts them.
The person gets offended because not only are you challenging their viewpoint, you are trying to get them to leave a community that accepts them, while also going against their identity.
Conspiracy theories are fun. I spent a few years just obsessed with them. There are a few I believe in because they make so much sense.
Nothing as big as Qanon and flat earth.
It's one thing to believe that the Oswald was not the only shooter or involved at all in the death of JFK.
Magic Bullet theory
Military Industrial Complex anger at Kennedy not endorsing a full scale Vietnam operation
Bay of Pigs
RFK prosecuting the mob after the mob helped JFK win the election.
all those things could logically have you believe that it is possible the JFK murder was a conspiracy.
As for flat earthers or Newton massacre deniers there is nothing remotely close to entertain a conversation or even debate. It's stupidity at the highest level.
My favorite one is that he was accidentally shot by a member of the Secret Service who paniced during the confusing.
Hi everyone! I still like Ryan Tannehill.
I figured I'd say that to keep this thread on topic so it can make it another 147 pages off-topic. You can thank me later for this heroic deed!
Regarding flat Earth theory and NFL QB's (trying to tie these topics together lol), remember when Kyrie Irving came out and said he believed in a flat Earth? The one NFL QB that supported Irving was Geno Smith.. ironically one of the most inaccurate QB's in the NFL lol:
Also, there's a whole lot of context lost in all of those games just looking at the win-loss record in a vacuum, but as you mentioned usually when a QB has to throw the ball that much it means they're down late or fell behind multiple scores early. 50 attempts is arbitrary, but it's really cool that not many QBs can claim a winning record in that context.
The earth is round. We have space orbiters that can see how round earth is. Duh
We should use some space orbiters to see who the GOAT QB is.
But every proof offered is actually an appeal to authority.
You can replicate almost every experiment done in classical physics yourself, so physics pre-1900 (1900 isn't an arbitrary year, it's the year of the first key discovery that led to quantum mechanics, which is a totally different kind of physics), though keep in mind some of these experiments require GREAT care on part of the experimenter.
And one reason I said the one fool-proof argument here is gravitation is because you can verify this yourself if you really want. Specifically, the Cavendish experiment in 1798 actually measured the extremely faint gravitational pull between two everyday objects and also confirmed (to the precision that was possible) Newton's theory of gravitation. It also measured the mass and density of the Earth:
So if your friend is REALLY interested in the science (and I can tell he's not.. anyone who would even try arguing against gravitation doesn't know physics) he should repeat the Cavendish experiment, re-verify Newton's law, and realize that a mathematical consequence of verifying Newton's law for any two objects means that for any number of objects with ANY distribution of mass (and density) you'll have some point that's the center of gravity. And once you have center of gravity, a flat Earth means you'll be pulled sideways with gravity.
No way around it. Tell your friend that if he's really serious he should repeat the Cavendish experiment.
And btw.. the reason all these scientists and engineers that made GPS and modern day telecommunications possible, calculate trajectories of ballistic missiles, took us to the moon, built the ISS, etc.. are in positions of authority is because they're not idiots that believe in a flat Earth.
So you're lazy and not very good at math. You can bow out now.
#Titans QB Ryan Tannehill has hired new representation prior to hitting free agency or being franchise tagged. He’ll now work with Brian Ayrault and Todd France of
. The same agency also represents FA RB Derrick Henry.
It'll be interesting to see what kind of performance a team gets out of both Tannehill and Henry when they aren't in the second half of a contract year, prior to both players' final, big contracts in the league. Tannehill isn't likely to get another big contract after his next one because of his age, and Henry isn't likely to get another one after his next one because of the longevity associated with the position he plays. Both players had to be ultra-motivated this past year. If they weren't they aren't human.
Big decision for Jon Robinson. I feel like one of them will get tagged.
I think it is incredibly fitting in a symbolic way that this THill discussion devolved into a Flat Earth conspiracy discussion.
Titans should sign Henry and tag THill imo, unless he is willing to take a very reasonable deal. I would definitely not want to hitch my wagon to that train at this point, despite his overall solid play this year.
Yeah I agree that's the best course of action. Henry is the real deal. Tannehill had an amazing year but as a GM I'd want one more year of proof he can play at a high level (doesn't need to be as high as 2019.. top 5-10ish would suffice) before I commit. Once teams have a season's worth of game tape it's a different ballgame, and if you can STILL play at a high level.. then you're a keeper.
Do you think Tannehill was doing different things last season with Tennessee than his previous 6 years? I'm not sure that i would expect a drop due to defenses analyzing last seasons tape...
He seemed a lot more confident than I ever saw him in Miami and also took a leadership role like he didn't here (he seemed to understand game situation a lot better), but otherwise his strengths and weaknesses were similar IMO.
That's beside the point though. I think Tennessee took the NFL by surprise, and it's just generally the case that when other teams have a full offseason to adjust you can see diminished performances afterwards. Or.. you don't and you know you have something that works even when the opponent has time to adjust to it.
So as a GM I'd sign Henry and tag Tannehill. The potential for being wrong by signing Tannehill long term only to see that what he did isn't reproducible (and again I don't mean necessarily 2019 levels of performance.. just top 5-10) is too big a risk to take IMO, especially when you can tag the guy. Tag Tannehill, and if he does well again then sign him big.
I think the question is whether you're going to get the synergy between Henry and Tannehill when neither of them is any longer in a contract year. Certainly if Tannehill is tagged you could argue he remains in a "contract year," but on the other hand that would equal upwards of $25M guaranteed, which is certainly a better financial position than he was in this year.
Generally speaking, I don't like paying running backs a ton of money...
My broom is standing up by itself...confirmed earth is flat!!!
Is there any evidence that players perform much better in contract years? Not saying I like the methods of analysis FO did here:
but they found no contract year effect in the NFL. I think before pushing this theory of yours you need to find evidence for it.
Another excellent response.
I doubt the poster will consider it or even read about the experiment.
Interestingly, the experiment is not too complex and is very similar to a ballistic pendulum. A ballistic pendulum is used to determine the force of a bullet fired from a known distance. It can be used to determine the speed and the energy of the bullet at the point of impact.
A suspended weight (the pendulum) is hit by a moving a force (the bullet). The result of this collision causes the pendulum to swing upward (against the force of gravity). The proportions of the suspended weight and the weight of the bullet can be used, along with the maximum angle of the pendulums swing to calculate the force of the impact. During this calculation, the speed of the bullet and its muzzle energy are derived.
I guess there really is nothing new under the sun. (There's a gravitational pun in there if you look for it).
I think this flat earth thing has got into some of the "flat earther's" heads.
I wonder if this means they are flat heads?
Without going stats ape sh.. on me, can you tell me what you SAW (and again not stat wise) on his weaknesses this YEAR than you seen last year in Miami? Im just curious on your take.
Wouldnt teams already have game tape on Tannehill? I mean its not like Tannehill hasn't been in the league for 7 plus years?
Yeah it's not tape on Tannehill per se they need, it's tape on the Tennessee offense with Henry + Tannehill. Your biggest weapon is Derrick Henry, and Tannehill proved he could play at an elite level efficiency wise when he's NOT the focal point of the offense. And you have one of the best RB's in the league that defenses have to focus on.
That's Tannehill's biggest weakness: you can't make him the focal point of an offense and rely on him to win games.
So what's probably going to happen this offseason is teams are going to study how best to take Henry out of the equation without sacrificing too much in pass protection. It's similar to what I think teams will do with Lamar Jackson's tape. They saw how poor a passer he is when you take away the threat of his running game, and I'm willing to bet Jackson won't be one of the top QB's passer rating wise next year after teams focus more on taking his running game away.
Of course, sometimes you just can't stop what's coming even if you know it. Mahomes is that type of QB. If Henry + Tannehill is that type of RB + QB combo then you guys are in great position to be in the playoffs each year. I'm not yet sold though, which is why as a GM I'd wait one extra year with Tannehill before signing him. Henry I'd sign now because he's the focal point of your offense.
Its hard being effiecent without a running game... unless your Mahomes and have weapons like Hill, Watkins, Kelce, etc...
Theres probably one QB in the league that was effiecent with lack of talent, and that was Brady throughout his career.
As much as I love Mahomes - he isnt Godly like either. I d love to see him thrive without offensive weapons at his disposal.
The dude both played with the human cheat code for eight solid seasons
A lack of talent has not been an issue for Brady and his supporting cast. He has played with a number of HoF types, has always had a consistently good line, good RBs and good WRs.