Tua is not the Problem

"cbrad wrote:

See.. this is where the lack of integrity comes in. How about we revisit your posts again. You said this:

Clear LIE.

You also kept saying this:

Nice. You've now resorted to chopping up posts to play gotchas. I'll play. They weren't the number #1 defense when they played them. They were #2. It's factually accurate they weren't rated #1. Your turn.

"cbrad wrote:

Clear LIE given it was at least 2 posters, with one of them talking about 2 defenses.

And now you're repeating the claim

Clear LIE again. YOU made the link.

This is all on top of your made up "facts" about passer rating not taking into account Y/A, about "reading" that IAY/A has a higher correlation to win% than passer rating, etc. All LIES. And you can't own up to them either.

Nope. Again, this is you conflating calling a team overrated and saying they are weak due to injuries. Keep digging that hole instead of just owning up to it.

"StaleTacos wrote:

Nice. You've now resorted to chopping up posts to play gotchas. I'll play. They weren't the number #1 defense when they played them. They were #2. It's factually accurate they weren't rated #1. Your turn.

Nope. Again, this is you conflating calling a team overrated and saying they are weak due to injuries. Keep digging that hole instead of just owning up to it.

Yup. Can't own up to having made all kinds of unnecessary false claims. One day you'll realize it's better to own up early on in the debate so you don't dig yourself a hole like you did. Anyway, I stand by what I said. You're a troll and the most dishonest poster on this site.

Merry Christmas dude!

"cbrad wrote:

Yup. Can't own up to having made all kinds of unnecessary false claims. One day you'll realize it's better to own up early on in the debate so you don't dig yourself a hole like you did. Anyway, I stand by what I said. You're a troll and the most dishonest poster on this site.

Merry Christmas dude!

Even people on your "side" of the Tua debate said you were wrong with the "overrated" remark. I owned up to not seeing hitman's post. You though are on your own island of stubbornness and self-righteousness. Enjoy that and Merry Christmas to you too!

"StaleTacos wrote:

Even people on your "side" of the Tua debate said you were wrong with the "overrated" remark. I owned up to not seeing hitman's post. You though are on your own island of stubbornness and self-righteousness. Enjoy that and Merry Christmas to you too!

You haven't owned up to all the other false statements.

And TheHighExhaulted made that claim about me being wrong before he knew you literally said Buffalo's defense wasn't #1 when we played them, which is logically the same as saying they were overrated when we played them (my claim). If somehow TheHighExhaulted still thinks I'm wrong I'll argue with him too. But I doubt he still holds that opinion. Pretty clear I was right.

"cbrad wrote:

You haven't owned up to all the other false statements.

And TheHighExhaulted made that claim about me being wrong before he knew you literally said Buffalo's defense wasn't #1 when we played them, which is logically the same as saying they were overrated when we played them (my claim). If somehow TheHighExhaulted still thinks I'm wrong I'll argue with him too. But I doubt he still holds that opinion. Pretty clear I was right.

Cbrad, I am with you because Tacos is twisting his language.

Tacos, you know what you're doing, you are arguing "something" without actually saying that "something". You aren't objective enough, with your extreme non-Tua narrative, to get away with the "I meant something without saying the something else" routine.

"Sceeto wrote:

“Tua misses Pro Bowl”

Classic Sceeto. No football knowledge or real opinion. Just copy and paste.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I felt bad for Zach Wilson tonight. And, Dolphins fans better be glad that Tua isn't a clueless, non-aware quarterback that Wilson is.

Be grateful of what you have under center.

I have the other one on ignore, so for a moment...

"cbrad wrote:

No it's not a misunderstanding. He's just a lier. Check out this page:
https://thephins.com/threads/tua-is-not-the-problem.96818/page-81

I kept saying Buffalo's defense was #1 ranked at that time despite injuries and that it was a strong defense Tua faced. StaleTacos repeatedly kept on saying there's no way what I'm saying has merit because of all the injuries Buffalo had. That's logically the same thing as claiming the defensive ranking is not accurate when we played them irrespective of the use of the word "overrated". This isn't about a word, it's about the claim being made that defenses Tua faced were overrated.

StaleTacos is just a troll. He's not an honest poster. And he lied about his stance regarding defensive rankings too.

You can't say he's saying something, that he isn't saying, because you deem it to mean the same thing.

Just stop.

"cbrad wrote:

See.. this is where the lack of integrity comes in. How about we revisit your posts again. You said this:

Clear LIE.

You also kept saying this:

Clear LIE given it was at least 2 posters, with one of them talking about 2 defenses.

And now you're repeating the claim

Clear LIE again. YOU made the link.

This is all on top of your made up "facts" about passer rating not taking into account Y/A, about "reading" that IAY/A has a higher correlation to win% than passer rating, etc. All LIES. And you can't own up to them either.

What were the multiple defenses?

"cbrad wrote:

Yeah sure. Someone falsely attacks my integrity you can expect hell back from me. It's clear who's being dishonest here.

You're running around calling people liars, calling people trolls, while lumping people together...it's not like you're your attempting to defuse the conversation or simply move on. You aren't a victim in this.

Just because some people didn't use the word "overrated", doesn't mean it wasn't implied.

"resnor wrote:

You can't say he's saying something, that he isn't saying, because you deem it to mean the same thing.

Just stop.

"resnor wrote:

What were the multiple defenses?

"resnor wrote:

You're running around calling people liars, calling people trolls, while lumping people together...it's not like you're your attempting to defuse the conversation or simply move on. You aren't a victim in this.

Did you bother to read the conversation I linked to? Read from page 80-81:
https://thephins.com/threads/tua-is-not-the-problem.96818/page-80
https://thephins.com/threads/tua-is-not-the-problem.96818/page-81

Unless you have issues with English comprehension, the claims made there were about how Tua did not play well against good teams and good defenses. I and others pointed out that Buffalo's defense was ranked #1 (or #2) despite the injuries. In response, the argument was repeatedly made that Buffalo's #1/#2 ranking was not accurate for the game that we played against them because of the injuries. This was completely revisionist. It was not something claimed before the game, only after the game after Tua played well against Buffalo.

The issue here is not about using the word "overrated". I mean if it's about the word itself, then why not attack me for putting quotes around "oh the defenses he faced were overrated". I put the quotes around the entire phrase, not the word per se. No one said precisely that entire phrase. Clearly I'm referring to the claim that multiple posters here for multiple games claimed after the fact that strong defenses Tua played against were actually "overrated", and StaleTacos literally claimed the #1 ranking didn't apply to that game.

And I already explained what the multiple defenses were. You're not reading the posts. At minimum, both Buffalo games. What I said is true. In fact you explicitly agreed with it. There is no misrepresentation going on, and yes StaleTacos is a liar and a troll. I proved the former very clearly. The latter is an opinion.

"cbrad wrote:

Did you bother to read the conversation I linked to? Read from page 80-81:
https://thephins.com/threads/tua-is-not-the-problem.96818/page-80
https://thephins.com/threads/tua-is-not-the-problem.96818/page-81

Unless you have issues with English comprehension, the claims made there were about how Tua did not play well against good teams and good defenses. I and others pointed out that Buffalo's defense was ranked #1 (or #2) despite the injuries. In response, the argument was repeatedly made that Buffalo's #1/#2 ranking was not accurate for the game that we played against them because of the injuries. This was completely revisionist. It was not something claimed before the game, only after the game after Tua played well against Buffalo.

The issue here is not about using the word "overrated". I mean if it's about the word itself, then why not attack me for putting quotes around "oh the defenses he faced were overrated". I put the quotes around the entire phrase, not the word per se. No one said precisely that entire phrase. Clearly I'm referring to the claim that multiple posters here for multiple games claimed after the fact that strong defenses Tua played against were actually "overrated", and StaleTacos literally claimed the #1 ranking didn't apply to that game.

And I already explained what the multiple defenses were. You're not reading the posts. At minimum, both Buffalo games. What I said is true. In fact you explicitly agreed with it. There is no misrepresentation going on, and yes StaleTacos is a liar and a troll. I proved the former very clearly. The latter is an opinion.

Again, you're not attempting to defuse. Now you're insulting me and my grasp of English, wanting to argue with me. I could play your card, and talk about how I was an English major: voracious reader who always scored phenomenally on reading comprehension tested.

But I won't. I'll just say, again, that you are claiming people are saying things, that they didn't say, because, in your opinion, they mean the same thing.

Stop it.

"resnor wrote:

Again, you're not attempting to defuse. Now you're insulting me and my grasp of English, wanting to argue with me. I could play your card, and talk about how I was an English major: voracious reader who always scored phenomenally on reading comprehension tested.

But I won't. I'll just say, again, that you are claiming people are saying things, that they didn't say, because, in your opinion, they mean the same thing.

Stop it.

Of course I'm not going to defuse. I was falsely accused of misrepresenting things by someone who repeatedly made false claims. And yes I'll accuse you of your grasp of English if you can't see that someone literally saying "They weren't the #1 defense when we played them" in the context of arguing the defense was not "good" means the ranking was too high, i.e., the defense was "overrated". That's literally what that means: "overrated", precisely what I claimed.

So why don't you stop it. I didn't misrepresent anything in the post you explicitly agreed with.

Also, let's put this all in context. The anti-Tua posters have been trying their revisionist history for months. So often when Tua proves he can do something they said he couldn't, instead of acknowledging it they act like it wasn't a "true" test. They're being called out on it, and they can't defend themselves against that accusation (the evidence is overwhelming). So what's their next lame attempt? Yeah trying to play word games and deflect from the fact they're playing revisionist history. That's really what's going on here.

Nothing to defuse. It's important to set the record straight.

"Tua misses flag football game". He won't be eligible to play anyway.

"Tuanon4Life wrote:

"Tua misses flag football game". He won't be eligible to play anyway.

First of all, best username ever!

Second, please don't come here just to troll others. Most of us here try to play nice with each other.

"KeyFin wrote:

First of all, best username ever!

Second, please don't come here just to troll others. Most of us here try to play nice with each other.

I've been a guest for years. Finally decided to jump on in. Thanks for the support and I'm not here to troll. I'm just a glass half full kind of guy happy with the direction we're headed. I see three very winnable games ahead with a great opportunity to get on a hot streak going into the playoffs.

Tua is the best QB we have had in over 20 years. Cant we just be happy and hope the defense plays better? He won't awe you with laser throws on the run like Herbert. But as far away as he is from the Allen/Mahomes/Herberts from a raw talent ability, they are also all clearly trailing him in elite accuracy and anticipation.

He is perfect for our scheme and our offense.

Tua's been great. Since he's been here the team has been right in the mix for the postseason each year so far. Hopefully we can actually make it this year. With the Jets losing and the Pats potentially taking an L this weekend, we will be right in the mix again. I feel good about the playoffs with a healthy Tua. I think once we get there we have the ability to beat any team we play. Look at The Bengals last year. Nobody had them in the Super Bowl. They barely scraped by against the Raiders in the first game, and then all of a sudden just took off.

"cbrad wrote:

Of course I'm not going to defuse. I was falsely accused of misrepresenting things by someone who repeatedly made false claims. And yes I'll accuse you of your grasp of English if you can't see that someone literally saying "They weren't the #1 defense when we played them" in the context of arguing the defense was not "good" means the ranking was too high, i.e., the defense was "overrated". That's literally what that means: "overrated", precisely what I claimed.

So why don't you stop it. I didn't misrepresent anything in the post you explicitly agreed with.

Also, let's put this all in context. The anti-Tua posters have been trying their revisionist history for months. So often when Tua proves he can do something they said he couldn't, instead of acknowledging it they act like it wasn't a "true" test. They're being called out on it, and they can't defend themselves against that accusation (the evidence is overwhelming). So what's their next lame attempt? Yeah trying to play word games and deflect from the fact they're playing revisionist history. That's really what's going on here.

Nothing to defuse. It's important to set the record straight.

You are being ridiculous, going to stupid lengths to try to be right. Your third sentence says everything. He didn't say what you say he said, but saying that they weren't "the #1 defense when we played them" is not by any stretch saying they aren't good or they are overrated. You can assume whatever your want, but putting words in people's mouths is not an honest way of discussing.

Regardless of what YOU believe he meant.

"resnor wrote:

You are being ridiculous, going to stupid lengths to try to be right. Your third sentence says everything. He didn't say what you say he said, but saying that they weren't "the #1 defense when we played them" is not by any stretch saying they aren't good or they are overrated. You can assume whatever your want, but putting words in people's mouths is not an honest way of discussing.

Regardless of what YOU believe he meant.

OK so now you've conclusively proved you have an English comprehension issue. He said this in the links I provided:

He scored 13 points against NE who is the only good defensive team he faced

Not sure how much more obvious I can make this, but saying "NE is the only good defensive team he faced" means Buffalo was NOT a good defensive team when we faced them. That's a logical implication. So yes saying they weren't the #1 defense when we played them in that same context is VERY clearly saying Buffalo's defense is being overrated as #1 or #2 (depending on when you looked) when we played them, i.e., their true rating should be for a defense that was "not good".

"cbrad wrote:

OK so now you've conclusively proved you have an English comprehension issue. He said this in the links I provided:

You guys are arguing over semantics. For the sake of peace, let's just say I was wrong and both of you were right, LOL. Could that end this argument before Christmas? =)

"KeyFin wrote:

You guys are arguing over semantics. For the sake of peace, let's just say I was wrong and both of you were right, LOL. Could that end this argument before Christmas? =)

lol.. semantics is the specific issue right now, but the broader issue is much bigger. It's establishing revisionist history by anti-Tua posters.

I want to be clear about this. I have nothing against people who think Tua doesn't have the physical or mental abilities to succeed long term. They're either right or wrong. What I don't like is the attempt to deny Tua credit for what he's done so far. He's proven he can play at elite levels for sustained periods (within a season), he proved he can play at elite levels with a bad OL, he proved he can overcome adversity and carry the team when necessary (i.e., in multiple games), and he proved he can play well against good defenses in the cold, in December and in a playoff race.

What I'm warding off here is the latest attempt to say he didn't really do X, Y and Z, specifically in this case playing well against good defenses. All those claims are revisionist history. It's very important to establish this, otherwise that bogus claim will keep coming up.

Anyway, don't mistake intensity of an argument for hatred or anything. This is strategic.

"cbrad wrote:

OK so now you've conclusively proved you have an English comprehension issue. He said this in the links I provided:

Not sure how much more obvious I can make this, but saying "NE is the only good defensive team he faced" means Buffalo was NOT a good defensive team when we faced them. That's a logical implication. So yes saying they weren't the #1 defense when we played them in that same context is VERY clearly saying Buffalo's defense is being overrated as #1 or #2 (depending on when you looked) when we played them, i.e., their true rating should be for a defense that was "not good".

Saying NE was "the only good defense he faced" does not have to mean he's saying every other defense is bad or overrated. It could also mean that it was the only defense that was missing starters and all banged up.

The Chargers defense was awful, yet they dominated us. Doesn't make them good. The Bills were depleted, yet still played good, doesn't mean that a bunch of backups is a "good defense."

You're playing semantics to try to win an argument.