An unfunny joke

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I wonder if this is how people who think either Rachel or Zenyatta could win HOY without having a real opinion feel when someone goes off the deep end about why one or the other is far superior and feel the need to disparage the other one despite the fact that they had a sensational season?

Shutdown corner against whom you can make a plan B once he takes away your top receiver vs. sensational defensive all-arounder for whom you can't make a plan B.

It was a toss up. You lost.

Game over. Woodson won.

A player who never makes a mistake and shuts down half the field vs. a player who will make an important play once in a while but will blow important plays as well.

Why was it a toss up if Woodson "wiped the floor" with Revis statistically?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

A player who never makes a mistake and shuts down half the field vs. a player who will make an important play once in a while but will blow important plays as well.

Why was it a toss up if Woodson "wiped the floor" with Revis statistically?

Because, is the defensive player of the year the one who is the best shutdown corner or the one who is the best overall player for the year?

See, that's why I'm in the Rachel camp in the HOY debate, and it's strangely apt here, since you're basically saying that being awesome at one thing (beating boys in the Classic) should trump being a terror in everything defensively (being a terror all year long).

That's why it's a toss-up. You care about a guy playing in New York being the best shutdown corner in the league. I don't particularly care for whom you root when trying to figure out which guy I think is deserving. I see the argument for both, but your absolutism is so off-putting I'm learning to love Woodson and his Packer Green all over again...and by all over again, I mean for the very first time, I since I kind of hate him considering he's on the Packers.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Because, is the defensive player of the year the one who is the best shutdown corner or the one who is the best overall player for the year?

See, that's why I'm in the Rachel camp in the HOY debate, and it's strangely apt here, since you're basically saying that being awesome at one thing (beating boys in the Classic) should trump being a terror in everything defensively (being a terror all year long).

That's why it's a toss-up. You care about a guy playing in New York being the best shutdown corner in the league. I don't particularly care for whom you root when trying to figure out which guy I think is deserving. I see the argument for both, but your absolutism is so off-putting I'm learning to love Woodson and his Packer Green all over again...and by all over again, I mean for the very first time, I since I kind of hate him considering he's on the Packers.

Yeah that's an apt comparison. Because Revis only did one remarkable thing once, just like Zenyatta. Woodson's hardly a "terror" in anything, sorry to break it to you. He's pretty good at a bunch of things. He's not great at anything. I've already said everything I can say. Come back to me when Revis falls down on a touchdown and gives up 15 yards of field position with 10 seconds left and the other team straddling field goal range. I already said Woodson had a good year. Not as good as Revis's.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Yeah that's an apt comparison. Because Revis only did one remarkable thing once, just like Zenyatta. Woodson's hardly a "terror" in anything, sorry to break it to you. He's pretty good at a bunch of things. He's not great at anything. I've already said everything I can say. Come back to me when Revis falls down on a touchdown and gives up 15 yards of field position with 10 seconds left and the other team straddling field goal range. I already said Woodson had a good year. Not as good as Revis's.

Well, we'll call it even.

You come back to me when you're done pretending that having a wide receiver run into you and knocking you down is the same as "falling down."

You can knock my analysis of it all you want. What you're unfortunately unable to say is that you're being fair in your analysis. "Falls down."

LOLZ. You're incredible. Aka, a Jets fan.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Well, we'll call it even.

You come back to me when you're done pretending that having a wide receiver run into you and knocking you down is the same as "falling down."

You can knock my analysis of it all you want. What you're unfortunately unable to say is that you're being fair in your analysis. "Falls down."

LOLZ. You're incredible. Aka, a Jets fan.

Dude, you're looking at the wrong play. I'm talking about the first Fitzgerald TD that made it 31-10. Woodson fell down.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Dude, you're looking at the wrong play. I'm talking about the first Fitzgerald TD that made it 31-10. Woodson fell down.

Ok, so you're willing to knock that one off Woodson's bill then, I'd assume?

Though sorry, I just looked at the other one too, realizing which one you're talking about -- like it's really that much better? Less pummeling, a bit less of the freight train-ing.....good call, that one proved your point. Total epiphany here.

You win.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Ok, so you're willing to knock that one off Woodson's bill then, I'd assume?

I've yet to see Revis get blown up by a receiver like that on a TD. Woodson didn't exactly put up a fight. But this is getting ridiculous.