Thoughts of a Negative Poster

[elkabong82]

I heard Robert Kraft saying in an interview that he really didn't know what he had when he hired Belichik. I took him at his word. Belichik has admitted he made mistakes in Cleveland.



You are staining to apply the rigid standards of an actual hiring of a coach to my opinions which are purely based on probability derived from reasoning.



There's no trend. The flaw in your claim is "very small sample size." You flip a coin four times and it comes up heads every time. To conclude that "this coin never comes up tails" shows a misunderstanding based on a small sample.



Yes, with a roster built mostly by others. An outcome that Mike could not repeat with full control.
.

Belichick obviously learned from his mistakes and Shanahan can do the same, he even attempted to do so between coaching gigs.

Your probability in the hiring process requires full context, yet such is missing and causes you to overlook good candidates including potentially Belichick. Time for a revision.

There is a trend, and the sample size is not small. Ditka, Jimmy Johnson, Gibbs, Lombardi, Parcells, Seifert, are some of the bigger names. No head coach has won a Superbowl in 2 different stints. I have evidence, you don't, so stop trying to refute it. Besides, despite that trend I'd still hire one of those coaches. My point, again, was that trend would have been a better argument than your surface-deep argument against hiring Shanahan.

Shanahan won with a roster mostly built by others? Really? That argument shows that you in fact are operating with negative bias and not using sound reasoning despite you calling for such in this thread. Talk about doing everything you can to take away credit. He didn't even win those Superbowls right? It was all Elway right? Drafting Terrell Davis didn't help out at all right? Elway had great success before Shanahan and anybody could have won with him as QB right? Unbelievable. You've lost me now. If your goal was to drive away those with different opinions by not presenting the same sound reasoning you asked for yourself, then congrats.

And simply stating "repetitive," as you just did to me and have done to others, when we are refuting points you repetitively are raising, is going against what you are asking others to do in this thread, is rather disingenuous, and is telling of the weakness in that specific argument.

I for one will be rooting for the team rather than watching with a foregone conclusion of failure. It is not a grounded opinion when you have already determined a conclusion multiple seasons in advance. You are not practicing what you preach when your reasoning leads you to conclude things far into the future which you can't actually know.

[Jumbo]

Okey-dokey, thread is done. It’s wandered about enough and really become a long-enough and big enough mess. Going by most recent activity, maybe starting another “why I like/hate the patriots/brady/belichick” thread in ATN is due, or bumping a “Mike was a good/questionable/bad hire“ thread for that stuff.

I remember some staff in the past who wanted to ban more aggressively on willful off-topic extensions of threads, including when such is participated in by the OP. There are reasons thread discussion in here is prioritized to maintaining contact with the main premise(s) in an opening post (even if the premise is seemingly vague).

Many have had their say, and I had even more written out on this thread in detail, anticipating how various people might respond to the different things I’d say, but am going to go this way instead---so here is a condensed (believe it or not ) version of mine, that is still plenty long enough. From its inception, I had decided to not post in the general discussion but simply observe with the exception of my recent notice, and now with the closing I am taking the final word.

Opinions and facts: I thought the opening post and topic as designed, was weak overall, but definitely allowable. I won’t detail why in this condensed version.

I have over the years made many a “defense” of various matters re: OF as a poster in general, and as relevant per specific threads/topics. The same is true with my criticisms of OF, though made less frequently. I have a history of evenhandedly noting pros and cons in these matters. In this case, so far, the pros <--- serious error edited---I had written "cons" when I meant "pros"--&%$&*@#*!!)have been winning the balance (overall) for me as a member and a moderator. As part of that standard approach, members I love to death as posters have received consequences for rule violations when merited, and I have, when appropriate, given "passes" to posters whose regular content I don't favor.

Now here, from the wording and premises in the OP onward, the matter of Oldfan’s ES persona was made a feature of the topic by his own fingers, and is that is just one reason while all such commentary has been perfectly fine at base level, rules-wise.

On being a "homer" (and definitions of that term tend to vary): it is by no means indicative that you’re dumb, or that your comments are going to be dumb, no matter how many times the OP or anyone else states it is so. Presenting arguments of intellectual worth on specific matters are one thing, but being generally optimistic (even in the face of perpetual hardship) or looking for silver linings in dark clouds is perfectly fine IMV. One can do all of that in most matters without being dumb in any way.

In turn, someone deciding to be (or wanting <via ego-drives> to appear as) skeptical, cynical, or pragmatic, (traits I am well-known to manifest in every circle I travel) doesn’t inherently mean they are of high intelligence or better judgment. A constant “whiner/griper/bitcher” for instance, might regard himself as “realistic” and yet can still be featuring very low-grade arguments (comments that aren’t even actual arguments quite often) or silly evaluations on a regular basis.

I do think OF tries to distinguish what he requests in criticisms from what "that kind of guy" usually offers.

On the many criticisms of OF in general (fair game here), I agree with a number of them. I especially found it ironic he brought up "ego" (or self-identity drives) in his opening post. As I have often said, he also brings all those "good things" I’ve noted previously to the table.

Relatedly, some (not all) of his regular foils are fully guilty of their own behavioral issues (including some of the “reasoning” shortcomings OF accuses them of) that add to this mix and create these regular “meltdowns”, just as he is often responsible for his own contributions in that direction (as sometimes accurately accused of by some of his adversaries).

My constant comment to them has been to either stay out of his threads if you can’t stand him, or adjust yourself if you want to play with him, since he avoids blatant rule violations and when it's been close, he's received more leeway based on content and product overall, than being determined "not worth putting up with" and more harshly applying some mod action.

However, given all the dynamics and their course over time, when/if there is a next OF thread (allowing for any choices he makes) I will be ratcheting up on moderation specifically for it. My decision is based on both his and others’ chosen and repeated behaviors that are considered by staff to be unjustified and undesirable by our existing rules and guidelines.

Any post I regard as including a rule violation/behavioral issue will get a one week ban, or longer, depending. So don’t even play if you‘re unsure or care. If you do, my advice is to stick to talking about football, not each other or ancillary matters like “the board (just noting what‘s “safest“, rules-wise).

Among other things, I will be labeling behaviors like being stupidly/stubbornly augmentative in repeated fashion (solely by my or any other mod’s evaluation) as trolling (rule 12) and addressing any general matters as needed under rule 18, and being first to digress into personal characterizations as rule 5 or rule 18 violations.

Also be advised I have neither the time nor inclination to parse through every argument that might unfold, post by post, so I may be shooting quick and from the hip if I think I see a problem.


I don’t want or need ANY PMs from ANYBODY about this matter. Enough‘s been said in the thread. If you feel the need to “go” (you shouldn’t), use the feedback forum.

A final word--

There’s that element that will never die---posting in a thread, even the “worst” ones, often keeping it alive, mainly to gripe about how stupid its topic/OP is and asking why it’s continuing to exist. Can you guys EVER get it in your head that the less traction you give topics you think suck by (especially repeated) posting in the thread, the quicker they’re gone? For those who believed this thread was a lot about attention-seeking or feeding other needs/motives of the thread-starter beyond honest discussion on football, then don’t repeatedly feed it (whether you‘re right or wrong)!!! Why the **** do you feed it??? For those who believe you’re arguing with some (any) OP in any thread who “never gets it”, consider quitting arguing with him and then being “surprised” or agitated at the results.

[Jumbo]

Bump---please note a very important edit (highlighted w/color) in the 5th paragraph (I can't believe I used the opposite term of what I meant---talk about a significant gaffe).

It doesn't change anything (as I was thinking the right term as I wrote), other than getting it right as to where my personal position is at on that matter.