Flo can be saved by one man -- Tua | Page 5 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Flo can be saved by one man -- Tua

GRYPHONK

Pro Bowler
Club Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
3,115
Reaction score
865
A competent team is not a very good team. The fact that we took the Raiders to OT shows they aren't a very good team. A very good team beats you 35 - 0.

You got caught stretching the truth to make it fit a stretched point. It happens and like-minded individuals would just agree on face value.
Nope sorry, guess again you lost.

Game over man, game over.

You clearly contradicted your own point LOL.

Dude it's ok to say you were wrong. Seriously, you'll still be accepted on this forum.

Nothing beats using someone's own words to disprove their point or theory.

I will move on after this clear victory of mine
 

KingHydra

Club Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2021
Messages
2,223
Reaction score
5,159
Location
West Palm Beach
raise your hand if you just want the OCs to call downfield passes on every passing down when Tua comes back.

raise both hands if you'd rather see Reid start against the Jags and give Tua an extra week's rest.
Yes yes yes yes and yes! I hate our boring offense. THROW THE DAMN BALL DOWN FIELD! 7 yards, 8 yards, 3 yards, 15 yards, 12 yards, 8 yards, 10 yards....F*CK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

DPhinz_DPhinz

I cash reality checks....
Super Donator
Club Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
7,296
Reaction score
5,200
No one was saying it at the time lol.

You see, always an excuse.

It's not who you play, it's when you play them.

This "aren't a very good football team" had already beaten Pittsburgh and the same Baltimore team you use as justification for Indy being a competent team simply because they took Baltimore to OT.

So I ask. What is more impressive? Taking Baltimore to OT or actually beating them?

Don't worry. You don't have to answer.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative right?
"At the time"?

You just said the Raiders are a very good team and they are no where near a very good team...

As soon as Brissett took them to OT, that should have been the furthest thought from your mind because if you actually think we are a good team then it my be some narcotic abuse on your end.
 

GRYPHONK

Pro Bowler
Club Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
3,115
Reaction score
865
"At the time"?

You just said the Raiders are a very good team and they are no where near a very good team...

As soon as Brissett took them to OT, that should have been the furthest thought from your mind because if you actually think we are a good team then it my be some narcotic abuse on your end.
See this is why you lose.

Raiders are no where near a good team. Ok cool fine. You obviously don't look at the state the team at the time of the game.

So you claim they are not a good team and it should be obvious because the phins took them to OT.

OK COOL.

Raiders beat Baltimore
INDY took BAltimore to OT after having a 22 point lead.

Would narcotic abuse be the reasoning to say Baltimore is a good team?

By your logic Baltimore is not even close to a good team.

You contradict yourself, show your hypocrisy and double standards with your own arguments you seem to continuously forget what reasoning you used to base your opinion on.

You are like the person who says Burrow threw 4 tds against the Jags. PROOF HE IS FRANCHISE QB


THEN you would argue Tua only threw 4 TDS because he played the JAGS.

OH.... it's a hypothetical to show your debating style
 

DPhinz_DPhinz

I cash reality checks....
Super Donator
Club Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
7,296
Reaction score
5,200
Raiders beat Baltimore
INDY took BAltimore to OT after having a 22 point lead.

Would narcotic abuse be the reasoning to say Baltimore is a good team?

By your logic Baltimore is not even close to a good team.
This has to be some sort of fallacy (spiral reasoning) in which you seem to be engaging. Luckily, I won't let you off the point of the Raiders not being a "very good team"...

That being established, I have to educate you on whom to try blibeddy bladalywook on and who not to.

The Packers (a good team) lost to the Saints. By your reasoning makes the Saints a good team. only thing is that they lost to the NY Giants who, according to you, must be a good team because they beat a "good team" (Saints) that beat a good team (Packers)...but there's more.

The Saints (a good team by your measure) lost to the Panthers, which makes the Panthers a "gooder" team than the Saints...then they just lost to the Eagles.

bey GIF


All this time...the Eagles are one of the "very good teams" in the NFL...according to you.
 

GRYPHONK

Pro Bowler
Club Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
3,115
Reaction score
865
This has to be some sort of fallacy (spiral reasoning) in which you seem to be engaging. Luckily, I won't let you off the point of the Raiders not being a "very good team"...

That being established, I have to educate you on whom to try blibeddy bladalywook on and who not to.

The Packers (a good team) lost to the Saints. By your reasoning makes the Saints a good team. only thing is that they lost to the NY Giants who, according to you, must be a good team because they beat a "good team" (Saints) that beat a good team (Packers)...but there's more.

The Saints (a good team by your measure) lost to the Panthers, which makes the Panthers a "gooder" team than the Saints...then they just lost to the Eagles.

bey GIF


All this time...the Eagles are one of the "very good teams" in the NFL...according to you.
Wrong again buddy.

You justified Indy as being competent or not a bad team by claiming the took Baltimore to OT

I said Miam took a very good team (Raiders to OT) At the time they played Raiders were playing good Football.

You claim Raiders are not very good

I use your own words and logic by stating the Raiders beat Baltimore.

Let's recap. If Raiders are not a very good team but they BEAT the Raiders
Your point that Indy is somehow better then we thought because they took Baltimore to OT is irrelevant.

You catching up now?

So if Raiders are not a good team and BEAT Baltimore
Then Indy CANT be a decent or ok.or better then we thought team simply because they TIED Baltimore or took them to OT

You are the one claiming beating or or taking a SPECIFIC team to OT somehow justifies if they are good or not NOT me.

You lost. Game over.

Victory is mine.

Your own logic defeated you.

Don't be mad bruh.

Be mad at yourself, because at thus point you are debating yourself not me. I am simply using your words or logic.

When trying to discredit or prove your point the WHOLE conversation matters not just a selected paragraph or post.

Toodles, buh bye
 

DPhinz_DPhinz

I cash reality checks....
Super Donator
Club Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
7,296
Reaction score
5,200
Wrong again buddy.

You justified Indy as being competent or not a bad team by claiming the took Baltimore to OT

I said Miam took a very good team (Raiders to OT) At the time they played Raiders were playing good Football.

You claim Raiders are not very good

I use your own words and logic by stating the Raiders beat Baltimore.

Let's recap. If Raiders are not a very good team but they BEAT the Raiders
Your point that Indy is somehow better then we thought because they took Baltimore to OT is irrelevant.

You catching up now?

So if Raiders are not a good team and BEAT Baltimore
Then Indy CANT be a decent or ok.or better then we thought team simply because they TIED Baltimore or took them to OT

You are the one claiming beating or or taking a SPECIFIC team to OT somehow justifies if they are good or not NOT me.

You lost. Game over.

Victory is mine.

Your own logic defeated you.

Don't be mad bruh.

Be mad at yourself, because at thus point you are debating yourself not me. I am simply using your words or logic.

When trying to discredit or prove your point the WHOLE conversation matters not just a selected paragraph or post.

Toodles, buh bye
Go back to your high school...

Find your principal...

Smack the sh*t out of him for denying your a basic education.
 
Top Bottom