Week Six Discussion Thread

[Gregg]

Martz and co. changed their protection schemes because they concluded that the current ones just weren't going to work. In any case, the Vikes' rush as a whole isn't top notch, just Jared Allen.

It took Martz 5 games to realize it wasn't working? He could have asked Cutler after the first or second game...or any third grader after the third game. No disrespect to the third graders in here.

I admit I really enjoyed the game. But I have to see a few more games to be a believer in that line.

[Erik]

It took Martz 5 games to realize it wasn't working?

He's as stubborn as Andy Reid. Hell, he personally lost the SB to the Pats because he refused to run the ball.

[Gregg]

He's as stubborn as Andy Reid. Hell, he personally lost the SB to the Pats because he refused to run the ball.

Yeah. I forgot about that.

The game yesterday is what we thought we were going to get when the Bears signed Cutler and Martz. Of course we were hoping for more than once or twice a season.

[Hornsby]

"Fine, they both blew it...but up to this point you seemed to have put the entire incident on the back of Schwartz."

Uh, let's review some sample comments I made:

"two coaches who don't know how to handle being 5-1, lol"

"Harbaugh at least admitted that he blew it."

"Costas claimed in the takeaway that Swartz committed the greater offense. I don't buy that..."

"I back Swartz's reaction more than the NBC guys did..."

"They both blew it.."

Admittedly, it's only five examples, but you might want to start reading a little more closely

Oh, this is a fun game! In two of the 5 cited comments, you somewhat back Schwarts...in the other 3, it's Harbaugh or neutral. Here are some of your other comments:

Although that Lions coach giving lessons on "how we do it in the NFL" is amusing, too. He's blown plenty of games due to his inexperience, and when HIS team is winning, he sometimes leaps around the sideline like someone put thumbtacks in hs shoes. He's not exactly Tom Landry out there.

Harbaugh at least admitted that he blew it. I thought that came across better than a no-name acting in the postgame like he's a seasoned, sober vet. lol

Dungy just blamed Swartz for the incident, said you have to "be the bigger man."

Rodney (formerly Marvin) Harrison said both guys were wrong, and pointed out that Swartz is similar to Harbaugh (wait, is he reading my comments here? lol).

"IMO, Swartz did the right thing in the postgame...trying to put it aside."

Yeah, with snark.

And of course, the two comments where you "backed" Schwartz? Here are the unedited versions:

I back Swartz's reaction more than the NBC guys did, but let's not act like he a was post-game diplomat, either. He threw in some line about an 'obscenity,' then wouldn't elaborate while feigning to be above it all.

Costas claimed in the takeaway that Swartz committed the greater offense.

I don't buy that, but I agree that Swartz arguably overreacted in the moment, and more importantly I think he was too smug in the postgame. You can't say, "Act like you've been there before," when you've never been there before, either...

You may want to take your own advise about reading more closely...especially something you wrote.

[Hornsby]

Jeezuzs...could ESPN have a longer, more boring pre-game show?

[Judge Jude]

"Fine, they both blew it...but up to this point you seemed to have put the entire incident on the back of Schwartz." "

Do you still find that comment accurate?

How could you, when you just typed: "In two of the 5 cited comments, you somewhat back Schwarts...in the other 3, it's Harbaugh or neutral."

Horns, we all make mistakes, not a big deal, but just give the nod. You typed, very clearly, "up to this point you seemed to have put the entire incident on the back of Schwartz."

Which, you must agree, I did not. Heck, you practically admitted it yourself. Your overall reply only made sense if I claimed that "I backed Swartz all the way," or something like that, which would have been as false as the comment you made.

Indisputibly, I did NOT put the entire incident on the back of Swartz.

I find this exchange mystifying, frankly.

[Hornsby]

"Fine, they both blew it...but up to this point you seemed to have put the entire incident on the back of Schwartz." "

Do you still find that comment accurate?

How could you, when you just typed: "In two of the 5 cited comments, you somewhat back Schwarts...in the other 3, it's Harbaugh or neutral."

Horns, we all make mistakes, not a big deal, but just give the nod. You typed, very clearly, "up to this point you seemed to have put the entire incident on the back of Schwartz."

Which, you must agree, I did not. Heck, you practically admitted it yourself. Your overall reply only made sense if I claimed that "I backed Swartz all the way," or something like that, which would have been as false as the comment you made.

Indisputibly, I did NOT put the entire incident on the back of Swartz.

I find this exchange mystifying, frankly.

Nice try in obfuscating the issue, but no go. In each case (both of them) where you "somewhat" backed Schwartz, you made a point of backtracking in the same sentence. In all of the other instances that I cited, you either put the blame on Schwartz, or made a point of denigrating the past behavior of Schwartz. I think that your words speak for themselves, try as you might to lead the reader to a different conclusion.

And frankly, I don't really care what side that you take, if any. I just prefer clarity, something that you seem to be trying to avoid.

[Judge Jude]

"you seemed to have put the entire incident on the back of Schwartz." "

Horns, this is getting embarrassing for you.
I said from the get-go that they BOTH blew it. Repeatedly, I said that. Because other comments backed Swartz, I elaborated on the aspects where I criticized Swarts, too. It is preposterous to claim that someone who repeatedly blames 2 people is in fact "putting the entire incident on the back of Swartz.

You created a straw man, it seems, of me claiming that I wasn't giving plenty of the blame on Swartz. Which I never claimed.

I give up, I guess. In more than a decade in Sports Bar conversations around here, never have I had to rub my eyes in disbelief at what I am reading.

"you seemed to have put the entire incident on the back of Schwartz." "
"In two of the 5 cited comments, you somewhat back Schwarts...in the other 3, it's Harbaugh or neutral."

We have someone typing both of those sentences, then claiming someone else is "obfuscating."

lol

[onejayhawk]

Jeezuzs...could ESPN have a longer, more boring pre-game show?

No. They are trying as hard as they can, and this is the most they can manage.

J

[Judge Jude]

Good job by Gruden noting the aggravated assault (ok, obvious penalty) by Revis on the Dolphins WR that Revis then turned into a 100-yd INT TD.
A 10-to-14 pt mistake - can't remember the last time I saw that before.

Of course, the Jets need a W and the Dolphins need (Andrew) luck, so it does help both squads I suppose....

[Hornsby]

"you seemed to have put the entire incident on the back of Schwartz." "

Horns, this is getting embarrassing for you.
I said from the get-go that they BOTH blew it. Repeatedly, I said that. Because other comments backed Swartz, I elaborated on the aspects where I criticized Swarts, too. It is preposterous to claim that someone who repeatedly blames 2 people is in fact "putting the entire incident on the back of Swartz.

You created a straw man, it seems, of me claiming that I wasn't giving plenty of the blame on Swartz. Which I never claimed.

I give up, I guess. In more than a decade in Sports Bar conversations around here, never have I had to rub my eyes in disbelief at what I am reading.

"you seemed to have put the entire incident on the back of Schwartz." "
"In two of the 5 cited comments, you somewhat back Schwarts...in the other 3, it's Harbaugh or neutral."

We have someone typing both of those sentences, then claiming someone else is "obfuscating."

lol

I'm glad that you're concerned for my well being, as well, as my standing in the cyber community, but I'm doing just fine.

When you can actually do something other than repeatedly cite two statements I made, let me know. Two statements, which are fully explained in the following post...but all I can do is point in the right direction, I can't make you go there.

You created a straw man, it seems, of me claiming that I wasn't giving plenty of the blame on Swartz. Which I never claimed.

I had to read this about a dozen times, and I still don't fully understand what this means...because I DID claim, repeatedly, that you were putting the blame on Schwartz. That's the basis for this whole asinine point/counterpoint.

Have a lovely evening...

[Judge Jude]

"you seemed to have put the entire incident on the back of Schwartz." "

other than you presumably accidentally leaving out the word "ENTIRE" in the latest post - yet again - I give up.
Entire means "all." No one can put the entire blame on one guy, while also sometimes backing that same guy, as you yourself put it.
We both agree that I did not put the entire blame on Swartz.

I guess it was the repeated failure of you to not notice the word "entire" that made things so bizarre. I still don't get your point without the word "entire," either, since I kept blaming both guys, but I'll call that progress and call it a day, I guess.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming....

[Hornsby]

"you seemed to have put the entire incident on the back of Schwartz." "

other than you presumably accidentally leaving out the word "ENTIRE" in the latest post - yet again - I give up.
Entire means "all." No one can put the entire blame on one guy, while also sometimes backing that same guy, as you yourself put it.
We both agree that I did not put the entire blame on Swartz. I didn't simply "put the blame on Swartz," either, as I put it on both, obviously and repeatedly. So you wind up both agreeing and disagreeing with me in your responses. Confusing.

But I guess it was the repeated failure of you to not notice the word "entire" that made things so bizarre. I still don't get your point without the word "entire," either, since I kept blaming both guys, but I'll call that progress and call it a day, I guess.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming....

You say you give up, but you keep coming back to try to make your pointless point...which I can't seem to figure out, and I suspect that anyone still reading this pointless exchange can't either.

But such is life...

[Gregg]

Oooo ooo I want to weigh in!

I did not see any of the interviews or know what was said. I only saw the film.

Harbaugh was a bit excited. I do not blame him. He was not trying to hurt Schwartz or rub it in. Schwartz over reacted. Should have let it go. Schwartz is clearly in the wrong. And I don't even like Harbaugh.

[Judge Jude]

Wait, you just returned after wishing me a "lovely evening."

I'd gladly submit to an RJ trial by jury. You're doing the OJ defense - stall long enough, and maybe the jury stops paying attention.


The word is "entire." It's not complicated. I can't put the entire blame on Swartz, yet also blame both guys, repeatedly, at the same time.
I thought it was amusing that I made FIVE earlier comments that disproved your 'entire' observation, that's all. You remind me of Fonzie from Happy Days "I was WRON.... I was WRON..... I can't do it!"

Gregg: As you can see, I don't hold as much against Swartz as you, although the NBC crew is with you, of course. I still think Harbaugh blew it with the back slap, as he admitted, while Swartz is too emotional a coach to act as if the same thing couldn't have happened to him in the reverse scenario. That's why I blamed both guys.