NFC West

[MHSL82]

How could I have misinterpreted your intentions if I never addressed your intentions?

Sorry, intentions was the wrong word. I meant more like "what I meant (as in what I intended to convey)." In other words, I didn't mean to make this whole conversation longer but I kept needing to respond (obviously my fault for being unclear). I just feel that other posters respond to posters being unclear (not just me) in better ways than you do sometimes and I respond when it's about something I posted. I don't enjoy these exchanges, so it's not like I'm dragging this on for entertainment.

We could do ourselves a favor by both stopping it.

 

[MHSL82]

How ironic. A day after I posted the article about the "no question" answers Smith always gave, none other than Alex Smith had this to say:

"In sports, you hear so many cliché answers," said San Francisco 49ers quarterback Alex Smith, a Shenbaum client. "So many guys just regurgitate the same stuff."

Steve Shenbaum teaching Rivals recruits, Alex Smith media training - Andy Staples - SI.com

 

[Crimsoncrew]

If the problem was not having Philbin focused, then I don't expect them to recover when they won't have Philbin in any capacity.

If you meant that the players were distracted too, I'm not so sure because it wasn't their son. I'm sure they felt bad for Philbin like anyone would when you're that close to a tragic death, but that scenario tends to make the guys play harder and better as they try and win one for Gipper.

Anyway, this could easily turn into a game like the one against the Saints. Where the offense needs to step up and score 30+ points because the Packers Offense is just as explosive as New Orleans and the 49ers have similar breakdowns like the Graham TD and Sproles TD. I think that is more likely, but if that happens it greatly decreases the 49ers chances to win because that isn't their normal style. Their best chance to win is if the defense shows up and plays almost flawless.

I'd be really upset with Smith and Co. if they couldn't move the ball on what was the 32nd ranked defense a year ago. If Smith, Moss, Davis, Crabtree, Manningham and the rest of the guys can't move the ball on the worst secondary in the league (32nd in yards against the pass). They should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm hesitant to attribute too much of their sloppy play to Philibin's issues, but Aaron Rodgers was way off in that game. He and Philbin are quite close, so the combination of Philbin being a little (or a lot) out of it and Rodgers seeing a mentor going through that loss could have had that sort of effect.

Though Rodgers' numbers had fallen a bit toward the end of the season, too. Just something that I thought might affect them during the week of the game, and then they played poorly, especailly Rodgers.

 

[Bemular]

Sorry, intentions was the wrong word. I meant more like "what I meant (as in what I intended to convey)." In other words, I didn't mean to make this whole conversation longer but I kept needing to respond (obviously my fault for being unclear). I just feel that other posters respond to posters being unclear (not just me) in better ways than you do sometimes and I respond when it's about something I posted. I don't enjoy these exchanges, so it's not like I'm dragging this on for entertainment.

We could do ourselves a favor by both stopping it.

This became entertainment for me a long time ago - here, let me show you what I mean. You are now seeking to redefine your use of the word intentions to mean "what I meant to say".

Thus, I will now revise my same question to read: "How could I have misinterpreted what you "meant to say" when I never addressed what you said in the first place?"

See, I am just waiting for the moment when your head explodes with this epiphany and you realize that you are actually talking to yourself and I'm just facilitating the conversation.

Like I said way back in post 213:

"Yeah, I understood the humor behind the "no question" adjunct, but the point of the article was to suggest that Alex Smith is an underrated QB, which is what I was responding to - I wasn't at all responding to you personally."

Feel free to respond back if you still don't get it or if you want to continue to accuse me of misinterpreting what you said.

 

[MHSL82]

This became entertainment for me a long time ago - here, let me show you what I mean. You are now seeking to redefine your use of the word intentions to mean "what I meant to say".

Thus, I will now revise my same question to read: "How could I have misinterpreted what you "meant to say" when I never addressed what you said in the first place?"

See, I am just waiting for the moment when your head explodes with this epiphany and you realize that you are actually talking to yourself and I'm just facilitating the conversation.

Like I said way back in post 213:

"Yeah, I understood the humor behind the "no question" adjunct, but the point of the article was to suggest that Alex Smith is an underrated QB, which is what I was responding to - I wasn't at all responding to you personally."

Feel free to respond back if you still don't get it or if you want to continue to accuse me of misinterpreting what you said.

It appears that you don't get it either. What you said about Smith not being underrated is irrelevant to what I was saying in this whole thread. I would not have addressed the underratedness comment (though I do admit the fault of citing it).

I told Crimsoncrew that I did not mean to cite yardbarker for its authority or its thesis but rather for the humor of the "no question" comment. I included your quote because it was about yardbarker, NOT because it was attacking what yardbarker said (that Smith was underrated). I did not quote you because I thought it was personal or that your post was about what I said. Perhaps I shouldn't have quoted you, but I was not even talking about the underrated part or about you. So obviously pointing out to me why you posted what you posted (the underrated part) is irrelevant to why I was responding to you. I was only defending the reason for the bad source. I wasn't responding to you personally until you acted like I was brainwashed for Smith and then ramble on forever. By then it was well beyond anything substantive on the article.

The rest of the exchange was just me taking exception to you effectively saying I explain too much and am blind for Smith. I could give you a run down of the chronology and why I said what I said, but none of us want that. I was just over-sensitive to criticism when I'm just here to have fun. I feel that I should be able to just write what I want to write with talk about football, not about how I write. I have admitted my mistakes here, that explaining things too much is annoying, and that I know I am a bit QB-centric. I'll take the blame for this one because I know my blame is there, I just feel there's conflict in how you respond to my posts.

I know you won't believe me, but I'll get over it.

 

[MHSL82]

Dallas Cowboys win the NFC East and other predictions - NFL.com

The 49ers will start the season 0-2

The San Francisco 49ers have added a lot of aging talent (Randy Moss, Brandon Jacobs, et al) like one of those Garry Marshall flicks ("New Year's Eve" or "Valentine's Day"), but that won't be enough to prevent San Francisco from starting 0-2 against the Green Bay Packers and Detroit Lions. Best case scenario is 1-1. Let's face it, a +28 on turnover differential will be nearly impossible to duplicate and the NFC West will be much more competitive. However, the 49ers will still win the division.

The author of the article is jumping a bit. It's not out of the question for us to start 0-2 or 0-3, but some of the reasons, like age you mentioned and TO ratio is ok but isn't that solid. I understand the point that for the season we will not likely sustain the +28 TO ratio, but how's that predictive of any individual game or the game opener specifically? Plus, it's not like +14, which would still be pretty good, is out of the question. Is there any evidence that going against a bad defense (GB)plus an offense (GB) that isn't afraid to take risks is a recipe for losing the TO ratio? I guess we could have a bad day against the Lions, but in general these stats are season long stats, not game day stats to go by. Even if we lost one TO per game more than last year and gained one fewer per game, it would only put more strain on offense to score and defense to limit to FGs, not kill us.

 

[Bemular]

It appears that you don't get it either. What you said about Smith not being underrated is irrelevant to what I was saying in this whole thread. I would not have addressed the underratedness comment (though I do admit the fault of citing it).

LMAO!!! You're right!!! What I am saying is 100% irrelevant to what you said because I didn't give a shit "about" what YOU said. I addressed the point of the article; which, contrary to what you obviously believe, was NOT about Alex Smith's propensity for saying "no question"

So, did I NOT get the point of the article? Or, do you still NOT get the fact that I wasn't addressing your comments?

 

[MHSL82]

LMAO!!! You're right!!! What I am saying is 100% irrelevant to what you said because I didn't give a shit "about" what YOU said. I addressed the point of the article; which, contrary to what you obviously believe, was NOT about Alex Smith's propensity for saying "no question"

So, did I NOT get the point of the article? Or, do you still NOT get the fact that I wasn't addressing your comments?

And I didn't care that you weren't addressing my comments. I wasn't addressing the point of the article and I wasn't addressing what you said about the point of the article either (on purpose). What's so confusing? I already admitted that I shouldn't have quoted you. I wasn't talking about what you said except for yardbarker being a bad source. I took no exception to the underrated comments and was not addressing it or you, just the source and why I posted it. I should have just quoted crimson, as he responded to my comment because he knew what I was talking about.

This is what I expected as a response:

No worries about posting it. I post Grant Cohn stuff from time to time, even occasionally not for the sole purpose of mocking it. I'm just not terribly impressed with the site based on what I've seen of it. It can still be good material to start conversations or to enjoy a laugh.

And then this whole thing happened because you thought I was quoting you for what you said re: the point of the article. I understand why you thought that, but even after explaining it, you act like you still can't understand that I purposely wasn't responding to what you said about Smith because that wasn't my point. This is not about the no question thing or what you said, it's about defending the bad source. This has been much ado about nothing (I know, an understatement).

 

[Bemular]

And I didn't care that you weren't addressing my comments. I wasn't addressing the point of the article and I wasn't addressing what you said about the point of the article either (on purpose). What's so confusing? I already admitted that I shouldn't have quoted you. I wasn't talking about what you said except for yardbarker being a bad source. I took no exception to the underrated comments and was not addressing it or you, just the source and why I posted it. I should have just quoted crimson, as he responded to my comment because he knew what I was talking about.

This is what I expected as a response:



And then this whole thing happened because you thought I was quoting you for what you said re: the point of the article. I understand why you thought that, but even after explaining it, you act like you still can't understand that I purposely wasn't responding to what you said about Smith because that wasn't my point. This is not about the no question thing or what you said, it's about defending the bad source. This has been much ado about nothing (I know, an understatement).

Hilarious - are you done editing?

 

[MHSL82]

Hilarious - are you done editing?

LOL. I'm glad you have good humor, even if it's at my expense, it makes the board more fun. I can laugh at myself and I've gotten over the fact that people have laughed at me before. Anyways, I don't know what it is about you that makes me react, I haven't reacted to anyone else on this board before. It's not like others don't say the same things you do. And the only other poster who's voiced a problem with me was Clyde and I think I've been able to stay out of his way a bit. I'm sure people ignore my posts anyway.

I can't wait for the season to start. Hope your summer has been going well.

 

[Bemular]

And I didn't care that you weren't addressing my comments. I wasn't addressing the point of the article and I wasn't addressing what you said about the point of the article either (on purpose). What's so confusing? I already admitted that I shouldn't have quoted you. I wasn't talking about what you said except for yardbarker being a bad source. I took no exception to the underrated comments and was not addressing it or you, just the source and why I posted it. I should have just quoted crimson, as he responded to my comment because he knew what I was talking about.

This is what I expected as a response:



And then this whole thing happened because you thought I was quoting you for what you said re: the point of the article. I understand why you thought that, but even after explaining it, you act like you still can't understand that I purposely wasn't responding to what you said about Smith because that wasn't my point. This is not about the no question thing or what you said, it's about defending the bad source. This has been much ado about nothing (I know, an understatement).

Let's stay on track. First you didn't answer my questions from my previous post, which were:

So, did I NOT get the point of the article? Or, do you still NOT get the fact that I wasn't addressing your comments?

Start there then please explain or show me where "I thought" you were quoting me - was it where, I don't know, you actually quoted me? And would that be the reason why you can understand why I might have thought you quoted me?

As for your confession that you were purposely not addressing my point - well I'm certainly glad it wasn't by accident because that would have been really stupid. So good for you on that one - that was close.

What other confessions do you have for me?

 

[MHSL82]

Let's stay on track. First you didn't answer my questions from my previous post, which were:

So, did I NOT get the point of the article? Or, do you still NOT get the fact that I wasn't addressing your comments?

I never said you did not get the point of the article. The point of the article was irrelevant to why I quoted you, irrelevant to why I explained my purpose for citing it. So whether you got it or not was not relevant.

I get that you weren't addressing my comments. I got that a long time ago. Your initial response was never about my comments on the no question thing (or my thoughts on Smith as being underrated); my initial and subsequent responses were never about your initial response besides the distaste for yardbarker. I only talked about no question afterwards to explain that it was NOT about your comments on underratedness nor about the article's worth.

Start there then please explain or show me where "I thought" you were quoting me - was it where, I don't know, you actually quoted me? And would that be the reason why you can understand why I might have thought you quoted me?

I never said I didn't quote you or that you "thought I was quoting you". Obviously, I quoted you. I said I was not quoting you for the reason you acted like I was quoting you. It's that simple. I was just quoting you because you said yardbarker was a bad source (which I agree, but I had a reason). What's so difficult to understand? I was not quoting you about the article's point at all, so why are you pointing that out to me? I already admitted that I shouldn't have quoted you and that it was reasonable to think I was focusing on what you said. But now that I explained, why the persistent badgering as if I was talking about the underratedness?

It's like me bringing a yellow inked pen (article) for you to write something on (read) and you remark that yellow inked pens are hard to see (Smith is not underrated). Then when I explain that only yellow pens were available (why I cited yardbarker), you say "what part of yellow ink being hard to see don't you understand?" (arguing the underrated part) I then explain that I would never choose a yellow inked pen (never choose to post yardbarker) and agree that yellow inked pens are hard to see (that Smith is not underrated), to which you say, "I get that yellow inked pens exist!" (that the 'no question' is a common Smithism) as if that was my point of explaining why I brought the yellow inked pens (quoted you).

As for your confession that you were purposely not addressing my point - well I'm certainly glad it wasn't by accident because that would have been really stupid. So good for you on that one - that was close.

What other confessions do you have for me?

I'm secretly a Niner fan first despite all my Smith support.

 

[Bemular]

I never said you did not get the point of the article. The point of the article was irrelevant to why I quoted you, irrelevant to why I explained my purpose for citing it. So whether you got it or not was not relevant.

I get that you weren't addressing my comments. I got that a long time ago. Your initial response was never about my comments on the no question thing (or my thoughts on Smith as being underrated); my initial and subsequent responses were never about your initial response besides the distaste for yardbarker. I only talked about no question afterwards to explain that it was NOT about your comments on underratedness nor about the article's worth.



I never said I didn't quote you or that you "thought I was quoting you". Obviously, I quoted you. I said I was not quoting you for the reason you acted like I was quoting you. It's that simple. I was just quoting you because you said yardbarker was a bad source (which I agree, but I had a reason). What's so difficult to understand? I was not quoting you about the article's point at all, so why are you pointing that out to me? I already admitted that I shouldn't have quoted you and that it was reasonable to think I was focusing on what you said. But now that I explained, why the persistent badgering as if I was talking about the underratedness?

It's like me bringing a yellow inked pen (article) for you to write something on (read) and you remark that yellow inked pens are hard to see (Smith is not underrated). Then when I explain that only yellow pens were available (why I cited yardbarker), you say "what part of yellow ink being hard to see don't you understand?" (arguing the underrated part) I then explain that I would never choose a yellow inked pen (never choose to post yardbarker) and agree that yellow inked pens are hard to see (that Smith is not underrated), to which you say, "I get that yellow inked pens exist!" (that the 'no question' is a common Smithism) as if that was my point of explaining why I brought the yellow inked pens (quoted you).

I'm secretly a Niner fan first despite all my Smith support.

Oooo, so close - let's try again:

Let's stay on track. First you didn't answer my questions from my previous post, which were:

So, did I NOT get the point of the article? Or, do you still NOT get the fact that I wasn't addressing your comments?

I know those are mind boggling questions for you but I'll just keep asking until you get the answers correct. Then I have more - remember this is entertainment for me

 

[MHSL82]

Oooo, so close - let's try again:

Let's stay on track. First you didn't answer my questions from my previous post, which were:

So, did I NOT get the point of the article? Or, do you still NOT get the fact that I wasn't addressing your comments?

I know those are mind boggling questions for you but I'll just keep asking until you get the answers correct. Then I have more - remember this is entertainment for me

Look, I answered your questions. It's not an either/or like you think it is.

 

[Bemular]

Look, I answered your questions. It's not an either/or like you think it is.

Your answers must have been somewhere in the middle of all that talk about getting a pocket-protector and a yellow pen for Christmas or something like that - your post are really delusional, you should work on that.

Look, the summary of all this is as follows: You made terrible assumptions which led to incoherent posts - this is nothing new for you. So, to answer one of your incoherent comments below:

"I posted it for the "No question" aspect of it - if that makes you feel any better.

No, it wouldn't make me feel any better because I don't care about the "no question" aspect of the article - I only care about the underrated aspect of the article.

So, do you have something to say about the underrated aspect of the article or do you want to just keep entertaining me?

 

[MHSL82]

Your answers must have been somewhere in the middle of all that talk about getting a pocket-protector and a yellow pen for Christmas or something like that - your post are really delusional, you should work on that.

Look, the summary of all this is as follows: You made terrible assumptions which led to incoherent posts - this is nothing new for you. So, to answer one of your incoherent comments below:

"I posted it for the "No question" aspect of it - if that makes you feel any better.

No, it wouldn't make me feel any better because I don't care about the "no question" aspect of the article - I only care about the underrated aspect of the article.

So, do you have something to say about the underrated aspect of the article or do you want to just keep entertaining me?

You are being intentionally daft. You know what the term "if it makes you feel any better" means. It doesn't literally mean, do you feel better? Do you really think I care about how you feel? It simply a nonserious reassurance that I was not crazy - i.e. thinking that yardbarker was a good source. I was saying that for Crimsoncrew and he obviously got what I meant and I quoted you because you shared the disdain for yardbarker. I understand that analogies such as my reference to yellow inked pens are too difficult for you to understand and your attention span is too short to follow a simple explanation. That's fine if you want to push it all on me; anyone who read any of what I said understood it but you like to act like you don't or you're too dumb to figure it out. One or the other. I don't post just to explain things to you; if I did, I'd be PM you right now. Others are more reasonable to see both sides.

I think Smith is not underrated as a QB after last season. When they were saying he was a full out bust who could not win, he was underrated. He's getting his due now. I said that already. I don't know why you wanted me to repeat that in so many words. I was not saying anything about what you cared about the article.

 

[Bemular]

You are being intentionally daft. You know what the term "if it makes you feel any better" means. It doesn't literally mean, do you feel better? Do you really think I care about how you feel? It simply a nonserious reassurance that I was not crazy - i.e. thinking that yardbarker was a good source. I was saying that for Crimsoncrew and he obviously got what I meant and I quoted you because you shared the disdain for yardbarker.

I think Smith is not underrated as a QB after last season. When they were saying he was a full out bust who could not win, he was underrated. He's getting his due now. I said that already. I don't know why you wanted me to repeat that in so many words.

Wow, are you honestly so dumb that you actually think saying "If it makes you feel any better" has anything to do with physically feeling better instead of understanding it is a figure of speech? That's just dumb.

Okay, I'm thoroughly entertained but I could always go for more - whatcha got?

 

[MHSL82]

Wow, are you honestly so dumb that you actually think saying "If it makes you feel any better" has anything to do with physically feeling better instead of understanding it is a figure of speech? That's just dumb.

Okay, I'm thoroughly entertained but I could always go for more - whatcha got?

That's what I was saying, that it has nothing to do with physically feeling better. But you're acting like that's what I meant. So your answer to my rhetorical comment ('if it makes you feel any better' wasn't a question) was ridiculous because I was not asking if the no question part made you feel any better. I was saying the fact that I posted it for the 'no question' part should reassure you that I was not posting it for yardbarker's credibility as a source. As I said before, Crimsoncrew understood what I meant and responded to that effect - you, instead, act intentionally daft. To each his own, I guess.

 

[Bemular]

That's what I was saying, that it has nothing to do with physically feeling better. But you're acting like that's what I meant. So your answer to my rhetorical comment ('if it makes you feel any better' wasn't a question) was ridiculous because I was not asking if the no question part made you feel any better. I was saying the fact that I posted it for the 'no question' part should reassure you that I was not posting it for yardbarker's credibility as a source. As I said before, Crimsoncrew understood what I meant and responded to that effect - you, instead, act intentionally daft. To each his own, I guess.

LOL, man you are too easy - Look, you have absolutely zero clue what you meant, so why should I believe you when you say what you meant?

 

[MHSL82]

LOL, man you are too easy - Look, you have absolutely zero clue what you meant, so why should I believe you when you say what you meant?

I know what I meant and I explained it. Others knew what I meant before so I know they are smart enough to figure out what I mean now. You like playing daft for your entertainment. That's your style. I'm going to bed now, feel free to send other things and congratulate yourself by either misstating me or calling me dumb. It doesn't change the facts. I tried to have a discussion with you and you like to play games by playing dumb. I am a good guy, but I no longer care if you believe what I say because even if you did, you wouldn't say it. You'd just do the confused GW Bush face that Will Ferrel does and do your schtick.

Here's a llama loaned to me by imac.