Vikings trade Yannick Ngakoue to Baltimore

[pwny]

On 10/24/2020 at 11:10 PM, diamondbull424 said:

What do the Chiefs have to do with the content of this thread?

This is a thread about the Ravens making a move that presumably makes them better. Discussing whether or not this moves the needle for them to get out of the AFC (and against the presumed best team in the conference) would be far more relevant than busting on a team that hasn’t shown thus far to be a roadblock in that path.

This move makes the Ravens better. Does it make them better than the Chiefs with Andy Reid and Pat Mahomes? That’s something that’s being discussed. And it’s relevant because we’re on footballsfuture where we often discuss things that might happen in the future of football, such as potential future matchups and how those matchups might play out. 

[diamondbull424]

42 minutes ago, pwny said:

This is a thread about the Ravens making a move that presumably makes them better. Discussing whether or not this moves the needle for them to get out of the AFC (and against the presumed best team in the conference) would be far more relevant than busting on a team that hasn’t shown thus far to be a roadblock in that path.

This move makes the Ravens better. Does it make them better than the Chiefs with Andy Reid and Pat Mahomes? That’s something that’s being discussed. And it’s relevant because we’re on footballsfuture where we often discuss things that might happen in the future of football, such as potential future matchups and how those matchups might play out. 

Are the Browns not in the same division as the Ravens? Are the Browns not 5-2? Is it not inconceivable for the Browns to have beaten the Ravens without this maneuver to gather more of a pass rush to put against Baker?

This IS called footballs future after all and thus such a potential future prospect has to be taken into account and thus such a move is just as relevant to my comment about the Browns and their relevance as any such relevance to the Chiefs. What’s more it’s even MORE relevant because the Ravens will face the Browns AT LEAST two times a season while only facing the Chiefs once a season.

So no matter the groundwork for the excuse you’re trying to present. You can’t logically justify one comment of a separate team being relevant to this move without the greater relevance of the team that we actually are guaranteed to play a second time this season, that has as many wins as we have currently and who is also a playoff contender. Thus your logic is heavily flawed. Try again.

[pwny]

Just now, diamondbull424 said:

Are the Browns not in the same division as the Ravens? Are the Browns not 5-2? Is it not inconceivable for the Browns to have beaten the Ravens without this maneuver to gather more of a pass rush to put against Baker?

This IS called footballs future after all and thus such a potential future prospect has to be taken into account and thus such a move is just as relevant to my comment about the Browns and their relevance as any such relevance to the Chiefs. What’s more it’s even MORE relevant because the Ravens will face the Browns AT LEAST two times a season while only facing the Chiefs once a season.

So no matter the groundwork for the excuse you’re trying to present. You can’t logically justify one comment of a separate team being relevant to this move without the greater relevance of the team that we actually are guaranteed to play a second time this season, that has as many wins as we have currently and who is also a playoff contender. Thus your logic is heavily flawed. Try again.

Well given your comment was that the Browns couldn’t ever beat the Ravens with Harbaugh and Lamar, and didn’t include that this is the move that makes it impossible, no, your comment isn’t relevant. Try again. 

[diamondbull424]

15 minutes ago, pwny said:

Well given your comment was that the Browns couldn’t ever beat the Ravens with Harbaugh and Lamar, and didn’t include that this is the move that makes it impossible, no, your comment isn’t relevant. Try again. 

Here we have yet another logical fallacy. I never said that they CAN’T beat the Ravens. I said no matter what move the Browns make, Lamar and Harbaugh as well as Big Ben and Tomlin are still in the AFCN. Now what you’re talking about is your ASSUMPTION as to what my implication was with such a statement.

However I clarified my point was that the focus of the Browns should be on the nature of the Steelers and the Ravens. Considering that the Ravens just traded for Yannick Ngakoue and have now upped the nature of their ability to rush the passer, that makes the Browns chances of defeating the Ravens that much more narrow and thus positions the Ravens in a better position to finish ahead of them in the division. Which is very much relevant when it comes to the immediate future of both of these franchises. Thus my statement is relevant. Your interpretation was not.

I mean you yourself explain why my comment is indeed relevant.

1 hour ago, pwny said:

And it’s relevant because we’re on footballsfuture where we often discuss things that might happen in the future of football, such as potential future matchups and how those matchups might play out. 

The Ravens could very well face the Browns 2 additional times this season if they were to both meet up in the playoffs. The Steelers could also face them two additional times this season as well. Yet the Chiefs can only potentially face the Ravens once more... maybe. This assumes they don’t get knocked out by say Pittsburgh or the Titans or something. So when you consider the prospect of 2 guaranteed games and 2 additional hypothetical games vs the prospect of just 1 hypothetical game... yeah, my comment was certainly more relevant to “football’s future.” So once again your logic is flawed. Try again.

Edited October 27, 2020 by diamondbull424

[pwny]

1 minute ago, diamondbull424 said:

Here we have yet another logical fallacy. I never said that they CAN’T beat the Ravens. I said no matter what move the Browns make, Lamar and Harbaugh as well as Big Ben and Tomlin are still in the AFCN. Now what you’re talking about is your ASSUMPTION as to what my implication was with such a statement.

However I clarified my point was that the focus of the Browns should be on the nature of the Steelers and the Ravens. Considering that the Ravens just traded for Yannick Ngakoue and have now upped the nature of their ability to rush the passer, that makes the Browns chances of defeating the Ravens that much more narrow and thus positions the Ravens in a better position to finish ahead of them in the division. Which is very much relevant when it comes to the immediate future of both of these franchises. Thus my statement is relevant. Your interpretation was not.

I mean you yourself explain why my comment is indeed relevant.

The Ravens could very well face the Browns 2 additional times this season if they were to both meet up in the playoffs. The Steelers could also face them two additional times this season as well. Yet the Chiefs can only potentially face the Ravens once more... maybe. This assumes they don’t get knocked out by say Pittsburgh or the Titans or something. So when you consider the prospect of 2 guaranteed games and 2 additional hypothetical games vs the prospect of just 1 hypothetical game... yeah, my comment was certainly more relevant to “football’s future.” So once again your logic is flawed. Try again.

You're bringing up how the Browns matchup with the Steelers in a thread about a signing made by the Ravens. You're not trying to make an argument that's relevant to the thread. 

Quote

Considering that the Ravens just traded for Yannick Ngakoue and have now upped the nature of their ability to rush the passer, that makes the Browns chances of defeating the Ravens that much more narrow and thus positions the Ravens in a better position to finish ahead of them in the division.

Yeah, that would have been a great point to bring up. It's too bad that you didn't do that, because you were focused on trash talking a division rival instead of posting something relevant to the content of this thread.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

3 minutes ago, pwny said:

You're bringing up how the Browns matchup with the Steelers in a thread about a signing made by the Ravens. You're not trying to make an argument that's relevant to the thread. 

Yeah, that would have been a great point to bring up. It's too bad that you didn't do that, because you were focused on trash talking a division rival instead of posting something relevant to the content of this thread.

We'll be sure to randomly interject about the Ravens the next time the Jaguars have something notable happen to their team and I'm sure you'll still feel this same way about trying to derail that thread, too.

[pwny]

3 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

We'll be sure to randomly interject about the Ravens the next time the Jaguars have something notable happen to their team and I'm sure you'll still feel this same way about trying to derail that thread, too.

If the Ravens were in a competitive struggle with the Jaguars over some sort of end goal where the Ravens had the lead, go for it. But they probably won’t be. Tell you what, when the Jaguars bench Minshew for Glennon, go ahead and post how we still won’t be able to catch the Jets. I guarantee you won’t hear a peep out of me. 

[RaidersAreOne]

Did Yan play this past weekend?

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

8 minutes ago, RaidersAreOne said:

Did Yan play this past weekend?

Bye week. He'll make his debut this Sunday against Pittsburgh

[diamondbull424]

17 minutes ago, pwny said:

You're bringing up how the Browns matchup with the Steelers in a thread about a signing made by the Ravens. You're not trying to make an argument that's relevant to the thread. 

The Browns and Steelers are both located within the same division as the Ravens. A team that has just traded for a premier pass rusher. This entire move is INCREDIBLY relevant to the nature of the AFCN. The Steelers have been playing excellent football. It would be foolish to discount them outside of the scope of my comment considering that all the teams I listed all have a strong chance at the division. Yet one fan is focused more on how a division rival matches up against a conference opponent that they might not face anymore this season vs the teams that they are guaranteed to face at least two more times for what will decide divisional supremacy. 

You're trying to say that somehow the Chiefs are more relevant to a topic where they have no guaranteed games against an opponent (the Ravens) over the relevance of division rivals who all face each other at least once more with all having only one win separating them? Please explain how a random comment on a non-opponent (the Chiefs) is somehow more relevant than a random comment about actual (divisional) opponents within a tight race?

30 minutes ago, pwny said:

Yeah, that would have been a great point to bring up. It's too bad that you didn't do that, because you were focused on trash talking a division rival instead of posting something relevant to the content of this thread.

Oh I absolutely was indeed focused on trash talking a divisional opponent. Yet I also was focused on reminding said divisional opponent that the division is within a tight race and is the more relevant concern. That point doesn’t simply go one way, it goes both ways. Because I already realized that this move has divisional implications. The Ravens could still lose to the Steelers, but this move makes our chances of victory a little stronger. It makes our chances of beating the Browns that much stronger as well. See unlike said divisional opponent my focus was already on how this move gives us a leg up with our upcoming schedule vs some hypothetical game against an opponent that may never come to fruition.

What is more relevant to the future, a guaranteed occurrence or a hypothetical occurrence? This IS footballsfuture after all. You keep avoiding this point because you know the nature of your bogus explanation of how the Chiefs are somehow more relevant to this topic wouldn’t survive if you answered this question.

Just like how this bogus assertion of my intent couldn’t survive either.

1 hour ago, pwny said:

Well given your comment was that the Browns couldn’t ever beat the Ravens with Harbaugh and Lamar, and didn’t include that this is the move that makes it impossible, no, your comment isn’t relevant. Try again. 

You’ve already proven your ability to make fraudulent assertions based on your assumptions. Your grasping for straws here. Try again.

[pwny]

3 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

You're trying to say that somehow the Chiefs are more relevant to a topic where they have no guaranteed games against an opponent (the Ravens) over the relevance of division rivals who all face each other at least once more with all having only one win separating them? Please explain how a random comment on a non-opponent (the Chiefs) is somehow more relevant than a random comment about actual (divisional) opponents within a tight race?

Yes, how the Chiefs matchup with the Ravens is more relevant to a topic about a signing the Ravens made than how the Browns matchup with the Steelers is relevant to the same signing by the Ravens. How is it more relevant? Because the Ravens have aspirations of making the Super Bowl, and whether this move makes a difference towards that goal is relevant to this signing. Whether or not the Steelers can beat the Browns, however, will see zero impact from the Ravens signing a player. 

 

Quote

The Ravens could still lose to the Steelers, but this move makes our chances of victory a little stronger. It makes our chances of beating the Browns that much stronger as well. See unlike said divisional opponent my focus was already on how this move gives us a leg up with our upcoming schedule vs some hypothetical game against an opponent that may never come to fruition.

Yeah, this would all be relevant. It's too bad you chose to discuss how the Browns matchup with the Steelers instead of saying you thought that this had an impact on the Ravens playing the Steelers. And while you're now saying that this makes the matchup with the Browns stronger in the Ravens favor, your previous post literally had nothing to do with this move. In fact, you chose to derail the thread with a hypothetical signing that the Browns might make that won't make a difference.

Quote

Idc who the Browns get. Lamar and John Harbaugh are still in the AFCN.

Idc who the Browns get. Big Ben and Mike Tomlin are still in the AFCN.

FIFY. This should be the level of the Browns focus. Pick your poison.

Maybe discuss how this signing impacts the Ravens vs Browns, instead of suggesting that you don't care about hypothetical signings the Browns might make, in a thread about a signing by the Ravens.

[diamondbull424]

31 minutes ago, pwny said:

Yes, how the Chiefs matchup with the Ravens is more relevant to a topic about a signing the Ravens made than how the Browns matchup with the Steelers is relevant to the same signing by the Ravens. How is it more relevant? Because the Ravens have aspirations of making the Super Bowl, and whether this move makes a difference towards that goal is relevant to this signing. Whether or not the Steelers can beat the Browns, however, will see zero impact from the Ravens signing a player

How is it more relevant? The Ravens don’t have a guaranteed matchup with the Chiefs anymore this season.

Yet Yannick Ngakoue was traded within the AFCN was he not? Yes, he was. Thus the AFCN is made relevant by this move, is it not? Yes, it is made relevant by this move.

The Browns had been building up a lot of momentum prior to the Steelers loss. The Ravens trading for Yannick Ngakoue is more relevant to their chances at making the playoffs than it is about whether the Ravens can beat the Chiefs. Especially when the other poster didn’t bring up Yannick Ngakoue in said post to illustrate how THIS PARTICULAR MOVE relates to the Ravens and Chiefs matching up.

You are the one who attempted to retroactively attach logical associations with his point that wasn’t attached within his post. Yet you are now trying to make the claim that using his SAME MODEL of posting (ie not including all the relevant associations within said post) that my logical associations are somehow not relevant to be included?

Your logic is flawed. And has been found wanting.

Edited October 27, 2020 by diamondbull424

[diamondbull424]

33 minutes ago, pwny said:

Yeah, this would all be relevant. It's too bad you chose to discuss how the Browns matchup with the Steelers instead of saying you thought that this had an impact on the Ravens playing the Steelers. And while you're now saying that this makes the matchup with the Browns stronger in the Ravens favor, your previous post literally had nothing to do with this move. In fact, you chose to derail the thread with a hypothetical signing that the Browns might make that won't make a difference.

See my above post. If you’re allowed to retroactively include logical assertions into another posters post that wasn’t aptly included then I am thus allowed to retroactively include assertions into my own post that was following the same syntax as the poster you have insert logical assertions for.

[diamondbull424]

34 minutes ago, pwny said:

Maybe discuss how this signing impacts the Ravens vs Browns, instead of suggesting that you don't care about hypothetical signings the Browns might make, in a thread about a signing by the Ravens.

Why? What if I don’t want to? What if I simply want to discuss how this signing impacts the Ravens vs Steelers matchup this upcoming week? Because that’s the most relevant game to the Ravens taking claim of the division by a half game.

Or perhaps I want to discuss how this signing impacts the Ravens ability to make the playoffs considering who they have left on their schedule compared to who the Browns and Steelers have left on their schedule.

Or perhaps I want to discuss if the Vikings gave up Yannick Ngakoue too early and might’ve been able to get more value had they waited closer to the deadline.

Or perhaps I’d like to discuss the fact that Eric DeCosta continues to make brilliant maneuvers in improving the nature of this football team.

Yeah, I think I’ll continue to discuss however this signing is relevant in however a way I deem it to be relevant as well as based off of how other posters deem it somehow relevant.