THEE NYG SWAG THREAD

[MattMeyerBud]

[quote user="bansaw"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="bigblue4417"][quote user="bansaw"]and to lose to the Orioles of all teams

hehehe thats GOTTA HURT
[/quote]
"End of season like this, to make Boston go home sad, crying, I'll take it all day," said Robert Andino, who got the game-winning hit off Red Sox closer Jonathan Papelbon.

LOL YEAH!!!
[/quote]

somebody is marketing themselves for a pinstripes contract
[/quote]no bloody sock this year...

just poopy pants
[/quote]

hahahahaa

[bansaw]

gotta go sleep, working midnights

I'll leave you guys to keep trolling Moorehead

[MattMeyerBud]

[quote user="bansaw"]gotta go sleep, working midnights

I'll leave you guys to keep trolling Moorehead
[/quote]

hahaha good to hear from u banny

[lttaylor56]

[quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="dezzzR"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="dezzzR"][quote user="Morehead State"]


Well my drunken rage from last night is in the past. No more drunken texts to Matt.</p>


BUT, the Yankees are a disgrace<u>. I was watching the games with a Yankee fan and he was embarrassed for not bringing in Mo in the 9th.</u></p>


The Sox blew the game without a doubt. And we probably would have gotten beat today, but the Yanks have disgraced themselves and all of baseball.</p>


The Phillies played it straight for 13 innings. And for the entire series with Atlanta. Just like the Giants did in 07 against the Pats. And we applauded our team for doing that.</p>


You can spin it anyway you want, but your team is bush.</p>


[/quote]yea bring mo in and risk an injury 2 days before the playoffs. youre still in a drunken rage
[/quote]</p>


When was the last time Mo got hurt by throwing one inning? You are rationalizing. <u>This was an important game to the league.</u> We were all proud of our team in 07 when they played hard against the Pats. The Giants are a class organization and understand the importance to the league of that game. How did that turn out?</p>


You know you are embarrasssed Dez. Just admit it and move forward. My team may have collapsed but they played hard. And no matter what you say about this collapse, the greatest collapse in baseball history was the 04 Yankees. Nothing will change that.</p>


[/quote]nooo it was an important game to the sox and the rays. whats your excuse for not even winning back to back games this month? injuries??? the sox blew it. bad. real bad....vs the o's bad. whats your excuse for crawfords half *** attempt on the last play?? that was absolutely horrible by the way, my heart went out to you after that. if im a manager and my team clinched the division almost 2 weeks ago theres no shot in hell im throwing in my best closer for a meaningless game. no manager in their right mind would.
[/quote]</p>


What was your view of the Giants playing it straight against the Pats in 07?</p>


Be consistent.</p>


I have to drive to SF this morning. You all need to examine your loyalty to a team that disgraced the pinstripes.</p>


Tigers in 3. Or even better, the Rays beating the Yanks in the ALCS. Poetic justice.</p>[/quote]Where is SF?

[DavenIII]

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]no u do make things up cuz ur first paragraph was about how game speed is diff tha n40 times. Nobody even brought up game speed. [/quote]

That's not making something up it's stating a fact...Game speed is different then their times at the combine, during a game they have pads on they aren't always running on a perfect surface...the only reason I even brought it up was because you clearly watch the game and "think" bradshaw looks faster on the field...and maybe he IS faster in a game speed situation...but the FACT is in the situation I'm suggesting, a "100 yard sprint" it is an indisputable fact that Jacobs would have the advantage because of his size.

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]You giving me some guys made up point system of how HE judges speed is hardly good evidence. And that link u had only gave JAcobs speeds for like 20 different things and bradshaw and wares times for like 2 things. [/quote]

Not my fault they website choose to display MORE information about Jacobs then Bradshaw or Ware...but the FACT is the 40 times are what we are really discussing....and the 40 times for all three are listed right there...you are going off on this tangent about shuttle times and other crap that is not relevant because you know you are wrong.

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]My opinion is no more made up than yours.[/quote]

Yes infact it IS...I provide empirical data that supports my argument.....you provide nothing and just say you are right...in fact you do not have an argument of any kind...it's you telling me 2+2=5 because "you say so" then I show you a physical representation of the facts...show you that you are wrong...and you plug your ears and say nanananana that's what you do, (not just in this argument but many others as well especially in political arguments)


[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]Except we've seen the stamina of both guys, so to say that Jacobs prob wouldn't hold up as good as Bradshaw in a 100 yards really isn't that much of a stretch. You just pretend it is, because per usual it hurts your personal points.[/quote]

It's an INCREDIBLE stretch Matt, they run more then a hundred yards while breaking tackles in pads in 1 to 2 plays one following the other quite often and still have no problem running the next game.....if you had any type of proof that Jacobs would tire over a 100 yard sprint and Bradshaw wouldn't you would have an argument....but you bring nothing to the table...find me an article find me a number from his combine find me something that suggest that and I'll take you seriously (I promise) but until then it's YOU whose just making it up.

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]You make the case that just because he got quicker from the 20 to the 40 that it automatically he'd be able to maintain and carry that speed for another 60 yards. THATS what ridiculous.
[/quote]

No Matt... that's physics...and it's common sense also, it's why Cheetahs are fast it's why Gazelle's are fast it's also why Usain Bolt is fast, it's a observable fact that longer strides = more speed in pretty much all biological creatures...including humans....once it was proven that Jacobs "caught up" from the 20 to the 40...then using the laws of science it can be assumed factually that he will continue to gain speed on him until the point he starts to loss speed.

if BJ is accelerating faster then AB then AB can not possibly pass BJ on a straight line...it's just a fact MMB...one you refuse to accept.

[MattMeyerBud]

San Fran. Hes in Wine Country out in CAli right now

btw i just responded to ur PM, forgot to read it for a lil bit there lol

[MattMeyerBud]

better watch out Lawl - he may be trying to kidnap Lincy to bring him to boston

[MattMeyerBud]

[quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"]no u do make things up cuz ur first paragraph was about how game speed is diff tha n40 times. Nobody even brought up game speed. [/quote]

That's not making something up it's stating a fact...Game speed is different then their times at the combine, during a game they have pads on they aren't always running on a perfect surface...the only reason I even brought it up was because you clearly watch the game and "think" bradshaw looks faster on the field...and maybe he IS faster in a game speed situation...but the FACT is in the situation I'm suggesting, a "100 yard sprint" it is an indisputable fact that Jacobs would have the advantage because of his size.

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]You giving me some guys made up point system of how HE judges speed is hardly good evidence. And that link u had only gave JAcobs speeds for like 20 different things and bradshaw and wares times for like 2 things. [/quote]

Not my fault they website choose to display MORE information about Jacobs then Bradshaw or Ware...but the FACT is the 40 times are what we are really disusing....and the 40 times for all three are listed right there...you are going off on this tangent about shuttle times and other crap that is not relevant because you know you are wrong.

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]My opinion is no more made up than yours.[/quote]

Yes infact it IS...I provide empirical data that supports my argument.....you provide nothing and just say you are right...in fact you do not have an argument of any kind...it's you telling me 2+2=5 because "you say so" then I show you a physical representation of the facts...show you that you are wrong...and you plug your ears and say nanananana that's what you do, (not just in this argument but many others as well especially in political arguments)


[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]Except we've seen the stamina of both guys, so to say that Jacobs prob wouldn't hold up as good as Bradshaw in a 100 yards really isn't that much of a stretch. You just pretend it is, because per usual it hurts your personal points.[/quote]

It's an INCREDIBLE stretch Matt, they run more then a hundred yards while breaking tackles in pads in 1 to 2 plays one following the other quite often and still have no problem running the next game.....if you had any type of proof that Jacobs would tire over a 100 yard sprint and Bradshaw wouldn't you would have an argument....but you bring nothing to the table...find me an article find me a number from his combine find me something that suggest that and I'll take you seriously (I promise) but until then it's YOU whose just making it up.

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]You make the case that just because he got quicker from the 20 to the 40 that it automatically he'd be able to maintain and carry that speed for another 60 yards. THATS what ridiculous.
[/quote]

No Matt... that's physics...and it's common sense also, it's why Cheetahs are fast it's why Gazelle's are fast it's also why Usain Bolt is fast, it's a observable fact that longer strides = more speed in pretty much all biological creatures...including humans....once it was proven that Jacobs "caught up" from the 20 to the 40...then using the laws of science it can be assumed factually that he will continue to gain speed on him until the point he starts to loss speed.

if BJ is accelerating faster then AB then AB can not possibly pass BJ on a straight line...it's just a fact MMB...one you refuse to accept.
[/quote]

honestly daven i have no energy to fight u since u littered my inbox for days with trying to say that theres no way to differentiate between murders even though we already do as it stands.

ur a better lawyer than scientist as LT said, so as soon as I saw u say Physics i don't care what u have to say lol. Theres no exact science. They aren't machines, theres more to running than just running. ITs actually all in the form. Strides actually aren't even a quarter of determination if somebody can keep their speed up.

Your wrong

[dezzzR]

[quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="dezzzR"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="dezzzR"][quote user="Morehead State"]


Well my drunken rage from last night is in the past. No more drunken texts to Matt.</p>


BUT, the Yankees are a disgrace<u>. I was watching the games with a Yankee fan and he was embarrassed for not bringing in Mo in the 9th.</u></p>


The Sox blew the game without a doubt. And we probably would have gotten beat today, but the Yanks have disgraced themselves and all of baseball.</p>


The Phillies played it straight for 13 innings. And for the entire series with Atlanta. Just like the Giants did in 07 against the Pats. And we applauded our team for doing that.</p>


You can spin it anyway you want, but your team is bush.</p>


[/quote]yea bring mo in and risk an injury 2 days before the playoffs. youre still in a drunken rage
[/quote]</p>


When was the last time Mo got hurt by throwing one inning? You are rationalizing. <u>This was an important game to the league.</u> We were all proud of our team in 07 when they played hard against the Pats. The Giants are a class organization and understand the importance to the league of that game. How did that turn out?</p>


You know you are embarrasssed Dez. Just admit it and move forward. My team may have collapsed but they played hard. And no matter what you say about this collapse, the greatest collapse in baseball history was the 04 Yankees. Nothing will change that.</p>


[/quote]nooo it was an important game to the sox and the rays. whats your excuse for not even winning back to back games this month? injuries??? the sox blew it. bad. real bad....vs the o's bad. whats your excuse for crawfords half *** attempt on the last play?? that was absolutely horrible by the way, my heart went out to you after that. if im a manager and my team clinched the division almost 2 weeks ago theres no shot in hell im throwing in my best closer for a meaningless game. no manager in their right mind would.
[/quote]</p>


<u>What was your view of the Giants playing it straight against the Pats in 07?</u></p>


Be consistent.</p>


I have to drive to SF this morning.<u> You all need to examine your loyalty to a team</u> that disgraced the pinstripes.</p>


Tigers in 3. Or even better, the Rays beating the Yanks in the ALCS. Poetic justice.</p>[/quote]totally different animal. giants won the wildcard that year and were very inconsistent. and wasnt gwilk playing in that game?

tigers in 3?!lol are these people dropping acid in your wine?


i think YOU need to examine the definition of loyalty ya ship jumper.

[DavenIII]

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]honestly daven i have no energy to fight u since u littered my inbox for days with trying to say that theres no way to differentiate between murders even though we already do as it stands.[/quote]

I provided the facts in that argument also, I proved that I was correct...and as usual you claimed the win, that's the normal I provide undeniable evidence on my side of the argument....you figure out you can win...so you declare that you have already won.

My point on the murder case was that you can not differentiate between two murders and apply different punishments...based upon your feelings of how "bad" the murder was...our legal system is not designed in such a way and I proved that to you....

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]Strides actually aren't even a quarter of determination if somebody can keep their speed up.[/quote]

And you're evidence of strides not even determining a quarter of the outcome is where? Oh Non-existant...as usual....like your argument

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]Your wrong[/quote]

you can say that all you want, but until you provide some sort of conflicting argument you just look like a fool.