Warrior General Games

Originally posted by jdbolick
LHF is currently butthurt over me bringing up a past argument where I statistically showed that his CBs were inferior to mine. He'll get over it and be back to posting threads about his returner in no time, so just ignore it.

lold

Originally posted by ryan_grant-25
When is he dishonest? Sure he has his own radical perspective (That I both agree and disagree with at times) but I dont think dishonest is the word to describe him.

Oh, I could write a dissertation on the amount of times I've caught bolick being dishonest, but I won't. Generally, he either quotes an agent's statements out of context to try and show that they said something different than what they actually said or he'll use incomplete statistics to support an argument when looking at all of the relevant statistics proves the opposite of what he claims.

For example, he just stated that he statistically proved that my CBs were inferior to his in two threads. In the first thread, his proof was that his CBs "made a play" on a higher percentage of their targets. Well his proof failed to include INTs as making a play. Had he done so, the statistics would show that my CB made a play on a higher percentage of targets. He also failed to include statistics like the fact that my CB had a lower amount of receptions allowed, more TFLs, and fewer missed tackles.

So he lied when he stated that his CBs made a player on a higher percentage of targets, he was dishonest when he failed to include all relevant statistics, and he continues to lie by claiming that "he statistically showed that [my] CBs were inferior to [his]."

There are plenty of other times where he's tried to pull similar dishonest arguments with myself or other agents, but I'm not going to rehash.

Kind of difficult to guage a CB vs CB without including safety help, who had a superior pass rush etc...

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
Oh, I could write a dissertation on the amount of times I've caught bolick being dishonest, but I won't. Generally, he either quotes an agent's statements out of context to try and show that they said something different than what they actually said or he'll use incomplete statistics to support an argument when looking at all of the relevant statistics proves the opposite of what he claims. For example, he just stated that he statistically proved that my CBs were inferior to his in two threads. In the first thread, his proof was that his CBs "made a play" on a higher percentage of their targets. Well his proof failed to include INTs as making a play. Had he done so, the statistics would show that my CB made a play on a higher percentage of targets. He also failed to include statistics like the fact that my CB had a lower amount of receptions allowed, more TFLs, and fewer missed tackles.
I like how you not only accuse me of lying when I'm not and you are, but you tell those lies already knowing that I have proof to expose them. That's why I don't think your delusion is an act. You really are this out of touch with reality that your mind changes the entire world where you're right and everyone else on the planet is wrong. In any case, here's the proof that LHF is lying about me not including INTs or tackles:

INTs included:
Originally posted by jdbolick

Check that math again.

YMXI: 47 receptions allowed on 82 targets = 57.3% allowed
Third: 40 receptions allowed on 79 targets = 50.6% allowed
Roark: 47 receptions allowed on 86 targets = 54.7% allowed

So yeah, mine were better than yours last season. And that's only if you look at receptions allowed, which includes bad passes from the QB or times when you had safety help over the top for your slow-ass corner. As I've said many times, if you want to isolate where the cornerback was actually responsible for preventing a completion then you need to add pass deflections + knocked loose + interceptions.

YMXI: 17 PDs, 4 KLs, & 2 INTs on 82 targets = 28.0% stops
Third: 30 PDs, 2 KLs, & 0 INTs on 79 targets = 40.5% stops
Roark: 27 PDs, 6 KLs, & 1 INT on 86 targets = 39.5% stops

So yeah, my corners fucking crushed yours last season. Since this is the part where you always accuse me of lying, what does that make you?
And tackles:
Originally posted by jdbolick
Over the last two seasons:
Yes Man XI: Eradication - made 93.3% of his tackle attempts
Yes Man XII: Ruination - made 83.9% of his tackle attempts
Third - made 92.6% of his tackle attempts
Roark - made 90.4% of his tackle attempts

Taking a second piece of make tackle for a corner was a huge waste, dude. It's funny that you keep insisting that I made a mistake by not doing it when hardly any good corner builders doubles up on make tackle because we all know that it's a bad move.

Hey bolick, you could save a lot of time posting "no u". But I will admit the long quote blocks and rebuttals are pretty awesome

no u

Actually I posted an ASCII "no u" once in GLB main and got banned for it.

catching helps you catch up to receivers and ball carriers

Originally posted by jdbolick
Actually I posted an ASCII "no u" once in GLB main and got banned for it.

The "fart" ban was the best

Originally posted by jdbolick

#1) Why mention it if you weren't using it as an excuse? You clearly were.

#2) Doing it with GBB and Benin (while being wrong both times) certainly suggests a pattern of dishonesty. As I noted, that's what we've all come to expect from the Hedgehogs.

Why would I have an excuse for 0cares scrim losses (or wins)? You are clearly reaching.

As far as the Benin thing, T2 was mentioning on tagging mattering for picks, which it obv does. Blind ezra thinking his punter got 5 INTs is the real misnomer of this thread, not T2 thinking of non-tagging as a reason for 0 INTs (INTs are randomized to an extend, we get quite a few 0 INT games, but tons of 3+ games).

If you think what people have come to expect from the Hedgehogs is excuses for scrim losses, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. If I was scared of scrim losses I wouldn't scrim everybody as often as possible, and also leave myself open to lolscrim challenges. Its about having competitive games for peeps who decided to bring dots here ldo.

Better get a life alert