Big Blue Huddle

There is all we really need to know as to who is, and who is not, a real fan as opposed to some wannabe GM phony-ass.  At least, you now where you can shove it.

Cheers!

Yeah, the Giants were so inept, they could have lost every game and guaranteed themselves the first pick. 

So, when would the OP like to see his team begin to intentionally lose games?  After they are eliminated from the playoffs?

Football is about winning games. Where have all the high draft picks for a decade got us? Losing!

Drafting 5 or 6 we are not getting the guy who might replace DJ. If that is the plan then we need to trade up to 1 or 2 and it is only a fraction more expensive from 6.

If that isn't the plan (and that is my best guess) 6 is a spot to either trade back or to take the best player on the board irrespective of position or positional value eg if TE1>Wr2/3 or DT1>Edge 2 take the better player.

We have holes literally everywhere so draft players not positions day one and two.

Must fill holes (eg RT, DE/DT post Leo, OG, CB) are for FA or trade IMO.

Look guys, either you tank the season completely or you play to win the game. Simple as that.
The Giants elected for the latter.

Yesterday's win didn't change the cards a whole lot from a Draft perspective, whether you pick 5th or 6th doesn't change massively.

Quote from: Brooklyn Dave on January 08, 2024, 01:59:56 AMYou would have liked the Giants to lose so we could have moved up one draft spot to number 5 ?

Where do you see him saying that?

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on January 08, 2024, 07:14:02 AMWhere do you see him saying that?

Yes, this frustration encompasses all the meaningless victories the screwed the team's future.

Quote from: GordonGekko80 on January 08, 2024, 05:30:46 AMLook guys, either you tank the season completely or you play to win the game. Simple as that.
The Giants elected for the latter.

Yesterday's win didn't change the cards a whole lot from a Draft perspective, whether you pick 5th or 6th doesn't change massively.

Imagine you're at work and if you fail to complete a project on time, there would be an opportunity to hire more folks. But here's the kicker: the new hire may replace you.

Do you do your best to complete the project on time or miss the deadline in the hopes of getting more help?

Quote from: Painter on January 08, 2024, 02:23:34 AMThere is all we really need to know as to who is, and who is not, a real fan as opposed to some wannabe GM phony-ass.  At least, you now where you can shove it.

Cheers!

Agreed!

The draft is a crap shoot!  If it wasn't then MR Irrelevant wouldn't be Starting QB in SF and Brady would have never been Brady!

As a fan you root for your team to win!  At all costs!

The offseason is why you have a great GM and scouts to win the offseason!

Any fan rooting to lose for a better draft position to me has their priorities all wrong!

@Painter @Slugsy-Narrows


No True Scotsman Logical Fallacy

Description:

The argument defends an assertion by disallowing, by definition, all counterexamples, emphasizing that we are only talking about true examples of whatever population is under consideration.

 

Comments:

The fallacy takes its name from the colorful example (paraphrased below) that Anthony Flew originally invented to illustrate it.

 

Examples:

"No true Scotsman puts brown sugar on his porridge. The fact that Angus MacGregor puts brown sugar on his porridge just proves that he's no true Scotsman!"

 

"Liberals are a bunch of latte-sucking elitist pseudo-intellectuals from New England. Of course, Hubert Humphrey was from South Dakota, so I'm not talking about him."

 

Discussion:

Political parties and other interest groups need to have principles, and a person who claims to be a member of that party or group, while denying the central principles that define the group, is surely mistaken or confused. For example, one could hardly be an atheist while believing that Vishnu is the deity responsible for sustaining and supporting the universe. It is reasonable to demand some standards of behavior or belief, and there is no fallacy in saying that no true atheist worships Vishnu.

The No True Scotsman fallacy mimics this demand for standards, but it attempts to create (by definition) membership criteria that are not the defining criteria that we normally expect (or that are actually in force).

The No True Scotsman fallacy is used in two ways. It can be used to try to enforce conformity and orthodoxy within a particular group, and it can also be used by people outside the group to "define" the group in negative ways. When the fallacy is used in the second of these ways it can bear a strong resemblance to the Straw Man fallacy, i.e. creating a misrepresentation of an opponent's view. The fallacy also bears some resemblance to the fallacy of Equivocation, since the term at issue--"Scotsman" for example--shifts its meaning: a Scotsman is a member of a particular geographic or ethnic group, vs. a Scotsman is a member of that group who doesn't put brown sugar on his porridge. Despite these similarities, I have classified the No True Scotsman fallacy as an Inductive circularity, since it seems to me that the central error in the fallacy is the use of mere stipulation to disallow observable counterexamples that would otherwise refute the arguer's generalization about a population.

Quote from: MightyGiants on January 08, 2024, 08:50:38 AM@Painter @Slugsy-Narrows


No True Scotsman Logical Fallacy

Description:

The argument defends an assertion by disallowing, by definition, all counterexamples, emphasizing that we are only talking about true examples of whatever population is under consideration.

 

Comments:

The fallacy takes its name from the colorful example (paraphrased below) that Anthony Flew originally invented to illustrate it.

 

Examples:

"No true Scotsman puts brown sugar on his porridge. The fact that Angus MacGregor puts brown sugar on his porridge just proves that he's no true Scotsman!"

 

"Liberals are a bunch of latte-sucking elitist pseudo-intellectuals from New England. Of course, Hubert Humphrey was from South Dakota, so I'm not talking about him."

 

Discussion:

Political parties and other interest groups need to have principles, and a person who claims to be a member of that party or group, while denying the central principles that define the group, is surely mistaken or confused. For example, one could hardly be an atheist while believing that Vishnu is the deity responsible for sustaining and supporting the universe. It is reasonable to demand some standards of behavior or belief, and there is no fallacy in saying that no true atheist worships Vishnu.

The No True Scotsman fallacy mimics this demand for standards, but it attempts to create (by definition) membership criteria that are not the defining criteria that we normally expect (or that are actually in force).

The No True Scotsman fallacy is used in two ways. It can be used to try to enforce conformity and orthodoxy within a particular group, and it can also be used by people outside the group to "define" the group in negative ways. When the fallacy is used in the second of these ways it can bear a strong resemblance to the Straw Man fallacy, i.e. creating a misrepresentation of an opponent's view. The fallacy also bears some resemblance to the fallacy of Equivocation, since the term at issue--"Scotsman" for example--shifts its meaning: a Scotsman is a member of a particular geographic or ethnic group, vs. a Scotsman is a member of that group who doesn't put brown sugar on his porridge. Despite these similarities, I have classified the No True Scotsman fallacy as an Inductive circularity, since it seems to me that the central error in the fallacy is the use of mere stipulation to disallow observable counterexamples that would otherwise refute the arguer's generalization about a population.

🥱

Quote from: T200 on January 08, 2024, 08:09:33 AMImagine you're at work and if you fail to complete a project on time, there would be an opportunity to hire more folks. But here's the kicker: the new hire may replace you.

Do you do your best to complete the project on time or miss the deadline in the hopes of getting more help?

Me? This.

Look at what happened to Rivera and his GM today...

Quote from: GordonGekko80 on January 08, 2024, 09:20:55 AMMe? This.

The players undoubtedly feel the same way. They want to win. They don't care one iota about being in a better position to draft a guy who may replace them. They may also have incentive clauses that are triggered.

Chris Jones just got a huge bonus:

https://apnews.com/article/chiefs-chris-jones-sack-bonus-ab08193055f2e3f23b0775d6218e1e66

Let's not make this a referendum on fandom.

ANYTIME the Giants beat the Eagles is good as far as I am concerned!  For the draft, the Bears will trade out, Cards and Chargers are keeping their QB's so probably three Qb's will go before the Giants pick.... maybe only 2 if the Commanders trade up to 1. I think the Bears keep their guy.  So Commanders, Patriots will grab QB's leaving the Giants with a shot at a top tier guy (if they want one which isn't a given).

Quote from: expatriot on January 08, 2024, 09:43:23 AMANYTIME the Giants beat the Eagles is good as far as I am concerned!  For the draft, the Bears will trade out, Cards and Chargers are keeping their QB's so probably three Qb's will go before the Giants pick.... maybe only 2 if the Commanders trade up to 1. I think the Bears keep their guy.  So Commanders, Patriots will grab QB's leaving the Giants with a shot at a top tier guy (if they want one which isn't a given).

Currently, the consensus is there are 3 top tier QBs.  So the Giants are not going to have a shot at one of the top QBs.