To further the analogy, punting puts the team into a defensive possession. By not playing Mitchell you would have to rely on defense to win the game. Get a pick 6 or some ****.
Should the Jazz Punt Game 2?
- Thread starter Saint Cy of JFC
- Start date
addictionary
Well-Known Member
I just would love to see Westbrook’s face when they lose to a Jazz w/o DM.
The Revenge of AB
LoPo
Well-Known Member
I'm shocked that you of all people Fish would let him off the hook for this. You, and me and anyone with a brain knows what he meant. Don't play Mitchell, expect to lose and be ready for Game 3 at home. You guys going to bat for Cy on this one are like irrational helicopter parents who do anything blindly to back their kid. Well, your kid put up a dumb thread. It happens.
Fish is a real one and recognizes a real one.
The Jazz like the 85 Bears. They punt that **** then get a turnover and score off it.
When you punt you surrender your chance to score on that possession. Yes, it's done for strategic reason with the ultimate goal of winning the game (although, I was listening to a thing a while back and teams punt WAY WAY WAY more than they should.) but it is giving up on that particular drive and giving the other team possession. Cy used the analogy as if individual playoff games were the same as drives in football. They aren't. Punting an NBA game would mean giving the other team the win, surrendering our opportunity to score a game in the series.
Yeah, we're all just arguing semantics on a ill-fitting cross sport analogy, but whatever. The way CY used the term and Cy's thread title are DAF.
radiohegel
Guest
I have nothing against you, and nothing aligning me with Cy, but honestly your remarks in this thread are coming off as a kind of desperate grasping at a perceived opportunity to deride someone who was mean to you on the Internet. I don't think it's coming off in the way you think/hope it is to impartial readers.
Cy's point really isn't at all outrageous, and it's a valid question. It's also totally valid to weigh in with a 'no', even a strongly-opinionated 'no', but there's nothing about the question that is in any way unreasonable.
LoPo
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry you see it that way. It's not personal. It's strictly pointing out the hypocritical world where Cy is choosing to reside currently. Cy takes cheaps shots a people all the time for what he perceives to be "idiotic" comments or threads. Ironically enough, he just posted the most idiotic thread of 2018 and probably longer. Instead of just owning it and moving on, he is shamelessly defending his idiotic thread.
Bawse Dawg
Well-Known Member
Wait people read this thread as anything other than just resting Donovan in hopes he could be fully healthy in games 3-7?
You guys actually thought that Cy wanted to purposely lose? That thought crossing your mind didn’t throw up any red flags?
Thread is weird.
You guys actually thought that Cy wanted to purposely lose? That thought crossing your mind didn’t throw up any red flags?
Thread is weird.
LifeOnaPlate
Well-Known Member
Right. My argument is that there is significant enough ambiguity about the language that Cy could have forestalled a lot of pushback by using different language, or by conceding that using "punt" is ambiguous enough to confuse more than one poster on the board. Instead, he was defensive, and even though he had a case to be made, there was enough linguistic breakdown that he could have just said "ok, let's not use the word punt."