Mike McCarthy Approached
-
Not only are your language skills awful....I see that Choco has called you out as a cheating liar. You originally asked. ONLY...which coaches won a SB and then went on to take another team to the SB. (he says you edited in the "win" word). And I answered your original question.
But, be happy.....my answer to your original question was only partially correct. I just said "Holmgren"...when the answer is "Holmgren and Parcells".
And I already knew how to cut and paste and edit on here. And if I wanted someone to teach me to cheat and lie...well, from when I was 16 to 22 Richard Nixon was Potus, so I had better examples of that than you.
Okay it's not cheating and lying you dumb prick I left out the word when I admitted that or Victory whatever you want to say on accident but in my very next post on the subject after he quoted me it clearly states led them to another Super Bowl victory. When my point is that I don't want another Super bowl-winning retread why would I ask a question that I know the answer is not 0 when I can make my point by asking what coach has won a Super Bowl with two different teams. I worded that poorly and I left out a word doesn't mean I'm a cheating liar. It's people like you that will keep me from going to the Browns board tailgate next year.
Okay it's not cheating and lying you dumb prick I left out the word when I admitted that or Victory whatever you want to say on accident but in my very next post on the subject after he quoted me it clearly states led them to another Super Bowl victory. When my point is that I don't want another Super bowl-winning retread why would I ask a question that I know the answer is not 0 when I can make my point by asking what coach has won a Super Bowl with two different teams. I worded that poorly and I left out a word doesn't mean I'm a cheating liar. It's people like you that will keep me from going to the Browns board tailgate next year.
I can't read your mind. Like I said, I only answered the question you posted. Your motivation for why you make a post is not my concern. You asked a trivia question and I answered it. Plain, simple. Then you want to change the parameters of that question with another post, and then with an edit.
What are we supposed to do about that? And like I said, I only got it partially correct anyway.
What I think you need to do is to take a drink, you are getting yourself all flustered over nothing. I will have a drink with you at that tailgate.
-
So you guys wrote hundreds of words about "who said what" over a question about coaches that had won a SB with 2 different teams?
Internet is amazing.
And it's all over my text to talk not picking up the word win. Or maybe it did and spelled it as "when" so when glimpsing over it I deleted the entire word instead of changing it.
-
So you guys wrote hundreds of words about "who said what" over a question about coaches that had won a SB with 2 different teams?
Internet is amazing.
And it's all over my text to talk not picking up the word win. Or maybe it did and spelled it as "when" so when glimpsing over it I deleted the entire word instead of changing it.
And it's all over my text to talk not picking up the word win. Or maybe it did and spelled it as "when" so when glimpsing over it I deleted the entire word instead of changing it.
All I'm saying is this is why ... You asked a different question in your mind than you did on the board. But its supposed to be on the reader to understand that and respond accordingly? GTFO
All ya had to do was say, "sorry, I actually meant...."
-
I answered the post you made. I did that before I saw your next post. I did it before you edited your first post. I can only answer a question that is asked. In Jeopardy they don't say "wait...don't ring in to answer this question until after the next question is asked". It don't work that way.
And then after that post you went on to make another post adding Bill Parcells in response to my third post on the subject when the one that makes it clear that I left out the word win was my second post on a subject. But regardless if you answered it right away without reading the rest of the thread it's because you have some superiority complex about your football knowledge because someone else may have answered that question but you wouldn't have known because you didn't bother to read the rest of the thread. You just thought I have to answer this to prove I'm so smart. like I wanted to say when I said have a good day gip I'm done with this I'm done talkin about it so have a good day gip.
And then after that post you went on to make another post adding Bill Parcells in response to my third post on the subject when the one that makes it clear that I left out the word win was my second post on a subject. But regardless if you answered it right away without reading the rest of the thread it's because you have some superiority complex about your football knowledge because someone else may have answered that question but you wouldn't have known because you didn't bother to read the rest of the thread. You just thought I have to answer this to prove I'm so smart. like I wanted to say when I said have a good day gip I'm done with this I'm done talkin about it so have a good day gip.
I made another post adding Bill Parcells because I realized that I had only gotten the original answer to the original question partially correct.
You see, this is how I...and probably most other people work: they read a post, they reply to a post. They don't read the entire rest of a thread to try to discern if somehow you made a mistake or wanted to try to explain something you did 3 posts ago. Accuse me of linear rather than global thinking I guess when I read this board.
And I answered the question because....lo and behold....I thought you wanted the question answered. And I thought I knew the answer. And when I thought about my answer I realized it was incomplete, so I corrected it. Your mind may have gone off somewhere in between...and I may not have been paying attention....so be it. That's life, that's what people say. You get shot down in April and get back up in May.
-
And it's all over my text to talk not picking up the word win. Or maybe it did and spelled it as "when" so when glimpsing over it I deleted the entire word instead of changing it.
All I'm saying is this is why ... You asked a different question in your mind than you did on the board. But its supposed to be on the reader to understand that and respond accordingly? GTFO
All ya had to do was say, "sorry, I actually meant...."
-
And it's all over my text to talk not picking up the word win. Or maybe it did and spelled it as "when" so when glimpsing over it I deleted the entire word instead of changing it.
All I'm saying is this is why ... You asked a different question in your mind than you did on the board. But its supposed to be on the reader to understand that and respond accordingly? GTFO
All ya had to do was say, "sorry, I actually meant...."
All I'm saying is this is why ... You asked a different question in your mind than you did on the board. But its supposed to be on the reader to understand that and respond accordingly? GTFO
All ya had to do was say, "sorry, I actually meant...."
Go ahead and keep twisting my words Gip. You didn't answer my question at the outset my question at the outset was how many coaches have won a Superbowl and then lead a different team to another win. I left off when but when I said another I was referring to another win not another Super Bowl. So Mike Holmgren is still not correct.
Because I did say that in this one post which again my text-to-talk spelled it "when" instead of win which is before your sleuthing detective work uncovered that my original post didn't include the word win or "Victory" as I did in my edit. Or my very first response to his Mike Holmgren answer which is like three posts after his answer where I say "I should have been more clear when I said another Super Bowl I meant Super Bowl win." Again because I left out the word win, and it was brought to my attention by Dutch who quoted it, in my secondary post I said the answer is 0 because no coach has coached one team to a Superbowl win and then coached another team to a second Super Bowl win. And that is why I don't want super bowl-winning retread blah blah blah blah blah. Which by the way was done by the time Gip responded
Also gip my point is the post that you quoted to add Parcells and discuss "ween ewbank" is after the post where I clearly state that I meant it as winning a second Super Bowl. So in order to get to that post your linear thinking had to lead you past the previous post where I do discuss that. To everyone on the board I apologize for the tangent. to gip I apologize for not including the word win in my original post and then you skipping over my second post where I made it clear what my intent of the question was. To choco I apologize.
-
And then after that post you went on to make another post adding Bill Parcells in response to my third post on the subject when the one that makes it clear that I left out the word win was my second post on a subject. But regardless if you answered it right away without reading the rest of the thread it's because you have some superiority complex about your football knowledge because someone else may have answered that question but you wouldn't have known because you didn't bother to read the rest of the thread. You just thought I have to answer this to prove I'm so smart. like I wanted to say when I said have a good day gip I'm done with this I'm done talkin about it so have a good day gip.
I made another post adding Bill Parcells because I realized that I had only gotten the original answer to the original question partially correct.
You see, this is how I...and probably most other people work: they read a post, they reply to a post. They don't read the entire rest of a thread to try to discern if somehow you made a mistake or wanted to try to explain something you did 3 posts ago. Accuse me of linear rather than global thinking I guess when I read this board.
And I answered the question because....lo and behold....I thought you wanted the question answered. And I thought I knew the answer. And when I thought about my answer I realized it was incomplete, so I corrected it. Your mind may have gone off somewhere in between...and I may not have been paying attention....so be it. That's life, that's what people say. You get shot down in April and get back up in May.
I made another post adding Bill Parcells because I realized that I had only gotten the original answer to the original question partially correct.
You see, this is how I...and probably most other people work: they read a post, they reply to a post. They don't read the entire rest of a thread to try to discern if somehow you made a mistake or wanted to try to explain something you did 3 posts ago. Accuse me of linear rather than global thinking I guess when I read this board.
And I answered the question because....lo and behold....I thought you wanted the question answered. And I thought I knew the answer. And when I thought about my answer I realized it was incomplete, so I corrected it. Your mind may have gone off somewhere in between...and I may not have been paying attention....so be it. That's life, that's what people say. You get shot down in April and get back up in May.
The way I operate is if someone asks a question I read the rest of the thread to see if a correct answer has been given if I know it. That way to cut down on duplicate post and things of the nature but I don't have some constant need to prove to everybody how intelligent I am regarding subjects.
Kind of like in your trivia threads in the two that I've taken part of. If I know the answer to multiple ones I'll scan the thread to see if anyone else has already correctly answered some of the ones I know. If they've all been answered I don't bother posting what I know. If I know five and three of them have been answered I just post the answers to the two answers that I know left blank. I do it that way so there isn't a big wall of text for people to read much like this thread. But I did it in this thread and I apologize to the board.
-
Paul Brown went 3-4 in NFL Title Games. (4-0 AAFC Title Games)
Vince Lombardi went 5-1. Lost the first Title Game 17-13 with a young Packers team, then won NFL titles in 5 of the next 7 years.
Paul Brown is a homer pick.
..Lombardi only won 2 titles.. NOT 5!!!
Paul Brown has 7!!
Dems da facts!
-
2
Vince Lombardi won the Super Bowl 2 times, in 1967 and 1968.
Game Year Team Super Bowl II 1968 Green Bay Packers Super Bowl I 1967 Green Bay Packers
..Lombardi only won 2 titles.. NOT 5!!!
Paul Brown has 7!!
Dems da facts!
-
2
Vince Lombardi won the Super Bowl 2 times, in 1967 and 1968.
Game Year Team Super Bowl II 1968 Green Bay Packers Super Bowl I 1967 Green Bay Packers
I sincerely hope you are kidding nickers....
-
-
I sincerely hope you are kidding nickers....
google it yourself nimrod
Nickers...."There are no old running QB's in the NFL "~Sam Rutigliano~ -
O I was under the impresssion that Haley was the guy Hue wanted to bring in.
who did he want then?
He didn't want anybody. He wanted to keep the job.
WSS
He didn't want anybody. He wanted to keep the job.
WSS
I had to look it up...
Hue Jackson: “If I was going to turn over the play-calling duties to someone else, it had to be to someone that was experienced and had a long history of success in this league," Jackson said as part of his statement in the team release. "We were going to be patient about it because there is always a lot of movement in the early part of the offseason. When Todd became available, I jumped at the opportunity to meet with him. Once we sat down and talked, it became quickly evident that Todd would be a great fit."
He also explained: "When I brought Todd Haley here, I made the commitment to give him total autonomy of the offense."
In a different article
-
I sincerely hope you are kidding nickers....
google it yourself nimrod
google it yourself nimrod
Lombardi won NFL Titles in 1961, 1962, 1965, 1966 (Super Bowl I) and 1967 (Super Bowl II), dipshit.
-
Lombardi won NFL Titles in 1961, 1962, 1965, 1966 (Super Bowl I) and 1967 (Super Bowl II), dipshit.
Paul Brown has 7... I win!
-
Lombardi won NFL Titles in 1961, 1962, 1965, 1966 (Super Bowl I) and 1967 (Super Bowl II), dipshit.
Paul Brown has 7... I win!
-
-
He didn't want anybody. He wanted to keep the job.
WSS
I had to look it up...
Hue Jackson: “If I was going to turn over the play-calling duties to someone else, it had to be to someone that was experienced and had a long history of success in this league," Jackson said as part of his statement in the team release. "We were going to be patient about it because there is always a lot of movement in the early part of the offseason. When Todd became available, I jumped at the opportunity to meet with him. Once we sat down and talked, it became quickly evident that Todd would be a great fit."
He also explained: "When I brought Todd Haley here, I made the commitment to give him total autonomy of the offense."
In a different article
I had to look it up...
Hue Jackson: “If I was going to turn over the play-calling duties to someone else, it had to be to someone that was experienced and had a long history of success in this league," Jackson said as part of his statement in the team release. "We were going to be patient about it because there is always a lot of movement in the early part of the offseason. When Todd became available, I jumped at the opportunity to meet with him. Once we sat down and talked, it became quickly evident that Todd would be a great fit."
He also explained: "When I brought Todd Haley here, I made the commitment to give him total autonomy of the offense."
In a different article
And I don't believe a single word of it.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
why was mccarthy interview date changed?
Browns fans carrying pitchforks and torches I hope.
WSS
-
I had to look it up...
Hue Jackson: “If I was going to turn over the play-calling duties to someone else, it had to be to someone that was experienced and had a long history of success in this league," Jackson said as part of his statement in the team release. "We were going to be patient about it because there is always a lot of movement in the early part of the offseason. When Todd became available, I jumped at the opportunity to meet with him. Once we sat down and talked, it became quickly evident that Todd would be a great fit."
He also explained: "When I brought Todd Haley here, I made the commitment to give him total autonomy of the offense."
In a different article
And I don't believe a single word of it.
WSS
And I don't believe a single word of it.
WSS
Haley’s playcalling was so bad at times... that I believe it
-
🥷
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login