Do they win this game with justin "bustin" fields?

[remydat]

View attachment 40696

there ya go big guy...theres the definition of the word you used. and it mentions comparing things of similar characteristics...you know, like pressure in a general sense.

if you meant pressure up the middle you should have said that, and you later did state that.

thus, your initial post was worded poorly...proven by your own need to clarify it later(move goalposts)

Lol. Words have multiple meanings dude.

"I just don't have that kind of money (= I don't have so much money)."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/kind#google_vignette

Note above kind is being used to refer to how much of something someone has. So the whole point is Caleb and Fields have not faced the same kind of pressure because Caleb has faced significantly more interior pressure than Fields. That is a perfectly acceptable use of kind. Sorry.

thats the way this started...so yeah, you def worded it poorly if that was your intent of your statement. you meant to say something like "pressure rate" not kind of pressure...but you didnt

its okay, it happens. just own it and move on

but you wont, you will keep on and on about it...because you just simply cant help yourself

No I meant what I said as proven above. It is ok if your understanding of the English language is limited and you dont grasp words can be used in multiple ways.

 

[knoxville7]

Lol. Words have multiple meanings dude.

"I just don't have that kind of money (= I don't have so much money)."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/kind#google_vignette

Note above kind is being used to refer to how much of something someone has. So the whole point is Caleb and Fields have not faced the same kind of pressure because Caleb has faced significantly more interior pressure than Fields. That is a perfectly acceptable use of kind. Sorry.

yes, it can be used multiple ways...like to describe a type or to describe generosity.

no, it is not used to show QTY

you can say that a car used 2 kinds of fuel, but that is not a reference to the QTY of fuels but the kinds of fuels like non leaded/leaded.

nice try, doe!

 

[knoxville7]

Lol. Words have multiple meanings dude.

"I just don't have that kind of money (= I don't have so much money)."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/kind#google_vignette

Note above kind is being used to refer to how much of something someone has. So the whole point is Caleb and Fields have not faced the same kind of pressure because Caleb has faced significantly more interior pressure than Fields. That is a perfectly acceptable use of kind. Sorry.


No I meant what I said as proven above. It is ok if your understanding of the English language is limited and you dont grasp words can be used in multiple ways.

YOU. CANT. HELP. YOURSELF.

 

[remydat]

yes, it can be used multiple ways...like to describe a type or to describe generosity.

no, it is not used to show QTY

you can say that a car used 2 kinds of fuel, but that is not a reference to the QTY of fuels but the kinds of fuels like non leaded/leaded.

nice try, doe!

Except the below is straight from the dictionary dude. The below is using kind to make a distinction of quantity ie he doesnt have enough money. I cant teach an adult English at this stage in your life but once again words can be used in multiple ways.

"I just don't have that kind of money (= I don't have so much money)."

 

[knoxville7]

Except the below is straight from the dictionary dude. The below is using kind to make a distinction of quantity ie he doesnt have enough money. I cant teach an adult English at this stage in your life but once again words can be used in multiple ways.

"I just don't have that kind of money (= I don't have so much money)."

that statement does not specify a specific amount of $$. no QTY is specified.

#fail

 

[remydat]

that statement does not specify a specific amount of $$. no QTY is specified.

#fail

LMFAO. You really reaching. My statement was that Caleb and Fields did not face the same kind of pressure. That does not specify a quantity. I later added quantity to illustrate he faced more.

Just like if the money being discussed here was 50 million then it would illustrate why he doesnt have that kind of money ie 50 million is more than what he has.

You are simply wrong here. It is obvious that statement is one about quantity even if the exact quantity was not specified.

 

[knoxville7]

LMFAO. You really reaching. My statement was that Caleb and Fields did not face the same kind of pressure. That does not specify a quantity. I later added quantity to illustrate he faced more.

Just like if the money being discussed here was 50 million then it would illustrate why he doesnt have that kind of money ie 50 million is more than what he has.

You are simply wrong here. It is obvious that statement is one about quantity even if the exact quantity was not specified.

THIS IS WHAT IVE BEEN SAYING THE WHOLE TIME

YOU CHOSE POOR WORDING INITIALLY AND THEN LATER ADDED WORDING TO SPECIFY WHAT YOU REALLY MEANT

now dont go back and say you didnt, cuz you literally just admitted you did

#FlipFlopper

 

[Salvaged Ship]

“The Steelers offensive line has swirled in seeming chaos so far this season. The first-team center through the first three weeks of training camp (Nate Herbig) suffered a season-ending injury. Seumalo on Sunday will miss a third consecutive game to open the season. Starting tackles Dan Moore Jr. and Troy Fautanu have missed time because of injury, too — and the Steelers this week might be forced to ping-pong back from Fautanu to Broderick Jones to start at right tackle after Fautanu suffered an injury Friday.

Aside from four-year veteran Moore at left tackle, offensive linemen other from Daniels who have started games for the Steelers have just two (Anderson), two (Frazier), one (Fautanu) and 12 (Jones) career starts.”

And they are still not worse than the Bears at the moment.

 

[remydat]

THIS IS WHAT IVE BEEN SAYING THE WHOLE TIME

YOU CHOSE POOR WORDING INITIALLY AND THEN LATER ADDED WORDING TO SPECIFY WHAT YOU REALLY MEANT

now dont go back and say you didnt, cuz you literally just admitted you did

#FlipFlopper

It isnt poor wording. Your claim was kind cannot be used to discuss quantity. I just proved it can. So what you are claiming as poor wording is simply your own ignorance of a word's usage.

I do not use words based on your limited understanding of them. I use words based on my understanding. There was absolutely nothing wrong with my use of the word kind. I have told you before if you dont understand something I said just ask because you repeatedly show an inability to comprehend what is being said because of your bias towards me and your inability to grasp words have multiple usages/meanings/interpretations.

You love interpreting my words in the dumbest way possible and then pretending it was what I meant when I clearly explained what I meant.

 

[Nail Polish]

I was always against trading Fields..If the Bears would have kept him and made all the other personnel moves they made, they would be in a much better position right now.

 

[knoxville7]

It isnt poor wording. Your claim was kind cannot be used to discuss quantity. I just proved it can. So what you are claiming as poor wording is simply your own ignorance of a word's usage.

I do not use words based on your limited understanding of them. I use words based on my understanding. There was absolutely nothing wrong with my use of the word kind. I have told you before if you dont understand something I said just ask because you repeatedly show an inability to comprehend what is being said because of your bias towards me.

LMFAO. You really reaching. My statement was that Caleb and Fields did not face the same kind of pressure. That does not specify a quantity. I later added quantity to illustrate he faced more.

Just like if the money being discussed here was 50 million then it would illustrate why he doesnt have that kind of money ie 50 million is more than what he has.

You are simply wrong here. It is obvious that statement is one about quantity even if the exact quantity was not specified.

THEN WHY THE NEED TO DO THIS?!

it was poor wording on your part, like you just got done acknowledging but are now backtracking on

whatever you say, John Kerry!

 

[BaBaBlacksheep]

I was always against trading Fields..If the Bears would have kept him and made all the other personnel moves they made, they would be in a much better position right now.

What about 2 years from now? 5 years from now?

I actually agree that the Bears would be better RIGHT NOW. (it's 4 year vet vs a rookie on his 3rd game)

But trading for CW is a decision about the future..... 2, 5 10 years from now.

Do you think Fields is better long term? Or CW? That's the real question. (I think CW)

 

[TL1961]

What QB wouldnt throw for 350 yards on 50 attempts? wtf?

Justin Fields.

 

[remydat]

THEN WHY THE NEED TO DO THIS?!

it was poor wording on your part, like you just got done acknowledging but are now backtracking on

whatever you say, John Kerry!

I already explained why. Your limited grasp of English and bias towards me leads you to apply the dumbest interpretation of something I said and pretend it is what I always meant.

In this case you were ignorant of the fact kind can refer to quantity so you stupidly pretended as if I was saying Fields faced zero interior pressure. This is an absurd interpretation as we all know that all QBs face interior pressure of some sort.

A smarter and more honest person would either have inquired what I meant or consulted a dictionary not to find the definition/usage they prefer but to see if there is another definition/usage that makes more sense. If you had done that you would have seen the phrase "I dont have that kind of money," and realized that was the usage I intended.

An even smarter person would then not have continued to claim that kind cannot refer to quantity but instead say I used a less common usage of the term to which I would have agreed.

 

[TL1961]

You nuthuggers won’t mention that the Steelers are allowing 8 ppg.

Craig Krenzel would be 3-0.

 

[jsu34]

Jeff Saturday said Brady would be hard pressed to win behind the oline.

 

[knoxville7]

I already explained why. Your limited grasp of English and bias towards me leads you to apply the dumbest interpretation of something I said and pretend it is what I always meant.

In this case you were ignorant of the fact kind can refer to quantity so you stupidly pretended as if I was saying Fields faced zero interior pressure. This is an absurd interpretation as we all know that all QBs face interior pressure of some sort.

A smarter and more honest person would either have inquired what I meant or consulted a dictionary not to find the definition/usage they prefer but to see if there is another definition/usage that makes more sense. If you had done that you would have seen the phrase "I dont have that kind of money," and realized that was the usage I intended.

An even smarter person would then not have continued to claim that kind cannot refer to quantity but instead say I used a less common usage of the term to which I would have agreed.

Ahhh yes, the predictable name calling and questioning of another posters intelligence level when you are proven to be lying…classic

Never change!!

 

[Nail Polish]

What about 2 years from now? 5 years from now?

I actually agree that the Bears would be better RIGHT NOW. (it's 4 year vet vs a rookie on his 3rd game)

But trading for CW is a decision about the future..... 2, 5 10 years from now.

Do you think Fields is better long term? Or CW? That's the real question. (I think CW)

Thats a good question..Notice I said Right Now?

One thing is for sure

Either one would ber better off on a different team..Ther Bears cant develop QBs to save their life

 

[BaBaBlacksheep]

Thats a good question..Notice I said Right Now?

Notice I agreed?

I also noticed you said this: "I was always against trading Fields"

Then did you notice me asking:

Do you think Fields is better long term? Or CW? That's the real question. (I think CW)

(I noticed you didn't answer)

 

[Nail Polish]

Notice I agreed?

I also noticed you said this: "I was always against trading Fields"

Then did you notice me asking:

Do you think Fields is better long term? Or CW? That's the real question. (I think CW)

(I noticed you didn't answer)

I cant answer that because I dont know how CW will pan out..Its a crap shoot.

But Fields seems to be doing better with a qualified QB developing team