VY's Passer Rating = 65.7, Completion % = 51.7 (3 Viewers)

[Das Boot]

Is there a term for when someone (in this case, LHUCKS) goes fishing, gets eaten by a shark, gets coughed back up and then says, "That was a great experience. Looking in the water, it appears there are even more sharks interested in chewing me up and spitting me out and as I sit in my rubber dingy surrounded by chum, I am really defenseless to stop them. I think I'll drop my line back in the water and see what happens..."Because if there is a term for that, we should create a smilie and plaster it all over this thread.

lhucks =

 

[the hairy scotsman]

LHucks,

Since you did not bother to actually answer anything in my post, please help me see what you are thinking. You "claim" that Donovan Mcnabb was considered a "much better passer" coming out of college than was Vince Young. I went back and found actual articles quoting NFL GM's about McNabb that showed this was not the case, Your only reply was that you were sure you heard it on TV somewhere. Seems I had actual facts, you have, well, nothing. I have shown that in college, Vince Young outperformed Mcnabb from a PASSING standpoint. You showed, well, nothing but the statement that you were sure he was a better passer. The statistics show that Young as a Junior outperformed McNabb as a passer. The statistics show that despite coming out one year early, Young STILL outperformed the "more ready for the NFL McNabb" as a rookie in passing (not just running, where he beat him as well). The statistics show that Vince Young has improved EVERY year for the last five years. Yet you allow McNabb (wonderlic of 12, btw) to show great improvement and do not allow the same for Young? Why? You have absolutely NO statistical evidence on your side, only conjecture. Can you not at least admit that all of the evidence points to Young continuing to improve? WHy should he not be better than McNabb? Remember, this was the same McNabb that had enough GMs worried that they thought Tim Couch AND Cade McKnown were safer picks. I can go back and repost all of the statistics, but you know they show Young as a rapidly improving QB who put up better numbers than McNabb at the same point of their careers. Awww, what the heck, I'll repost the college stats for their respective Junior years:

McNabb: 265 attempts; 54.7% completion; 20 TDs; 6 INTs; 154.0 passer rating; 9.39 per attempt

Young: 325 attempts; 65.2%; 26 TDs; 10 INTs; 163.95; 9.34 per attempt. (Oh, and a National Championship)

So, given that all of the statistical evidnece is on one side (hint: not yours); that Young now has the "great" Norm Chow to work under; and that he is clearly winning over his teammates; why should we believe you that he will not improve as much as McNabb did? What did Mcnabb have in his favor, other than your selective memory of his passing skills? I am very intrigued as to your answer and marvel that a NFL team has not snatched you up as a scout for your observations. Please enlighten us all.

Dude, LHucks has seen your posts, and others that he keeps ignoring. May as well stop asking him. He has nothing to back his opinion up, and you (and others) have already dismantled his early arguments.SI is back on the bandwagon...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/covers/issues/2006/1218.html

Exactly. There are some people who will never, ever give Young his due. Then they'll just dismiss you as a homer or ignorant, or stupid, or whatever, even after you've presented mounting compelling evidence. It's really that simple.

I don't know why that is, but it just is. That's why I haven't gotten more involved in this thread...it's like beating your head against a wall.

The better Young gets, the more determined they seem to "debunk" him. I'm not sure where these unfounded ranting tirades originate. I don't know why Young evokes such hypercritical negative reactions from some. It's baffling. He's a good kid. He works hard. He's never seen anything but success on the football field. His teammates love him. His coaches love him intensely. He is an excellent leader and role-model in his family, church, and community. I've never seen or heard of a single soul who's spent any time at all around Young who doesn't look up to him. Vince Young pushes people to be better, on and off the field of play.

Someday, after Young leads his team to a Super Bowl win, some people will still be clinging to their thin, frayed thread of blinded ignorant bliss, shouting from the highest mountains that Vince Young will never be an effective NFL qb.

Typically on this board, homers are sought out for their insights and takes on a particular player, coach, etc. However, when a homer posts inside info, evidence, stats, game recaps, or quotes from coaches, teammates, and opponents, etc supporting the notion that VY will be anything other than a chump as an NFL qb, the doubters quickly attempt to dismiss the poster as a homer. This has happened to me and others here repeatedly, yet every single observation I've made about Young has been born out. Every one. But I can't be in any way rational or objective, 'cause I'm a homer. Right? Same goes for you, homer.

In the end, though, I'd just rather be right than objective. So it is.

 

[Berserker]

Why? I've never heard this kind of urgency regarding other rookie qbs. What's the rush with Young?

Because he was drafted #3 overall and people on this board seem to think he's the next Roger Staubach...which he wont be.

I'm not sure what you're saying, but there wasn't the same urgency for Carson Palmer and he went #1 overall.

Exactly. I remember in discussions here about Palmer that it wasn't a given that he'd start at all his first year, much less start the season, and most people didn't really expect him to.

I'm more interested in what people think VY wiill do in 2007 and the long term. Expecting any QB to perform well as a rookie is ridiculous.

I just wanted to pile on here. Found this on an earlier thread. Interesting comment from the guy who started this thread stating VY will never be good because his rookie passing numbers are not great.Pretty ridiculous, huh?

 

[LHUCKS]

There are some people who will never, ever give Young his due.

How many games has he started in the NFL?

 

[LHUCKS]

Interesting comment from the guy who started this thread stating VY will never be good because his rookie passing numbers are not great.

See the title of this thread.

 

[aldelgreco]

LHUCKS has man boobs.

 

[the hairy scotsman]

There are some people who will never, ever give Young his due.

How many games has he started in the NFL?

LOL.This isn't just about his NFL career. It was the same way all through his college days. Even many Texas fans clamored to have him moved to WR. LOL. Then his detractors said he couldn't be at all effective in the NFL. They said he couldn't run in the NFL. He couldn't win. Then he could be ok, but not good. Then, when he's good, it's because of everyone else on the team and everything, anything else but VY (funny that his teammates tell a strikingly different story). Then he could be good but not great...yada yada. It goes on and on.

 

[Colin Dowling]

There are some people who will never, ever give Young his due.

How many games has he started in the NFL?

More than Leinart, who you have already declared as "being on his way to being a top-5 passer in the NFL."

 

[LHUCKS]

There are some people who will never, ever give Young his due.

How many games has he started in the NFL?

More than Leinart, who you have already declared as "being on his way to being a top-5 passer in the NFL."

I didn't say "never, ever."

 

[John Mamula]

that's the only point i made (and stated that VY will never be a #1 ff QB

Over the last 5 weeks in my league, Young is the #3 ranked FF qb, behind only Palmer and Brees. I'd say that qualifies for #1 qb status over that time period and maybe for some weeks forward.

#3 = #1?

 

[the hairy scotsman]

There are some people who will never, ever give Young his due.

How many games has he started in the NFL?

More than Leinart, who you have already declared as "being on his way to being a top-5 passer in the NFL."

I didn't say "never, ever."

So?I wasn't quoting you.

 

[Colin Dowling]

"a #1 ff QB" implies being a starter in a fantasy football leage, wherein the # of teams indicates the # of "#1 ff QBs".

The #3 qb would obviously be a starter in any league with more than 2 teams.

 

[John Mamula]

"a #1 ff QB" implies being a starter in a fantasy football leage, wherein the # of teams indicates the # of "#1 ff QBs". The #3 qb would obviously be a starter in any league with more than 2 teams.

while i appreciate you telling me what i implied, i said that he will never be a #1 QB meaning THE #1 QB in any one year over the course of his career.i hope you are being intentionally obtuse here.

 

[the hairy scotsman]

that's the only point i made (and stated that VY will never be a #1 ff QB

Over the last 5 weeks in my league, Young is the #3 ranked FF qb, behind only Palmer and Brees. I'd say that qualifies for #1 qb status over that time period and maybe for some weeks forward.

#3 = #1?

Ummm...not #1 in the league. Hello? #1 on a given fantasy roster, unless you have a very select few qbs on your roster.I have Brees, who is one of only 2 qbs ahead of Young over the last five weeks...so VY's my #2. I don't start VY much, but I do occasionally, and it's worked out great. For the vast majority of VY owners, VY is their #1 qb over that (very significant, imho) time period.

 

[LHUCKS]

There are some people who will never, ever give Young his due.

How many games has he started in the NFL?

More than Leinart, who you have already declared as "being on his way to being a top-5 passer in the NFL."

I didn't say "never, ever."

So?I wasn't quoting you.

and I quoted Colin...what are you talking about here?

 

[John Mamula]

that's the only point i made (and stated that VY will never be a #1 ff QB

Over the last 5 weeks in my league, Young is the #3 ranked FF qb, behind only Palmer and Brees. I'd say that qualifies for #1 qb status over that time period and maybe for some weeks forward.

#3 = #1?

Ummm...not #1 in the league. Hello? #1 on a given fantasy roster, unless you have a very select few qbs on your roster.I have Brees, so he's my #2. I don't start VY much, but I do occasionally, and it's worked out great.

glad to hear it's working out.

 

[the hairy scotsman]

"a #1 ff QB" implies being a starter in a fantasy football leage, wherein the # of teams indicates the # of "#1 ff QBs". The #3 qb would obviously be a starter in any league with more than 2 teams.

while i appreciate you telling me what i implied, i said that he will never be a #1 QB meaning THE #1 QB in any one year over the course of his career.i hope you are being intentionally obtuse here.

We took "a #1 ff qb" to mean what it normally means on this board. You just weren't clear in your post. No need to start throwing insults around.Now you've clarified your vaguery. Great.

 

[the hairy scotsman]

There are some people who will never, ever give Young his due.

How many games has he started in the NFL?

More than Leinart, who you have already declared as "being on his way to being a top-5 passer in the NFL."

I didn't say "never, ever."

So?I wasn't quoting you.

and I quoted Colin...what are you talking about here?

Isn't it obvious? The "never, ever" you quoted was me.Anyway.....

 

[John Mamula]

"a #1 ff QB" implies being a starter in a fantasy football leage, wherein the # of teams indicates the # of "#1 ff QBs". The #3 qb would obviously be a starter in any league with more than 2 teams.

while i appreciate you telling me what i implied, i said that he will never be a #1 QB meaning THE #1 QB in any one year over the course of his career.i hope you are being intentionally obtuse here.

We took "a #1 ff qb" to mean what it normally means on this board. You just weren't clear in your post. No need to start throwing insults around.Now you've clarified your vaguery. Great.

insults?the only people who have been insulted in this thread have been LHUCKS and myself.thanks for telling me what things mean on the board though. i'm always looking to learn from board vets like yourself.

 

[the hairy scotsman]

"a #1 ff QB" implies being a starter in a fantasy football leage, wherein the # of teams indicates the # of "#1 ff QBs".

The #3 qb would obviously be a starter in any league with more than 2 teams.

while i appreciate you telling me what i implied, i said that he will never be a #1 QB meaning THE #1 QB in any one year over the course of his career.i hope you are being intentionally obtuse here.

We took "a #1 ff qb" to mean what it normally means on this board. You just weren't clear in your post. No need to start throwing insults around.Now you've clarified your vaguery.

Great.

insults?the only people who have been insulted in this thread have been LHUCKS and myself.

thanks for telling me what things mean on the board though. i'm always looking to learn from board vets like yourself.

i hope you are being intentionally obtuse here.

 

[LHUCKS]

"a #1 ff QB" implies being a starter in a fantasy football leage, wherein the # of teams indicates the # of "#1 ff QBs". The #3 qb would obviously be a starter in any league with more than 2 teams.

while i appreciate you telling me what i implied, i said that he will never be a #1 QB meaning THE #1 QB in any one year over the course of his career.i hope you are being intentionally obtuse here.

We took "a #1 ff qb" to mean what it normally means on this board. You just weren't clear in your post. No need to start throwing insults around.Now you've clarified your vaguery. Great.

insults?the only people who have been insulted in this thread have been LHUCKS and myself.thanks for telling me what things mean on the board though. i'm always looking to learn from board vets like yourself.

Only idiots resort to insults during a debate...mostly because they aren't bright enough to formulate a substantive argument so they compensate.

 

[Colin Dowling]

"a #1 ff QB" implies being a starter in a fantasy football leage, wherein the # of teams indicates the # of "#1 ff QBs". The #3 qb would obviously be a starter in any league with more than 2 teams.

while i appreciate you telling me what i implied, i said that he will never be a #1 QB meaning THE #1 QB in any one year over the course of his career.i hope you are being intentionally obtuse here.

We took "a #1 ff qb" to mean what it normally means on this board. You just weren't clear in your post. No need to start throwing insults around.Now you've clarified your vaguery. Great.

insults?the only people who have been insulted in this thread have been LHUCKS and myself.thanks for telling me what things mean on the board though. i'm always looking to learn from board vets like yourself.

Bagger, please... You wrote that he would never be a #1 ff Qb, then claimed :confusion: when someone (correctly) pointed out that right now, he qualifies as a #1 QB since he's been the #3 scorer in recent weeks.There is plenty of good meat left on the bone around here with regard to Vince Young. No need for ANY OF US to let it regress in to rhetoric and semantics.

 

[the hairy scotsman]

"a #1 ff QB" implies being a starter in a fantasy football leage, wherein the # of teams indicates the # of "#1 ff QBs". The #3 qb would obviously be a starter in any league with more than 2 teams.

while i appreciate you telling me what i implied, i said that he will never be a #1 QB meaning THE #1 QB in any one year over the course of his career.i hope you are being intentionally obtuse here.

We took "a #1 ff qb" to mean what it normally means on this board. You just weren't clear in your post. No need to start throwing insults around.Now you've clarified your vaguery. Great.

insults?the only people who have been insulted in this thread have been LHUCKS and myself.thanks for telling me what things mean on the board though. i'm always looking to learn from board vets like yourself.

Only idiots resort to insults during a debate...mostly because they aren't bright enough to formulate a substantive argument so they compensate.

Well...there ya go. :X

 

[John Mamula]

"a #1 ff QB" implies being a starter in a fantasy football leage, wherein the # of teams indicates the # of "#1 ff QBs". The #3 qb would obviously be a starter in any league with more than 2 teams.

while i appreciate you telling me what i implied, i said that he will never be a #1 QB meaning THE #1 QB in any one year over the course of his career.i hope you are being intentionally obtuse here.

We took "a #1 ff qb" to mean what it normally means on this board. You just weren't clear in your post. No need to start throwing insults around.Now you've clarified your vaguery. Great.

insults?the only people who have been insulted in this thread have been LHUCKS and myself.thanks for telling me what things mean on the board though. i'm always looking to learn from board vets like yourself.

Bagger, please... You wrote that he would never be a #1 ff Qb, then claimed :confusion: when someone (correctly) pointed out that right now, he qualifies as a #1 QB since he's been the #3 scorer in recent weeks.There is plenty of good meat left on the bone around here with regard to Vince Young. No need for ANY OF US to let it regress in to rhetoric and semantics.

i apologize for the confusion.i meant #1 OVERALL QB.i thought that was clear. apparently not.VY could be the #12 OVERALL QB and be a "#1 QB" (or a startable QB as I would say). the stats on #12 QBs are often decent but not steller. it wouldn't surprise me if VY was a #12 QB. however, the dropoff between the #10 qb and the #16 qb is not big, and #16 qb is average.there is a much tougher climb to get into the top 5 qb status over the course of the season, especially in leagues that are a 6 pt per passing TD league.i wonder what the o/u on draft position for VY is next year. i'd guess round 6.

 

[Colin Dowling]

Cool. I think that round 6 would be a bit high. Obviously, depending on how he finishes out the year, he could find himself as high as round 6 or higher. Even as much of a fan as I am, I think that would be a mistake.

I would imagine he should slot around QB12-15 (like Leinart) and might be a great part of a QBBC situation in the mid rounds.

 

[the hairy scotsman]

VY could be the #12 OVERALL QB and be a "#1 QB" (or a startable QB as I would say). the stats on #12 QBs are often decent but not steller. it wouldn't surprise me if VY was a #12 QB. however, the dropoff between the #10 qb and the #16 qb is not big, and #16 qb is average.

FWIW, VY is the #10 qb in my league since week 4, when he became a starter.In the last 5 weeks, he's #3.

 

[switz]

"a #1 ff QB" implies being a starter in a fantasy football leage, wherein the # of teams indicates the # of "#1 ff QBs". The #3 qb would obviously be a starter in any league with more than 2 teams.

while i appreciate you telling me what i implied, i said that he will never be a #1 QB meaning THE #1 QB in any one year over the course of his career.i hope you are being intentionally obtuse here.

We took "a #1 ff qb" to mean what it normally means on this board. You just weren't clear in your post. No need to start throwing insults around.Now you've clarified your vaguery. Great.

insults?the only people who have been insulted in this thread have been LHUCKS and myself.thanks for telling me what things mean on the board though. i'm always looking to learn from board vets like yourself.

Bagger, please... You wrote that he would never be a #1 ff Qb, then claimed :confusion: when someone (correctly) pointed out that right now, he qualifies as a #1 QB since he's been the #3 scorer in recent weeks.There is plenty of good meat left on the bone around here with regard to Vince Young. No need for ANY OF US to let it regress in to rhetoric and semantics.

i apologize for the confusion.i meant #1 OVERALL QB.i thought that was clear. apparently not.VY could be the #12 OVERALL QB and be a "#1 QB" (or a startable QB as I would say). the stats on #12 QBs are often decent but not steller. it wouldn't surprise me if VY was a #12 QB. however, the dropoff between the #10 qb and the #16 qb is not big, and #16 qb is average.there is a much tougher climb to get into the top 5 qb status over the course of the season, especially in leagues that are a 6 pt per passing TD league.i wonder what the o/u on draft position for VY is next year. i'd guess round 6.

Here's a simple English tip then... THE would be used to distinguish something as the only one of it's kind... i.e. only one QB could be THE #1 OVERALL, when you say A #1 QB, you are putting him in the category of a group of #1 FF QBs which he has shown himself to be, at least in the recent weeks.That should eliminate any confusion....

 

[John Mamula]

"a #1 ff QB" implies being a starter in a fantasy football leage, wherein the # of teams indicates the # of "#1 ff QBs". The #3 qb would obviously be a starter in any league with more than 2 teams.

while i appreciate you telling me what i implied, i said that he will never be a #1 QB meaning THE #1 QB in any one year over the course of his career.i hope you are being intentionally obtuse here.

We took "a #1 ff qb" to mean what it normally means on this board. You just weren't clear in your post. No need to start throwing insults around.Now you've clarified your vaguery. Great.

insults?the only people who have been insulted in this thread have been LHUCKS and myself.thanks for telling me what things mean on the board though. i'm always looking to learn from board vets like yourself.

Bagger, please... You wrote that he would never be a #1 ff Qb, then claimed :confusion: when someone (correctly) pointed out that right now, he qualifies as a #1 QB since he's been the #3 scorer in recent weeks.There is plenty of good meat left on the bone around here with regard to Vince Young. No need for ANY OF US to let it regress in to rhetoric and semantics.

i apologize for the confusion.i meant #1 OVERALL QB.i thought that was clear. apparently not.VY could be the #12 OVERALL QB and be a "#1 QB" (or a startable QB as I would say). the stats on #12 QBs are often decent but not steller. it wouldn't surprise me if VY was a #12 QB. however, the dropoff between the #10 qb and the #16 qb is not big, and #16 qb is average.there is a much tougher climb to get into the top 5 qb status over the course of the season, especially in leagues that are a 6 pt per passing TD league.i wonder what the o/u on draft position for VY is next year. i'd guess round 6.

Here's a simple English tip then... THE would be used to distinguish something as the only one of it's kind... i.e. only one QB could be THE #1 OVERALL, when you say A #1 QB, you are putting him in the category of a group of #1 FF QBs which he has shown himself to be, at least in the recent weeks.That should eliminate any confusion....

actually if i used the word "THE" over a period of a career that would infer that he would be THE #1 QB for the entire course of that timespan. i used "a" to denote him being THE #1 QB for A year.

 

[Biabreakable]

Only idiots resort to insults during a debate...mostly because they aren't bright enough to formulate a substantive argument so they compensate.

Thanks for finaly explaining your position in this thread. It all makes sense now. bagger setting the bar for VY as the #1 scoring Qb in a season is pretty high isn't it? Even Peyton Manning has not ever achieved this. So what is your point? Are you saying that Manning isn't good either then?

 

[switz]

We are objectively discussing the prospects of a player here, if you can't check your emotions at the door you may want to revisit your elementary school education.

I would say your arguments are anything BUT objective, more like objectionable.

 

[switz]

"a #1 ff QB" implies being a starter in a fantasy football leage, wherein the # of teams indicates the # of "#1 ff QBs". The #3 qb would obviously be a starter in any league with more than 2 teams.

while i appreciate you telling me what i implied, i said that he will never be a #1 QB meaning THE #1 QB in any one year over the course of his career.i hope you are being intentionally obtuse here.

We took "a #1 ff qb" to mean what it normally means on this board. You just weren't clear in your post. No need to start throwing insults around.Now you've clarified your vaguery. Great.

insults?the only people who have been insulted in this thread have been LHUCKS and myself.thanks for telling me what things mean on the board though. i'm always looking to learn from board vets like yourself.

Bagger, please... You wrote that he would never be a #1 ff Qb, then claimed :confusion: when someone (correctly) pointed out that right now, he qualifies as a #1 QB since he's been the #3 scorer in recent weeks.There is plenty of good meat left on the bone around here with regard to Vince Young. No need for ANY OF US to let it regress in to rhetoric and semantics.

i apologize for the confusion.i meant #1 OVERALL QB.i thought that was clear. apparently not.VY could be the #12 OVERALL QB and be a "#1 QB" (or a startable QB as I would say). the stats on #12 QBs are often decent but not steller. it wouldn't surprise me if VY was a #12 QB. however, the dropoff between the #10 qb and the #16 qb is not big, and #16 qb is average.there is a much tougher climb to get into the top 5 qb status over the course of the season, especially in leagues that are a 6 pt per passing TD league.i wonder what the o/u on draft position for VY is next year. i'd guess round 6.

Here's a simple English tip then... THE would be used to distinguish something as the only one of it's kind... i.e. only one QB could be THE #1 OVERALL, when you say A #1 QB, you are putting him in the category of a group of #1 FF QBs which he has shown himself to be, at least in the recent weeks.That should eliminate any confusion....

actually if i used the word "THE" over a period of a career that would infer that he would be THE #1 QB for the entire course of that timespan. i used "a" to denote him being THE #1 QB for A year.

Your context is still off...

 

[LHUCKS]

We are objectively discussing the prospects of a player here, if you can't check your emotions at the door you may want to revisit your elementary school education.

I would say your arguments are anything BUT objective, more like objectionable.

How are they not objective?

 

[Colin Dowling]

We are objectively discussing the prospects of a player here, if you can't check your emotions at the door you may want to revisit your elementary school education.

I would say your arguments are anything BUT objective, more like objectionable.

How are they not objective?

Because they are based on opinion rather then qualifiable and/or quantifiable information.ETA: there is nothing wrong with that - most of this board is opinion.

 

[switz]

We are objectively discussing the prospects of a player here, if you can't check your emotions at the door you may want to revisit your elementary school education.

I would say your arguments are anything BUT objective, more like objectionable.

How are they not objective?

ob·jec·tive [uhb-jek-tiv] - adjective- not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.- intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

 

[the hairy scotsman]

We are objectively discussing the prospects of a player here, if you can't check your emotions at the door you may want to revisit your elementary school education.

I would say your arguments are anything BUT objective, more like objectionable.

How are they not objective?

Because they are based on opinion rather then qualifiable and/or quantifiable information.ETA: there is nothing wrong with that - most of this board is opinion.

No, there's nothing wrong with that at all, as long as you don't try to pawn your opinion off as objectivity, as so many papers do these days, editorializing through "news" stories.

 

[LHUCKS]

We are objectively discussing the prospects of a player here, if you can't check your emotions at the door you may want to revisit your elementary school education.

I would say your arguments are anything BUT objective, more like objectionable.

How are they not objective?

Because they are based on opinion rather then qualifiable and/or quantifiable information.ETA: there is nothing wrong with that - most of this board is opinion.

You can have objective arguments based on opinion.

 

[LHUCKS]

We are objectively discussing the prospects of a player here, if you can't check your emotions at the door you may want to revisit your elementary school education.

I would say your arguments are anything BUT objective, more like objectionable.

How are they not objective?

ob·jec·tive [uhb-jek-tiv] - adjective- not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.- intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

Right, and which of my arguments is not objective, i.e. influenced by personal feelings or prejudice?

 

[diesel7982]

We are objectively discussing the prospects of a player here, if you can't check your emotions at the door you may want to revisit your elementary school education.

I would say your arguments are anything BUT objective, more like objectionable.

How are they not objective?

Because they are based on opinion rather then qualifiable and/or quantifiable information.ETA: there is nothing wrong with that - most of this board is opinion.

You can have objective arguments based on opinion.

If anyone is looking to give LHUCKS a christmas present, a dictionary would probably be a good start.

 

[John Mamula]

We are objectively discussing the prospects of a player here, if you can't check your emotions at the door you may want to revisit your elementary school education.

I would say your arguments are anything BUT objective, more like objectionable.

How are they not objective?

Because they are based on opinion rather then qualifiable and/or quantifiable information.ETA: there is nothing wrong with that - most of this board is opinion.

You can have objective arguments based on opinion.

you can take historical stats and make an objective argument based on your opinion of performance in the future.

 

[LHUCKS]

If anyone is looking to give LHUCKS a christmas present, a dictionary would probably be a good start.

And if anybody is handing out a trophy for least constructive poster...

 

[Colin Dowling]

We are objectively discussing the prospects of a player here, if you can't check your emotions at the door you may want to revisit your elementary school education.

I would say your arguments are anything BUT objective, more like objectionable.

How are they not objective?

Because they are based on opinion rather then qualifiable and/or quantifiable information.ETA: there is nothing wrong with that - most of this board is opinion.

You can have objective arguments based on opinion.

you can take historical stats and make an objective argument based on your opinion of performance in the future.

And I'm officially lost....

 

[John Mamula]

We are objectively discussing the prospects of a player here, if you can't check your emotions at the door you may want to revisit your elementary school education.

I would say your arguments are anything BUT objective, more like objectionable.

How are they not objective?

Because they are based on opinion rather then qualifiable and/or quantifiable information.ETA: there is nothing wrong with that - most of this board is opinion.

You can have objective arguments based on opinion.

you can take historical stats and make an objective argument based on your opinion of performance in the future.

And I'm officially lost....

i don't think you are. you're smarter than that.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Only idiots resort to insults during a debate...mostly because they aren't bright enough to formulate a substantive argument so they compensate.

psst, that thing we talked about yesterday. you're doing it again here.

 

[Road Warriors]

We are objectively discussing the prospects of a player here, if you can't check your emotions at the door you may want to revisit your elementary school education.

I would say your arguments are anything BUT objective, more like objectionable.

How are they not objective?

Because they are based on opinion rather then qualifiable and/or quantifiable information.ETA: there is nothing wrong with that - most of this board is opinion.

You can have objective arguments based on opinion.

you can take historical stats and make an objective argument based on your opinion of performance in the future.

Agreed. It only stops being objective when the historical stats used to based your objective argument are repeatedly shown to be specifically selected to support your subjective opinion. In other words, when you start with an outcome, and then only present facts that support that outcome, while ignoring facts that contradict the outcome, you've stopped being objective.

 

[John Mamula]

We are objectively discussing the prospects of a player here, if you can't check your emotions at the door you may want to revisit your elementary school education.

I would say your arguments are anything BUT objective, more like objectionable.

How are they not objective?

Because they are based on opinion rather then qualifiable and/or quantifiable information.ETA: there is nothing wrong with that - most of this board is opinion.

You can have objective arguments based on opinion.

you can take historical stats and make an objective argument based on your opinion of performance in the future.

Agreed. It only stops being objective when the historical stats used to based your objective argument are repeatedly shown to be specifically selected to support your subjective opinion. In other words, when you start with an outcome, and then only present facts that support that outcome, while ignoring facts that contradict the outcome, you've stopped being objective.

I agree with this.

 

[LHUCKS]

Agreed. It only stops being objective when the historical stats used to based your objective argument are repeatedly shown to be specifically selected to support your subjective opinion. In other words, when you start with an outcome, and then only present facts that support that outcome, while ignoring facts that contradict the outcome, you've stopped being objective.

I'm not ignoring the facts opposing my position, I simply am objectively weighing them and have come to the conclusion that they pale in comparison to those facts which support my conclusion.Fact 1: Running QBs that don't become good passers rarely if ever become great QBsFact2: VY has been a poor passer this yearFact3: Several pro scouts question VY's mental ability to read and reactOpposing facts presented:Fact1: He's improvingFact2: Hasn't had much to work with in terms of WRsThis doesn't include my opinion that Norm Chow probably is making him look better than he actually is.

 

[LHUCKS]

Only idiots resort to insults during a debate...mostly because they aren't bright enough to formulate a substantive argument so they compensate.

psst, that thing we talked about yesterday. you're doing it again here.

What...that post is nothing but truth and was aimed at nobody. Unlike several of the posts in this thread that the mods have chosen to ignore...ridiculous.(and I never call out mods)

 

[Colin Dowling]

Agreed. It only stops being objective when the historical stats used to based your objective argument are repeatedly shown to be specifically selected to support your subjective opinion. In other words, when you start with an outcome, and then only present facts that support that outcome, while ignoring facts that contradict the outcome, you've stopped being objective.

I'm not ignoring the facts opposing my position, I simply am objectively weighing them and have come to the conclusion that they pale in comparison to those facts which support my conclusion.

Sig worthy.

 

[LHUCKS]

Summary of facts presented:

Fact 1: Running QBs that don't become good passers rarely if ever become great QBs

Fact2: VY has been a poor passer this year

Fact3: Several pro scouts question VY's mental ability to read and react

Opposing facts presented:

Fact1: He's improving(three game stretch)

Fact2: Hasn't had much to work with in terms of WRs(somewhat opinion, but I agree so I'll give the benefit of the doubt)

This doesn't include my opinion that Norm Chow probably is making him look better than he actually is.

 

[Colin Dowling]

I'm not ignoring the facts opposing my position, I simply am objectively weighing them and have come to the conclusion that they pale in comparison to those facts which support my conclusion.Fact 1: Running QBs that don't become good passers rarely if ever become great QBsFact2: VY has been a poor passer this yearFact3: Several pro scouts question VY's mental ability to read and reactOpposing facts presented:Fact1: He's improvingFact2: Hasn't had much to work with in terms of WRsThis doesn't include my opinion that Norm Chow probably is making him look better than he actually is.

With the exception of "He's improving", nothing you have posted as fact is, in fact, a fact.