DJackson10
Footballguy
No dude you’re at the point of just flame posting and trolling for a reaction. Go find yourself a girlfriend to entertain you while ott better yet go outside and touch some grass.Let's be honest here: in any Eagles thread a "troll" is used against anyone who doesn't bend the knee to the Philadelphia Eagles. That's not even debatable. You're literally calling posters that right off the bat so the only ones NOT being honest here are, apparently, the Eagles homers. You can literally go back and look at the immediate responses to my posts and clearly see that no one wants an honest conversation about Hurts as a passer.The problem is that statistics are NOT opinion, and you repeatedly ignore the statistics while repeatedly making opinionated non statistical statements such as the Eagles only win because of the tush push. And thats lame TBH, at times kind of infuriating. You come across not as someone who wants to have honest conversation, but as a trollI respect your OPINION, but it's nothing but an opinion and doesn't do anything to a) disprove my point or b) prove yours.You are coming into a thread of the Super Bowl Champs from last year, who are off to a 4-0 start while not looking good at all - but beating 2 for sure playoff teams, probably another in the Chiefs, but also beating the team you guys literally just tied with, while they were at full strength.Distraction won't work. Regardless of whatever team I may root for, that doesn't change the fact that Hurts isn't a very good passer.Packers fan right? Tied the Cowboys right?Just because you disagree with it does not make it "debunked".JFC, would you quit with the anti tush push stuff? It is NOT what has made Hurts effective, that's an absurd statement that has been debunked statistically numerous timesJust friggin fix the passing offense man. This isn't THAT hard....
You can't fix the passing offense because Hurts cannot sustain a passing offense. He's running QB first and foremost. He runs because he can't pass very well and the offense is built around that, not passing. Heck, even running he can barely get over the goal line w/out needing help.
When the tush push gets banned next year he's going to be in trouble.
Your opinion is greatly appreciated but don't try to pass that off as fact.
Let me know if I'm wrong, trying to set a foundation of reality here
I realize you want to change the narrative because, well, SIDEZ!!!, but looking to attack the messenger is not how you win arguments.
Might want to look into the mirror to see who is trying to distract who
Hurts is 4 win away from breaking the all-time record for most wins in a row by a QB.
You guys are letting a poster who's team just tied the Cowboys, a team that a Hurts led team beat multiple times last season. You're letting that guy derail the thread with demurrer arguments?
See the post above. Ad-Hominem attacks don't disprove my argument and they certainly don't prove yours.
You should learn what demurrer means. Here is a translation: Even if everything you said was true . . . so what?
You're argument is a nothing argument because the things that you're arguing really don't matter when it comes to being a winning QB.
Not talking about the Eagles, I'm talking about Hurts. Is there some kind of Eagles Review Board I have to submit questions to in order to get a topic to talk about approved?
Be better than using Ad-Hominem attacks at posters simply because you don't want discuss and/or face a topic.
Saying a person is using a demurrer argument isn't an ad hominem attack. It's an attack on the argument which in this case is specious to begin with, and not really relevant at all to what matters for winning football games.
It's not specious to the original statement to which I responded to, which was "fix the passing offense", which I literally stated in the post directly above yours.
I feel like you just wanted to use the word "demurrer" in a sentence to a) dismiss the topic w/out actually addressing the argument being put forth and b) show everyone how cool you are by using one of them fancy words.
Specious means plausible but actually wrong. Just this morning, Ron Jaworski after watching the All-22s of the TB game said, "AJ Brown was not getting open." So yes, your argument is specious.
As for my use of the term demurrer and your reply. . . this is an example of an ad hominem attack. See the difference?
You may think it's "specious" but, again, it's just a way for you to avoid having to talk about the topic. Again, while I respect your opinion, I must "demur" on your analysis as it seems to me it's simply a case of Homerism.
And I'm not ignoring statistics. I'm ignoring cherry-picked statistics.