Everyone but Bob, sorry, I thought we were at the stage in which we did more than just filter tackle numbers and punch numbers into a computer to make our decisions. Maybe I'm mistaken, or maybe bob just likes to follow me around. The great production//mediocre play stories are many. They're great while they happen, but get caught holding the bag? Oops.
And not saying either is mediocre. I think both have a big hole in their game that could lead to problems later. It's something I am monitoring. Exceptional talents, but that only takes you so far.
You have a puzzling quirk in taking something that everybody does, and acting as if you are somehow unique in WATCHING GAMES. If someone mentions a stat, that must mean they never watch games, probably because they scanned a stat sheet once, started seeing secret codes everywhere and descended into madness like the dude from A Beautiful Mind. There's really nothing special about the fact that you watch games, in and of itself, as a distinguishing feature that separates you from others. What is a distinguishing feature, based on your own descriptions, if there is a disconnect between what your eyes see and what the stats reveal, instead of trying to reconcile the two, you simply ignore the information that contradicts your belief system. How does that work, does that help reinforce your beliefs when you limit yourself only to information that confirms what you already believed?
Our brains are wired to process all sorts of information, including images, numbers and words. It's your decision to consciously, willfully deprive yourself of another source of information, but there is no reason to lord that self-deprivation over others as some kind of virtue, to the point you ridicule others for simply wanting to avail themselves of all possible types of information at their disposal. Looking at stats prior has never caused me to hallucinate like a scene from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, something that wasn't there in a game.
I'm not the only person that disagreed with the numbers lie shtick in the past few threads. Were they following you, too? When you disagreed with my post in the Justin Hunter thread, were you following me? When I respond to multiple other people in the thread, am I following them, too? Is everybody following each other (play that back and ask yourself if that sounds a little paranoid)? Is everybody that disagrees with you following you? If so, a lot of people must be following you.
I'm not feeling the I WATCH GAMES boogeyman with Ogletree.
Ogletree is the only LB (and possibly at any position) since at least 2001 to have as many as 95 solo tackles and 6 FFs in a season.
Keith Bulluck (also drafted by Fisher and an Ogletree comp by some scouts) was the closest with 106 solo tackles and 5 FFs in 2003. Note that I'm not saying tackles are everything, or FFs are everything. Just that it was rare, especially for a rookie (you could have found that out, but you abhor stats). From there, if you twist things so you can feel more clever by setting a blatant misrepresentation and gross caricature of my actual, stated position against your own, than your just playing sock puppet Kabuki with yourself and substituting my dialogue. I don't need to misrepresent positions like numbers lie to make them look worse (that would be redundant).
It might help others understand your position (if that is even of interest to you, it could lead to a reduction in arguments, and you would also have to go out on a limb and risk being wrong, which might be bad things from your perspective), if instead of expressing yourself in vague, nebulous generalities, quantify how many bad plays = WAY TOO MANY BAD PLAYS in your world. Is it 1? 3? 5? 10? Otherwise, you are just spinning your wheels in your own world.
Coming from you, I'm not going to dignify the tone remark with a response much beyond observing it is funny shtick (I don't see you as a Sensitivity Training seminar leader or author of a self-help best seller entitled How to Make Friends and Influence People by Being Agreeable any time soon). I'm not sure how I could have been more direct and straightforward in communicating to you what I disagree with about your position (like numbers lie), so I don't think passive aggressive means what you think it does. Talking about a person, through a post directed to somebody else, would be such an example, though.
Needless to say, when your position mutates and evolves over the course of a debate, and perhaps the later variant is more balanced and palatable compared to an earlier iteration that was more extreme and strident, than debating in good faith would seem to require acknowledging that, rather than fobbing off the latter attenuated, modulated version as what you were saying all along. The first response mentions Ogletree and Shazier's superior athleticism. That's unclear, no shortage of failed athletes. Later, the phrase "exceptional talents" is introduced to the exchange for the first time. That sounds better. Later still, presto change-o, Ogletree could be top 10 (point taken you don't think he will), and he and Shazier both have elite ceilings. Why didn't you say that in the first place?