Iamcanadian Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 On 9/10/2017 at 8:34 PM, DraftHobbyist said: I really feel like you're going out of your way to hide Lamar Jackson's obvious faults. You say that Louisville has struggled, but it's not Lamar Jackson that has been streaky, but Louisville runs their entire Offense through Lamar Jackson. Everything literally starts with him. When the team struggles, a lot of it has to do with him. So then you said that I failed to mention Louisville fumbled twice. Well, who fumbled? Lamar Jackson fumbled on 3rd and Goal from the Purdue 2 after an 8 play drive. But you're using this as a case to defend Lamar Jackson because "Louisville fumbled". Then Louisville goes 3 and out and punts. Then it's another 10 play drive where Louisville stalls out and settles for a FG while 2/3 final plays were Lamar Jackson runs. Purdue fumbles the kickoff and Louisville recovers. Next drive was a 6 play drive for 14 yards and Jackson's teammate fumbles. Then Purdue gets a FG blocked. Then Louisville throws 4 passes (first one for a 1st down, and 2 incompletions and 1 completion for less than 10 yards), so they have to punt. Purdue gets a TD, Louisville comes out with 51 seconds to go, gets a bunch of garbage yards, and fails to score. Louisville had a ton of opportunities in the first half and ended up with 10 points. Sure, 2 turnovers in the 1st half around the goal line, but one on Jackson. So then coming out of half, Louisville has a great opportunity with Purdue going 3 and out for -3 yards and a 44 yard punt with a 33 yard return. What happens? Louisville gets a FG out of it in 3 plays with Lamar Jackson run, Lamar Jackson run, and Lamar Jackson incomplete pass. This is not putting your team on your back. This is being the source of failure. Purdue comes out, 3 plays for 9 yards and a punt. This puts a lot of stress on Purdue's Defense with all of these 3 and outs. Then there was a fumble by Lousiville's WR 2 plays in and Purdue recovers. It turns into a TD. So up to this point, sure, Jackson's teammates have had some miscues, but Jackson was not sharp himself, and had miscues himself. But then came what I call "the call" that changed the game. The one we've been debating. On this drive, Jackson gets the phantom 1st Down, which would've gotten Purdue off the field otherwise. Jackson still only threw 5/10 on the series, but there was a penalty on one that got a Purdue player ejected. So now you have a phantom 1st down, a Purdue player that got ejected, it turns into a TD for Louisville, and everything starts unraveling for Purdue. They come out, throw a pick-6, then come out and throw another Interception, then they do get a TD, but then back to a punt, then come out and throw another Interception, and finally downs. If you think that call was "minor" then you didn't watch the game. And it all happened because Jackson failed to make the smart play and make sure he got a 1st Down. Overall, Purdue turned the ball over 4 times to Louisville's 3, so Louisville was actually the beneficiary of turnovers. Purdue did a ton to help Jackson out, and yet he could only lead his team to putting up 35 points, most which came in the last 1.5 quarters, after only 10 points in the first 2.5 quarters. I honestly don't know how you can say this isn't streaky, just like I don't know how you can say this call was minor. It was a huge call and the refs were obviously wrong. The commentators were dumbfounded at how the call could be so wrong and then not have it overturned, with the only logic being that yardage is rarely changed. And watching the game with the eye test, Jackson had a lot of throws way over guys heads, way wide, etc. But then once he got in the zone everything was right on the money. That's my definition of streaky. It really feels to me like you like Jackson, predicted he would be a great player, and now you are doing what is called protecting your prediction, which is a sort of bias. I say that because some of this is so obvious, especially where Jackson himself was a person that fumbled the ball, but you fail to mention that in your criticism of me not mentioning fumbles. So I think I've done a good job showing streakiness, showing that your objection claiming my claim was false holds no real water, that the call was actually a huge deal and should be considered in the scouting, and that you possible have a pretty big bias on this particular player. Jackson is a tough call, is he Michael Vick or RG111, some team will take a shot a lot earlier than people expect, maybe even top 10 pick, hoping it is the former. You have to remember, all his WR's graduated last year and his star RB also left, so he is the whole show with not a lot of experienced help. A lot of people doubted Deshaun Watson as a pro prospect, but so far at least, he has proved them wrong. Just have to wait and see if Jackson can do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraftHobbyist Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 2 minutes ago, Iamcanadian said: Jackson is a tough call, is he Michael Vick or RG111, some team will take a shot a lot earlier than people expect, maybe even top 10 pick, hoping it is the former. You have to remember, all his WR's graduated last year and his star RB also left, so he is the whole show with not a lot of experienced help. A lot of people doubted Deshaun Watson as a pro prospect, but so far at least, he has proved them wrong. Just have to wait and see if Jackson can do the same. Watson was a different situation. His issue was arm strength clocking really slow on the radar gun IIRC. The WR's weren't the reason Jackson missed wide open guys over and over against NC State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDOG_det Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 1 hour ago, Iamcanadian said: You have to remember, all his WR's graduated last year and his star RB also left, so he is the whole show with not a lot of experienced help. His WR's may not be "experienced", but Jaylen Smith and Dez Fitzpatrick are two of the better WR's in college football... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 15 hours ago, Tugboat said: They have the courage insofar as Alex Smith can continue to manage that team to a playoff berth and serious championship aspirations. Few teams have a situation like that where they afford to spend a high 1st round pick on a QB and essentially get zilch out of that expenditure for an entire year or more, while still maintaining a team good enough to sustain those championship hopes. And part of that is because sitting a guy for a year is burning at least a year off your potential "window" to win with a QB before they need to be the highest paid player in history. You'd better be getting some incredible "development" out of that year, for the 10s of millions it's probably going to cost you to bump their "starter learning curve" a year down the road, if they even work out anyway. That potential window only matters if the guy pans out. How many millions would you sacrifice to get a franchise QB? Or you can be the stupid team who throws the QB with mechanical flaws into the fire and ruins him. Every team can afford to be patient with a QB. Most of them just don't have the courage to follow through on the plan. 5 hours ago, DraftHobbyist said: What you're doing here is taking an admitted rumor and then making claims about that rumor that may or may not be true. I think we need to step back from that line of thinking. A better example would be where a GM didn't get fired right after. Like using Aaron Rodgers, for instance. The example was fine. You picking a stupid thing to argue over doesn't lessen the point. The Chiefs are the only undefeated team in the NFL. Dorsey didn't get fired because Mahomes wasn't playing, because the Chiefs weren't performing, or because his personnel moves weren't acceptable. Dorsey got fired because Andy Reid won the power struggle. And the reality is that the Chiefs wouldn't have fired Dorsey if he was the guy who made the call on drafting Mahomes. Andy Reid made that call. Stop muddying the waters with nonsense. You're wasting everyone's time arguing over something that is entirely tangential to the point being made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraftHobbyist Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 31 minutes ago, jrry32 said: That potential window only matters if the guy pans out. How many millions would you sacrifice to get a franchise QB? Or you can be the stupid team who throws the QB with mechanical flaws into the fire and ruins him. Every team can afford to be patient with a QB. Most of them just don't have the courage to follow through on the plan. The example was fine. You picking a stupid thing to argue over doesn't lessen the point. The Chiefs are the only undefeated team in the NFL. Dorsey didn't get fired because Mahomes wasn't playing, because the Chiefs weren't performing, or because his personnel moves weren't acceptable. Dorsey got fired because Andy Reid won the power struggle. And the reality is that the Chiefs wouldn't have fired Dorsey if he was the guy who made the call on drafting Mahomes. Andy Reid made that call. Stop muddying the waters with nonsense. You're wasting everyone's time arguing over something that is entirely tangential to the point being made. Stop pretending to know what was going on in the Kansas City front office. You don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 Just now, DraftHobbyist said: Stop pretending to know what was going on in the Kansas City front office. You don't. All it takes is critical thinking. Stop wasting our time with naivete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraftHobbyist Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 1 minute ago, jrry32 said: All it takes is critical thinking. Stop wasting our time with naivete. Your arrogance does not prove my naivete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 Just now, DraftHobbyist said: Your arrogance does not prove my naivete. No, your naivete proves your naivete. But I'll hear you out, bud. It's October. There's not much going on in this forum. Why did a team that has gone 43-21 over the past 4 years and made the playoffs three times fire their GM? What would starting Mahomes have done for his job? Why did they not fire their HC who chose not to start Mahomes? Why did not starting Mahomes get their HC more power while their GM got fired? How is "excitement" going to save a GM from being fired in June? I don't think any rational person is going to honestly sit there and try to argue that not starting Mahomes cost Dorsey his job. Nor will any person try to argue that starting Mahomes saves Dorsey's job. The answer here is obvious. I'm baffled that you're trying to make this argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraftHobbyist Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 Just now, jrry32 said: No, your naivete proves your naivete. But I'll hear you out, bud. It's October. There's not much going on in this forum. Why did a team that has gone 43-21 over the past 4 years and made the playoffs three times fire their GM? What would starting Mahomes have done for his job? Why did they not fire their HC who chose not to start Mahomes? Why did not starting Mahomes get their HC more power while their GM got fired? How is "excitement" going to save a GM from being fired in June? I don't think any rational person is going to honestly sit there and try to argue that not starting Mahomes cost Dorsey his job. Nor will any person try to argue that starting Mahomes saves Dorsey's job. The answer here is obvious. I'm baffled that you're trying to make this argument. Oh, so you completely misunderstood my point. Thanks for not wasting our time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 Just now, DraftHobbyist said: Oh, so you completely misunderstood my point. Thanks for not wasting our time. What's your point? What am I misunderstanding? I applauded KC for showing the courage to sit Mahomes and develop him. You implied that got their GM fired. You then backpedaled and tried to argue that while it may not have gotten him fired, starting Mahomes could have saved his job. Are you going to backpedal again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraftHobbyist Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 2 hours ago, jrry32 said: What's your point? What am I misunderstanding? I applauded KC for showing the courage to sit Mahomes and develop him. You implied that got their GM fired. You then backpedaled and tried to argue that while it may not have gotten him fired, starting Mahomes could have saved his job. Are you going to backpedal again? I was saying that if Mahomes was playing that may have created a different focus and atmosphere of the team and may have saved Dorsey's job if Mahomes was playing well. Obviously, with Alex Smith they have to play him. Smith is a very good QB. But that may have also prevented Dorsey from being able to save his job. It's not like firing Dorsey would be an easy decision. Many of the complaints of Dorsey listed as a reason rumored for firing him in an article actually didn't make sense. So you're going to fire Dorsey for taking Hogan when he also found guys like Hunt, Hill, etc.? And he also made an unpopular trade for Alex Smith that turned out beautifully, but you're going to fire him because of Hogan? I'm not saying Dorsey had no problems, but he's not the type of GM that's easy to fire. With a slightly different attitude among ownership if a young QB is playing really well, then it's possible the owner would've looked at the situation a little differently. But, we'll never know because even the issues are speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 Just now, DraftHobbyist said: I was saying that if Mahomes was playing that may have created a different focus and atmosphere of the team and may have saved Dorsey's job if Mahomes was playing well. Obviously, with Alex Smith they have to play him. Smith is a very good QB. But that may have also prevented Dorsey from being able to save his job. It's not like firing Dorsey would be an easy decision. Many of the complaints of Dorsey listed as a reason rumored for firing him in an article actually didn't make sense. So you're going to fire Dorsey for taking Hogan when he also found guys like Hunt, Hill, etc.? And he also made an unpopular trade for Alex Smith that turned out beautifully, but you're going to fire him because of Hogan? I'm not saying Dorsey had no problems, but he's not the type of GM that's easy to fire. With a slightly different attitude among ownership if a young QB is playing really well, then it's possible the owner would've looked at the situation a little differently. But, we'll never know because even the issues are pure speculation. He was fired in June. Mahomes couldn't play a snap until the preseason in August. Your explanation doesn't make sense. If Sam Bradford hadn't torn his ACL, the Rams would have won every Super Bowl from 2013 through 2016. Hey, it might sound dumb and silly, but we'll never know because it's pure speculation. /facepalm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraftHobbyist Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, jrry32 said: He was fired in June. Mahomes couldn't play a snap until the preseason in August. Your explanation doesn't make sense. If Sam Bradford hadn't torn his ACL, the Rams would have won every Super Bowl from 2013 through 2016. Hey, it might sound dumb and silly, but we'll never know because it's pure speculation. /facepalm Did the owner not know the plan? And your analogy is ridiculous so I'm not even going to address that outside of saying it's a failure of analogy, not in my argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 Just now, DraftHobbyist said: Did the owner not know the plan? Did the owner not know the Chiefs were 43-21 under Dorsey as GM? Yea, I'm sure forcing a raw rookie QB into the starting lineup was the way to save his job when wild success couldn't do it. I feel like I'm arguing with a flat-earther. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraftHobbyist Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, jrry32 said: Did the owner not know the Chiefs were 43-21 under Dorsey as GM? Yea, I'm sure forcing a raw rookie QB into the starting lineup was the way to save his job when wild success couldn't do it. I feel like I'm arguing with a flat-earther. Are you trolling me? Seriously, I can't tell. You literally take everything I say way out of context than talk to me like I'm an idiot because of your own misunderstanding. You think you would've learned after last year. I know it's October, but take your straw men arguments elsewhere. I'm sick of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.