Jump to content

Packers QB Aaron Rodgers disgruntled; "Does not want to return to team"


RaidersAreOne

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

because in the real NFL he was the primary target in Carolina lol

he was literally and actually their #1 WR

Am I being pranked or something? Is Ashton going to show up at my door. I refuse to believe people can't comprehend what I'm saying...

Again, we get what you are saying it is just incorrect and incredibly stupid. No one refers to a WR1 unless they are a WR1. He was a default WR1 due to the trade. No one would refer to him as the WR1 except under those circumstances. Context is everything.

Edited by Pool
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pool said:

Because he knows everything and we are all stupid. Duh.

I mean...you guys are kinda proving it by refusing to understand how I'm using the term "#1 WR".

It's a weird refusal. Big egos or something. You're applying your own definition to something I've CLEARLY explained like a dozen times and arguing against a definition I'm not using. Why? It's so so so stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, incognito_man said:

I mean...you guys are kinda proving it by refusing to understand how I'm using the term "#1 WR".

It's a weird refusal. Big egos or something. You're applying your own definition to something I've CLEARLY explained like a dozen times and arguing against a definition I'm not using. Why? It's so so so stupid.

Last reply, you are using WR1 in a way to fit your narrative. It is incorrect to everyone (or disingenuous at best). Have a good day.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pool said:

Again, we get what you are saying it is just incorrect and incredibly stupid. No one refers to a WR1 unless they are a WR1. He was a default WR1 due to the trade. No one would refer to him as the WR1 except under those circumstances. Context is everything.

It doesn't appear at all you understand because you keep arguing things I've never said lol

most recently: this nonsense where you just tried to argue I said he's CURRENTLY a #1 WR when I've literally said multiple times I think he's CURRENTLY a fringe roster guy lol

So yes, SOMETHING incorrect and incredibly stupid is going on in this thread...and it's your inability to understand what I've been saying for PAGES now.

Everyone I know that doesn't play fantasy football calls a team's #1 WR their...#1 WR. lol @ "no one" refers to a #1 WR that way. Mind-numbing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pool said:

Last reply, you are using WR1 in a way to fit your narrative. It is incorrect to everyone (or disingenuous at best). Have a good day.

This has zero merit. I CLEARLY defined how I was using it immediately. It's not disingenuous whatsoever to clearly define how I'm using it.

I can't help it if reader's ignore my actual words and insert their own flawed interpretation when I've so very, very, VERY clearly established what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rodjahs12 said:

This pretty much boils down to Incog being factually right about what he's saying but Funchess being a ****ty enough #1 during this time that he barely qualified for the term and thus it sounds disingenuous

I have no clue what sounds disingenuous about me saying he produced like an average #2 during his stint as a #1. That is a self-contained rating of his ability as a #1 WR right there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

I have no clue what sounds disingenuous about me saying he produced like an average #2 during his stint as a #1. That is a self-contained rating of his ability as a #1 WR right there. 

It's not going to be easy to convince anyone that Funchess moves the needle at all so I'm not surprised that people are reacting this way to the notion that he can be a go to guy. I don't think what you're saying is really wrong at all, I'm just not inclined to believe we'll ever get anything out of the guy at all much less that kind of production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

because in the real NFL he was the primary target in Carolina lol

he was literally and actually their #1 WR

Am I being pranked or something? Is Ashton going to show up at my door. I refuse to believe people can't comprehend what I'm saying...

I comprehend perfectly fine and have admitted that I would not fight you on the idea of there being 32 WR1s in a literal sense based on the fact that every team has receivers and every team has a depth chart and someone has to be at the top of said depth chart. I don't think "real NFL definition" and "literal definition" are necessarily one in the same, but I'm adding context and nuance and you want to be very specific and rigid, which is fine. 

But you seem to refuse to acknowledge that a not so small percentage of people do not evaluate or categorize players in that manner (which again is why I believe that Pwny said it's a disingenuous statement to say he's a "former #1") but instead categorize players in that regard based on their skill level against the league as a whole. I have never done a straw poll or anything, but I'd be willing to wager on a higher percentage of people categorize players as "WR1" based on skill as opposed to team / depth chart construction, and I would include NFL people in that (something you were adamant about earlier when I posted the article that asked GMs and head coaches and they promptly only listed 11 WR1s). 

Devin Funchess was the primary target for the Panthers when they had nobody better. That was a role that he had, just like Rod Streater was a WR1 in 2013 for the raiders and Darnay Scott was a WR1 for the 2001 Bengals with his 800 yards and so many others. Again, in a literal sense, won't fight about that. 

I do think it's disingenuous and will argue when you're going to use that narrative ("he's a former #1 wide receiver!") when trying to prop him up as a bastion of skill that the regime has brought in to sate Aaron Rodgers. You can't say that the the moniker "WR1" is not skill based, but then try to use the title (WR1) as a support for a players skill level (We have brought in help for Rodgers! We signed Funchess and he's a former #1 receiver!"). That doesn't work for me.

Now, that's just my interpretation of the events, but I could be wrong. If it's wrong, well then feel free to carry on. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Scoundrel said:

I’ve always considered the top target at receiver for each team their WR1. So there are 32 WR1 in the league. And obviously many produce at different levels. 

Exactly. Even fantasy footballwise this makes sense. How many times have you heard or thought someone say "so-and-so is Brady's #1 WR this year). Being a #1 WR for a team is a positive in fantasy football. You hear that language ALL THE TIME even in fantasy football (where Brady's #1 might be a fantasy #2 or #3 WR).

Just shocking the pushback for calling a team's #1 WR their...#1 WR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Scoundrel said:

I’ve always considered the top target at receiver for each team their WR1. So there are 32 WR1 in the league. And obviously many produce at different levels. 

When you evaluate the draft, do you always have exactly 32 first round talents? Just curious because I view this similar to that. 

There are literally 32 first round selections. Seldom do I have 32 first round players.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Forge said:

I do think it's disingenuous and will argue when you're going to use that narrative ("he's a former #1 wide receiver!") when trying to prop him up as a bastion of skill that the regime has brought in to sate Aaron Rodgers. You can't say that the the moniker "WR1" is not skill based, but then try to use the title (WR1) as a support for a players skill level (We have brought in help for Rodgers! We signed Funchess and he's a former #1 receiver!"). That doesn't work for me.

You're inventing this part (like so many others in this thread). It's LITERALLY the opposite of what I've been REPEATEDLY saying. I am NOT propping him up to be anything he never was or isn't currently.

Again: He's a former #1 WR who produced like an average #2 that was signed as a #3/4 with potential upside to become a #2 WR w/ Rodgers and thus it was a value signing which is exactly the type of signing GB can afford. It's like people expect GB to sign another top 32 producing WR (literally a #1 WR in the NFL) to pair with Davante Adams to give Rodgers moar weaponz. And my entire point has been that when your QB is eating up an MVP size chunk of the cap, ONE legit #1WR should be sufficient. And then trying to find value by paying a guy like a #3/4 who has performed in the role of a #1 WR and produced like a #2 is a sensical move. Primarily because (unlike in @ET80's dream scenario about "borrowing") GB cannot afford to pay another top WR and Goodell is not going to loan GB salary cap space in order to do it, so they're limited in trying to find value. So it makes a lot of sense Funchess is exactly the type of player they'd look for with depressed value due to injuries to take a shot on.

They're not paying him to be a #1. They're not even paying him to be a #2. They paid him to be a #3/4 and it's a value signing because he's previously produced better. But there's obvious injury risk involved.

I dunno how many more times I need to type the same thing out lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, squire12 said:

 

So why are you framing your question as you are?  

You are correct.  I should have made it in the past tense. However I do not see how that would change the point I was making. 

Edited by Pool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...