HorrorMovieFans.com

Headhunter wrote: You know, if I were you, I would probably get out of the business of making these sort of declarations. But if you insist, I would probably tack on some zeros to be at least within range of reality.

You're the one throwing the numbers, I'm just winging it.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:I don't know why you always go back to the "you're making a double standard / make up your mind" well. Not even one single time have these been on the mark, and it doesn't even advance your argument, just illustrates that you're not able to distinguish between nuanced concepts or understand what a double standard actually entails.

You got tangled up there, just admit it.

You: Silly to think you're the only one who thought Foles had potential to be a starter in this league out of the draft.
Also you: Silly to think anyone else believes Foles could be a starter in this league now other than you.

So your final thought is: They saw potential when he was drafted, but now I'm the only one who thinks he's starter level despite being current SB MVP.

Fun logic. :idea: :mrgreen:

Oh god, you're still swinging and missing...let me try this again. Really do your best here.

These are two separate, unrelated evaluations. This exists in practice as fans, and also for teams themselves. There are two scouting departments in NFL front offices. One is for college prospects who will later enter the draft. The other is for players currently in the NFL. How a player was viewed in college has absolutely nothing to do with how they would be viewed after putting out years of NFL tape.

So, how he was evaluated coming out of college has no relevance now. All that matters is how he's viewed currently as an NFL player. Please understand this distinction. Please. This should not be as hard for you as it's been.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote: You know, if I were you, I would probably get out of the business of making these sort of declarations. But if you insist, I would probably tack on some zeros to be at least within range of reality.

You're the one throwing the numbers, I'm just winging it.

You said you were the only one (1) to view Foles as having potential. Then, you said you were one of 2 or 3 (2,3) people to still view him as a starter.

So, yeah, you have thrown out numbers. Seriously, are you okay tonight? Things are not clicking with you in this conversation.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote: I didn't put them on a pedestal above you, I put them beside you. Remember you were the one to claim nobody else watching/scouting football thought he had great potential. All I did was refute that by providing an example of other people who saw potential.

Fitzpatrick has had one winning record as a starter. One. So no, I haven't noticed that being that it's not actually true...

You missed my edit to Day 2. He was a Day 2 pick, which is a fairly rich investment. But I guess you can fall back on the "I'm just smarter than everyone" route, when you got nothing else. He's a backup and you are constantly boasting about the expectations you set for him that he didn't actually live up to. Amazing stuff...

That's fair. I will concede. NFL.com impressed me in that quote you sent. Proud of them.

Any teams he ever played that weren't garbage? I rest my case.

I did miss that, but day 2/round 3. Same diff. And again:...
You: Silly to think you're the only one who thought Foles had potential to be a starter in this league out of the draft.
Also you: Silly to think anyone else believes Foles could be a starter in this league now other than you.

So, when you said you were able to distinguish between the two evaluations, that clearly wasn't true. Because if it were, you wouldn't think it makes sense to keep hammering the "make up your mind" thing. Again, Jason, they are two separate evaluations. Six years have happened in between. Those six years of experiences account for changes in how the player is viewed today. How is it even possible that you're not understanding this? This is crazy...

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote: You know, if I were you, I would probably get out of the business of making these sort of declarations. But if you insist, I would probably tack on some zeros to be at least within range of reality.

You're the one throwing the numbers, I'm just winging it.

You said you were the only one (1) to view Foles as having potential. Then, you said you were one of 2 or 3 (2,3) people to still view him as a starter.

So, yeah, you have thrown out numbers. Seriously, are you okay tonight? Things are not clicking with you in this conversation.

I gave you the 2 or 3 mill as a courtesy because you said it would be silly to think I would be the only one (1) to view him as a starter currently.

It's tough to decipher the mind of an absolute genius, but I admire the effort!

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote: I didn't put them on a pedestal above you, I put them beside you. Remember you were the one to claim nobody else watching/scouting football thought he had great potential. All I did was refute that by providing an example of other people who saw potential.

Fitzpatrick has had one winning record as a starter. One. So no, I haven't noticed that being that it's not actually true...

You missed my edit to Day 2. He was a Day 2 pick, which is a fairly rich investment. But I guess you can fall back on the "I'm just smarter than everyone" route, when you got nothing else. He's a backup and you are constantly boasting about the expectations you set for him that he didn't actually live up to. Amazing stuff...

That's fair. I will concede. NFL.com impressed me in that quote you sent. Proud of them.

Any teams he ever played that weren't garbage? I rest my case.

I did miss that, but day 2/round 3. Same diff. And again:...
You: Silly to think you're the only one who thought Foles had potential to be a starter in this league out of the draft.
Also you: Silly to think anyone else believes Foles could be a starter in this league now other than you.

Didn't you just say one quote before this that Fitzpatrick led teams to being average/near-playoff caliber? That wasn't true, so now you pivot to "Well, he didn't, but his teams were really bad..." Can you just actually be right the first time you say something in this argument?

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote: You know, if I were you, I would probably get out of the business of making these sort of declarations. But if you insist, I would probably tack on some zeros to be at least within range of reality.

You're the one throwing the numbers, I'm just winging it.

You said you were the only one (1) to view Foles as having potential. Then, you said you were one of 2 or 3 (2,3) people to still view him as a starter.

So, yeah, you have thrown out numbers. Seriously, are you okay tonight? Things are not clicking with you in this conversation.

I gave you the 2 or 3 mill as a courtesy because you said it would be silly to think I would be the only one (1) to view him as a starter currently.

It's tough to decipher the mind of an absolute genius, but I admire the effort!

Nah, not 2 or 3 million. You said 2 or 3 of millions, as in a couple or a few more people.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote: I didn't put them on a pedestal above you, I put them beside you. Remember you were the one to claim nobody else watching/scouting football thought he had great potential. All I did was refute that by providing an example of other people who saw potential.

Fitzpatrick has had one winning record as a starter. One. So no, I haven't noticed that being that it's not actually true...

You missed my edit to Day 2. He was a Day 2 pick, which is a fairly rich investment. But I guess you can fall back on the "I'm just smarter than everyone" route, when you got nothing else. He's a backup and you are constantly boasting about the expectations you set for him that he didn't actually live up to. Amazing stuff...

That's fair. I will concede. NFL.com impressed me in that quote you sent. Proud of them.

Any teams he ever played that weren't garbage? I rest my case.

I did miss that, but day 2/round 3. Same diff. And again:...
You: Silly to think you're the only one who thought Foles had potential to be a starter in this league out of the draft.
Also you: Silly to think anyone else believes Foles could be a starter in this league now other than you.

So, when you said you were able to distinguish between the two evaluations, that clearly wasn't true. Because if it were, you wouldn't think it makes sense to keep hammering the "make up your mind" thing. Again, Jason, they are two separate evaluations. Six years have happened in between. Those six years of experiences account for changes in how the player is viewed today. How is it even possible that you're not understanding this? This is crazy...

Yes. They're separated. Clearly. But you don't seem to realize how retarded your assessment is and that I am trying to get to the next step in your assessments...

You keep focusing on this, and I'm trying to get to the next step. Now, currently, as far as Nick Foles, according to you, I'm the only one (1), or maybe two (2) or three (3) who thinks he's starter level currently, out of millions of people. (Try to follow) Now let's go to the next step...

So you're telling me that despite many people (not just me, according to you. You've been adamant about that) initially viewing him as a starter-level QB pre-draft/post-draft (according to you), now that he threw for 28 TDs and 2 INTs (as a starter) his rookie year, and single-handedly won the Superb Owl and is the current MVP (as a starter) that all those people who saw that potential before he ever threw a down in the NFL have disappeared now that he's done all this as a starter? You're hitting a brick wall here.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote: You know, if I were you, I would probably get out of the business of making these sort of declarations. But if you insist, I would probably tack on some zeros to be at least within range of reality.

You're the one throwing the numbers, I'm just winging it.

You said you were the only one (1) to view Foles as having potential. Then, you said you were one of 2 or 3 (2,3) people to still view him as a starter.

So, yeah, you have thrown out numbers. Seriously, are you okay tonight? Things are not clicking with you in this conversation.

I gave you the 2 or 3 mill as a courtesy because you said it would be silly to think I would be the only one (1) to view him as a starter currently.

It's tough to decipher the mind of an absolute genius, but I admire the effort!

Nah, not 2 or 3 million. You said 2 or 3 of millions, as in a couple or a few more people.

Correct. I gave you the 2 or 3 other people other than me as a courtesy, because you said it would be silly to think I'm the only single one.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote: I didn't put them on a pedestal above you, I put them beside you. Remember you were the one to claim nobody else watching/scouting football thought he had great potential. All I did was refute that by providing an example of other people who saw potential.

Fitzpatrick has had one winning record as a starter. One. So no, I haven't noticed that being that it's not actually true...

You missed my edit to Day 2. He was a Day 2 pick, which is a fairly rich investment. But I guess you can fall back on the "I'm just smarter than everyone" route, when you got nothing else. He's a backup and you are constantly boasting about the expectations you set for him that he didn't actually live up to. Amazing stuff...

That's fair. I will concede. NFL.com impressed me in that quote you sent. Proud of them.

Any teams he ever played that weren't garbage? I rest my case.

I did miss that, but day 2/round 3. Same diff. And again:...
You: Silly to think you're the only one who thought Foles had potential to be a starter in this league out of the draft.
Also you: Silly to think anyone else believes Foles could be a starter in this league now other than you.

So, when you said you were able to distinguish between the two evaluations, that clearly wasn't true. Because if it were, you wouldn't think it makes sense to keep hammering the "make up your mind" thing. Again, Jason, they are two separate evaluations. Six years have happened in between. Those six years of experiences account for changes in how the player is viewed today. How is it even possible that you're not understanding this? This is crazy...

Yes. They're separated. Clearly. But you don't seem to realize how retarded your assessment is and that I am trying to get to the next step in your assessments...

You keep focusing on this, and I'm trying to get to the next step. Now, currently, as far as Nick Foles, according to you, I'm the only one (1), or maybe two (2) or three (3) who thinks he's starter level currently, out of millions of people. (Try to follow) Now let's go to the next step...

So you're telling me that despite many people (not just me, according to you. You've been adamant about that) initially viewing him as a starter-level QB pre-draft/post-draft (according to you), now that he threw for 28 TDs and 2 INTs (as a starter) his rookie year, and single-handedly won the Superb Owl and is the current MVP (as a starter) that all those people who saw that potential before he ever threw a down in the NFL have disappeared now that he's done all this as a starter? You're hitting a brick wall here.

Well, not clearly because it's been a constant struggle getting you to understand this.

No, according to you, you're one of two or three. Please don't put my name in front of your ludicrously low guestimates, that's all you.

Yes, that's what I'm telling you because that's exactly what happened. He had opportunities to be a long term starter in Philly and St. Louis and failed to take advantage of them, that's why he's back to being a backup. Are you actually arguing that events which have taken place haven't happened? This is how he is where he is now. Yes, he had a stretch when he was young where he played well. He didn't capitalize on that and ended up a journeyman. Yes, he played well when Wentz was injured. Now he's back to the bench because that's what he is, a backup who can give you some solid spot starts but can't be a franchise level starter. If teams thought he could be, he'd be a starter somewhere.

Yes, the people who thought he could be a starter do not view him as a starter anymore. Again, all of this is proven by the actions (or inaction) of NFL teams. Because, after six years of NFL experience, he has proven that he isn't a starter. Does it just blow your mind that evaluations would evolve over time with access to new information? That just doesn't make sense to you?

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote: You know, if I were you, I would probably get out of the business of making these sort of declarations. But if you insist, I would probably tack on some zeros to be at least within range of reality.

You're the one throwing the numbers, I'm just winging it.

You said you were the only one (1) to view Foles as having potential. Then, you said you were one of 2 or 3 (2,3) people to still view him as a starter.

So, yeah, you have thrown out numbers. Seriously, are you okay tonight? Things are not clicking with you in this conversation.

I gave you the 2 or 3 mill as a courtesy because you said it would be silly to think I would be the only one (1) to view him as a starter currently.

It's tough to decipher the mind of an absolute genius, but I admire the effort!

Nah, not 2 or 3 million. You said 2 or 3 of millions, as in a couple or a few more people.

Correct. I gave you the 2 or 3 other people other than me as a courtesy, because you said it would be silly to think I'm the only single one.

No, I proved you weren't the only single one. That you pivoted to "2" or "3" based on a single scouting report I found shows how delusional you are and how little perspective you have outside of your own thoughts.

And you continue to pivot when your previous points are demonstrably proven to be false. Time and time again.

You have really been off the rails since the Keenum stuff. You don't know what a reactionary fan means, you don't know what a double standard is, you couldn't understand the distinction between perception of Foles the prospect and Foles the player (and repeatedly tried to go back to that), you said I hopped off the "Kelly wagon" I was never on, you couldn't even follow your own tangent about my Tebow/Manning thing, you wrongly claimed to be the only person to like Foles as a prospect, you elicited a non-existent reality where Fitzpatrick led teams to average/near-playoff finishes and not horrible ones...

It's actually exhausting how many times you've been wrong about something in this conversation. Like, not opinions, but actual facts.

Headhunter wrote:Yes, the people who thought he could be a starter do not view him as a starter anymore. Again, all of this is proven by the actions (or inaction) of NFL teams. Because, after six years of NFL experience, he has proven that he isn't a starter. Does it just blow your mind that evaluations would evolve over time with access to new information? That just doesn't make sense to you?

That's the answer I was searching for.
You're saying people went from thinking he had potential to be a starter, to then seeing him excel as a starter and reach the pinnacle of being a starter in the NFL, to then retracting their assessment of him being an NFL caliber starter.

Not buying it.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Yes, the people who thought he could be a starter do not view him as a starter anymore. Again, all of this is proven by the actions (or inaction) of NFL teams. Because, after six years of NFL experience, he has proven that he isn't a starter. Does it just blow your mind that evaluations would evolve over time with access to new information? That just doesn't make sense to you?

That's the answer I was searching for.
You're saying people went from thinking he had potential to be a starter, to then seeing him excel as a starter and reach the pinnacle of being a starter in the NFL, to then retracting their assessment of him being an NFL caliber starter.

Not buying it.

What are you "not buying"? Actual things that have taken place? Are you suggesting we're living in a matrix and in the real world, Nick Foles is a franchise QB making 25-30 million dollars per year? None of this is up for debate or subjective, he was a well regarded prospect in 2013 and now he is a backup quarterback.

Meanwhile, in the actual real world, he didn't excel as a starter. He lost his starting job for two teams. That's why he became a journeyman backup who only ever played again because Wentz tore up his knee.

Headhunter wrote:You have really been off the rails since the Keenum stuff. You don't know what a reactionary fan means, you don't know what a double standard is, you couldn't understand the distinction between perception of Foles the prospect and Foles the player (and repeatedly tried to go back to that), you said I hopped off the "Kelly wagon" I was never on, you couldn't even follow your own tangent about my Tebow/Manning thing, you wrongly claimed to be the only person to like Foles as a prospect, you elicited a non-existent reality where Fitzpatrick led teams to average/near-playoff finishes and not horrible ones...

It's actually exhausting how many times you've been wrong about something in this conversation. Like, not opinions, but actual facts.

Oh, piss on it. You've went back and redacted little details to fit all that narrative you were spewing and now trying to blow it back on me afterward. I, in fairness, gave you the benefit of the doubt on one or two of those and how I interpreted them. I could've easily pushed back on all of them. Not fair of you to redact every account and blow it back.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Yes, the people who thought he could be a starter do not view him as a starter anymore. Again, all of this is proven by the actions (or inaction) of NFL teams. Because, after six years of NFL experience, he has proven that he isn't a starter. Does it just blow your mind that evaluations would evolve over time with access to new information? That just doesn't make sense to you?

That's the answer I was searching for.
You're saying people went from thinking he had potential to be a starter, to then seeing him excel as a starter and reach the pinnacle of being a starter in the NFL, to then retracting their assessment of him being an NFL caliber starter.

Not buying it.

What are you "not buying"? Actual things that have taken place? Are you suggesting we're living in a matrix and in the real world, Nick Foles is a franchise QB making 25-30 million dollars per year? None of this is up for debate or subjective, he was a well regarded prospect in 2013 and now he is a backup quarterback.

Meanwhile, in the actual real world, he didn't excel as a starter. He lost his starting job for two teams. That's why he became a journeyman backup who only ever played again because Wentz tore up his knee.

I am not buying that the entire NFL believes Nick Foles is not starting-QB material, as you suggest. A well-regarded prospect by many scouts, who performed as well as any QB could perform when he got the chance, is no-longer well regarded. Yes, I realize he is currently a backup QB. But you suggest he is not a starter-level QB. Hilariously terrible assessment of evaluating talent. Learn frum me

Yeah, he didn't excel as a starter. He only threw for 28 TDs and 2 INTs in his debut (as a starter, not Polk High), and led his NFL team through the NFL playoffs and into the NFL Super Bowl and won the NFL Super Bowl in perhaps the single greatest individual QB performance on the big stage of the NFL Super Bowl (as a starter, not Polk High).
He didn't excel as a starter. Cute.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:You have really been off the rails since the Keenum stuff. You don't know what a reactionary fan means, you don't know what a double standard is, you couldn't understand the distinction between perception of Foles the prospect and Foles the player (and repeatedly tried to go back to that), you said I hopped off the "Kelly wagon" I was never on, you couldn't even follow your own tangent about my Tebow/Manning thing, you wrongly claimed to be the only person to like Foles as a prospect, you elicited a non-existent reality where Fitzpatrick led teams to average/near-playoff finishes and not horrible ones...

It's actually exhausting how many times you've been wrong about something in this conversation. Like, not opinions, but actual facts.

Oh, piss on it. You've went back and redacted little details to fit all that narrative you were spewing and now trying to blow it back on me afterward. I, in fairness, gave you the benefit of the doubt on one or two of those and how I interpreted them. I could've easily pushed back on all of them. Not fair of you to redact every account and blow it back.

I haven't changed a single detail about anything and I have no "narrative", just things that are true. Everything I've said has been clear, straight forward and consistent. You couldn't distinguish between points I was making and went in circles continuously because of that.

My points have been as follows:

-Case Keenum is an average QB at best but it makes zero sense to bench him.
-There's no parallel between Tebow's run and Case's run because the team situations were entirely different and I thought Tebow should start; nothing resembling a double standard as you suggested
-I'm not someone who has hyped up Chad Kelly.
-In 2012, I didn't think it made sense to build around Peyton.
-You were not the only one who thought Foles had potential as a prospect.
-NFL teams do not view Foles as a starter six years later.
-Fitzpatrick's career is an endless cycle without fail. One winning record in career.

I never deviated from these points. No redactions, no adjustments. Just trying to catch you as you spun yourself in circles around my arguments.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Yes, the people who thought he could be a starter do not view him as a starter anymore. Again, all of this is proven by the actions (or inaction) of NFL teams. Because, after six years of NFL experience, he has proven that he isn't a starter. Does it just blow your mind that evaluations would evolve over time with access to new information? That just doesn't make sense to you?

That's the answer I was searching for.
You're saying people went from thinking he had potential to be a starter, to then seeing him excel as a starter and reach the pinnacle of being a starter in the NFL, to then retracting their assessment of him being an NFL caliber starter.

Not buying it.

What are you "not buying"? Actual things that have taken place? Are you suggesting we're living in a matrix and in the real world, Nick Foles is a franchise QB making 25-30 million dollars per year? None of this is up for debate or subjective, he was a well regarded prospect in 2013 and now he is a backup quarterback.

Meanwhile, in the actual real world, he didn't excel as a starter. He lost his starting job for two teams. That's why he became a journeyman backup who only ever played again because Wentz tore up his knee.

I am not buying that the entire NFL believes Nick Foles is not starting-QB material, as you suggest. A well-regarded prospect by many scouts, who performed as well as any QB could perform when he got the chance, is no-longer well regarded. Yes, I realize he is currently a backup QB. But you suggest he is not a starter-level QB. Hilariously terrible assessment of evaluating talent. Learn frum me

Yeah, he didn't excel as a starter. He only threw for 28 TDs and 2 INTs in his debut (as a starter, not Polk High), and led his NFL team through the NFL playoffs and into the NFL Super Bowl and won the NFL Super Bowl in perhaps the single greatest individual QB performance on the big stage of the NFL Super Bowl (as a starter, not Polk High).
He didn't excel as a starter. Cute.

If a team thought he was a starter, he would be on a team needing a starter. Pretty simple. He isn't because that's not how teams view him. Nobody values him more than Philly, and he is their backup.

You only continue to talk about 2013 and a six game stretch in 2017. What happened in between those years? Just briefly tell me his career arc from 2014 through Carson Wentz' injury last year. There's no reason to ignore those seasons, they encompass the majority of his career after all.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:You have really been off the rails since the Keenum stuff. You don't know what a reactionary fan means, you don't know what a double standard is, you couldn't understand the distinction between perception of Foles the prospect and Foles the player (and repeatedly tried to go back to that), you said I hopped off the "Kelly wagon" I was never on, you couldn't even follow your own tangent about my Tebow/Manning thing, you wrongly claimed to be the only person to like Foles as a prospect, you elicited a non-existent reality where Fitzpatrick led teams to average/near-playoff finishes and not horrible ones...

It's actually exhausting how many times you've been wrong about something in this conversation. Like, not opinions, but actual facts.

Oh, piss on it. You've went back and redacted little details to fit all that narrative you were spewing and now trying to blow it back on me afterward. I, in fairness, gave you the benefit of the doubt on one or two of those and how I interpreted them. I could've easily pushed back on all of them. Not fair of you to redact every account and blow it back.

I haven't changed a single-

Forget it. Never ending circle here.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:You have really been off the rails since the Keenum stuff. You don't know what a reactionary fan means, you don't know what a double standard is, you couldn't understand the distinction between perception of Foles the prospect and Foles the player (and repeatedly tried to go back to that), you said I hopped off the "Kelly wagon" I was never on, you couldn't even follow your own tangent about my Tebow/Manning thing, you wrongly claimed to be the only person to like Foles as a prospect, you elicited a non-existent reality where Fitzpatrick led teams to average/near-playoff finishes and not horrible ones...

It's actually exhausting how many times you've been wrong about something in this conversation. Like, not opinions, but actual facts.

Oh, piss on it. You've went back and redacted little details to fit all that narrative you were spewing and now trying to blow it back on me afterward. I, in fairness, gave you the benefit of the doubt on one or two of those and how I interpreted them. I could've easily pushed back on all of them. Not fair of you to redact every account and blow it back.

I haven't changed a single-

Forget it. Never ending circle here.

No, you don't get to "forget it" here. No saving face, stand by what you said. Name a single point I've deviated from.

I'm dying to know the things I've went back and changed. You're so sure that's what happened but I don't remember doing that in any case, so it would be nice of you to refresh my memory.