HorrorMovieFans.com

Headhunter wrote:

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.

Are you aware that teams called Philly needing a starting QB but Philadelphia refused to trade him? They turned down the offers and gave him a pay raise.There was debate inside the Philly organization on who they should trade, and who should start the season after that brillant run by Foles. Ultimately went with Wentz. Philly needed a starter week 1 because Wentz was going to be out in week 1 and 2, anyway. "We feel very confident about what his value is to our football team and really to the rest of the league. There’s obviously interest in Nick Foles because Nick Foles has been tremendously effective in a Philadelphia Eagles uniform".

So yeah, teams think he is a starter, but he is not on a team needing a starter because Philly is greedy and fear Wentz is injury prone.

Blew the league out the game in 2013.
He performed decently enough in 2014. A fall off every single QB has had in their career.
Poorly in 2015.
Seemed to do alright with the little playing time in K.C. that he got in 2016, but I didn't watch much from him that year.
Blew the league out the game in 2017 again.

Start him.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:
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.

Well, taking a brief moment to go back a couple of pages, it says that you've edited the ever loving fuck out of the one post I looked at, so is that evidence in itself that you went back and changed things? Because I'm not about to sift through posts to look for things that you've said, in posts that you've edited multiple times.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:
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.

Well, taking a brief moment to go back a couple of pages, it says that you've edited the ever loving fuck out of the one post I looked at, so is that evidence in itself that you went back and changed things? Because I'm not about to sift through posts to look for things that you've said, in posts that you've edited multiple times.

In fairness, I edited this post once. :p

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:
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.

Well, taking a brief moment to go back a couple of pages, it says that you've edited the ever loving fuck out of the one post I looked at, so is that evidence in itself that you went back and changed things? Because I'm not about to sift through posts to look for things that you've said, in posts that you've edited multiple times.

Are the time stamps for those posts not available? If they are, you can check to see how long after my original posts I made edits. You can also compare the edited posts to the ones you quoted to account for the differences. I'm sure you understand I do this all the time. If I think of something clever to expand on the original point (serving to enhance the post, not change it), I will do it. I hit click and then think "Damn! That would have worked well too". I never edited those posts to retroactively change arguments to make you look worse, as you've accused me of.

So if you're not going to follow up on your baseless accusation, you can shove it up your ass, bud. :mrgreen:

Headhunter wrote:Are the time stamps for those posts not available? If they are, you can check to see how long after my original posts I made edits. You can also compare the edited posts to the ones you quoted to account for the differences. I'm sure you understand I do this all the time. If I think of something clever to expand on the original point (serving to enhance the post, not change it), I will do it. I hit click and then think "Damn! That would have worked well too".

I never edited those posts to retroactively change arguments to make you look worse, as you've accused me of.

So if you're not going to follow up on your baseless accusation, you can get that weak shit out of here. :mrgreen:

Don't think they are, and we have been arguing for like 4 fucking hours. I am not about to sift through pages of horse shit to search through all the edits of your horse shit. Redacter!

I've never accused you of that ever. But you can't go back and see if I've edited my posts, so neener.

I stand by it, but I am lazy.

Headhunter wrote:So if you're not going to follow up on your baseless accusation, you can shove it up your ass, bud. :mrgreen:

Oh, look. Another edit. :p

This one didn't even show you edited it.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

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.

Are you aware that teams called Philly needing a starting QB but Philadelphia refused to trade him? They turned down the offers and gave him a pay raise.There was debate inside the Philly organization on who they should trade, and who should start the season after that brillant run by Foles. Ultimately went with Wentz. Philly needed a starter week 1 because Wentz was going to be out in week 1 and 2, anyway. "We feel very confident about what his value is to our football team and really to the rest of the league. There’s obviously interest in Nick Foles because Nick Foles has been tremendously effective in a Philadelphia Eagles uniform".

So yeah, teams think he is a starter, but he is not on a team needing a starter because Philly is greedy and fear Wentz is injury prone.

Blew the league out the game in 2013.
He performed decently enough in 2014. A fall off every single QB has had in their career.
Poorly in 2015.
Seemed to do alright with the little playing time in K.C. that he got in 2016, but I didn't watch much from him that year.
Blew the league out the game in 2017 again.

Start him.

There was no debate about who to trade, that part is your own commentary/fan fiction. There was a report that Cleveland offered a pick for Foles, so at best you're talking about someone Cleveland viewed as a bridge starter for part of the season before the QB they drafted took over.

Teams think he is a stop gap for a young guy at best. Not what I consider viewing someone as a starter. There's no long term desire for any teams to keep him around.

Foles was a bottom tier QB in 2014 and one of the worst in the league in 2015. He blew his opportunities then. And he's played pretty terribly in half his starts since Wentz' injury. Yes, the Vikings and Pats games were great. No, they don't make him a great QB. Excellence is a habit, not a flash in the pan.

Headhunter wrote:... you can shove it up your ass, bud. :mrgreen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DuoBTJdmds&t=130s

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Are the time stamps for those posts not available? If they are, you can check to see how long after my original posts I made edits. You can also compare the edited posts to the ones you quoted to account for the differences. I'm sure you understand I do this all the time. If I think of something clever to expand on the original point (serving to enhance the post, not change it), I will do it. I hit click and then think "Damn! That would have worked well too".

I never edited those posts to retroactively change arguments to make you look worse, as you've accused me of.

So if you're not going to follow up on your baseless accusation, you can get that weak shit out of here. :mrgreen:

Don't think they are, and we have been arguing for like 4 fucking hours. I am not about to sift through pages of horse shit to search through all the edits of your horse shit. Redacter!

I've never accused you of that ever. But you can't go back and see if I've edited my posts, so neener.

I stand by it, but I am lazy.

That was a rhetorical suggestion by me. The time stamps are available. The edits I made consisted of filling shit in, expanding on arguments that have been consistent through four pages. I'm still curious what narrative I retroactively edited posts to serve. I stayed grounded and watched you spin yourself in circles trying to call me out on double standards, deconstruct my logic and other ultimately fruitless little games. My edits didn't cause you to lose your mind and spout untrue thing after untrue thing. It's really been quite a show. Here's another edit for you, so you have an excuse for the next batch of easily verifiable nonsense you spout.

Headhunter wrote: Foles was a bottom tier QB in 2014 and one of the worst in the league in 2015. He blew his opportunities then. And he's played pretty terribly in half his starts since Wentz' injury. Yes, the Vikings and Pats games were great. No, they don't make him a great QB. Excellence is a habit, not a flash in the pan.

Looked p. excellent in his starts this year, apart from game management and playing it safe in the clutch against Atlanta. Only could be out-dueled by the great Sir Fitz-A-Lot. Wentz looked fun today. That's about all I can say.

You wouldn't know excellence if it bit you in the ass and bought you a Super Bowl ring.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote: Foles was a bottom tier QB in 2014 and one of the worst in the league in 2015. He blew his opportunities then. And he's played pretty terribly in half his starts since Wentz' injury. Yes, the Vikings and Pats games were great. No, they don't make him a great QB. Excellence is a habit, not a flash in the pan.

Looked p. excellent in his starts this year, apart from game management and playing it safe in the clutch against Atlanta. Only could be out-dueled by the great Sir Fitz-A-Lot. Wentz looked fun today. That's about all I can say.

You wouldn't know excellence if it bit you in the ass and bought you a Super Bowl ring.

He fucking sucked in both games this year. Was bad against Atlanta last year and was bad in the last two games of the regular season. So three out of eight possible starts were quality starts. He's a backup.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Are the time stamps for those posts not available? If they are, you can check to see how long after my original posts I made edits. You can also compare the edited posts to the ones you quoted to account for the differences. I'm sure you understand I do this all the time. If I think of something clever to expand on the original point (serving to enhance the post, not change it), I will do it. I hit click and then think "Damn! That would have worked well too".

I never edited those posts to retroactively change arguments to make you look worse, as you've accused me of.

So if you're not going to follow up on your baseless accusation, you can get that weak shit out of here. :mrgreen:

Don't think they are, and we have been arguing for like 4 fucking hours. I am not about to sift through pages of horse shit to search through all the edits of your horse shit. Redacter!

I've never accused you of that ever. But you can't go back and see if I've edited my posts, so neener.

I stand by it, but I am lazy.

That was a rhetorical suggestion by me. The time stamps are available. The edits I made consisted of filling shit in, expanding on arguments that have been consistent through four pages. I'm still curious what narrative I retroactively edited posts to serve. I stayed grounded and watched you spin yourself in circles trying to call me out on double standards, deconstruct my logic and other ultimately fruitless little games. My edits didn't cause you to lose your mind and spout untrue thing after untrue thing.

I'm not saying you did go back and edit the things you said, just saying the fact that you did go back and edit the posts themselves would defeat the purpose of rehashing previous posts. Like citing wikipedia as a credible source: I'm sure it's true, but someone like your college history professor for example can go on wiki and edit the 19th president and make him Jim Carrey if he wanted to.

As far as double standards go, without looking back, you're calling for Rosen to be the starter over Bradford, while giving me shit for wanting to see Kelly start over Keenum. The QB situation is entirely the same. One is a up-and-comer, possible future of the team. The other is an average/below average starter who's bounced around and had low-moderate success overall as a starter. That is a double standard.

But now you will quote this post, and further beat a dead horse about "Well, the situation is different, because one team is 1-2 or 0-3 (can't remember Arizona record) and the other team is 2-1." Therefore self-elevating yourself out of any double standard accusation using that spin doctor routine.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote: Foles was a bottom tier QB in 2014 and one of the worst in the league in 2015. He blew his opportunities then. And he's played pretty terribly in half his starts since Wentz' injury. Yes, the Vikings and Pats games were great. No, they don't make him a great QB. Excellence is a habit, not a flash in the pan.

Looked p. excellent in his starts this year, apart from game management and playing it safe in the clutch against Atlanta. Only could be out-dueled by the great Sir Fitz-A-Lot. Wentz looked fun today. That's about all I can say.

You wouldn't know excellence if it bit you in the ass and bought you a Super Bowl ring.

He fucking sucked in both games this year. Was bad against Atlanta last year and was bad in the last two games of the regular season. So three out of eight possible starts were quality starts. He's a backup.

Backups don't put on Foles-esque Super Bowl performances. u wrong son

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Are the time stamps for those posts not available? If they are, you can check to see how long after my original posts I made edits. You can also compare the edited posts to the ones you quoted to account for the differences. I'm sure you understand I do this all the time. If I think of something clever to expand on the original point (serving to enhance the post, not change it), I will do it. I hit click and then think "Damn! That would have worked well too".

I never edited those posts to retroactively change arguments to make you look worse, as you've accused me of.

So if you're not going to follow up on your baseless accusation, you can get that weak shit out of here. :mrgreen:

Don't think they are, and we have been arguing for like 4 fucking hours. I am not about to sift through pages of horse shit to search through all the edits of your horse shit. Redacter!

I've never accused you of that ever. But you can't go back and see if I've edited my posts, so neener.

I stand by it, but I am lazy.

That was a rhetorical suggestion by me. The time stamps are available. The edits I made consisted of filling shit in, expanding on arguments that have been consistent through four pages. I'm still curious what narrative I retroactively edited posts to serve. I stayed grounded and watched you spin yourself in circles trying to call me out on double standards, deconstruct my logic and other ultimately fruitless little games. My edits didn't cause you to lose your mind and spout untrue thing after untrue thing.

I'm not saying you did go back and edit the things you said, just saying the fact that you did go back and edit the posts themselves would defeat the purpose of rehashing previous posts. Like citing wikipedia as a credible source: I'm sure it's true, but someone like your college history professor for example can go on wiki and edit the 19th president and make him Jim Carrey if he wanted to.

As far as double standards go, without looking back, you're calling for Rosen to be the starter over Bradford, while giving me shit for wanting to see Kelly start over Keenum. The QB situation is entirely the same. One is a up-and-comer, possible future of the team. The other is an average/below average starter who's bounced around and had low-moderate success overall as a starter. That is a double standard.

But now you will quote this post, and further beat a dead horse about "Well, the situation is different, because one team is 1-2 or 0-3 (can't remember Arizona record) and the other team is 2-1." Therefore self-elevating yourself out of any double standard accusation using that spin doctor routine.

It does not defeat the purpose of rehashing your previous posts. I was consistent in my arguments, you made 5-10 points that were not rooted in fact and either doubled down on them or moved the goal posts to continue the argument. Pointing that out was very much in play and you have every opportunity to point out when I do the same, but my arguments did not leave you that opportunity.

It seems clear that you don’t understand what constitutes a double standard. For a double standard to apply, the context must be roughly equivalent, not just containing vague similarities. Two teams having both a journeyman and a young QB behind him describes a ton of teams, that's fairly commonplace in the NFL. Face value info without much substance and not nearly strong enough to constitute a double standard. The context of the teams, which you conveniently ignore, is the most important info. So let’s compare how Arizona and Denver have approached the season.

Arizona is in a clear rebuild under a new coaching staff. Their primary goal is to elevate young talent they’ve drafted in the past two years, they are not in a win-now mode. They’ve just made a significant investment in Rosen to be the QB of the future. Rosen already worked extensively with starters during the summer. They’ve played absolutely horribly.

Denver is in win now mode. Elway brought in a mix of veteran role players and immediate contributor rookies to fill out a roster he expects to make a playoff run this year. Denver has not made any substantial investment in a long term QB, they just got rid of the last ome. Keenum has taken all the first team reps all offseason. The team has a winning record.

The situations are not very similar at all, not nearly enough to qualify as double standard. Let’s be clear: I’m not using any funny tricks to confuse you, I’m not pivoting from original points, I’m just using nuance to distinguish between situations. If you can’t process how that cuts through your argument, it doesn’t mean I’m spinning anything. It means you need to better familiarize yourself with the concepts we talk about. Too often, you trap yourself in this game of seeing something with an element of face value similarity and immediately declaring a double standard. Gotta get out of that habit. It just hasn't ever worked for you.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote: Foles was a bottom tier QB in 2014 and one of the worst in the league in 2015. He blew his opportunities then. And he's played pretty terribly in half his starts since Wentz' injury. Yes, the Vikings and Pats games were great. No, they don't make him a great QB. Excellence is a habit, not a flash in the pan.

Looked p. excellent in his starts this year, apart from game management and playing it safe in the clutch against Atlanta. Only could be out-dueled by the great Sir Fitz-A-Lot. Wentz looked fun today. That's about all I can say.

You wouldn't know excellence if it bit you in the ass and bought you a Super Bowl ring.

He fucking sucked in both games this year. Was bad against Atlanta last year and was bad in the last two games of the regular season. So three out of eight possible starts were quality starts. He's a backup.

Backups don't put on Foles-esque Super Bowl performances. u wrong son

Uh no, backups can absolutely play well in an isolated game or two. Being a backup doesn’t mean playing poorly in every game you’ve ever played.

New England not looking too scary this year. AFC looks ripe for the picking.

Hopefully nobody else reads through that dumpster fire put on by Jason and Headward.

I laughed for the first 10’pages. Then it got old.

Jason Witten fucking sucks in the booth.

Maybe Romo can make him look good in the booth now instead of on the field.