Quote
Flipper336
It wouldn't start at 70/1,000. Then after questioning become 70/1,000 SOMETIMES. Then 70/1,000 under ideal circumstances. Then not an average, it can be that one year and 20/200 the next year.
Instead of addressing points to question your "different way of seeing things" you just say we are talking past each other. I see what you are trying to say, I'm not missing it, I disagree with it.
You personally disagreeing is not the same as it not holding up.
In fact I doubt you could name what my key points are, frankly.
And I have said the same things consistently for years now on this issue. Trying the "I misread and pretend that's your problem" approach doesn't touch that.
See for example here is one think you absolutely do not get. (And it's just one.) Calling a guy a #1 WR in these terms is not a typecast or a label. It's something some guys can achieve in the right circumstances. Which means yeah absolutely, since it's a production measure, it can vary year by year (and btw someone tried that same objection in 2008). That's perfectly consistent with the argument, in fact it has come up before in prior discussions. That's because the way I am using it, it's not a term for a TYPE OF RECEIVER, it's a term for A BOTTOMLINE STANDARD OF PRODUCTION RECEIVERS CAN ACHIEVE.
So in fact since I first began discussing this I have pointed out year after year that the list can change. But you are so stuck with the idea that the term names a TYPE OF GUY that you can't see that. To you it doesn't compute. See, it makes perfect sense to say "well he does not rate as elite in terms of sheer talent, but Garcon is capable of #1 level receiver production." I say that and it makes perfect sense. But then when I say that your ears pour out smoke and your eyes do cartoon spin and burn routines.
///
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2017 12:08PM by zn.