It's not. I'm arguing with a guy right now in another thread, a guy who is arguing that Luck is solely responsible for 10+ wins for the Colts.
Ask him which he believes to be true: 1) Luck was by far the most important factor for the 10+ wins, or 2) there was literally no human being in the world other than Luck that contributed in any way to the 10+ wins. Copy and paste that statement above and if he says he believes #2 is true I'll admit I was wrong. If he says #1 is true but #2 is false, then I'm right and you're wrong.
I said that no QB in the league is responsible for 10+ wins in their own. Not even Pennington when he took the 1-15 team to the playoffs the next season. He said that Manning and Luck are two guys who are responsible for 10+ on their own. Go read it yourself.
Yeah I see that exchange. People aren't necessarily going to qualify their statements to the degree we want in this debate in such an exchange. That's why I'll accept you're right only if you copy and paste that statement I wrote and directly ask him. See what he says so we can resolve this.
No need. He said Luck and Manning are responsible for 10+ wins on their own. I've given multiple chances for him to recant that, but he's holding to it.
I get it just fine. What you don't get is that it is not incumbent on me or resnor or anyone else to have a disclaimer explaining that QB play is important when countering the atrocious and wrong headed argument that W/L record is solely a QB stat (which happens daily whether you're aware of it or not). EVERYONE knows QB play is important. EVERYONE knows QBs are the most important part of the team. Since EVERYONE knows that and NO ONE argues differently, there is no reason to have to constantly make that distinction over and over and over. Do you get that logic or do you not want to?
Afraid to ask? Fine I'll do it. My point is that they're not claiming win/loss is solely a QB stat. We have a great opportunity here to test that. Since resnor is too afraid to ask, I'll ask.
This should be fun. BTW, had nothing to do with being "afraid." No matter the answer finsfandan gives, it's opening a rabbit hole of pointless arguments.
Then that point is also wrong. That is exactly what is happening. Look, you think that because you try to come at it rationally with actual numbers that are sufficiently weighted that other people are also doing that. They aren't. You cannot color your perception of what other people are saying based on your own ideas. They are and have been arguing that W/L is either solely a QB stat and/or that it is largely a QB stat. That is happening. You are flat out wrong to pretend its not happening.
OK he answered and I was right. So I challenge you guys to find one poster who thinks win/loss record is due solely to the QB and to no other person. I've been in debates like this before and I know they're saying win/loss is important (the degree to which it's important there are disagreements), but the QB isn't the ONLY person responsible for that. It's common sense really so you guys shouldn't misrepresent their position.
Lmfao... Of course somebody else had to let me know you were misrepresenting me behind my back... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is so goddamned frustrating. I have numerous arguments with people who use W/L record and lack of playoffs as their main argument and proof Tannehill is a bad or average QB. That is not imagined. I'm not misrepresenting anything. In fact, when I point out that's W/L record doesn't prove that, I'm almost always given the sarcastic rebuttal of "oh you don't think QB play is important." You are wrong. It is what it is. Also, what you think is your shining moment of being right, is based on the fact that poster is lying to you:
You didn't want to ask because you knew you were lying. So yes it does matter. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
See, THIS is why the arguments go round and round. Constant shifting of positions. Say one thing, get called on it, change what you were saying, but don't admit to being wrong. Accuse others of lying. Welcome to my ignore list.
Personally I think they are just weighting QB play far more than you do and each side is simplifying the other side's position, so what they actually say isn't sufficiently qualified to answer my question. Not saying who's right or wrong in the subjective weighting of QB play, but I really need the kind of evidence you'll get by directly a question like in post #41 before I believe someone out there really believes ONLY the QB is responsible for win/loss record.
That quote doesn't show me saying "they literally contributed 10 wins on their own." You know what I was saying. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If that's how you feel, fine. I've always been fair and have never misrepresented your quotes and definitely not behind your back. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Of course that's what you think. I pointed that out already. You are giving them the benefit of the doubt because you think no one in their right mind would weight wins that high, but that is exactly what they are doing. Look, why is it that you think me and resnor need to acknowledge that QB play is important (when no one said otherwise) but you aren't giving the speech to all the people who tout W/L record as major QB stat about how they should admit its not weighted that high?
He was the biggest change, yes. So was T.Y., who I mentioned. I don't remember who else but Manning and Luck were THE biggest factors. They handle the ball every play. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wait. So I say that NO QB IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE for 10+ wins. HE disagrees, and says LUCK AND MANNING ARE EXAMPLES the Colts were 2-14 without them. And we're all supposed to believe he didn't mean that they were solely responsible? Somehow I'm misrepresenting him? Ridiculous.
Acknowledging QB play is important was just a suggestion on how to debate, in the situation resnor described. You don't have to do it. I never accused either of you of believing the QB had no influence on W/L record.
Really? He was the biggest change? Not the new coaching staff, GM, and offensive skill players? Interesting. Regardless, that's saying Luck is responsible for the 10 wins. Which is something you say you aren't saying.
Wait. He said NOTHING about Hilton. Maybe I should take him off ignore, so that I can rebut his misrepresentations.
resnor.. the reason I asked the question in post #41 was so that we could test precisely what his beliefs are. You can't just take a statement meant to express a general sentiment and assume it was precisely enough qualified to represent that person's opinion. We know what he thinks about this, and it's the common sense position. No need to act like it's otherwise after the direct answer.
How was it meant to represent a "general sentiment" when he was arguing against a specific statement I made? Far more likely he realizes how dumb his statement was, and wants to make it look like he meant something else.
Its not important because it was never in question. What is important is that they acknowledge that W/L record is not that big of a QB stat. A fact, you're strangely silent with these people.
Go through our back and forths. I mentioned that he was a factor but not the biggest and that he's from my alma mater. Ring a bell? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To your first statement, you know how people make simplifying statements. Nothing new. Point is, we know what he thinks about this and that should end the discussion on that matter. I suspect the result will be the same for all the others out there you might think really believe win/loss is solely due to the QB. It's certainly a testable hypothesis but you need a carefully worded question like in post #41 to test it.
All of those are big factors. Luck is the biggest. Anybody in the NFL would tell you that. It's not saying that. It's saying he's the biggest factor like Manning is for elevating the Broncos to new heights. They single handedly elevate teams to new heights. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Then, if they think it is not solely the QB, then they should stop using it to argue that one QB is not as good as another. But they do use it for that. So, we have a quandry. What do they actually believe?
Dude.. it was just a suggestion on how to debate. Let it go. I never claimed it was in question! As far as people who act like the QB matters a lot, I'll argue against them if you can get them to say the QB is responsible for well over 1/4 of the total outcome. I think 10-20% is realistic but I won't go ballistic if someone thinks 25%. Let them say it's like 35% and that's another story because about half should be taken up by defense and special teams and 35% of the total implies 70% of the offense is QB. That would never fly with me because you can make that argument only with stats like passer rating which not only depend on the QB but on the score itself!! So if you want me to argue against the other side, get them to argue that the QB is responsible for well more than 50% of total offensive production. If I'm around and have time I'll chime in.
This is a more productive line of thought. Try to find out how much they weight different metrics. Not only will the discussion be more interesting but you might find out precisely where you disagree and agree. The arguments often devolve into black/white extremes that I don't think represent either side correctly.
No, sorry. Look you're statement implies that if every other change happened to Indy save for Luck, they'd still be a 2 win team. If that's not what you meant, then fine correct it, but that is certainly what your argument was and no one misrepresented that.
The argument, cbrad, is that win/loss should never come up in a discussion of which is a better QB. If a QB is responsible for 1/10 of the offside production, what percentage of the actual win do you have him responsible for? It has to be very small, so small, that win/loss record should never be used to validate one QB over another.
I didn't imply anything. You and your buddy believed what you wanted to. You could've asked to verify, resnor claimed he gave me several chances to recant my position, but you two ran with it and high fived each other behind my back. That's not cool. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No it should come up in a discussion because most of your other metrics can't be weighted that high either.
