I chose neutral, as I await a convincing case either way.

 

Alright! I'm the first vote! Anyone guess which one I picked? ;)

 

Neutral. Really depends on whether he hits on Philbin and Tannehill.

 

Last draft is looking really bad. This draft is looking really good. So, I am neutral.

If Tanny is the answer, then I'll be in between positive and neutral and think he gets another year. If Tanny and any combo of Martin, Miller, Vernon, Egnew turn out to be the answer then its an overwhelming positive for me.

If that stuff doesn't happen...then I'll lead the Fireland charge and want him gone immediately.

 

I didn't see a "super-awesome" option :wink2:

 

Maybe this should be asked in another thread, but who of possible potential gms would be better?

I choose neutral. I see a lot of good players, a lot of udfa that contribute, but a wasteland of failed second, third, and fourth round picks.

 

I wonder what these percentages would look like if they were just plain favorability based. Favorable or unfavorable, pick.

I know on another board with hundreds of votes in it was 85% unfavorable. But I suppose everyone's dumb. Except for the people here, of course. ;)

 

I chose neutral. Amazing how some of the so called "ireland defenders" are choosing neutral. That only goes to prove that those who "defend" Ireland don't do so from a "rose colored glasses" point of view. But no worries, the "ireland bashers" will be along soon enough to level more baseless accusations against those who want to take the long view and not crucify the guy.

 

Or it shows just how "on the ropes" Jeff Ireland really is that even his staunchest supporters can't say they are really positive on him.

 

Or it shows that some people can rationally and without prejudice look at a roster he's assembled and see a much more talented team than we had when he took over. But at the same time realize that he's still in his first gig as a GM and will and has made mistakes without going overboard and proclaiming him to be the worst GM in all of football.

 

I don't defend Ireland, per se; I defend a process of taking an honest objective look at the guy in comparison to his colleagues.

You might think that someone is guilty, but he still deserves an honest day in court where balanced evidence has a chance to be presented. After that's been done, then you can vote either way.

 

I think it shows that the haters have been misrepresenting the other side's argument.

There are very few Ireland lovers. Most of us have only really argued that you can't count the time Parcells was here against or for ireland. You guys have have decided that makes us Ireland lovers and that, IMO, proves the hater side of the argument is less about facts and more about emotion.

 

I'm neutral towards him, leaning negative, if Thigpen and Armstrong hit, then I'd be more impressed with the job he's done.

Ditto JTrain, to me the mark of a good GM is finding guys from nowhere who can come in and contribute at a high level, every GM has access to the draft, a good GM just finds guys who can contribute.

 

So then it's unreasonable to look at the record of his maneuvers and the status of his roster and decide he has not done a good job as General Manager?

 

LMFAO.

Right.

 

That's about the percentage you'd get believing in God, which is a similarly strongly held opinion devoid of any objective proof.

It's not that people are dumb; it's that when they're strongly emotionally invested in something (like, having an explanation for the demise their favorite football team, or living forever), they tend to require little if any objective evidence in support of it.

 

This opost is further proof of the hater side is about emotions not facts. You know the neutral side has said we don't count the time Parcells was here but you expect us to use that time in our judgement. Its silly.

 

What a fancy way of saying "Anyone who disagrees with me is obviously not doing so based on anything valid"...i.e. "You're wrong I'm right nanny nanny boo boo".

 

I'm not sure if you realize how much you just proved my point.

 

And what an unsophisticated way of interpreting the post you quoted.

 

I picked neutral, because really, my opinion means nothing. Just gotta ride the wave, for good or bad.

 

In what way?

Because from my perspective you're finding wordy ways of describing that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and then claiming that the wordiness of your statement itself shows how objective and evidence-based you are. No it doesn't. It's just yet another way of positioning an argument to try and make yourself look right. It's not fact or evidence based. It's pure argumentation.

 

I chose neutral, it's all going to based on Tannehill's progression. If he whiffs on Tannehill, then he has to go.

 

[video=youtube;Eobuu-IexvI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eobuu-IexvI[/video]

 

This new "anyone who disagrees with me is being emotional" point of view is just pure argumental masturbation. That's all it is. "Ho ho, look how correct I am, because I understand that human emotions can sometimes cloud judgment, and therefore that must be what is happening with all you people who disagree with me."

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

So I'm clear:
if I carefully choose my words to say I think people are wrong I'm not evidence based. If I LMAO at people I think are wrong, like you just did, then I'd be objective...is that about right?

The FACTS are we do not know how much of the moves while Parcells was here is Ireland's fault, good or bad. There is evidence for and against. That makes that info tainted and unusable. To pretend there's enough there to be definitive is an emotionally based decision. And yes, anyone who is using it is wrong. 100% wrong, even if it is you.

 

No, it's not unreasonable to believe he has not done a good job. There have been mistakes made which most the ireland "defenders" will readily admit to.

Is it unreasonable to look at the record of his maneuvers and the status of his roster and decide he has done a good job as General Manager? If so, why?

It just seems to me the "defenders" are willing to objectively look at his moves and weight the positive with the negative and provide an honest assessment of him. The "bashers" seem unwilling to even admit he's done ANY good for this organization.

 

I'm not sure where anyone has done much to support Ireland. Really all people like myself are saying is that he should be properly evaluated before firing him. Certainly nobody wants to fire him in order to bring in a worse GM.

 

I was laughing my *** off at your exercise in argumental masturbation. Because it was comical. Comical things draw laughter. I wasn't laughing my *** off at you thinking you're correct about Jeff Ireland. That's your opinion.

Your "FACTS" are pretty weak. The whole presentation of that line of thinking reminds me of politicians labeling global warming junk science or saying we just don't know whether climate change is real or not, that's a fact, we just don't know.

If you sit around in your life waiting for "FACTS" then you're going to have an uneventful life. You don't KNOW that a meteor won't fall on your head if you step out your door. I mean, that's just a FACT, right? You don't know it at all, so why take the risk? You don't KNOW that your car hasn't been rigged with an explosive, that's just a damn FACT. So why turn the key?

 

I think this is entirely based on which side you're on. If you were on the other side you would see how incredibly flawed the "defenders" logic is in their arguments and you'd claim that the "bashers" are actually more evidence-based.

 

Which would be great except for that whole neutral, objective thing..

 

Way I see it, Ireland is an A+ GM when it comes to finding guys, but a C- when it comes to the draft.

I point to Clyde Gates, Ireland told Philbin that he had a dominant skillset, Philbin replied Gates couldn't play football.

Fine, this is why Armstrong and Matthews and even Marlon Moore mitigates screwing the pooch on the Gates pick IF they pan out.

This is why I'm neutral on him, I also think if we wanted to win quickly this yr, Matt Moore, a Ireland find, would be starting. Instead Philbin went with Tannehill which effectively puts Ireland's balls in the vice as THill won't win much at first but Ireland is on the hook for his performance. This is why I say the lesser players coming through more or less is Ireland's job performance.

 

And the obvious flaw in this rationale is your supposition that neutral = objective.

To me, on this particular issue, neutral is more closely associated with contrarian and indecisive.

 

Isn't defending every "bad" or "questionable" move or decision he has made the same as supporting him?

There are moves he has made that in hindsight are commonly regarded as bad moves, and yet there's an inordinate amount of spin to make these moves look as if they were correct.

 

I think that's a flaw w/your reading comprehension.

If anything being objective currently means that I'm neutral on Ireland.

 

Its hard to really say without specifying the moves? I don't think we can conflate everything. I think overall he's been an average GM.

 

Neutral does not equal objective. There are some here who misguidedly believe that, but it's just not the case.

 

I'm not sure I'd necessarily equate neutrality with objectivity in matters of passion.