on this site seems to have flown off the hook. I don't aim to call specific posts or posters out, because it seems to be a broader issue in society and certainly internet discussion with it's guarantee of anonymity.
But it's more than that, it's the degree of vehemence and surety in taking a position on a discussed issue with no real reason behind it. In one of the recent Haskins thread, a poster who was trashing the possible selection of Haskins in the first round while deriding his game, admitted (after 3-4 posts) that he hadn't reviewed any of Haskins game tape! He also then declared that Haskins was a good player, just one he didn't want...
Another guy claimed that at nearly 60 years old he can run faster than Haskins' 5.08 second 40! Really? That's total bullshit IMO. A 5.0 40 yard dash made me one of the 4-5 fastest guys on my HS football team, and very very few 60 year olds can literally run faster.
What's the point of making ridiculous vehement statements based on nothing credible whatsoever? It's de rigeur now it seems.
The number of folks taking a firm stance on a player or issue, while providing no credible and linked points or data to inform their slant is just incredible, and it's making many football threads tedious as hell.
Thank goodness for the pros Sy and Dave Te and a few other guys - arcs, Go Terps, Fat Man, JonC (there are others whose names aren't jumping out to me) - who back up whatever they post with some level of information and reasonable discussion. Because the majority now don't.
Rant over.
Ha! Good call! I should have said " it seems like... " First!
because on the internet, nobody knows your a dog...
I would suggest if anyone loves or hates a player in this draft to search threads and articles that argue the opposite point. Maybe it won't change your mind at all but nobody learns anything in an echo chamber or when they are screaming their opinions at "idiots" who disagree.
Shut up a-hole!!
/sarcasm on
I've seen "Haskins will be a bust" typed on this site more times than I can count.
He might actually wind up being one. But the way people express it with such surety based on nothing but their own personal biases gets exhausting after a while.
I find myself doing the same thing every year...
The first month or two after the year ends, all of the draft stuff is exciting and interesting.... but by April, it's just the same beaten horse being clubbed to death repeatedly day in and day out and I'm just over it.
At this point, the draft cant get here and be overwith soon enough.
Then, we'll spend the next few months arguing over the picks until camp opens.
And there is the problem. Discussions all get derailed and people looking to discuss and learn get frustrated and leave so that the most strident are all that are left.
It is the math behind every Eli thread. It will eventually be the same 6 or 7 posters at the end screaming their biased opinions at each other. It's boring.
I would dare to say that people have been exaggerating the size of a fish they've caught since there have been fish stories. When someone wants to stand out, especially when driven by emotion, most don't seem to say what they actually feel: "There is something I can't explain about Haskins that makes me not want the Giants to draft him." Instead people seem to try to stand out, release their emotion, and make the strongest most hyperbolic point possible: "Haskins sucks! My grandmother can throw a football better!" It's my guess that people feel like the latter statement gets their point across better, will show how important they are, releases some aggression, and can be sloughed off as hyperbole because, well, "everybody does it."
I also think this is exaggerated by the inherent name calling that comes from certain people when debating. If an insult is thrown, I would guess that the response is probably going to be spoken stronger than with a cordial back and forth. For example, you mentioned FatMan in Charlotte as a good poster. I agree that he often presents a strong thesis with good arguments to back it up, but to me it seems like he also always has to throw out a condescending statement along with his point. I feel like most people express themselves better when they are treated with a level of respect. Those that don't show respect to others, imo, feed the type of conversation that the OP has pointed out.
I've personally been trying to remove hyperbole from my lexicon and add qualifiers to most of what I say. For me, it's very difficult to change my entire speech pattern. It'd be nice if we all actually said what we meant, but if you read and listen to how most people talk, it rarely seems to be the case.
because on the internet, nobody knows your a dog...
My mutt can't be bothered with football chat.
She's too busy watching the food Network....
Respect is earned. If somebody is continually posting like a dumbass, what respect have they earned or deserve?
If you see me attacking reasonable viewpoints or posters, then that's when I would be out of line.
Not everyone with an opinion deserves to have that opinion validated.
As an avid viewer of college football for 25+ years, I can instantly tell who does or doesn't watch games/prospects. And then uses information from other websites to bolster a position. It's quite commonplace, and I would guess well over half this site is guilty.
And for some reason I think I'm really short-selling that...
As an avid viewer of college football for 25+ years, I can instantly tell who does or doesn't watch games/prospects. And then uses information from other websites to bolster a position. It's quite commonplace, and I would guess well over half this site is guilty.
And for some reason I think I'm really short-selling that...
The amount of people that don't watch college football and use friggen highlight clips to evaluate prospects is astounding. I handicap football and there is a world of difference watching red zone and actually watching full game footage.
As an avid viewer of college football for 25+ years, I can instantly tell who does or doesn't watch games/prospects. And then uses information from other websites to bolster a position. It's quite commonplace, and I would guess well over half this site is guilty.
And for some reason I think I'm really short-selling that...
Over half? More like 90%... Anyone claiming to see every player they talk about is lying IMO.
But further, it's amazing how few provide viable support for their opinion. A lot of the Rosen off-the-field talk is like that - you can see most don't even know what he did or didn't do, but still everyone has an opinion. That too ignoring HUGE factors like health / concussions (as if a clean year means he's 100%? That's not how concussions / head injuries work). 1 year does not debunk much of anything in this case, yet it's constantly presented as 'logic.' Another one, someone opines how so-and-so sucks in the playoffs - fair enough opinion. Of course his reg vs PO numbers are nearly identical...hmm. Crappy opinion!
If people would give the WHY they think something, we'd get a lot farther. Then again I know lawyers who suck at this, so I guess for a bunch of sports fans on the internet, it's just 'people being people'
The stupid threads and stupid comments really, truly just die on the vine when ignored.
Hell, most of my comments aren't that bright and are soundly ignored.
Over half? More like 90%... Anyone claiming to see every player they talk about is lying IMO.
Like I suggested, I was likely underestimating that... ;)
But with Kellerman and First Take, that is the premise of the show to speak in absolutes. Take a position and defend it while the other disputes it. Pissing match back and forth until the next topic.
Quote:
I also think this is exaggerated by the inherent name calling that comes from certain people when debating. If an insult is thrown, I would guess that the response is probably going to be spoken stronger than with a cordial back and forth. For example, you mentioned FatMan in Charlotte as a good poster. I agree that he often presents a strong thesis with good arguments to back it up, but to me it seems like he also always has to throw out a condescending statement along with his point. I feel like most people express themselves better when they are treated with a level of respect. Those that don't show respect to others, imo, feed the type of conversation that the OP has pointed out.
Respect is earned. If somebody is continually posting like a dumbass, what respect have they earned or deserve?
If you see me attacking reasonable viewpoints or posters, then that's when I would be out of line.
Not everyone with an opinion deserves to have that opinion validated.
I disagree. I personally try to start with a level of respect. I agree that it can be lost and then need to be built back, but I try to give people the benefit of the doubt at first.
I think christian's post above is quite apropos for the topic. As he says, I also believe that an opinion that most feel shouldn't be validated should just be ignored. I feel like responding to opinions with insults actually adds more validity to said opinions because it shows that they can instigate a response.
By the way, I apologize for calling you out by name. I do understand that posters like you are what give this forum value. I just felt like I should follow the op's advice and back up my statement with an example.
Quote:
out a very important part:
Quote:
I also think this is exaggerated by the inherent name calling that comes from certain people when debating. If an insult is thrown, I would guess that the response is probably going to be spoken stronger than with a cordial back and forth. For example, you mentioned FatMan in Charlotte as a good poster. I agree that he often presents a strong thesis with good arguments to back it up, but to me it seems like he also always has to throw out a condescending statement along with his point. I feel like most people express themselves better when they are treated with a level of respect. Those that don't show respect to others, imo, feed the type of conversation that the OP has pointed out.
Respect is earned. If somebody is continually posting like a dumbass, what respect have they earned or deserve?
If you see me attacking reasonable viewpoints or posters, then that's when I would be out of line.
Not everyone with an opinion deserves to have that opinion validated.
I disagree. I personally try to start with a level of respect. I agree that it can be lost and then need to be built back, but I try to give people the benefit of the doubt at first.
I think christian's post above is quite apropos for the topic. As he says, I also believe that an opinion that most feel shouldn't be validated should just be ignored. I feel like responding to opinions with insults actually adds more validity to said opinions because it shows that they can instigate a response.
By the way, I apologize for calling you out by name. I do understand that posters like you are what give this forum value. I just felt like I should follow the op's advice and back up my statement with an example.
No problem. I didn't take offense and you have a valid viewpoint. Christian does too.
2. Those posters are criticized and mocked by posters who insist Haskins isn't out of shape, even though he clearly is and admitted as much.
3. Today it's leaked that Haskins is off the board in large part due to concerns over poor conditioning.
Will those posters admit to being wrong? More likely they just back off Haskins and act like they never liked him in the first place.
BBI is a great source for info, but you've got to know which posters to sift through.
2. Those posters are criticized and mocked by posters who insist Haskins isn't out of shape, even though he clearly is and admitted as much.
3. Today it's leaked that Haskins is off the board in large part due to concerns over poor conditioning.
Will those posters admit to being wrong? More likely they just back off Haskins and act like they never liked him in the first place.
BBI is a great source for info, but you've got to know which posters to sift through.
Leaked he is off the board? Whose board and who leaked it. Where was that posted?
Was he out of shape - yeah.
Unfortunately my valid point is probably:
But seriously, I don't think ribbing backed up by debate causes problems. It's the drive by "go die" line of comment that brings down the debate. Thankfully that's chilled out a lot.
Exact same thing w/ an opinion (or a hypothesis in science, or a business plan in entrepreneurship, etc). If you can't say why then it's kind of useless
Quote:
1. Some posters point out Haskins looked chubby and out of shape at his pro day.
2. Those posters are criticized and mocked by posters who insist Haskins isn't out of shape, even though he clearly is and admitted as much.
3. Today it's leaked that Haskins is off the board in large part due to concerns over poor conditioning.
Will those posters admit to being wrong? More likely they just back off Haskins and act like they never liked him in the first place.
BBI is a great source for info, but you've got to know which posters to sift through.
Leaked he is off the board? Whose board and who leaked it. Where was that posted?
Was he out of shape - yeah.
The direct answer is no they wont. It's the Giants professional scouts who are wrong, not them.
Quote:
1. Some posters point out Haskins looked chubby and out of shape at his pro day.
2. Those posters are criticized and mocked by posters who insist Haskins isn't out of shape, even though he clearly is and admitted as much.
3. Today it's leaked that Haskins is off the board in large part due to concerns over poor conditioning.
Will those posters admit to being wrong? More likely they just back off Haskins and act like they never liked him in the first place.
BBI is a great source for info, but you've got to know which posters to sift through.
Leaked he is off the board? Whose board and who leaked it. Where was that posted?
Was he out of shape - yeah.
Section -
Go Terps is right. The info was posted and since deleted. No need to point out the poster and their source. I don't want this thread to be deleted as any of the info that was originally posted has a moratorium on it. Enough eyes saw the thread before deletion that others can confirm what GT wrote.
The stupid threads and stupid comments really, truly just die on the vine when ignored.
This is as good as it gets for explaining how to deal with the non-sense. That is my rule to a tee. And it's a very easy discipline.
But there is a vast mob mentality at BBI that feels the need to swarm in two directions - attacking the poster and then donning the tattletale hat to complain to the moderators. Where would we be at BBI without these tough guys and narks "protecting" BBI. Such heroes.
BBI used to be great when it was more of a free market of ideas. Now it's overly regulated to force more into the mainstream...whatever the hell that is around here.
I myself just said yesterday here the Giants likely don’t take a qb at 17 or in round 2 because they never took a qb in round 2 before (since the 60s) and the go big or go home theory...it just has to be the qb at six or not at all.... I call bullshit it most certainly can happen at 17. Why do the giants have to spend pick 6 on a qb if they like the passrusher there more? Stranger things have happened.
I myself just said yesterday here the Giants likely don’t take a qb at 17 or in round 2 because they never took a qb in round 2 before (since the 60s) and the go big or go home theory...it just has to be the qb at six or not at all.... I call bullshit it most certainly can happen at 17. Why do the giants have to spend pick 6 on a qb if they like the passrusher there more? Stranger things have happened.
Good post. I been saying similar and really you don't have to do extensive research to find a multitude of different approaches. You can draft a young QB to a bad team and build just as much as build a team then get a QB or anything in between. There is clearly no singular approach
As I said on another thread, people cite a pick's higher success rate in earlier rounds, a platitude IMO as it applies to all positions always. But that % reflects so much more than the pick & related scouting - specifically development, scheme / fit, playcall, culture, etc. So it's generally a meaningless stat taken without proper context. And therefore crazy to say "QB has to be picked in top X" or whatever
As for me, I'm leaving the evaluations to you guys, Sy and Dave Te this year.
Have to say though:
- compile all playing stats,
- all other data, height / weight / etc
- also average expected draft spot,
Giant spreadsheet - all that together, the entire draft class, at a position, look at trend and counter trend.
It's a thought.