Quote:
Originally Posted by SNR
You should try refuting them instead of just standing there like a moron and bitching about how Hamas seems like an arrogant jerk to you.
|
I have learned it is better not to get into an argument with Hamas. It's like getting into an argument with Dane, all they do is cuss and tell you how stupid you are. Also, I am not standing anywhere, I am actually sitting in my chair currently. I will say why I believe is point is invalid.
When comparing sacks that Tyson Jackson gets to what he is paid, and how Hamas compared that to his R&D scenario you have a couple discrepancies. You really cannot put a tangible value on sacks collected. Because how can you truly value sacks? What if the sack is at the end of the game where you are down or up by 30 points? Those sacks are nothing that changed the outcome of the game are they? So these sacks would really have no bearing on whether he was worth the money or not. So, what if he has 10 sacks that are in games that were decided before he obtained those sacks. Are those sacks worth more than 1 sack that was a decided factor in a game where a team is driving for a tying score? You can't quantify a true value on what sacks are worth with what he is paid. An argument saying "if he doesn't have 5-10 sacks a year, then he is not worth the money" is fair, but comparing it to a tangible R&D budget, it isn't applicable. Tackles and QB pressures and eating up blockers are also a very big component to what he is expected and paid to do, but what are the values on those?
Now trying to compare this to his R&D scenario is absolutely silly. I am not saying T-Jack is worth the money, but his argument between Sapho is silly.