Quote:
Originally Posted by mmaddog
See...that wasn't so hard to answer.
My question to you is this....
Why act like a complete asshole when people don't agree with you ?
Why is your evaluation better than someone elses? If you are right then be firm in your conviction without resorting to name calling and insults. You act like Kim Il-jung when it comes to people responding to you.
Seriously....I've never had an issue with your evaluations of players. It's your tone this year. It's like you have an absolute passion to be 100% correct and make sure everyone sees it your way. If not then you attack with all the fervor of the Mongol horde.
We'll all be wrong in some way, shape or form with one of the players drafted this year by the Chiefs (or not drafted). We'll forget the ones we were wrong about and crow about the few we were logically correct about.
Sad...that is what it really boils down to.
mmaddog
********
|
It's not my tone, it's the fact that you are attacked for having an opinion that diverts from the party line.
If you want to disagree with me, I don't care. It doesn't bother me. But the least that you can do is offer substantive evidence when you disagree. Not "Pioli is GM and you're not, therefore your argument is invalid".
And I've
willingly admitted my past mistakes in player evaluations multiple times--guys like Gholston and Matt Ryan for example.
I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong. I just expect that those who disagree with me will offer evidence when they do so.
If you want to point out McCluster's production in the SEC, that's perfectly valid.
If you want to say that he's a good pick, then provide some evidence.
If you want to say that he's a better pick than others available at the time, then support that reason with specific examples.
It's not difficult, but it seems to be a Sisyphean undertaking for anyone to do so.