Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromeburn
You're projecting. This is actually what you do. Often ignoring counterpoints altogether to regurgitate your own, or incorrectly interpreting my point which I would repeatedly have to correct. This is why people get frustrated because the arguments do not progress and simply go over the same points again and again. People understand your position the first time, just some disagree. I used to think what you were doing was intentional and you were more interested in being right and 'winning' the argument, or perhaps you were trolling. We've had trolls here who were more interested in just wasting people's time than anything. However, now I think you just don't correctly process what you read or perhaps you internalize everything. You are not an idiot, do you have a reading disability?
Case in point: The second line quoted. RM was just saying his own post was getting too long. You incorrectly inferred he was criticizing you when he was just attempting to keep his own post concise.
|
Alright dude – in an effort to prevent this discussion from going even further off the rails, and despite my doubts, I’ll take your post seriously and tell you how it looks from this side. Despite your assertions to the contrary, it seems like you guys are having a hard time following what I’m saying. I don’t say that to be insulting or degrading, but it’s just how it appears to me.
I know you say that “people understand your position the first time,” that I just make the same points over and over, but your comments repeatedly reflect a basic lack of understanding of many aspects of what I’m saying. A few quick examples come to mind: (1) your concern that we will be perpetually $50M million under the cap, (2) your belief that I’m against signing any free agents, (3) RM’s belief that hoarding cap space is a strategy designed to expose other team’s weaknesses. Either you guys are just being difficult, or you aren’t understanding what I’m saying, so don’t blame me if I respond by providing further explanation.
Also, I’ve tried to provide several analogies as I’ve gone alone, but in your zeal to prove me wrong you’ve taken a ridiculously literal view of them. In describing the Colts’ approach under Ballard as businesslike, it was in the context of paragraphs of surrounding explanation, none of which mentioned money or profit - so to me, there simply is no reasonable way that you can conclude that I meant that the Colts should be going for profit, rather than excellence on the field. Yet, that’s exactly what you suggested. Similarly, RM has criticized as “asinine” my reference to the casino industry in describing the value that an edge can provide. This is because the NFL doesn’t have predefined statistical advantages like a casino. That may be true, but can you really not get what I’m saying there? Or does it look more like just an attempt to make a pointless distinction without any meaningful difference? To me, these kind of comments suggest that you guys are the ones who just want to “win” the argument at any cost.
And more fundamentally, when think through some of the things you guys have been saying, they simply don’t make sense or they would lead to absurd larger conclusions. RM says it is a “fool’s errand” to think that the Colts can outdraft their opponents and thereby create an engine leading the Colts to a dynasty. Does anyone really believe this, RM included? Are you saying success in the draft is totally random? Plenty of teams have proven they are demonstrably better at drafting than their opponents, and the Colts current regime is off to a pretty good start on this point. Combine it with the kind of excellent cap management I’m talking about and, to me, you have the makings of a huge advantage and, by extension, the possibility of a dynasty.
RM also says the NFL rules are designed to prevent any team from becoming too dominant, creating an atmosphere so competitive that “you have to pick smaller windows to make your push to be the best.” Honestly, when I think about this statement, I don’t even know what it means. Is he saying the only viable strategy is a “pop and drop” approach where you go all out for a season or two, and then have to recharge for a while before making a charge forward again? That’s silly - lots of teams have shown you can be dominant for long periods of time, even in the context of our current rules. We need look no further than our own Manning-led Colts. They only won one SB, but there’s no reason they couldn’t have won several others despite the current rules.
Then there’s the contradictions. I’ve covered your reactive vs. proactive stuff so I won’t belabor the point. But then there’s RM saying referring to the “Moneyball BS” in one sentence, and then later saying it’s actually an effective component of a winning strategy. And RM’s theory that the current rules somehow allow long term success, but prevent dynasties. Many others. Enough said.
Lastly, my suspicion that RM was taking a crack at my post length. I'll take RM at his word, and point out that I did admit that I was implying that from his post. But I guess that one’s on me, as I’ve become accustomed to seeing such comments here about my posts.