20 best according to what? If not production, what are we supposed to rate by? Do you see how this contradicts the first statement above?
The discussion was regarding 'extremely talented'.
You are both moving away from extremely and mixing up a total separate comment about the best gauge of talent for someone who has never played a down in the league.
Listing the top 20 most productive WRs and demonstrating that only 5 of them met your criteria is about the polar opposite of a "straw man." You might want to look up what that phrase means.
This is the problem with message board threads. My comments are regarding the statement that our WRs are extremely talented as a reason our offense will improve, implying the talent level sets us apart.
Your comments are off point for what the discussion was. That is why I say strawman. The draft slot of other productive WRs is not pertinent to the comparative talent level of our WRs to the norm across the league.
Additionally, you are the one adding so much emphasis to the "exceptionally" part of the phrase, which was clearly hyperbolic license on the part of the original poster. I never said they were "exceptional" at anything, just that elite caliber receivers arrive later than pick 16 all the time.
Let me clarify. The word exceptionally is the very issue I am arguing. So to say I am emphasizing it too much is to change the topic.
I can't accept hyperbole when it was the crux of a major part of the argument.
I don't dispute that others grow into elite WRs, but any WR considered exceptionally talented at the time of the draft would surely go in the top half of round 1. Kind of my point, you can't call guys that lasted as long as these 'exceptionally talented' until they do something to change opinions. At this point the expectations should be a guy with a shot to have a decent rookie season, another who may struggle adjusting to the league, and a third who would have to shock every observer to be a decent WR as a rookie. The poster made it sound like they were strengths on our roster, not questions. Of course anything can happen but those 3 playing like 'exceptional talents' in 2013 is a pipe dream at this point.
No, I act as if you shouldn't use post-Patriot production when discussing a PRE-Patriot comparison. Seems pretty simple.
A prePatriot comparison ignoring what Welker did as a Patriot is silly. Are you telling me every player who never got a chance like Welker is likely to do what Welker did? Again its like saying an obscure 6th round pick who struggled to keep a starting job in college is likely to be an upgrade over Brady because they share that.
Could happen, but its silly to list Amendola over Welker as a realistic reason our offense would be better.
No, I was responding to a statement about offense in general with the point that consistently under performing regular season production by more than 2 touchdowns could be signs of a problem. And that, perhaps the offense doesn't need to score at an historic pace if it maintains its levels better in the post-season.
Fair enough. I was responding in the ilk that people actually say scoring more points is a flaw.
I can only go by what I see. The same goes for you, you know.
But my point is that no one can make that judgment reasonably from our vantage point.
Andy, you are a very bright guy with some top notch posts, but you aren't as insightful as you think you are. And bullying people doesn't make you look any smarter.
Well of course i would think i am exactly as insightful as i think i am, but i think that is less that you imagine.
No bullying. Perhaps too strong of wording, didn't mean to offend. My point was just that I see zero value in the opinion you could form from the stands or TV about whether a player gave effort, and if the people who are close enough to judge agreed he would not have been on the field.
