Jimmy Garoppolo, QB, Los Angeles Rams

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
Misrepresenting the structure of your opponent's argument won't win you any certificates in debate club. But good luck!

Team Win % #1 -----> GOOD QB #2

How do you not recognize that this is what he is saying?

There is no misinterpretation at all. It's precisely his argument. Nothing to confuse.

That is a statement marshalling evidence. It is not defining causality.

It most certainly is. He's being asked what makes Jimmy a Good Player and his reply is our Team's Win %.

A team having a good win % doesn't conclude that they've had great QB. A conclusion doesn't come 1st.

There's literally no hidden exit here.

Originally posted by RackofRibs49:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by RackofRibs49:
But without Jimmy our winning percentages are literally bottom of the league. With him it's tops. This is 100% fact. Explain it...

In the way you want? Ok.

QBs Playing Bad -----> Bottom of the League Win %

That's what you wanted, right? Simple enough.

No that's dumb explain why the team was 3-24 before Jimmy came then they win 5 straight? What changed?

We went from career back ups at QB to a competent, slightly above average QB. Its not rocket science. We will find out soon enough whether shanny can win without Jimmy when Trey takes over.

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by RackofRibs49:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by RackofRibs49:
But without Jimmy our winning percentages are literally bottom of the league. With him it's tops. This is 100% fact. Explain it...

In the way you want? Ok.

QBs Playing Bad -----> Bottom of the League Win %

That's what you wanted, right? Simple enough.

No that's dumb explain why the team was 3-24 before Jimmy came then they win 5 straight? What changed?

We went from career back ups at QB to a competent, slightly above average QB. Its not rocket science. We will find out soon enough whether shanny can win without Jimmy when Trey takes over.

Ok... So we went from bad QB and were losing to a different QB and started winning.

Ffs dude duh

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
Misrepresenting the structure of your opponent's argument won't win you any certificates in debate club. But good luck!

Team Win % #1 -----> GOOD QB #2

How do you not recognize that this is what he is saying?

There is no misinterpretation at all. It's precisely his argument. Nothing to confuse.

That is a statement marshalling evidence. It is not defining causality.

It most certainly is. He's being asked what makes Jimmy a Good Player and his reply is our Team's Win %.

A team having a good win % doesn't conclude that they've had great QB. A conclusion doesn't come 1st.

There's literally no hidden exit here.

You're misrepresenting again. They are using winning percentage as evidence of Garoppolo's talent. They are not saying winning percentage causes Garoppolo to be a good quarterback. I think the miss here is your understanding of causality.

Originally posted by RackofRibs49:
Ok... So we went from bad QB and were losing to a different QB and started winning.

Ffs dude duh

The rest of the league is simply not as impressed by this as you are.

Originally posted by RackofRibs49:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by RackofRibs49:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by RackofRibs49:
But without Jimmy our winning percentages are literally bottom of the league. With him it's tops. This is 100% fact. Explain it...

In the way you want? Ok.

QBs Playing Bad -----> Bottom of the League Win %

That's what you wanted, right? Simple enough.

No that's dumb explain why the team was 3-24 before Jimmy came then they win 5 straight? What changed?

We went from career back ups at QB to a competent, slightly above average QB. Its not rocket science. We will find out soon enough whether shanny can win without Jimmy when Trey takes over.

Ok... So we went from bad QB and were losing to a different QB and started winning.

Ffs dude duh

Not a different QB, a better QB. I never said otherwise. Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit.

Here's an actual example of reverse causality in this context:

The team's juicy winning percentage caused Garoppolo's skill to increase.

No one is saying that.

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
Misrepresenting the structure of your opponent's argument won't win you any certificates in debate club. But good luck!

Team Win % #1 -----> GOOD QB #2

How do you not recognize that this is what he is saying?

There is no misinterpretation at all. It's precisely his argument. Nothing to confuse.

That is a statement marshalling evidence. It is not defining causality.

It most certainly is. He's being asked what makes Jimmy a Good Player and his reply is our Team's Win %.

A team having a good win % doesn't conclude that they've had great QB. A conclusion doesn't come 1st.

There's literally no hidden exit here.

You're misrepresenting again. They are using winning percentage as evidence of Garoppolo's talent. They are not saying winning percentage causes Garoppolo to be a good quarterback. I think the miss here is your understanding of causality.

No,...you want to make it a misinterpretation as a backdoor. But though there isin't one, I'll entertain these new comments:

1) Winning percentage isint evidence of Garoppolo's talent. Huge failure there and probably worse than the initial claim.

Why did you use cause instead of because? Here let me help:

2) They are not saying (high) winning percentage because Garoppolo is a good quarterback. <---- Yes he is saying this. In fact, it's precisely what he is saying.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
Misrepresenting the structure of your opponent's argument won't win you any certificates in debate club. But good luck!

Team Win % #1 -----> GOOD QB #2

How do you not recognize that this is what he is saying?

There is no misinterpretation at all. It's precisely his argument. Nothing to confuse.

That is a statement marshalling evidence. It is not defining causality.

It most certainly is. He's being asked what makes Jimmy a Good Player and his reply is our Team's Win %.

A team having a good win % doesn't conclude that they've had great QB. A conclusion doesn't come 1st.

There's literally no hidden exit here.

You're misrepresenting again. They are using winning percentage as evidence of Garoppolo's talent. They are not saying winning percentage causes Garoppolo to be a good quarterback. I think the miss here is your understanding of causality.

No,...you want to make it a misinterpretation as a backdoor. But though there isin't one, I'll entertain these new comments:

1) Winning percentage isint evidence of Garoppolo's talent. Huge failure there and probably worse than the initial claim.

Why did you use cause instead of because? Here let me help:

2) They are not saying (high) winning percentage because Garoppolo is a good quarterback. <---- Yes he is saying this. Precisely.

You are still misrepresenting the argument.

"Garoppolo's skill causes a high team winning percentage."
"The team's winning percentage is high because of Garoppolo's skill."

Those are both logically and structurally sound.

"The team's high winning percentage causes Garoppolo to have skill."
"Garoppolo has skill because the team's winning percentage is high."

Those are logically and structurally unsound.

I've only seen examples of the former coming from Woo and other posters, and your responses have misrepresented them. If I've missed something, show me.

Edit: Is it your argument that player skill does not, in part, contribute to winning percentage / results?

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by RackofRibs49:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by RackofRibs49:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by RackofRibs49:
But without Jimmy our winning percentages are literally bottom of the league. With him it's tops. This is 100% fact. Explain it...

In the way you want? Ok.

QBs Playing Bad -----> Bottom of the League Win %

That's what you wanted, right? Simple enough.

No that's dumb explain why the team was 3-24 before Jimmy came then they win 5 straight? What changed?

We went from career back ups at QB to a competent, slightly above average QB. Its not rocket science. We will find out soon enough whether shanny can win without Jimmy when Trey takes over.

Ok... So we went from bad QB and were losing to a different QB and started winning.

Ffs dude duh

Not a different QB, a better QB. I never said otherwise. Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit.

That won games compared to a bad QB who didn't. The difference between winning and losing was a different QB. A better QB.

Trey will most likely not be a bad QB so he should help the team win games........ A good QB helps the teams winning percentage.

QB is one of the... if not THE most important position in all of sports. Thus they get credited for wins... Like a pitcher. Because as you said a bad QB loses games for us, a good QB started winning games for us.

It's so simple...

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
You are still misrepresenting the argument.

"Garoppolo's skill causes a high team winning percentage."
"The team's winning percentage is high because of Garoppolo's skill."

Those are both logically and structurally sound.

"The team's high winning percentage causes Garoppolo to have skill."
"Garoppolo has skill because the team's winning percentage is high."

Those are logically and structurally unsound.

I've only seen examples of the former coming from Woo and other posters, and your responses have misrepresented them. If I've missed something, show me.

Not misinterpreted at all,...dude's been saying this trash for a couple years now and it's false.

Here it is diagrammed for you again....



Instead of stupid semantics about what "no one has said",...how about simply admitting that this is correct? A QB can play poorly and still be on a team with a high winning percentage in football.

If this were tennis, the story would be different.

But since it's football,....the team's winning percentage doesn't tell me that the QB was a good one. #TheEnd

"The No One Has Said" game doesnt change the truth. There's literally no backdoor here.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
You are still misrepresenting the argument.

"Garoppolo's skill causes a high team winning percentage."
"The team's winning percentage is high because of Garoppolo's skill."

Those are both logically and structurally sound.

"The team's high winning percentage causes Garoppolo to have skill."
"Garoppolo has skill because the team's winning percentage is high."

Those are logically and structurally unsound.

I've only seen examples of the former coming from Woo and other posters, and your responses have misrepresented them. If I've missed something, show me.

Not misinterpreted at all,...dude's been saying this trash for a couple years now and it's false.

Here it is diagrammed for you again....



Instead of stupid semantics about what "no one has said",...how about simply admitting that this is correct? A QB can play poorly and still be on a team with a high winning percentage in football.

If this were tennis, the story would be different.

But since it's football,....the team's winning percentage doesn't tell me that the QB was a good one. #TheEnd

"The No One Has Said" game doesnt change the truth. There's literally no backdoor here.

Okay, so you have no examples of the argument you're refuting. You know what that's called?

No amount of emojis, hashtags, underlining, or diagrams will change the logic here.

Let's be clear and take Garoppolo / the 49ers out of the conversation. Is it your argument that player skill does not, in part, contribute to winning percentage / results?

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
You are still misrepresenting the argument.

"Garoppolo's skill causes a high team winning percentage."
"The team's winning percentage is high because of Garoppolo's skill."

Those are both logically and structurally sound.

"The team's high winning percentage causes Garoppolo to have skill."
"Garoppolo has skill because the team's winning percentage is high."

Those are logically and structurally unsound.

I've only seen examples of the former coming from Woo and other posters, and your responses have misrepresented them. If I've missed something, show me.

Not misinterpreted at all,...dude's been saying this trash for a couple years now and it's false.

Here it is diagrammed for you again....



Instead of stupid semantics about what "no one has said",...how about simply admitting that this is correct? A QB can play poorly and still be on a team with a high winning percentage in football.

If this were tennis, the story would be different.

But since it's football,....the team's winning percentage doesn't tell me that the QB was a good one. #TheEnd

"The No One Has Said" game doesnt change the truth. There's literally no backdoor here.

Okay, so you have no examples of the argument you're refuting. You know what that's called?

No amount of emojis, hashtags, underlining, or diagrams will change the logic here.

Let's be clear and take Garoppolo / the 49ers out of the conversation. Is it your argument that player skill does not, in part, contribute to winning percentage / results?

He's saying QB has absolutely no basis on wins. None, nada, zip. He's saying it's the other 52 guys. Hell he even said the other day that a guy that doesn't even get on the field deserves credit for a win.

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
Okay, so you have no examples of the argument you're refuting. You know what that's called?

No amount of emojis, hashtags, underlining, or diagrams will change the logic here.

No examples are needed. He's repeated dozens of times that our team's winning percentage is evidence that he's a good player. He doesn't compound it with any other #s or totals,....he directly links the two together -- without anything else -- and it's simply not true. Our win % is not evidence that he's been an outstanding player.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
Okay, so you have no examples of the argument you're refuting. You know what that's called?

No amount of emojis, hashtags, underlining, or diagrams will change the logic here.

No examples are needed. He's repeated dozens of times that our team's winning percentage is evidence that he's a good player. He doesn't compound it with any other #s or totals,....he directly links the two together -- without anything else -- and it's simply not true. Our win % is not evidence that he's been an outstanding player.

How about 3-24 without Jimmy and third highest winning percentage in the entire NFL with Jimmy? This team is literally one of the worst teams in the league when JImmy is not QB and one of the best when. Same team, same coach, same talent.