Jimmy Garoppolo, QB, Los Angeles Rams

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.

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
Why edit my post to remove the question I posed to you? The argument you're attacking is a strawman.

The low-level evidence has been made clear: Garoppolo wins in this system, and other quarterbacks don't. Why do you think that is?

Edit: Of course, there is near-infinite nuance to this particular set of facts, and I don't find this argument particularly compelling. I only chimed in to curb your sophistry.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
Why edit my post to remove the question I posed to you? The argument you're attacking is a strawman.

The low-level evidence has been made clear: Garoppolo wins in this system, and other quarterbacks don't. Why do you think that is?

Edit: Of course, there is near-infinite nuance to this particular set of facts, and I don't find this argument particularly compelling. I only chimed in to curb your sophistry.

Because I tend to make long replies and try to help out the board by shortening them up. Where are we going here?

Tennis? Golf? I can conclude that the player outperformed their peers with a fair amount of longevity and a high winning percentage.

Football QBs? I cant. Doesn't pass the smell test. QBs can continually play mediocre in football and be on a winning team.

Look at any of Jimmy's playoff wins if you want.

Originally posted by RackofRibs49:

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 random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
Why edit my post to remove the question I posed to you? The argument you're attacking is a strawman.

The low-level evidence has been made clear: Garoppolo wins in this system, and other quarterbacks don't. Why do you think that is?

Edit: Of course, there is near-infinite nuance to this particular set of facts, and I don't find this argument particularly compelling. I only chimed in to curb your sophistry.

Because I tend to make long replies and try to help out the board by shortening them up. Where are we going here?

Tennis? Golf? I can conclude that the player outperformed their peers with a fair amount of longevity and a high winning percentage.

Football QBs? I cant. Doesn't pass the smell test. QBs can continually play mediocre in football and be on a winning team.

Look at any of Jimmy's playoff wins if you want. Surely you agree that 1+1='s 2, right?

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
Why edit my post to remove the question I posed to you? The argument you're attacking is a strawman.

The low-level evidence has been made clear: Garoppolo wins in this system, and other quarterbacks don't. Why do you think that is?

Edit: Of course, there is near-infinite nuance to this particular set of facts, and I don't find this argument particularly compelling. I only chimed in to curb your sophistry.

Originally posted by 49ers81:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
Why edit my post to remove the question I posed to you? The argument you're attacking is a strawman.

The low-level evidence has been made clear: Garoppolo wins in this system, and other quarterbacks don't. Why do you think that is?

Edit: Of course, there is near-infinite nuance to this particular set of facts, and I don't find this argument particularly compelling. I only chimed in to curb your sophistry.

Because that's what he does. Takes one line of a post, removes it from the surrounding context, and then tries to use the edited line, or lie in most cases, to pretend that he is scoring some kind of deep thinking point on you.

Originally posted by 49ers81:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
Why edit my post to remove the question I posed to you? The argument you're attacking is a strawman.

The low-level evidence has been made clear: Garoppolo wins in this system, and other quarterbacks don't. Why do you think that is?

Edit: Of course, there is near-infinite nuance to this particular set of facts, and I don't find this argument particularly compelling. I only chimed in to curb your sophistry.

Because that's what he does. Takes one line of a post, removes it from the surrounding context, and then tries to use the edited line, or lie in most cases, to pretend that he is scoring some kind of deep thinking point on you.

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

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.

Why edit my post to remove the question I posed to you? The argument you're attacking is a strawman.

The low-level evidence has been made clear: Garoppolo wins in this system, and other quarterbacks don't. Why do you think that is?

Edit: Of course, there is near-infinite nuance to this particular set of facts, and I don't find this argument particularly compelling. I only chimed in to curb your sophistry.

Originally posted by RidetheHyde:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

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.

Why edit my post to remove the question I posed to you? The argument you're attacking is a strawman.

The low-level evidence has been made clear: Garoppolo wins in this system, and other quarterbacks don't. Why do you think that is?

Edit: Of course, there is near-infinite nuance to this particular set of facts, and I don't find this argument particularly compelling. I only chimed in to curb your sophistry.

Because the other qbs that have been here during Kyle's time are lucky to even be on nfl rosters lmfao. Sure Jimmy is better than mullens. Cool u want a cup cake? Fact is we haven't had any other decent qbs starting games here to remotely even compare. What a joke.

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

Originally posted by RidetheHyde:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

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.

Why edit my post to remove the question I posed to you? The argument you're attacking is a strawman.

The low-level evidence has been made clear: Garoppolo wins in this system, and other quarterbacks don't. Why do you think that is?

Edit: Of course, there is near-infinite nuance to this particular set of facts, and I don't find this argument particularly compelling. I only chimed in to curb your sophistry.

Because the other qbs that have been here during Kyle's time are lucky to even be on nfl rosters lmfao. Sure Jimmy is better than mullens. Cool u want a cup cake? Fact is we haven't had any other decent qbs starting games here to remotely even compare. What a joke.

Idiotic post. Read the entire exchange to understand context.

Originally posted by RidetheHyde:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

Originally posted by RidetheHyde:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

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.

Why edit my post to remove the question I posed to you? The argument you're attacking is a strawman.

The low-level evidence has been made clear: Garoppolo wins in this system, and other quarterbacks don't. Why do you think that is?

Edit: Of course, there is near-infinite nuance to this particular set of facts, and I don't find this argument particularly compelling. I only chimed in to curb your sophistry.

Because the other qbs that have been here during Kyle's time are lucky to even be on nfl rosters lmfao. Sure Jimmy is better than mullens. Cool u want a cup cake? Fact is we haven't had any other decent qbs starting games here to remotely even compare. What a joke.

Idiotic post. Read the entire exchange to understand context.

🤣 jimmy blows and so does your logic. 🤮

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

Originally posted by RidetheHyde:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

Originally posted by RidetheHyde:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

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.

Why edit my post to remove the question I posed to you? The argument you're attacking is a strawman.

The low-level evidence has been made clear: Garoppolo wins in this system, and other quarterbacks don't. Why do you think that is?

Edit: Of course, there is near-infinite nuance to this particular set of facts, and I don't find this argument particularly compelling. I only chimed in to curb your sophistry.

Because the other qbs that have been here during Kyle's time are lucky to even be on nfl rosters lmfao. Sure Jimmy is better than mullens. Cool u want a cup cake? Fact is we haven't had any other decent qbs starting games here to remotely even compare. What a joke.

Idiotic post. Read the entire exchange to understand context.

🤣 jimmy blows and so does your logic. 🤮

I'm not even making that argument, bud. I mostly agreed with Random's take on that point. The discussion clearly went over your head. How embarrassing.

Originally posted by RidetheHyde:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

Originally posted by RidetheHyde:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

Originally posted by RidetheHyde:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

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.

Why edit my post to remove the question I posed to you? The argument you're attacking is a strawman.

The low-level evidence has been made clear: Garoppolo wins in this system, and other quarterbacks don't. Why do you think that is?

Edit: Of course, there is near-infinite nuance to this particular set of facts, and I don't find this argument particularly compelling. I only chimed in to curb your sophistry.

Because the other qbs that have been here during Kyle's time are lucky to even be on nfl rosters lmfao. Sure Jimmy is better than mullens. Cool u want a cup cake? Fact is we haven't had any other decent qbs starting games here to remotely even compare. What a joke.

Idiotic post. Read the entire exchange to understand context.

🤣 jimmy blows and so does your logic. 🤮

I'm not even making that argument, bud. I mostly agreed with Random's take on that point. The discussion clearly went over your head. How embarrassing.

Over my head like Jimmy's passes over the middle. 🤣🤣🤣

Originally posted by RidetheHyde:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

Originally posted by RidetheHyde:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

Originally posted by RidetheHyde:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

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.

Why edit my post to remove the question I posed to you? The argument you're attacking is a strawman.

The low-level evidence has been made clear: Garoppolo wins in this system, and other quarterbacks don't. Why do you think that is?

Edit: Of course, there is near-infinite nuance to this particular set of facts, and I don't find this argument particularly compelling. I only chimed in to curb your sophistry.

Because the other qbs that have been here during Kyle's time are lucky to even be on nfl rosters lmfao. Sure Jimmy is better than mullens. Cool u want a cup cake? Fact is we haven't had any other decent qbs starting games here to remotely even compare. What a joke.

Idiotic post. Read the entire exchange to understand context.

🤣 jimmy blows and so does your logic. 🤮

I'm not even making that argument, bud. I mostly agreed with Random's take on that point. The discussion clearly went over your head. How embarrassing.

Over my head like Jimmy's passes over the middle. 🤣🤣🤣