Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Originally posted by Waterbear:
I'm not trying to be confrontational or anything this kind of logic just bugs me. Over the last several months we've seen comments like, signing Sam Darnold means they're not confident in Trey, the front office doesn't believe in Trey, this comment from John Lynch means they want to trade Trey, Trey isn't respected by his teammates, Trey has no chance to become the starter since he needs reps… and it's all just a bunch of blind assumptions. We may find out these things are true, and it's a valid opinion, but it's not objectively true.
My problem is that you're trying to have it both ways and you can't do that. You can't say there's evidence to prove he's not good enough, and at the same time say there's zero evidence he's good enough.
You call out posters for their personal bias when you said, "The idea that we can't let him go because we have injury problems is colored by personal feelings about Lance."
but this one example you gave about evidence for or against Trey is way more biased IMO. Because unless you admit it's your opinion that there's no evidence Lance can perform well enough, then you're saying it's FACTS. And that's more biased then believing in keeping Trey due to the injuries we've had at the QB position.
It's you OPINION that there's zero evidence for Trey being the guy. Nothing about your statement is objective… it's about as subjective as it gets. Which to be fair, is about 95% of everyone's takes on Lance or Purdy. But you have to admit that.
I don't look at this as confrontational so no big deal. It's a conversation about a football team, so it's not personal to me.
Having said that I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying, in some cases where I'm clearly saying something different. An easy example:
You stated 'You can't say there's evidence to prove he's not good enough, and at the same time say there's zero evidence he's good enough.'
What I actually stated was the evidence was limited and wasn't enough to form a definitive conclusion. Full stop. However, there is at least evidence that points in a direction, which is more than the opposing side of the argument has. Limited evidence makes a stronger argument than no evidence, or an argument made in the face of contrary limited evidence. I will say that maybe I shouldn't say no evidence. Is there evidence he could be successful? Maybe. But you really have to cherry pick what is already a limited picture, and omit the rest, to get there. The overall picture of the limited evidence is that he's not a very good QB right now, and our offense hasn't been successful when he's played.
And again, I'm really not trying to give you my personal opinion on Lance as a player as it does not matter. I'm arguing about how the team views him as a player, and there's more than limited evidence there. I understand people here don't view that evidence the same way, but those people aren't offering alternative explanations for the team's actions that actually make sense. It's like denial. I could use the bet you wanted to make that there was no way we would bring in a 3rd QB to compete with Lance, because we invested so much in him. That bet was lost within weeks. Are you going to reevaluate the evidence given your initial 'analysis' lead to an incorrect conclusion? I would hope so.
I'm also not calling people out for personal bias, other than to say it's the basis for arguments that would make absolutely no sense otherwise without it. Like we can't trade Lance because we have injury problems. You're only going to feel that way if you think highly about Lance. I do not care at all if you do or don't but that is an easily observable fact. If we trade Lance, we sign/draft another QB. Pretty basic.
I've explained the bet I wanted to make several times to multiple posters, and each time its interpreted differently than what I had posted. Another poster, who's known for that kind of thing had a much worse interpretation than yours. So respectfully I'd like to move on from that discussion since I would be repeating myself with no avail.
To comment on the bolded, I don't care if you think there's mountains of evidence he's not good and very minimal evidence he is good. But to say there's NO evidence he's good, while saying there's evidence for the contrary, is just flat out wrong. I'm glad you can correct your statement slightly.
Here's my thing..
Comments like, I don't think Trey is or will be a good QB, I think the team is ready to give up on him, I think we should look to trade him.... those are all valid opinions.
It's when people are making definitive claims about Trey or the subjective "evidence", that I find myself disagreeing with them the most. The evidence you've used to say they're not happy with Trey is being posted in a manner that it can only be interpreted one way... negatively. And that's wrong to me. It's your opinion that signing Darnold means they can only be so happy with Trey, but I don't think of it that way at all. You can say I'm naive but in reality there's no way you can prove its negative. So you can say you're not making a comment about your personal opinion of Trey, but when I see comments that give one interpretation of the "evidence" I don't find them very objective or unbiased.
To answer the second bolded, I would say its possible to not know what Lance is, essentially a QB mystery box, and that you don't have to have a high opinion of him to not want to trade him for a 3rd round pick.
That's my perspective anyway,
You essentially said some are better than others at reading the signs, but I would argue Trey's success is independent of those signs. His career could literally go any route from here. And I would like to see much more before crowning or condemning him.
