Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 9595710)

Yes, you shouldn't have to make cogent arguments at all. We should all just accept your wisdom without question. Get over yourself, girl.

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 9595723)

No you aren't. I didn't say anything like that. I picked that player to make it as easy as possible for morons to understand the point I was making. It seems I can't dumb it down enough for you though.

I didn't even say anything about Vandenberg. He was part of a question I asked. Good lord.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 9595753)

Not saying we should hang on Mel Kiper's words here.

But this illustrates what I, and others, have said about this class.

People have been looking at this class through prism that has been skewed by recent drafts.

It has only been a recent phenomonom for QBs to start right away and be expected to excel from the very first game.

Prior to the last couple of years, even if QBs were asked to start right away, everyone recognized that there should be a development period.

QBs were drafted high because they had the potential to excel, in time.

Almost every draft expert agrees that Geno has potential.

But now, they downgrade him, and Barkley, and others, because they might not excel immediately.

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9595770)

Fine. Let's do this over again, douche. Here's my rewritten version of Post #26 for you. Perfectly clarified and gentle enough for little Patricia's vagina.

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9595784)

Your point ****ing sucks because it said, "AHAHAHAH SNR DIDN'T CLARIFY WHAT KIND OF QB! I GOT HIM NOW! I WIN THE ARGUMENT ON A TECHNICALITY! HOORAY!"

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 9596028)

If the Chiefs see it like you do, I'm sure they'll do the right thing. And if they see Eric Fisher as a decade-long anchor who can make his entire side of the line better due to his outstanding athleticism, his inspirational leadership and his coachability while worrying that Geno Smith might not have the leadership intangibles or that his decision making is too slow to have a great chance of realizing his physical potential, they might take the tackle. Furthermore, if they think more highly of Alex Smith than you or PGM do, even a Geno Smith that they think can achieve his potential might not seem like a "great improvement at a position of need" to them.

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 9596040)

It wasn't a technicality. It illustrates the fundamental flaw you Geno Mafia types always suffer from in your arguments. You think your assessment is ground truth and you incorporate it into your childish arguments in a way that establishes as a premise that anyone who disagrees with or questions the important part of the argument (how good is Geno Smith?) is wrong and pretends that the only thing left to argue about is whether or not QB is a more important position than Tackle.

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9596045)

Andy obviously does think more of Alex Smith than I do. And if Alex Smith is unprecedentedly all that Reid thinks he is/can be, then fine.

We're still in the position where we just drafted a RT at 1.1. And the scary thing is that I prefer that to drafting him and trading Albert just so we can tell people, "We didn't reach on value! We got a LEFT tackle. A LEFT tackle. Those are always good, yeah?"

Sigh. How far my standards have fallen. At least Fisher isn't Joeckel.

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9596052)

And in your attempt to illustrate that, you used a wacky and extreme example far out in left field that doesn't even remotely come close to a successful counterexample.

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 9596064)

The more extreme the example, the more clear the point. If I use Matt Barkley instead, someone who likes both better than a Tackle, doesn't have to confront the point at all.

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9595693)

Let's ignore the fact that Andy Reid is sexually attracted to Alex Smith the way Scott ***** was to Matt Cassel.