I didn't see the claim of an agenda until today's posts. I did see - because I was one of the people involved in the discussion - the description of what you posted as disingenuous/dishonest. And to be honest, I still don't see how you defend a stance that has Davis' experience in his first three seasons is even close to on par with the likes of Rodgers, Rivers, or even Quick if you are not intentionally ignoring the amount of quality playing and practice time they clearly would have gotten that Davis has not.
I don't need to. You all assumed an implication that wasn't there. Rodgers, Rivers, and Quick were invoked as examples of players who received benefits despite not playing or playing very little. That's inarguable. You all assumed that I was saying that Davis was in an equal situation to all when all I was saying was that there are major benefits and advantages that come with being on a team...even when you're not playing.
It would be like you comparing Quick to Terrell Owens and me saying, "Well, Quick doesn't have Terrell Owens's features, his hair, doesn't talk like him, etc." That's not the point. The discussion was framed around whether Davis being on the Rams those two years was relevant. I think it is.
And it stemmed from a poster discussing all these other players that get 3-4 years to prove themselves including Pead...and he included this season for Pead where he's on IR. To which I responded, that Davis is a 3rd year pro. That's where this discussion started. And the response to that simple comment, of course, was where the word disingenuous originated in this discussion based on Prime Time's interpretation of what he felt I might be implying. An implication I wasn't making.
The reason being is that I know you do a lot of research on the game. I realize that much of it centers around college prospects but that's not all you look at. If you look back, I don't think you can find me saying anything about the idea that you shouldn't be thinking Hill should start over Davis. That is just an opinion that you hold from what you have observed and that is fine. I don't even disagree with the idea that you could be right in THAT.
I could be wrong in that. I don't know. I'm just frustrated with his play in 3 of the last 4 games.
But sorry - you brought up the comparisons to prove your point that Davis is no more a rookie than Rodgers or Rivers even though no one was really saying he was an actual rookie - only that he doesn't have all that much more real NFL experience than one. None of us said it was wasted time or anything as you asserted we were saying. Just not even close to the same.
Eh...that was exaggeration...but some of you certainly marginalized what that time meant. And, in essence, claimed it didn't mean much of anything because it wasn't on the field experience on game day. Which I vehemently disagree with.
To me, that is purposely ignoring the facts that didn't lend to your argument. If that is an incorrect take and you do honestly believe that their experiences are similar, then I don't know what to say.
You scolded me earlier for saying something similar to this.
I didn't ignore facts. I ignored people pointing out why Rodgers and Rivers were in a different situation when it wasn't particularly material to the point I was making. Saying they received more practice time, more focus from coaches, etc. because they were the QBs of the future is great...but it ignores the crux of my argument. Unless you're arguing that Davis received none of the benefits that those guys received rather than just not getting the benefits to the SAME EXTENT.
But I also don't think you helped yourself with the "don't waste my time" comments. I think you may have put a little more stock in people disagreeing with your assertions than were really there.
Well, I was pretty darn angry at that point at people telling me that I was being dishonest, twisting my words, and claiming I was implying things because it suited the argument they were making. I don't like having words put in my mouth. I say more than enough for people to know how I feel and what I mean.
Anyway, The Davis vs Hill debate HAS been beat to death. I know it will still rage on unless something really changes but I will still step in to try to quell another Bulger/Warner war. And I will also call it like I see it.
I don't really think this is a Bulger/Warner war. I think the vast majority of us that are okay with going back to Hill don't feel that strongly about it. We're just frustrated with the poor play and clinging to the dying hope that this team can contend this year. Because we all want the Rams to win.