re: Jefferson IS the X factor

quote:

---

Ive never labeled anyone as having an agenda.

---

Contrare, you've said I'm a JJ lover or similar, but I'd be repping any LSU player that got that much grief.

quote:

---

You have though.

---

Call 'em like I see 'em, TigerLee. It's not like you're in the closet or anything.

Im worried jefferson is giving us a false sense of decency. He's looked decent but things like running with the ball hanging out to the goal line against Tennessee and then the fumble against auburn he recovered might not go our way against bama. If it wasn't for the incidental facemask on the fumble its 3rd and very long. He still looks only at one receiver . Im just worried these miscues would be exploited by bama.

quote:

---

There is no flaw.

---

Your argument makes no sense. Your argument, as you've stated it (I don't feel like quoting directly) is that Wing can be the x-factor but Jefferson can't because Wing will play all 5 of his 5 snaps while JJ will only play 5 of 60 (or whatever) snaps).

That's not even an argument. It doesn't even make sense.

quote:

---

If a position like QB accounts for all of the offensive snaps a game (lets say 50 as a round number), then each individual snap is not that important and the percentages that occur over time account for more of the expected variation in the system.

---

First, this isn't what you argued.

Second,

quote:

---

then each individual snap is not that important

---

Presumptive.

quote:

---

Do you think JJ will have a TD/Snap ratio of better than 70% like you posited? I certainly know he won't.

---

You don't "know" anything. Obviously the probability of that occurring is next to nothing. But again, it's irrelevant to the initial point, which was that you "guaranteed" he wouldn't be the x-factor.

quote:

---

Yes it does, it is more likely that Zero or 1 score occurs than 4. It's probability and it's not difficult. To assume that 4 tds is as likely as 0 tds is insane to believe, even for a rantard.

---

Thanks for reiterating what I said.

quote:

---

So could Lee, or Ware, or TM7....what the frick is your point?

---

That last year, when Lee threw the game winner vs. Florida, you said we won because of him. That last year, when Lee did the work on the final drive and JJ rushed in the winning TD, you said we won because of Lee.

My point is that if the roles were entirely reversed, you would still say that credit goes to Lee. Your posting history backs this up entirely.

quote:

---

That's delusional behavior, and you should probably step back from the keyboard for a while.

---

Again, is it humanly possible for you to aruge without ad hominem?

Do you know what ad hominem is? I'm not even mocking here, because I legitimately don't think you do.

eta: I also like that you ignored the entire part of my post which perfectly captured your posting tendencies.

I'll tell you another good x-factor is Russell Shepard running the ball possibly on a sweep. He had the longest rush of the game last season.

quote:

---

Nobody in the history of the world has ever argued this. The "logic" is just so fricking incredibly stupid. So, you're saying that if a backup QB or RB comes in and rushes 5 times for 100 yards and 4 tds, he cannot be considered to have had a huge impact on the game because of the low % of snaps he played relative to his position? Are you seriously going with that?

---

He's sure to quote this and say that was what I was arguing, even though I was obviously only offering a hypothetical that completely exploded his "argument."

quote:

---

What is the likelihood that occurs?

---

Again, the likelihood is irrelevant.

You guaranteed it couldn't happen. There is a better than zero percent chance it could happen, therefore your statement is wrong.

quote:

---

I'll tell you another good x-factor is Russell Shepard running the ball possibly on a sweep.

---

We have so many playmakers, it's silly to try to come up with just one that makes all the difference.
Could be a pick 6, fumble recovery, DL with 3 sacks, or who knows on offense, in a low scoring game.

Team chemistry and sheer will may be the X-factor.

quote:

---

That's not even an argument. It doesn't even make sense.

---

it does if you understand probability and proportions. You obviously don't and my argument was over your head.

quote:

---

First, this isn't what you argued.

---

yes it was, and first comment shows you don't understand the math behind it.

quote:

---

Obviously the probability of that occurring is next to nothing.

---

well at least you realize that...we're getting somewhere.

quote:

---

That last year, when Lee threw the game winner vs. Florida, you said we won because of him.

---

because it happened, and we did. JJ couldn't throw that pass, as evidenced by the coaches having Lee throw it.

quote:

---

My point is that if the roles were entirely reversed, you would still say that credit goes to Lee.

---

No, if the roles were reversed last year in the UF game, the credit would have gone to JJ.

But it wasn't reversed, and JL did win us the UF game last year. THOSE ARE FACTS.

quote:

---

Do you know what ad hominem is?

---

Oh I do, I find cutting derisive statements about the lack of intelligence necessary when an individual makes up a complete hypothetical,

then attributes my reaction to his hypothetical from his own mind,

then gets indignant at his made up reaction by me to the hypothetical he made up.

In those cases, I believe they are warranted. However to be a true ad hominem, I would have to avoid debating the topic with you and use the ad hominem argument in its place. I argue the point, THEN tell you why you're stupid. It's a twofer.

quote:

---

I also like that you ignored the entire part of my post

---

like you have ignored huge swaths of mine. I didn't comment on it earlier because i figured this was already taxing enough for you, but anytime you would like to address the other issues I have brought up.....Oh and see, commenting about my posting "tendencies" instead of the probability of JJ getting 4 tds on 7 snaps is also ad hominem. Are you sure you know the definition?

quote:

---

Do you not see how you are moving the goalposts here? I

---

see post to OBduan about this topic. goalposts haven't moved.

In fact, if JJ did have 4 tds in 7 snaps....scoring would not likely be the KEY to the game, hence he wouldn't be the X-Factor.

quote:

---

Only you could cook up the shite you do. I'll give you credit, you are nothing if not persistent.

---

honest question....

If JJ had 4 tds in say 10 snaps. Would you say the game was decided on our ability to score points?