Why isn't anyone talking about Stevie?

[RuntheDamnBall]

Except Jordan's "antics" were traits often associated with people who are compulsively successful. He had/has an insatiable motor. His negative qualities are precisely what you want in a competitor. Irvin's were similar. Blow and hookers. Illegal, yes, but hardly relevant to a discussion about a guy whose major transgressions are those of a irreverent teenager.

 

As for Key, Moss and TO: how many combined rings? Are we conveniently forgetting how all three of them had careers that each just fizzled out with a veritable dearth of fanfare?

 

It's all a wash though since I wouldn't liken Stevie's childish behavior to any of these guys.

Key has one. TO and Moss both had star turns in their SBs. Moss should have been in one with the Vikes. The point is not really about their specific transgressions - it's that talent > antics, whatever the variety (until you murder somebody).

 

Stevie might not have enough of the former to accept the latter, even if it's just, as you rightly point out, kind of teenagey stuff.

 

If Jordan's Bulls had come up short in the Finals year after year like the Bills, don't you think we'd hear more about gambling being a distraction, or him being too hard on his teammates and it being bad for chemistry? We always look at the result and work backward from there to explain it, and there's really not another way. The rest is just amateur psychology.

[Jauronimo]

Except Jordan's "antics" were traits often associated with people who are compulsively successful. He had/has an insatiable motor. His negative qualities are precisely what you want in a competitor. Irvin's were similar. Blow and hookers. Illegal, yes, but hardly relevant to a discussion about a guy whose major transgressions are those of a irreverent teenager.

 

As for Key, Moss and TO: how many combined rings? Are we conveniently forgetting how all three of them had careers that each just fizzled out with a veritable dearth of fanfare?

 

It's all a wash though since I wouldn't liken Stevie's childish behavior to any of these guys.

I see you're now expanding your conflation to include lack of championships with dropped passes and fumbles. Nice cherry picking with your personality traits too.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Jauronimo

[FireChan]

Except Jordan's "antics" were traits often associated with people who are compulsively successful. He had/has an insatiable motor. His negative qualities are precisely what you want in a competitor. Irvin's were similar. Blow and hookers. Illegal, yes, but hardly relevant to a discussion about a guy whose major transgressions are those of a irreverent teenager.

 

As for Key, Moss and TO: how many combined rings? Are we conveniently forgetting how all three of them had careers that each just fizzled out with a veritable dearth of fanfare?

 

It's all a wash though since I wouldn't liken Stevie's childish behavior to any of these guys.

 

Wait what? So now to be considered a successful WR you need multiple rings?

[The Big Cat]

Key has one. TO and Moss both had star turns in their SBs. Moss should have been in one with the Vikes. The point is not really about their specific transgressions - it's that talent > antics, whatever the variety (until you murder somebody).

 

Stevie might not have enough of the former to accept the latter, even if it's just, as you rightly point out, kind of teenagey stuff.

 

If Jordan's Bulls had come up short in the Finals year after year like the Bills, don't you think we'd hear more about gambling being a distraction, or him being too hard on his teammates and it being bad for chemistry? We always look at the result and work backward from there to explain it, and there's really not another way. The rest is just amateur psychology.

 

Yeah, they probably would have said that about Jordan's Bulls. But they fact is, six times...they didn't....each time with Jordan being the Finals MVP. So, apparently they weren't a distraction. Thus, the only similiarity between Jordan and Stevie is non-competition distractions. But, on the flip side, we're light years away from saying Stevie's childish distractions have no impact on his play, mostly because he's been the opposite of a clutch-time-MVP. So: one has distractions but still manages to have--by consensus--the greatest impact on his team in each of their six championship runs while the other has distractions that cost his team games, denying them mere entry into the postseason.

 

I see you're now expanding your conflation to include lack of championships with dropped passes and fumbles. Nice cherry picking with your personality traits too.

 

Well, you've now called me names, and gone to great lengths to break down the argument that Stevie's immaturity afflicts his performances on Sundays. But specifically what you're arguing, I'm not sure. I guess everything, as far you're concerned, is gravy.

 

Wait what? So now to be considered a successful WR you need multiple rings?

 

Well, we're making these guys out to be wildly successful in spite of their off field distractions, an argument that actually helps my cause considering the Bills career record since Stevie has been our "star": 33-59.

[Mr. WEO]

Why is anyone talking about Stevie?

[Jauronimo]

So, apparently they weren't a distraction. Thus, the only similiarity between Jordan and Stevie is non-competition distractions. But, on the flip side, we're light years away from saying Stevie's childish distractions have no impact on his play, mostly because he's been the opposite of a clutch-time-MVP. So: one has distractions but still manages to have--by consensus--the greatest impact on his team in each of their six championship runs while the other has distractions that cost his team games, denying them mere entry into the postseason.

 

 

 

Well, you've now called me names, and gone to great lengths to break down the argument that Stevie's immaturity afflicts his performances on Sundays. But specifically what you're arguing, I'm not sure. I guess everything, as far you're concerned, is gravy.

 

 

 

Well, we're making these guys out to be wildly successful in spite of their off field distractions, an argument that actually helps my cause considering the Bills career record since Stevie has been our "star": 33-59.

Its obvious that you have no idea what I'm arguing, although I've been painfully clear. What is truly mind boggling is how you believe examples of immature athletes performing in the clutch supports your case that SJ's immaturity was a predictor of his choke act. And now you're linking SJ's immaturity not just to dropped balls and by extension fumbles, but now the team's W-L record. Holy balls, you're confused.

[The Big Cat]

Its obvious that you have no idea what I'm arguing, although I've been painfully clear. What is truly mind boggling is how you believe examples of immature athletes performing in the clutch supports your case that SJ's immaturity was a predictor of his choke act. And now you're linking SJ's immaturity not just to dropped balls and by extension fumbles, but now the team's W-L record. Holy balls, you're confused.

 

You're the one arguing immaturity is a broad term. I'm the one who's saying his is CLEARLY different than the one's you've identified to make your case.

[FireChan]

You're the one arguing immaturity is a broad term. I'm the one who's saying his is CLEARLY different than the one's you've identified to make your case.

 

I'm just gonna jump in here, but what is different between TO's antics and SJ13's?

[The Big Cat]

I'm just gonna jump in here, but what is different between TO's antics and SJ13's?

 

Haha, now that we've gotten to that level, the answer: not much.

 

But I don't recall a reality in which the fans of TO's teams weren't fed up with his **** and his likewise proclivity for drops. So, I guess TO helps make the point, too.

 

As a player, though, TO had a mean streak in him (during his early years) that we haven't seen from a receiver at least not so long as Johnson's been on the roster.

[Mr. WEO]

I'm just gonna jump in here, but what is different between TO's antics and SJ13's?

 

About 12,500 yards

[FireChan]

Haha, now that we've gotten to that level, the answer: not much.

 

But I don't recall a reality in which the fans of TO's teams weren't fed up with his **** and his likewise proclivity for drops. So, I guess TO helps make the point, too.

 

As a player, though, TO had a mean streak in him (during his early years) that we haven't seen from a receiver at least not so long as Johnson's been on the roster.

 

Fans were only fed up with TO because of his antics and his selfishness. TeamObliterator and all that. I can see what you are saying with competitiveness. I don't view SJ13 as the player with the most "fire" on our team. But that might be Buffalo's fault. Still, SJ13's selfishness/idiocy is the same as TO's and thus isn't really a great indicator of his performance.

[The Big Cat]

Fans were only fed up with TO because of his antics and his selfishness. TeamObliterator and all that. I can see what you are saying with competitiveness. I don't view SJ13 as the player with the most "fire" on our team. But that might be Buffalo's fault. Still, SJ13's selfishness/idiocy is the same as TO's and thus isn't really a great indicator of his performance.

 

Yeah, except you acknowledge that TO is far more competitive. I don't know how it's the Bills fault when we have guys on both sides of the ball with the same kind of fire.

 

Also, TO is/was a physical specimen, even by pro-athlete standards. His god-given athleticism let him get away with WAY more than Stevie could ever. Strength, speed, size--he has Stevie beat by a WIDE margin in all three.

[FireChan]

Yeah, except you acknowledge that TO is far more competitive. I don't know how it's the Bills fault when we have guys on both sides of the ball with the same kind of fire.

 

Also, TO is/was a physical specimen, even by pro-athlete standards. His god-given athleticism let him get away with WAY more than Stevie could ever. Strength, speed, size--he has Stevie beat by a WIDE margin in all three.

 

We have rookies and model citizens with that kind of fire. Guy's like Freddy don't lose their fire after a couple bad seasons. Guy's like SJ13 and TO do,

 

I thought we were arguing mental and it's correlation to performance. Being a freak athlete doesn't make you clutch. Edit: Oh wait, my bad you're saying it let him get away with his antics. That's fair to say, sure.

 

And yeah TO was competitive for a while, then got a really fat head, bounced around the league, but still produced in the clutch. SJ13 may have gotten complacent after his last productive seasons, but he does not produce in the clutch. And seeing as they both show signs of heavy narcissism, it's hard to say anything about this at all that isn't rife with speculation and conjecture.

Edited December 4, 2013 by FireChan

[The Big Cat]

We have rookies and model citizens with that kind of fire. Guy's like Freddy don't lose their fire after a couple bad seasons. Guy's like SJ13 and TO do,

 

I thought we were arguing mental and it's correlation to performance. Being a freak athlete doesn't make you clutch. Edit: Oh wait, my bad you're saying it let him get away with his antics. That's fair to say, sure.

 

And yeah TO was competitive for a while, then got a really fat head, bounced around the league, but still produced in the clutch. SJ13 may have gotten complacent after his last productive seasons, but he does not produce in the clutch. And seeing as they both show signs of heavy narcissism, it's hard to say anything about this at all that isn't rife with speculation and conjecture.

 

I guess I don't expect anyone to take that speculation at face value. What I don't understand is dismissing it outright. Refusing to acknowledge the possible connection seems stubborn (putting it kindly).

[Jauronimo]

You're the one arguing immaturity is a broad term. I'm the one who's saying his is CLEARLY different than the one's you've identified to make your case.

This is the sound of the point flying past your head at supersonic speeds once again. My argument is and has been that you cannot demonstrate that immaturity is a predictor of dropped passes (fumbles). You maintain that immaturity is predictive of dropped passes (fumbles) and a general lack of clutch performance but you can't support that statement in any way, shape, or form.

 

You can state 1,000 times that SJ is immature and that he is not clutch. Both statements are true, but that doesn't constitute a causal relationship. SJ is not clutch, but the reasons are a matter of pure conjecture and speculation.

 

I guess I don't expect anyone to take that speculation at face value. What I don't understand is dismissing it outright. Refusing to acknowledge the possible connection seems stubborn (putting it kindly).

 

Now you want me to accept that your explanation is possible? Sure its one possible explanation. I wouldn't declare vindication, though, and I certainly wouldn't take a victory lap. If you'll recall, I entered the conversation during your victory lap. That is why we're having this conversation.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Jauronimo

[RealityCheck]

Evaluating Stevie for me is quite simple. I have seen him help this team lose more than I've seen him help them win. Moving forward, I don't see his game improving. He and Chandler are expendable.

[FireChan]

I guess I don't expect anyone to take that speculation at face value. What I don't understand is dismissing it outright. Refusing to acknowledge the possible connection seems stubborn (putting it kindly).

This is the sound of the point flying past your head at supersonic speeds once again. My argument is and has been that you cannot demonstrate that immaturity is a predictor of dropped passes (fumbles). You maintain that immaturity is predictive of dropped passes (fumbles) and a general lack of clutch performance but you can't support that statement in any way, shape, or form.

 

You can state 1,000 times that SJ is immature and that he is not clutch. Both statements are true, but that doesn't constitute a causal relationship. SJ is not clutch, but the reasons are a matter of pure conjecture and speculation.

 

 

 

Now you want me to accept that your explanation is possible? Sure its one possible explanation. I wouldn't declare vindication, though, and I certainly wouldn't take a victory lap. If you'll recall, I entered the conversation during your victory lap. That is why we're having this conversation.

 

Is that it then? Please tell me I have mediated this conversation to a discernible end. I want the Stevie bashing to continue.

[The Big Cat]

This is the sound of the point flying past your head at supersonic speeds once again. My argument is and has been that you cannot demonstrate that immaturity is a predictor of dropped passes (fumbles). You maintain that immaturity is predictive of dropped passes (fumbles) and a general lack of clutch performance but you can't support that statement in any way, shape, or form.

 

You can state 1,000 times that SJ is immature and that he is not clutch. Both statements are true, but that doesn't constitute a causal relationship. SJ is not clutch, but the reasons are a matter of pure conjecture and speculation.

 

 

 

Now you want me to accept that your explanation is possible? Sure its one possible explanation. I wouldn't declare vindication, though, and I certainly wouldn't take a victory lap. If you'll recall, I entered the conversation during your victory lap. That is why we're having this conversation.

 

Well, I'm still beating you 1 to 0 in explaining why Stevie is reliably unreliable. I guess you chalk it up to...?

 

And by the way, the "victory" lap started because it was foresight that I was eviscerated for that came to fruition.

[Jauronimo]

Well, I'm still beating you 1 to 0 in explaining why Stevie is reliably unreliable. I guess you chalk it up to...?

 

And by the way, the "victory" lap started because it was foresight that I was eviscerated for that came to fruition.

I'd say its like -1 to 1 in my favor. I gave you the best reason for why I think SJ will continue to be unreliable.

 

Your foresight was a prime example of specious reasoning. The outcome doesn't make the underlying reasoning any less sound. 1,000 outcomes won't make the reasoning more sound. Take 10 laps. There was no victory.

[The Big Cat]

I'd say its like -1 to 1 in my favor. I gave you the best reason for why I think SJ will continue to be unreliable.

 

Your foresight was a prime example of specious reasoning. The outcome doesn't make the underlying reasoning any less sound. 1,000 outcomes won't make the reasoning more sound. Take 10 laps. There was no victory.

 

Refresh my memory.

[LB3]

 

 

Well, I'm still beating you 1 to 0 in explaining why Stevie is reliably unreliable. I guess you chalk it up to...?

 

 

Up 1-0 in conjecturing sure, explaining not so much.

 

Btw. Thank you both for this wildly entertaining debate. I really was not feeling up to just staring at spreadsheets all day today.

Edited December 4, 2013 by KikoSeeBallKikoGetBall

[The Big Cat]

Up 1-0 in conjecturing sure, explaining not so much.

 

Btw. Thank you both for this wildly entertaining debate. I really was just not feeling up to just staring at spreadsheets all day today.

 

And suddenly everything said on a Bills message board has to be backed by first-hand knowledge? 99% of what is shared here is COMPLETE conjecture. In this case, we all want to fight so hard against this because we don't want to admit a local darling has fundamental flaws that may forever hamper this team.

[LB3]

 

 

And suddenly everything said on a Bills message board has to be backed by first-hand knowledge? 99% of what is shared here is COMPLETE conjecture. In this case, we all want to fight so hard against this because we don't want to admit a local darling has fundamental flaws that may forever hamper this team.

 

The conjecture is what makes this debate great. It's great because you both agree SJ isn't reliable. He's using math and logic to say that although SJ isn't reliable, there is no way to correlate a guy being a giant turd with not being clutch. You are saying that the correlation is fair despite numerous exceptions to the "rule" you are presenting. I'd have to side with Jauronimo here, but thank you both for the entertainment.

Edited December 4, 2013 by KikoSeeBallKikoGetBall

[#34fan]

Evaluating Stevie for me is quite simple. I have seen him help this team lose more than I've seen him help them win. Moving forward, I don't see his game improving. He and Chandler are expendable.

 

Day-um!

 

Right on the money (except for the chandler part. )

 

In the context of this conversation, I must insist that maturity is probably more of a subjective opinion than anything else. If we were speaking about sexual maturity in a certain species, we'd have a short, factual, conversation. However, because we're speaking about human behavior, in circumstances un-related to propagation of the species, conclusions can be more subjective.

 

In this this case, we look to behaviour that typically produces favorable results as mature, and view behavior with detrimental outcomes as immature. We hold individuals up to the light, compare habits to outcomes, then make assessments. -If spinning footballs got you to the playoffs, Stevie would get us there for sure. If first-down celebrations were worth six points, Stevie would be among the top scorers in the NFL. However, these things don't help us win... In fact, they can result in costly penalities that hurt our bottom line.

 

So, for the purposes of winning football games, Steve Johnson's behavior is largely useless. Whether you consider him mature, or not, the outcome is the same. Why watch football at all if you live in world of essential mathematical truths? Why not Just survive, reproduce, then keel-over when it's done?

[papazoid]

kind of quiet on the stevie front....

[ET1062]

Cut him and put a receiver on the field who is taller, faster and actually drafted prior to the 7th round who isn't a mental case and a prima donna.

[jjmac]

24 pages later, I don't think this thread's title is valid anymore.

Edited December 14, 2013 by jjmac

[Bill from NYC]

Cut him and put a receiver on the field who is taller, faster and actually drafted prior to the 7th round who isn't a mental case and a prima donna.

 

Kevin Norwood? He can probably be had late and imo has more of an upside than SJ.