Wayne Cubed Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 You do realize that guys working for other teams likely require total anonymity before they speak on the record? That's a basic fact of life in reporting, and kinda journalism 101. Total anonymity... "said another NFC personnel executive." Yea ok. Why didn't he clarify whether these guys came from winning or losing NFL teams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 The reason he didn't is because you don't reveal clues to your sources if you want to continue having sources. Not trying to be a dick but that should be a very simple concept to grasp. What does it matter anyway? The people who want the sources named seem to be (mostly) the people that didn't like the article. Say that Graham had named them. Kermit The Frog, The Truth Fairy, Bozo The Clown, Mickey The Mouse, Oscar The Grouch, The Homer Simpson, Batman, and Elvis. Does that change anyone's mind one iota? No. Not even close. All it does is open a crack to start the effort of character assassination against those sources. Classic post-truth era stuff, but vacuous as far as critical thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted December 19, 2016 Author Share Posted December 19, 2016 Also, having and paying a franchise QB doesn't make you better at drafting by necessity--see the Saints. They pay a ton to their QB and don't draft well. Refer to the Chargers and Colts as well...Possibly even the Packers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 Total anonymity... "said another NFC personnel executive." Yea ok. Why didn't he clarify whether these guys came from winning or losing NFL teams? Dude. You're embarrassing yourself. Give up this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 (edited) What does it matter anyway? The people who want the sources named seem to be (mostly) the people that didn't like the article. Say that Graham had named them. Kermit The Frog, The Truth Fairy, Bozo The Clown, Mickey The Mouse, Oscar The Grouch, The Homer Simpson, Batman, and Elvis. Does that change anyone's mind one iota? No. Not even close. All it does is open a crack to start the effort of character assassination against those sources. Classic post-truth era stuff, but vacuous as far as critical thinking. So it's vacuous to wonder, gee where do these 8 personnel guys come from and what qualifies them? I forgot I'm just suppose to accept that these 8 guys know more than Whaley. And it's not character assassination if Kermit the Frog, who helped select Johnny Manziel, weighs in on how his team scouts under classmen. It's questioning the source and why I as the reader should believe this guy saying this has anymore knowledge than the guy he's criticizing. Dude. You're embarrassing yourself. Give up this point. So you've come back with nothing to add, awesome. EDIT: and what's so embarrassing? It's a discussion. Graham is writing a persuasive piece and wants to drive home that Whaley is a !@#$ up. But he can't say where these 8 guys come from? Losing program? Winning programs? Anything. It sure would drive his point home more, no? Edited December 19, 2016 by Wayne Cubed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted December 19, 2016 Author Share Posted December 19, 2016 Does anyone really blame Whaley for the Defense's fall from 4th in the league in 2014? Idk. It seems like if we had that defense with our current offense, we might be in the hunt. This is incorrect if you fully look back at all of the details. There was no way that 2014 Defense was going to last into this season; it didn't even last into 2015. One of the main players in 2014 hit the wall so hard he can't even start for Miami this year. Also yeah Rex did try to use elements of it last season, didn't matter what you did when Brady for instance got rid of the ball in 1.5 seconds. Additionally, if you look at yards per game this season given up on defense, (IIRC from another thread), Schwartz and Rex's Defenses are nearly identical. Philly has a decent DL as well.... Besides this is the exact same thing as saying if we had the '91 K-Gun offense with Wade's '99 defense we would win the superbowl...which we most likely would have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 This is incorrect if you fully look back at all of the details. There was no way that 2014 Defense was going to last into this season; it didn't even last into 2015. One of the main players in 2014 hit the wall so hard he can't even start for Miami this year. Also yeah Rex did try to use elements of it last season, didn't matter what you did when Brady for instance got rid of the ball in 1.5 seconds. Additionally, if you look at yards per game this season given up on defense, (IIRC from another thread), Schwartz and Rex's Defenses are nearly identical. Philly has a decent DL as well.... Besides this is the exact same thing as saying if we had the '91 K-Gun offense with Wade's '99 defense we would win the superbowl...which we most likely would have The magic melding of units from different seasons continues. Awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 The article is being given too much credit for being some wonderful, insightful research article. Bias is rampant throughout the whole thing. Graham started out with a premise (not unlike a prosecutor), and then set out to support his case that Whaley was guilty. I am not convinced he or anyone else at OBD needs to stay or go at his point. I would not however use Tim Graham's research to make a decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 So it's vacuous to wonder, gee where do these 8 personnel guys come from and what qualifies them? I forgot I'm just suppose to accept that these 8 guys know more than Whaley. And it's not character assassination if Kermit the Frog, who helped select Johnny Manziel, weighs in on how his team scouts under classmen. It's questioning the source and why I as the reader should believe this guy saying this has anymore knowledge than the guy he's criticizing. So you've come back with nothing to add, awesome. No. I think it's fair to be critical of the Browns player evaluation and management. More than fair. It's worse there than here. It is also fair to wonder who the 8 were and adjust your position based on that fact. That is critical thought. What is not critical thought is to take some list and use it as a hunting license. And you know that if one of the names was Bill Belichick, some people would make a point of mentioning all the mistakes he's made, etc. despite his clear dominance over the Buffalo Bills. 3 out of 4 of the people he talked to scout underclassmen before they declare. That's interesting. Or not. But Tim's article also covered a lot more ground than that one nugget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 No. I think it's fair to be critical of the Browns player evaluation and management. More than fair. It's worse there than here. It is also fair to wonder who the 8 were and adjust your position based on that fact. That is critical thought. What is not critical thought is to take some list and use it as a hunting license. And you know that if one of the names was Bill Belichick, some people would make a point of mentioning all the mistakes he's made, etc. despite his clear dominance over the Buffalo Bills. 3 out of 4 of the people he talked to scout underclassmen before they declare. That's interesting. Or not. But Tim's article also covered a lot more ground than that one nugget. I definitely agree. I just thought it would have made Grahams point more convincing if he could have given some indication of where these guys came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 These dudes, whose jobs are completely replaceable, love getting guys fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 These dudes, whose jobs are completely replaceable, love getting guys fired. Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jms62 Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 Low IQ fans that think doing exactly the same thing will bring you different results... I guess there is something to be said for being oblivious to the inevetible results gives them some false hope in their struggling existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 Low IQ fans that think doing exactly the same thing will bring you different results... I guess there is something to be said for being oblivious to the inevetible results gives them some false hope in their struggling existence. Thanks Jerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 Low IQ fans that think doing exactly the same thing will bring you different results... I guess there is something to be said for being oblivious to the inevetible results gives them some false hope in their struggling existence. I don't think that anyone unable to spell "inevitable," or to use punctuation, should be lecturing anyone else on their intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 I don't think that anyone unable to spell "inevitable," or to use punctuation, should be lecturing anyone else on their intelligence. When one has such a high IQ compared to us lesser mortals, his spelling and grammar is on an entirely different plane that we are just unable to comprehend . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 (edited) Total anonymity... "said another NFC personnel executive." Yea ok. Why didn't he clarify whether these guys came from winning or losing NFL teams? Semantics. That's basically close to total anonymity, btw. I do agree that the News has a vendetta against the organization at this point. It's pretty much all negativity all the time about a .500 team. Edited December 19, 2016 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 When one has such a high IQ compared to us lesser mortals, his spelling and grammar is on an entirely different plane that we are just unable to comprehend . . . . Where's that "like" button? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jms62 Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Typo police out in full force today... When you can't debate content focus on spelling , punctuation and grammar. Keep promoting doing the same thing that has failed for the entire century and then attack those pointing out the status quo isn't working. Those are the low IQ fans I am addressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 Semantics. That's basically close to total anonymity, btw. I do agree that the News has a vendetta against the organization at this point. It's pretty much all negativity all the time about a .500 team. Honestly I don't mind the article, but Graham is basically saying 6 > 2 without giving any knowledge of where these guys come from. Even just saying, "6 personnel guys from winning teams..". If you are trying to write a persuasive piece and you can't include those details because it contrary to what your point is, don't put them in. The point can't be, well 6 guys said it's the wrong way and that's greater number than 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts