Photo

BSL: Jackson’s improved, but where does he still need to grow?


  • Please log in to reply
169 replies to this topic

#81 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,488 posts

Posted 13 October 2019 - 11:04 PM

I found this thread funny.  People are moving the goal posts.  It seems like we have a semantics problem.  It started as so many people who said Jackson CAN'T improve or COULD NEVER improve.  I don't remember posts saying that.  I do remember people with doubts, people saying unlikely, myself included.  That is not the same as saying no way, never, 100% positive he will not improve.  Sure there were doubters, I am one of them.  Still am.  My doubt has less to do with Jackson, who I think is very hard worker and better than that a great person, and more to do with my doubt about dual threat QB's.   Haven't seen one hoist a Lombardi trophy yet, and until I do, I will stick with the proven formula of a pocket passer.  

 

I just think the punishment your QB gets running the ball shortens his career.  The best dual threat QB I have ever seen is Cunningham, and even he didn't get to a SB.  Vick had the same types of moves that Jackson has and yet his accuracy was a problem and he never really got it done come playoff time.  

 

I do think Lamar Jackson has improved quite a bit and looks a lot more comfortable running the team than he did last year.  I still think consistency and accuracy are a problem.  But he is better than I thought he would be at this point, and I am willing to admit that.  The schedule is about to turn a lot harder so we will get a better feel for how good he might be.  So far most of the wins have come against teams with losing records.  That's fine, you have to beat those teams.  The next 2 are against teams that aren't quite the same weak sisters of the NFL.  We find out a lot about the Ravens.  Not just their QB, but their entire team. 

That's called being truthful, unlike some others who post here.


  • cprenegade likes this

#82 85Knight

85Knight

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 695 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 07:27 AM

I found this thread funny. People are moving the goal posts. It seems like we have a semantics problem. It started as so many people who said Jackson CAN'T improve or COULD NEVER improve. I don't remember posts saying that. I do remember people with doubts, people saying unlikely, myself included. That is not the same as saying no way, never, 100% positive he will not improve. Sure there were doubters, I am one of them. Still am. My doubt has less to do with Jackson, who I think is very hard worker and better than that a great person, and more to do with my doubt about dual threat QB's. Haven't seen one hoist a Lombardi trophy yet, and until I do, I will stick with the proven formula of a pocket passer.

I just think the punishment your QB gets running the ball shortens his career. The best dual threat QB I have ever seen is Cunningham, and even he didn't get to a SB. Vick had the same types of moves that Jackson has and yet his accuracy was a problem and he never really got it done come playoff time.

I do think Lamar Jackson has improved quite a bit and looks a lot more comfortable running the team than he did last year. I still think consistency and accuracy are a problem. But he is better than I thought he would be at this point, and I am willing to admit that. The schedule is about to turn a lot harder so we will get a better feel for how good he might be. So far most of the wins have come against teams with losing records. That's fine, you have to beat those teams. The next 2 are against teams that aren't quite the same weak sisters of the NFL. We find out a lot about the Ravens. Not just their QB, but their entire team.


The Superbowl is a high bar but Kaepernick, who's the most comparable qb to LJ IMO, got there and could have easily won that game and mainly because of what he was doing against our defense. Still a little too early to think about that anyway but I'm very satisfied with what I've seen in Lamar's growth.

#83 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 08:15 AM

Of course you won’t hunt it down...because it makes your argument look terrible.

When you use the word “can’t” it means 100%.

No one ever said that. Doubts were raised. I was one of the biggest guys against Lamar and even said that you make the deal 100 times out of 100 because of his upside. So no, no one said 100% he can’t improve. That’s a lie.

Let's be real here. This is a semantic argument that you're making for the sake of a technical victory.

Perhaps nobody said that he "can't" improve, but lots of people (including you as I recall) expressed serious doubt that he would ever be a good NFL quarterback, and especially a good passer. You know, as well as I do, that that's what Ken point is. Saying that his argument is "terrible" because he used the word "can't" instead of "seriously doubt" (or whatever semantic choice was made) is a middle school debate club type tactic. The opinion that on what he was and what he likely always would be was made clear.

#84 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 08:20 AM

Somehow saying that he'll never improve his completion percentage based on his college numbers, we need to draft a qb in the first round and to top it off he's not intelligent are all different from saying "he can never 100% improve." I have to believe that they can't possibly believe what they are saying because this is a complete joke.

Yup.

Say everything negative you can say about him, from his physical skills to his mental acumen, but leave the tiniest sliver of wiggle room just in case you're wrong, then get SUPER indignant when you ARE wrong and someone calls you on it because of a word choice argument.

Oh, and call the opposing viewpoint "terrible" because it's 1% off from what you actually said.

Do we have politicians on this board?

#85 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 122,249 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 08:21 AM

Let's be real here. This is a semantic argument that you're making for the sake of a technical victory.

Perhaps nobody said that he "can't" improve, but lots of people (including you as I recall) expressed serious doubt that he would ever be a good NFL quarterback, and especially a good passer. You know, as well as I do, but that's what Ken point is. Saying that his argument is "terrible" because he used the word "can't" instead of "seriously doubt" (or whatever semantic choice was made) is a middle school debate club type tactic. The opinion that on what he was and what he likely always would be was made clear.


No, words matter. 

There is a difference between not likely and can't. 

 

Rob also said Jackson was a darkhorse MVP candidate...  so, while he was (and remains) doubtful about Jackson being successful long-term, he directly stated numerous times it (Jackson progressing) was not only possible... but to the extreme. 



#86 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 08:25 AM


No, words matter.

There is a difference between not likely and can't.

Rob also said Jackson was a darkhorse MVP candidate... so, while he was (and remains) doubtful about Jackson being successful long-term, he directly stated numerous times it (Jackson progressing) was not only possible... but to the extreme.

Words do matter, but the intent of words matter also. Calling someone on the carpet because they use the word "can't" instead of "not likely" is and intellectually dishonest move. Examples of this are frequent when discussing something conversationally. This is not a newspaper or a published document. We don't need an annotated bibliography of who said what when. Ken cited the opinion of another poster, got it mostly right, and that poster tried to completely illegitimi has his argument because of a word choice error.

Had he responded with something along the lines of "I never said it was impossible for him to improve, but you're right, I did have serious doubts about his ability to be an NFL quarterback and I was wrong," that would be fine. Instead, as he often does, he tried to completely illegitimize the opinion of another poster that clashed with his own over a technical semantics choice. It's the classic technique of someone who knows they've been caught being wrong, but just want to argue for the sake of it if you can distract or disrupt the point enough, and make it about something else, you never have to directly address your error.

#87 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 122,249 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 08:30 AM

Words do matter, but the intent of words matter also. Calling someone on the carpet because they use the word "can't" instead of "not likely" is and intellectually dishonest move. Examples of this are frequent when discussing something conversationally. This is not a newspaper or a published document. We don't need an annotated bibliography of who said what when. Can sighted the opinion of another poster, got it mostly right, and that poster tried to completely illegitimi has his argument because of a word choice error.


There would have been no argument had the discussion been...  "There was a lot of pessimism about Jackson's ability to progress." 

That is a valid statement. It was true, it remains true for many. 

Not a valid statement is saying it was said Jackson can't improve.

That changes the discussion. 

Debates / discussions work best by sticking to what what was actually argued. 
If you insert words... it diminishes the discussion. 



#88 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 08:36 AM


There would have been no argument had the discussion been... "There was a lot of pessimism about Jackson's ability to progress."

That is a valid statement. It was true, it remains true for many.

Not a valid statement is saying it was said Jackson can't improve.

That changes the discussion.

Debates / discussions work best by sticking to what what was actually argued.
If you insert words... it diminishes the discussion.


What also diminishes the discussion is hyperbole and rhetoric meant to discredit the person making an argument that you don't like. When Rob calls Ken's argument "terrible" and acts as though he's shocked and indignant that he said what he said due to a word choice that wasn't technically accurate, it obfuscates the point entirely (which was the intention, I'd bet).

Again, we don't need an annotated bibliography here. It's a sports forum. We speak and post conversationally. If you're going to insist that we do an hour of research and post with a list of references to ensure EXACT accuracy for anyone's point to be taken as having merit, then conversation will slow down considerably. Is that what you expect?

#89 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 122,249 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 08:39 AM

What also diminishes the discussion is hyperbole and rhetoric meant to discredit the person making an argument that you don't like. When Rob calls Ken's argument "terrible" and acts as though he's shocked and indignant that he said what he said due to a word choice that wasn't technically accurate, it obfuscates the point entirely (which was the intention, I'd bet).

Again, we don't need an annotated bibliography here. It's a sports forum. We speak and post conversationally. If you're going to insist that we do an hour of research and post with a list of references to ensure EXACT accuracy for anyone's point to be taken as having merit, then conversation will slow down considerably. Is that what you expect?

 

Yeah, I don't disagree with your first paragraph. 

Do disagree with your second paragraph.  The records are here.   If you are going to claim x was said by y, show it. 
It's not hard to do a search, and yes that's what I expect. 



#90 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 08:43 AM

Yeah, I don't disagree with your first paragraph.

Do disagree with your second paragraph. The records are here. If you are going to claim x was said by y, show it.
It's not hard to do a search, and yes that's what I expect.


So the intent of the words, the meaning behind the words, and the opinion they represent are not valid. What is valid is an exact quotation.

For example, had Rob said "I don't think that Jackson can be a good NFL QB," and a year later someone says "you had serious doubts over whether he could be a good NFL qb," Rob can come back with "THAT ISN'T WHAT I SAID. PROVE I SAID THAT. YOUR ARGUMENT IS TERRIBLE."

Do I have that right?

#91 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 122,249 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 08:47 AM

So the intent of the words, the meaning behind the words, and the opinion they represent are not valid. What is valid is an exact quotation.

For example, had Rob said "I don't think that Jackson can be a good NFL QB," and a year later someone says "you had serious doubts over whether he could be a good NFL qb," Rob can come back with "THAT ISN'T WHAT I SAID. PROVE I SAID THAT. YOUR ARGUMENT IS TERRIBLE."

Do I have that right?


What you can do is point to 1000 quotes right now where Rob has expressed doubt about Jackson's ability to be a long-term successful starter.... while also pointing to the quotes he's made where he's been impressed by the development, had expressed prior to the year Jackson could be a potential dark-horse MVP, highlighted comments about Jackson's work ethic etc... 



 



#92 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 08:50 AM


What you can do is point to 1000 quotes right now where Rob has expressed doubt about Jackson's ability to be a long-term successful starter.... while also pointing to the quotes he's made where he's been impressed by the development, had expressed prior to the year Jackson could be a potential dark-horse MVP, highlighted comments about Jackson's work ethic etc...




But that isn't the question. I'm not debating one point versus another right now. I'm attempting to gain clarity regarding how our posts will be regarded.

In the example above, do, or don't I need to use an EXACT quotation to represent the viewpoint of another poster? Am I allowed to interpret their words based on common sense interpretations, or do I need to make sure that every position I represent someone as having is based exclusively on their exact quotation, and nothing more?

#93 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 08:54 AM

Also, should I conduct a full search history of that person's posts on the topic in question?

My plan from now on is to search for the poster's name, and keywords such as "quarterback, Lamar, Jackson, improvement, passing, ability, intelligence, rushing, pocket passer," etc. and present a list of citations with links to each post made on the subject that is relevant to the conversation from that poster's history to ensure total and comprehensive accuracy.

Is that correct?

#94 jamesdean

jamesdean

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,130 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 08:58 AM

This is getting almost comical.  They're opinions.  Who cares who said what and how they said it?  Is it life threatening or are your lives going to be negatively impacted?  Unless you're employed by the Ravens, who cares about what someone posts on a forum?  And I'm sure Lamar would be losing sleep over this ridiculous back and forth. 



#95 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 122,249 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 09:00 AM

But that isn't the question. I'm not debating one point versus another right now. I'm attempting to gain clarity regarding how our posts will be regarded.

In the example above, do, or don't I need to use an EXACT quotation to represent the viewpoint of another poster? Am I allowed to interpret their words based on common sense interpretations, or do I need to make sure that every position I represent someone as having is based exclusively on their exact quotation, and nothing more?


Well, are you representing what was said in 1 post or 1000s? 


Past that, if a year from now you are going to say I said in a post that Succession isn't great, you should be able to show where I said that. 

If I come back and say what I actually said was I really enjoy the show, but don't think it's as good as Billions...  there is a discernible difference there, no?
 

 

I'd of course point you to what I actually said. 

And if you thought, "Nope, you didn't like Succession and said so," then I'd say show me where I said that. 



#96 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 09:00 AM

This is getting almost comical. They're opinions. Who cares who said what and how they said it? Is it life threatening or are your lives going to be negatively impacted? Unless you're employed by the Ravens, who cares about what someone posts on a forum? And I'm sure Lamar would be losing sleep over this ridiculous back and forth.


I'm sorry, but do you have a source regarding what Lamar Jackson would or would not lose sleep over? I'll thank you not to present your unfounded viewpoints based on your perception of what is important or not important to a player without evidence.

Thank you for understanding.

#97 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 122,249 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 09:03 AM

This is getting almost comical.  They're opinions.  Who cares who said what and how they said it?  Is it life threatening or are your lives going to be negatively impacted?  Unless you're employed by the Ravens, who cares about what someone posts on a forum?  And I'm sure Lamar would be losing sleep over this ridiculous back and forth. 


Some of us aren't posting under pseudonyms. 

It's not too much to say if you are going to say I said X, to show that I said it. 

What's comical for me, is that I've been defending Jackson since before he was drafted by the Ravens. 

 

And I've argued against many of the points that have been made against him, and continue to be made against him. 

But I don't need to create false statements to better my argument. 

 

Just stick to what was actually said,and continues to be said. That's enough.



#98 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 09:04 AM


Well, are you representing what was said in 1 post or 1000s?


Past that, if a year from now you are going to say I said in a post that Succession isn't great, you should be able to show where I said that.

If I come back and say what I actually said was I really enjoy the show, but don't think it's as good as Billions... there is a discernible difference there, no?


I'd of course point you to what I actually said.

And if you thought, "Nope, you didn't like Succession and said so," then I'd say show me where I said that.

Certainly, but there is a much bigger difference between "I like this show but like another show better" and "you don't think that show is great," than there is between "I have serious doubts (or whatever he said) and "he can't." The grey area between the two is much slimmer. Where is the line drawn?

#99 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 09:07 AM


Some of us aren't posting under pseudonyms.

It's not too much to say if you are going to say I said X, to show that I said it.

What's comical for me, is that I've been defending Jackson since before he was drafted by the Ravens.

And I've argued against many of the points that have been made against him, and continue to be made against him.

But I don't need to create false statements to better my argument.

Just stick to what was actually said,and continues to be said. That's enough.

Honestly, the fact that some of you are not posting under pseudonyms and are willing to say what you say is much more embarrassing than getting a word wrong.

I respect the forum you've created here and the community in general, but there is absolutely a journalist or two who post here who are so aggressively combative over anything and anyone that doesn't jive exactly with their own opinion that it gets difficult to take them seriously.

#100 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 122,249 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 09:10 AM

Certainly, but there is a much bigger difference between "I like this show but like another show better" and "you don't think that show is great," than there is between "I have serious doubts (or whatever he said" and "he can't." The grey area between the two is much slimmer. Where is the line drawn?


Then you have to look at posts in totality. What was actually said.

 

You said, "So the intent of the words, the meaning behind the words, and the opinion they represent are not valid. "

 

Clearly they are, and can't be dismissed. 

If I post 1000s of times about my doubt about Jackson, yeah.... it's fair to say I'm skeptical. 
If in those 1000s of skeptical posts, I'm also saying I think things could work out (even if I'm giving low odds)... that part of what was said shouldn't just be dismissed. 

 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users