onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
And Kaepernick is a liability by any rational standard.And this was silly also by the same standard.
J
And Kaepernick is a liability by any rational standard.And this was silly also by the same standard.
It's not accurate, but it is more accurate than gutter analysis like "did this guy win a super bowl" or "playoff record", which separate out the player's performance even less.
That's a pretty disingenuous thing to cite. Yes, teams that are winning or losing big alter their strategies which influences stats. That has nothing to do with my point that "statistically good QBs lose in the playeoffs therefore they're not actually good" is a farce.
Yes, and replacement level effectively implies an interchangeable player with the talent pool sitting in unsigned FAs.
The rational standard is that he will make the team more likely to win games. By that standard he should be unemployed.If one of your rational standards is to have a better skilled backup quarterback, he is not a liability according to that standard for a good number of teams.
I reject that. Football is a team game. If the player makes the team more likely to win games, then he has value. Kaepernick is not such a player.That is not the rational standard. The rational standard is if he is a more capable quarterback than your backup QB. You can throw in some other factors such as salary demand and disruption probability, but by the rational standard of if he is in the top 64 QBs out there, he should be employed.
If by better you mean that the team is more likely to win games where he plays, perhaps. If you mean that the team is just as likely to win games where he does not play, then no, he isn't.Football is a team game and part of that team is backup QB. The measure is if Kaepernick is better than the current guy holding the clipboard.
The NFL has seen multiple seasons of Kepernick as a backup. In the fully informed opinion of every GM, Kaepernick is a worse than ALL of the backups.A rational team will assume that the backup QB may see significant playing time if the starter goes down. By that measure, Kaepernick is a better option that a good number of current backups.
You just stated they made the right decision for their teams, which is what I have been saying all along. So, what was your point supposed to be?They are factoring in more than his playing ability in making that decision, but if they were basing on playing ability alone, he would have a job.
No. You have been saying there is no rational standard to keep him. I have maintained there is - judging on playing ability alone. The GMs are sometimes considering other factors, but that does not change the fact that the is a rational standard to sign him.You just stated they made the right decision for their teams, which is what I have been saying all along. So, what was your point supposed to be?
J
Considering playing ability alone is not a rational standard. The objective standards is not ability but wins and losses. GMs must consider everything relating to that standard. Keapernick is a net liability.No. You have been saying there is no rational standard to keep him. I have maintained there is - judging on playing ability alone. The GMs are sometimes considering other factors, but that does not change the fact that the is a rational standard to sign him.
Absolutely.More of a liability than Bortles or Hoyer or Cutler?
Only in a reductive sense. A backup has other responsibilities--practicing the defense, game prep, being a part of the team. This is an area where CK failed massively.Better QB means more likely that he will guide the team to a win on the field if he has to play. Kaepernick meets this standard when compared to numerous backup QBs.