Ron Swanson wrote:Yes, Love has been bad, Watson has been bad. You spending all this time chastising even the people who are just trying to provide historical and data-driven context as "you're just making excuses" and then you come up with this gem essentially shifting the blame for Watson being a drop machine to Love.
*insert that's the joke meme*
Nah, I didn't shift blame at all. There's a reason the second part of that statement was, "I'm not a Watson guy." Watson is also not good, but when a QB consistently misses throws, you can't even take advantage of the easy ones that should be your staples.
But sure, where's this "historical data driven context?" The way I see it, when you look at the "historical data driven context" as it pertains to Love, it says he blows. This "historical data driven context" keeps being thrown out week to week and shifted into another metric because the previous metric used shows, again, that he blows. It's grasping at straws in a descent to madness.