emunney wrote:Yes. If I thought his OL was bad, I could have felt validated by this performance. Just like how you think RB isn't important and feel validated.
Right, but I'm not trying to say anyone is bad. I'm not trying to prove players are terrible, I'm just trying to prove their importance on the field. I feel like those are so different that it's very hard to compare the two.
I think a far more relevant comparison would be if Chris Johnson got hit in the backfield 50% of the time he got the ball in a game and yet still broke off 100+ yards, you could say that he could be a dominant force without a good offensive line.
Numbers, the eye test and common sense allows us to know that the Titans offensive line and Chris Johnson are both very good. Those are honestly facts, not so much opinions... Where as the importance of a position is far more of an opinion than a fact.
There are no facts in either case, only assumptions and conclusions.
Obviously.
In my hypothetical, my opinion that the OLine is bad and Johnson has been succeeding in spite of them is validated. In your real life, your opinion that RB is unimportant is validated. Neither one has much to do with facts -- they have to do with biases and selectively confirming them.
But those are so far apart that it's difficult to view them in the same light.
That would be like me saying "Chris Johnson is terrible, the only reason he is good is because of his offensive line.". Okay, that is a theory... But it's just ignorant because it's blatantly obvious that Chris Johnson is a great player, just like it is blatantly obvious that their offensive line is very good.
Are the "Chris Johnson is awful, his offensive line makes him" and "Chris Johnson is the greatest ever, he wins despite the worst line in the history of offensive lines" arguments even remotely close to me saying "I think Chris Johnson is great, but I think a lot of his greatness would be taken away if he was playing behind a far inferior offensive line. It's my opinion that I would rather have a great offensive line to open up holes and a subpar running back to run through them than a bad offensive line who cannot open up a hole at all and a great RB who I don't think can go anywhere when the defense is swarming them."?
The first two clearly ignore common sense and ignore a RB who is obviously great and an O-Line which is obviously very good... Where as the last one is just an opinion about the importance of position, while evaluating all of the players on the level that they are actually on.
