SalishHawkFan wrote:It's amazing how many people think this thread is about comparing TJack to Wilson.
That's because it is. Much of your post revolves around this line of thought:
SalishHawkFan wrote:Flynn supporters whole belief system is predicated upon the idea that you WIN NOW and that Flynn gives you the best chance. If Wilson isn't an upgrade over TJack - RIGHT NOW, screw the future - and you believe that Flynn IS an upgrade over TJack ( and over 80% of the people on here do), then it seems logical to Flynn supporters that it was a huge mistake to have started Wilson in the first place.
Which is logical if you agree with your three premises. That
1) Wilson isn't an upgrade over Jackson;
2) Flynn is an upgrade over Jackson; and
3) Winning now is more important than building for the future.
The problem is you want to assume that points (1) and (2) are truths and have a debate about (3). But many of the Wilson supporters actually agree with point (3), but disagree with (1) and/or (2).
A better question than your hypothetical “Flynn or Jackson” would be to ask people to rank the three QBs in order of how well you think they would perform this year only
a) Wilson > Flynn > Jackson
b) Wilson > Jackson > Flynn
c) Flynn > Wilson > Jackson
d) Flynn > Jackson > Wilson
e) Jackson > Wilson > Flynn
f) Jackson > Flynn > Wilson
If that were the question, you and I both know the overwhelming majority would have voted for (a). FWIW, I would have voted for (b) in that scenario.
SalishHawkFan wrote:No, the reason for my hypothetical poll was to point out something more important to .net than who is better Flynn or Wilson. What I wanted to show was the way Wilson supporters are treating Flynn supporters and point out that it is detrimental to this website for a small, fanatic group of Wilson supporters to lambast those who believe Flynn would have done betterj to the degree to which they are doing so.
If that was your main point, you could have just said “Hey guys, there's no need to be such extreme a-holes to anyone who has a different opinion from yours.” There would have been no need for the hypothetical because the hypothetical doesn't have anything to do with people trolling or lambasting others. The point of the hypothetical was to strengthen the Flynn supporters' arguments with the logic that “if Wilson isn't better than Jackson, and Flynn would be better than Jackson, then by that logic Flynn would have been better than Wilson.” But it ignores the point that most of the people who voted for Flynn over Jackson in your hypothetical would have also voted for Wilson over Jackson, and many would have voted for Wilson over Flynn.