It’s truly ok if people wanted to keep Pete or move on from Pete or like Geno or don’t like Geno.
I agree and always have. As for the rest...
Man I really hope the discourse on this board doesn’t continue down this us vs them path. It’s truly ok if people wanted to keep Pete or move on from Pete or like Geno or don’t like Geno. The fact these two hot topics are so evenly split and you guys acting like those who disagree are crazy or stupid should tell you something. Both of these debates have valid points/criticisms on both sides. Anyone who can’t see that is being goofy not those that disagree. This isn’t directed at any one person but your comment made me want to bring this up again.
You are reading into my statement well past what is actually warranted here, I think. I get that this statement isn't directed at anyone in particular, but we need to be extremely honest about what the discourse on the board has devolved into. This is no longer a place where facts, logic, or well-reasoned positions win you any respect or nuance in return. This is a board, and in a larger sense a new world, where polarization reigns supreme and narratives rule the day. Any facts will be bastardized to fit whatever the narrative is trying to be confirmed these days, and that's true for probably 75-80% of football fandom at this point. Here, Twitter, Bob "Yewchoob" Scranton's comment section, all of it.
There's subjective analysis and there's objective analysis. Examples: Subjective would be "I think Geno is a quarterback who cannot lead a team deep into the postseason for any number of contributing factors." Objective would be "Geno's regression in completion percentage is most probably caused principally by a combination of supporting cast factors, coaching changes, and line regression." The issue is that the lines are blurred between the two.
The subjective statement is generally narrative driven with some data backing it. The objective statement is nearly inarguable analysis comprised of a mixture of logic, football theory, and fact. They're not properly delineated anymore by the majority of the users here, and honestly, are we doing anything to even encourage it anymore?
Football is an infinitely complex game. It'd be foolhardy to expect everyone to agree, and I certainly don't expect everyone to agree. This game leaves limitless room for interpretation. My point is simply that researched, quality football postings are far and few between anymore. They get driven down by the more accessible, more popular, and more vapid interpretations of the game that lead way to basically sloganeering and narrative-based groupthinking. It's disappointing.
If there are valid points on both sides, then our war should be against the invalid points that are made post after post after post. The valid points hardly exist anymore between the trolls, the one-topic posters pushing specific agendas for 1000s of posts, and the outright
liars who craft yarns that appear well-researched but are knowingly obfuscatory in nature. There are too many shit-stirrers to realistically have a chance at consistently harmonious discourse followed by harmonious and respectful disagreement anywhere on the internet these days.
As for me, I'll absolutely tip my cap to those who disagree with me given that they present valid points in return. This happens to me pretty frequently, because there are still pockets of good posters here who happen to disagree with me fairly often. But I'm not going to be complimentary of those who refuse to engage in an actual football discussion in favor of shouting whatever crappy talking point they got from Hawkblogger before they refuse to engage thoughtfully with rebuttal.
TL;DR: There's opinion, and then there's being wrong. There's discussion, and then there's fallacious haranguing. There's advocating for a viewpoint, and there's advocating for a viewpoint while deliberately lying about the data that supports your viewpoint. It's not goofy to call this what it is, and you know as well as I that the things I'm referencing are entirely too prevalent.