Quote from: MightyGiants on May 04, 2024, 09:15:46 AMThis comment sort of reflects the issue with discussing Jones. Uncle Mickey had "showed flashes of brilliance" as a part of an argument. The Jones critics focused on that part of the argument and first claimed Jones never showed brilliance. Then, when you show historic accomplishments that any reasonable person would say was a flash of brilliance, the goalposts were moved, and it was claimed failed QBs had shown flashes of brilliance (not sure what that even means in context to UM's original point). Finally, we have an entire point Uncle Mickey made thrown out, and it's declared the point that Jones has shown flashes of brilliance is now the entire argument, and clearly, that argument is a "bad one."
How can there be quality conversation in conditions like that?
The better question: How can you have a quality conversation when the opposing viewpoint reframes aggregate responses to benefit thier position? Pray Tell, show me where the "Jones Critics" dismissed his 'brilliance.' Indeed, DJ's had some wonderful games/movements. Nobody dismises that point; some, put them into context, like @Jess who noted most occurred during his rookie campaign. However, that's not the majority point. The point was, and still is, a lot of professional QBs have moments of brilliance, especially QBs with 60 starts. However, you chose to completely ignore that point, presumably because you don't have a good response; thus, you simply reframed the oppositions' position to give yourself the moral and intellectual high-ground.