OK all you smart guys...

[Dan Darragh]

18 hours ago, Prospector said:

I like the way this thread is titled... just incase you weren't expecting confrontation, well, you're outa luck smart guy! Now let's see your uninformed smart guy response, you genius! Way to not use your head, you MENSA chapter president!

So I was away from this for a day or so, and came back to find THE BEST ENTERTAINMENT I'VE EVER HAD on this board.

 

Half of you guys proved my point, which is that a lot of the commentary here is not very smart.  Never mind those of you who don't know the difference between "your" and "you're". The MENSA level comments usually include gems like "This is really very simple!" or "This has been explained countless times on this board!" or some expletive or other (or a personal insult, which I find especially funny). 

 

Half of you guys wouldn't know a route tree from a tree root.  You're the guys I posted this for, and you were up to the task.  Thanks for the entertainment.

[Gunsgoodtime]

I think the responses on this thread showing why he is a 3 instead of a 2 pretty strong.  He is far from reliable, really don't do anything good outside of the go route, slow to get off the ball, certainly not a chain mover.  We have struggled at wr since not having a true 2 the last 2 years.  It doesn't help the guys after Gabe are just that, just low end starters

[ngbills]

A good 3 is what Davis does. He can catch zero passes in a game and it does not hurt you. You are not relying on him to be a threat every play. When your 1 is doubled and tripled he does not need to become the go to receiver. He will catch a long TD here, a big 1st down there. Many of his routes or decoys and when the D is sleeping you go to him. 

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, Dan Darragh said:

So I was away from this for a day or so, and came back to find THE BEST ENTERTAINMENT I'VE EVER HAD on this board.

 

Half of you guys proved my point, which is that a lot of the commentary here is not very smart.  Never mind those of you who don't know the difference between "your" and "you're". The MENSA level comments usually include gems like "This is really very simple!" or "This has been explained countless times on this board!" or some expletive or other (or a personal insult, which I find especially funny). 

 

Half of you guys wouldn't know a route tree from a tree root.  You're the guys I posted this for, and you were up to the task.  Thanks for the entertainment.

Hey Dan

If you already knew the answer you were looking for, why not just tell us? After all YOU’RE apparently the ‘smart’ guy. No? 

[Prospector]

2 hours ago, Dan Darragh said:

So I was away from this for a day or so, and came back to find THE BEST ENTERTAINMENT I'VE EVER HAD on this board.

 

Half of you guys proved my point, which is that a lot of the commentary here is not very smart.  Never mind those of you who don't know the difference between "your" and "you're". The MENSA level comments usually include gems like "This is really very simple!" or "This has been explained countless times on this board!" or some expletive or other (or a personal insult, which I find especially funny). 

 

Half of you guys wouldn't know a route tree from a tree root.  You're the guys I posted this for, and you were up to the task.  Thanks for the entertainment.

You don't have to quote me, and then say you guys, like I am one of those guys you're talking about. I know my route trees... ran them in college, and coached them. There are a couple WRs who struggle to master their trees that don't involve running a flag or post, though. 

[Dan Darragh]

14 hours ago, Prospector said:

You don't have to quote me, and then say you guys, like I am one of those guys you're talking about. I know my route trees... ran them in college, and coached them. There are a couple WRs who struggle to master their trees that don't involve running a flag or post, though. 

I was actually endorsing what you wrote

14 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Hey Dan

If you already knew the answer you were looking for, why not just tell us? After all YOU’RE apparently the ‘smart’ guy. No? 

My point was that there is no answer because the proposition is unknowable (except of course by the "smart guys")

[SoCal Deek]

59 minutes ago, Dan Darragh said:

I was actually endorsing what you wrote

My point was that there is no answer because the proposition is unknowable (except of course by the "smart guys")

Well your proposition is ridiculous. The Bills DEFINITELY need more production out of Davis. Without it there’s no way I’d rank him as a Number 2 anything. Do YOU think he’s doing enough? 

[CoudyBills]

On 10/16/2023 at 2:18 AM, Dan Darragh said:

I'm tired of reading about how Davis "isn't a good WR2 but he'd make a decent WR3." Can any of you provide a coherent explanation what the qualities of a good WR3 are that are different from a good WR2?

 

(I doubt it.)

 

Sure, smart guy.  A good WR2 more often than not is someone who lines up against the other teams CB1 and reliably moves the chains.  Pretty simple.  A WR3 struggles against top tier corners, generally.

[Dan Darragh]

22 hours ago, Dan Darragh said:

The MENSA level comments usually include gems like "This is really very simple!" or "This has been explained countless times on this board!" or some expletive or other (or a personal insult, which I find especially funny). 

 

4 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Well your proposition is ridiculous. 

 

I forgot "ridiculous" in the list of MENSA level comments.