No need to apologise, I am not put out.
Why do you need to know who I am?
My original claim was you could be objective about everything on this board but not about BO.
To which you replied:-
"If by objective you mean ignoring how the man plays the game of football, then you can have your objectivity." Which is when I sai I prefer facts, to which you replied:-
"Needed that laugh."
To which I replied:-
"You are welcome to present facts that contradict my claim."
The fact that some people will jump down your throat the moment you try or even suggest trying to be objective about BO is ample evidence to my claim.
You are just one case in point.
And that is the crux of the matter - some people are trying to portray him as absolutely hopeless which is in fact false. 7-6 in his first starting season in a new system objectively supports my side of the argument.
I give you the opportunity once more to be objective and present facts to support yours.
The TEAM is 7-6, not Brock Osweiler. They won 9 games last year and the year before with a revolving door at QB. Not because of QB, but because they have a good TEAM. And I'd argue if they had better QB play to go along with this good TEAM they'd be winning 12 games or more, not 9, but that, of course, is just speculation, not fact.
Osweiler is not a better QB because he has more wins than losses. If that's your facts as to why Brock ain't all that bad, it's pretty weak. Tim Tebow is 8-6. Doesn't make him any good either. Drew Stanton 8-5, hell T.J. Yates is 4-3. I don't want any of those guys QBing my team. Brock has more wins than losses (right now) because his TEAMS have been good, good defenses, good run games. The TEAMS have carried him, not the other way around.
Brock's statistics are what they are. And stop with the first year in a new system BS. Excuses are not facts. There's been plenty of QBs go to new teams, learn new systems, and not look like total garbage. Fitz looked half-way competent in this system, Hoyer looked better than Os has. Dak Prescott is not only learning a new system, he is also learning the NFL game and looks a whole lot better than Brock.
And on the field, Brock has a long slow windup where that alone makes him late with the ball. Add to that him staring down receivers, and that's an easy pass defended, if not an INT, in this league.
DeAndre Hopkins has over 2,700 yards in 2 seasons with SEVEN different QBs throwing him the rock. His catch rate has gone from 58% with those 7 different QBs to 51% with Brock. He won't make it to 900 yards on the pace he's on with Brock. Don't sit there and lie to yourself and everyone else that that's on Nuk, that he's not getting separation, or the TEs are taking away from Nuk's targets, that's BS. Watch the damn games. He can't get the ball to Hopkins.
But you already know those FACTS. So I guess what I really don't get is why we even go through this exercise. I don't get the strange phenomenon of people feeling like they need to defend bad players. Why is it you see a player performing badly and can't call it like it is?
The TEAM'S W/L record doesn't make Chris Clark a better player, doesn't make Robert Nelson a better player and it damn sure doesn't make Brock Osweiler a better player. If you can't evaluate a team's performance separately from a player's performance, I don't know what to tell you.
