Quote:
Originally Posted by Audi
My point was your example of "Ferguson vs Leinart" was invalid because it was not a decision of QB vs LT, as you yourself admitted that the Jets had Ferguson rated higher. So it's time for you to retract one of your posts.
|
A logically invalid argument means that if the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion is not necessarily true.
------------------
Now, the question I posed that started this was "So the Jets shouldn't have taken Ferguson?".
Before that, you pose a questionnaire that strongly hints at taking a QB at whatever cost if he is a highly rated prospect since you kept on asking which franchises were really set back by taking a bust QB in the first round, obviously trying to hint that it's not really a big deal drafting a bust QB, even though the opportunity costs(the highest alternative of a mutually exclusive choice forgone) were players that have had more success than the QBs(i.e Peppers, Calvin Johnson, Ronnie Brown). The premise was something like "the "attempt" was "worth it" to address the most important position on offense".
If this is the case, assuming the Jets do not have the benefit of hindsight, and the Jets execute this "script", then they would have draft Leinart.
Now, it's "pick BPA and don't reach for a QB if you don't have him rated the BPA". Well, in this case, the Jets are obviously picking Ferguson due to their draft boards.
So, which is it? Should the Jets have taken a flier on Leinart in accordance to the script hinted at by your initial questionnaire and not suffer from any really significant consequences for attempting to address QB or did they dodge a huge bullet by deciding to address OL after a 4-12 season the year prior?