My Last Post Ever.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I see nothing wrong with evaluating a player on a week to week basis. You're only as good as your last game.

how do you know which week to bench them then? like i said, you can evaluate a player's performance each week, sub-par or er, great, but you evaluate the player himself by how he plays over a span of games.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by illdefined

how do you know which week to bench them then? like i said, you can evaluate a player's performance each week, sub-par or er, great, but you evaluate the player himself by how he plays over a span of games.

Of course you also have to evaluate the big picture, but the point of the Brunell thread last week was to simply say he did a good job last week.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Of course you also have to evaluate the big picture, but the point of the Brunell thread last week was to simply say he did a good job last week.

yeah i know. i gave him props too, because for the first time in a long, overdue time, he played like he needed to play to win with a bad defense - even if he didn't break any 'records' like he did vs. Houston (record for most dinks completed, yay). alas an NFL season is all big picture, and you can't judge much by one game. or even a half (just ask Ramsey).

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by illdefined

how do you know which week to bench them then? like i said, you can evaluate a player's performance each week, sub-par or er, great, but you evaluate the player himself by how he plays over a span of games.

Did I start last week's thread to suggest that our answer lies in Brunell? No. You're reading things into the thread that simply weren't there (i.e. Brunell shouldn't be benched).

As for your suggestion that the poll's options were either "sub-par" or "great," you are wrong. The poll started with three options - "great," "average," and "sub-par." It then expanded to include "good." In any event, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Did I start last week's thread to suggest that our answer lies in Brunell? No. You're reading things into the thread that simply weren't there (i.e. Brunell shouldn't be benched).

As for your suggestion that the poll's options were either "sub-par" or "great," you are wrong. The poll started with three options - "great," "average," and "sub-par." It then expanded to include "good." In any event, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

nah i know you added the 'good' option later, i just thought it was funny how this thread started on how binary people are about Brunell and "great" and "average" were the original two options on your poll. not making any conclusions about your thoughts on Mark, just thought it was a funny relevant quirk.