Originally posted by vaden:
lol, you clearly have no understanding of what appeal to authority means. I did not appeal to any authority, nor did I "assume the role of expert." I simply stated my opinion based on the stats and what I've seen of both running backs. By your logic, we are all appealing to authority any time we state an opinion, which is just laughable.
3.7 yards per carry for a feature back is not good, plain and simple. The fact that Stephen Jackson has matched it shows he's had a disappointing season too. As has Cedric Benson. Those are the only three RBs in the league with 200+ carries to be averaging less than 4 yards a carry.
Meanwhile, no RB in the league averaging 5+ carries a game is within half a yard of Charles. But go on thinking Jones is better. I couldn't care less.
Sure, I have an idea what it means. If you want to get into a logic debate, we can do that. I'm not sure if this is really the place for it, though. It's an informal fallacy for one and for two it wasn't even a fallacy. He never said that Weis was infallible. He just implied that it's silly to think you know more than he does. Experts do exist and those experts can be cited in the premise of a valid inductive conclusion. Inductive logic is all a formal fallacy anyway, though. Hehe....
I was messing with you because your calling out his statement as an appeal to authority and a fallacy was
a fallacy. I'm sorry my humor was too obtuse for you. You attacked his expert without giving supporting evidence, then you implied that you were an expert by saying your conclusion was "obvious". Do you understand now? Your first post would then have been expert testimony that supported your conclusion. Obtuse, I know... I tend to do that. I wasn't being serious... like I said, inductive logic is all a fallacy anyway. Then again, I'm a Skeptic, so I guess I'd have to say deductive logic is a fallacy, too. Heh. Obtuse.
You see, your argument that 3.7 yards per carry is not good is just not logical. You can't make things that simple... there are multiple factors involved in both the cases of Stephen Jackson and Thomas Jones. Stephen Jackson is playing with the team on his shoulders because the rookie quarterback can't throw the ball over 20 yards. We all know what that does and I've run the numbers... Bradford is worse than any QB we've had in recent memory when it comes to stretching the defense... except maybe Dorsey.
Thomas Jones I already explained... Charles is a change of pace back that is too small and too valuable to risk as an every down back. Especially considering their entire offense is based on those two running backs. They lead the league in rushing, but they also lead it in rushing attempts by a wide margin. They are 29th in the league in pass attempts. Thomas Jones is a legitimate threat running the football, so teams have to respect his inside running, which means stacking the box, especially considering their run blocking. This sets up play action and other trickery for the Chiefs. Charles can then easily bounce his runs outside if the defense is pinched.
Not that Charles isn't good on his own merit, the guy is awesome, no argument there. Just give credit to the guy who does the dirty work. Thomas Jones and Stephen Jackson are a very large reason that the Chiefs and Rams are both probably
going to the playoffs. Working in a tough environment, but getting the job done anyway is "good" in my book. Justin Smith doesn't put up amazing statistics, but we all know he's worthy of being in the Pro Bowl. He fights through the dirty work like a beast and gets his job done. Granted, I think Justin Smith does a better job than Jones or Jackson, but I'm a fanboy, so I'm biased.
I never said Jones was better. Charles is a playmaker and one of the best backs in the league. Jones is a workhorse hitting the A gap and getting a pile of 300 Lbs. men on his back every carry. Apples and oranges... Charles is better, though. I can like apples more than oranges, right? That analogy still works?
So, obviously I came off like a prick somewhere in my reply to you. I'm really sorry about that, I tend to get a bit over zealous at times... and too blunt. Ok, I'll admit it... I have a huge ego and I poo all over people. So, really... sorry for that. You make good points, and I like debating good points when I disagree. I'd hate to lose that opportunity in the future because I was an asshat. Peace?
Oh... and sorry for writing such a long damn post. I like to hear myself type.
Sorry to everybody who had to scroll past it... not that you actually read this apology because you just scrolled past the post.