What is your impression of Jeff Ireland as a GM ?

rofl.

 

Well first of all the whole passion thing has no place in looking at something objectively.

Second, just because you're objective doesn't automatically make a situation neutral. Just so happens that's how I currently view Ireland.

 

When there hasn't been convincing evidence presented either way, the neutral perspective is also the most objective one.

 

Yet the supposition that none of the evidence presented has been "convincing" is itself a completely subjective judgment. Go figure.

 

I'm surprised and not surprised at this poll, but also kinda surprised.

 

You get that logic out of here and pick a side.

 

Evidence is a very broad term on this board.

 

There has been evidence presented, but it does not systematically compare Ireland to his peers. The closest anyone has come to that was Fineas in his thread where he at least used an objective measure and compared GMs on the basis of it. There were some problems perhaps with the validity of the measure, but until someone does something similar with a better measure, the correct perspective is neutral IMO.

 

Haven't you heard, it said General Manager on his door. What more evidence do you need?????????????????

 

So then there has been lots of evidence tossed around. You just subjectively have decided that it is incomplete. Sort of like how I subjectively decided that the study you refer to was significantly flawed.

Here's a hint: IT'S ALL SUBJECTIVE

This reach for objectivity, neutrality, emotionlessness, etc...is just, as I said, argumental masturbation.

 

Well fiirst of all, someone from ESPN has to tell me it said GM on his door. If they say it, then it must be true.

 

Well then I'm surprised you're so convinced your perspective is correct!

 

I'm surprised that you're surprised.

 

No actually its not.

Wanting to know who was responsible for what decision before we pass judgement on that person is far from argumentative masturbation. And quite frankly calling it that to defend your own stance is what is masturbatory.

There's plenty of untainted data after Parcells left.

Nah, eff it. Bishop Desmond Tutu was responsible for all the bad drafting. It doesn't matter if he did or not, its his fault and its argumentative masturbation to decide if that's true or not. I mean really, why even bother?

 

LOL. 22 votes in and ZERO votes for positive.

 

Well, since there was no "I want to tar and feather the man" option, I chose negative.

 

It is unreasonable to look at the record of his maneuvers without comparing it to all other GMs to see whether he has done a good job as compared to his peers. Again, every GM has some bad picks, failed FAs, seasons in which the team doesn't perform well, etc. Unless one has compared a GM's record to others doing the same job, one can't fairly or reasonably conclude he has done a good job or a bad job.

In light of your record and contemporaneous commentary about Ireland's moves and draft picks, I find it extremely interesting that you are so critical of him.

 

I thought Ireland wanted McCoy and Ross overruled him on Philbin.

 

If that is the case then we are hopeless and this debate is useless.

 

I asked you a question that you conveiently ignored.

 

Because unlike so many I have no problem with subjective yet informed personal opinions. All those opinions have various degrees of grounding in evidence and logic, but they're all subjective. Here's an example of a statement you haven't heard me make: "All people who are positive or neutral on Jeff Ireland are delusional". Yet, just today I think I recall someone posting that exact statement or something to its effect, in defense of Jeff Ireland. And further, when people reach for this totally masturbatory argument that THEY are being objective and the people they're arguing with are being emotional, that's a roundabout way of saying exactly what I do not say, that anyone who disagrees with me is doing so irrationally.

Not everyone who disagrees with me is doing so reasonably. But not everyone who disagrees with me is doing so unreasonably, either. I leave plenty of room for reasonable disagreement on these topics. Unfortunately, not many others do.

 

You know you done f'ed up, right? You know that right? You just killed your entire argument based on a set of criteria you just established thus making you and your input on this issue completely invalid by your own admission.

 

People who judge Ireland for moves they don't know he made or not, are in fact being emotional.

 

I voted negative because our team is a joke and he can't draft.

 

I was assumed that your question was completely rhetorical, based on the point I had just got done making. I guess that was a bad assumption. I had just got done making the point that reasonable people can disagree on Jeff Ireland, so when you ask me if you believe anyone can reasonably look at his record and decide he's done a good job, I just assume you already know that the answer is "yes".

 

LMAO!

This whole conversation is so hilariously zen. By all means keep going.

 

The flaw in your logic is that all input is "invalid" unless it's objective. That is an error.

 

How is wanting to know who did what...a ridiculous stance to take?

Do you even understand the bull**** you are implying by taking this approach?

 

I rarely know how you conclude what you conclude, based on what people write. And I'm being honest about that.

 

I know I called Sethdaddy delusional for believeing that a GM and Coach would tank a season to get the #1 pick knowing they could lose their job. I don't see how that's defending Ireland but apparently by this boards standards if you're not actively bashing him you're defending him even if what you're talking about has absolutely nothing to do with him.

 

"Mr. Ireland, take a look at these poll results!"

 

It would be interesting to see if this poll were re-submitted to where who voted for what could not be seen publicly, if the results would be different. I'm thinking part of the reason Jeff Ireland has ZERO positive votes is because not even the people that continually defend him want to go on record being outright positive on the guy.

I'm curious to see who the person will be that's got the guts to stand up and say yeah, I think he's done a good job and I think we're lucky to have him. They have the right to their opinion of course. I disagree but there's nothing wrong with that.

 

Forget about hatever post you're talking about, but do you really claim to not be defending the man? I mean, for the better part of the past 2 seasons you've been scouring both this board and my facebook page at any negative mention of Jeff Ireland. It's 100% ok that you defend him, but let's not beat around the bush here, that's exactly what you're doing.