What is your impression of Jeff Ireland as a GM ?

I wasn't referring to anything you said. I think it was Disgustipate who said that anyone who thinks Thomas Dimitroff's record as a GM has been significantly better than Jeff Ireland's, is delusional. Perfect example of the exact kind of intolerance for reasonable difference of opinion that I try very hard to make sure I am not guilty of (with varying degrees of success, nobody's perfect).

 

I would like to see anyone who normally defends Ireland point out something bad he has done in their opinion or else admit that they think he has done no wrong.
Likewise, i would like to see anyone that normally points out all the bad things in their opinion that Ireland has done, point out something good they think he has done, or else admit they think he has done nothing right.
And I would like to also know how many people can point out both good and bad things about Ireland.

 

I think you're overvaluing a poll on a message board w/a very.. emotional fanbase a liiiitle too much.

 

You obviously think laying blame on someone if you don't know they did something is perfectly logical and not emotional. You think that so much, that anyone who says otherwise is funny to you.

The only conclusion to make from that is that you think its ridiculous to find out if someone did something or not before you judge them for those actions. I mean if you have another reason for not giving a crap about guilt or innocence, I'm all ears. But it sure seems to me in the absence of conclusive facts you're using emotion.

 

1) Your skills in using what someone says to determine what they "obviously" think...need brushing up
2) Your Point A doesn't connect to Point B

 

Yes I claim to not be defending the man in the post I referenced which is what I said. I would appreciate if you read my posts and not put words in my mouth which you are prone to do every time you reply to a message I posted.

Until such time as you are able to have a civil exchange of opposing viewpoints where we debate issues and you don't put words in my mouth and make false accusations against me, I would appreciate you no longer responding to my messages. Thank you.

 

If it takes outright hostility towards what I'm saying or even me personally to get someone to do the bare minimum research it takes for someone to have an informed opinion, that's fine. It's seemingly not going to happen any other way.

 

Yes, yes. You're a martyr. We all appreciate it.

 

Incidentally,

[video=youtube;KzlQWCdAkgo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzlQWCdAkgo[/video]

Congratulations, Disgustipate. You win the "Stand Up For Your Beliefs" award. First one to vote 'positive' on Jeff Ireland.

 

Now before we play this little game, lets set some ground rules, are we laying the blame for everything ,even things that happend while Parcells was in charge, at the feet of Ireland?

 

Upon rereading my post, I realized trolling was not the word I was looking for. I meant trolling more as "searching" not the internet form of "baiting". It was edited while you were replying. I'm trying to be civil with you, but you're too emotional about the topic. You claim to not be defending the man, but for awhile anytime I posted anything negative about the man on my FB page, you would chime in. Not that I minded, I thought it was fun. Now you respond to every criticism here with a counter argument. You're defending Jeff Ireland, and it's OK!!!! Just don't be afraid to admit it. And don't take things so personally.

 

where is the logic in that if you're not 100% negative on the guy that you must be 100% positive on him? Where is the logic that states because you defend against unfair accusations leveled against him that you're 100% behind the guy? This is the rationale I don't understand from the Ireland bashers.

 

Not if you take the whole of our argument.

You don't have enough evidence to say if Ireland made the calls or not when Parcells was here. You don't care that you don't have that info and have made a decision on him based on this info you don't really have. You think calling that an emotionally based decision is argument masturbation. What you don't understand is that you make a decision based on facts or emotion. The facts are tainted, so you went to emotion.

You didn't stop there though. You've taken it upon yourself to attack any who call such a thing an emotional decision. That leads me to believe there's a reason for that. The only reason i can think of, is that when it comes to this issue (Ireland) the facts can't matter otherwise your emotional response isn't justified. You easily admitted you were wrong about Bush because you weren't emotionally vested in the argument and your argument was based on your observations of facts. Stats, tape these are all verifiable things. That's harder to do with Ireland because of the complexity of the situation with Parcells. So, going on emotion you merely decided to blame him for all of it.

That's why I want to know if you have a better reason for not caring about guilt or innocence when it comes to Ireland and the facts.

 

Same here.

 

All that stuff about judging people's arguments and here you are implying some people haven't been honest with their vote. Talk about masturbation.

 

I don't consider calling me a troll, putting words in my mouth and mis-representing my argument are "being civil."


If you re-read the post that you're attacking me on you will see that all I said was that in the post I was referencing I was not defending Ireland. I never claimed to not be an "ireland defender" (though I do really hate that term, I prefer objective observer.) In fact, after the Vontae Davis trade I was very critical of Ireland. But there you went putting words in my mouth again. I don't know if you realize it or not but there are other subjects that can be discussed. Not every post I make on this message board is defending Ireland or even in any way related to him, even though you want to mis-represent the facts to reflect that.

And god forbid I respond to a post I disagree with on a message board with a counter argument.

 

I don't agree with either of those statements so perhaps I'm the wrong person to ask?

 

Positives for Ireland :

Is agrresive with street free agents and CFL players.

Was assertive in trading for a proven productive WR.

Listened to his coach in regards to Flynn and either let him make the call or took his opinion to heart.

Knew it was finally time to address the QB position with the asset it should require.

Seemingly is working with his head coach to move forward as a focused franchise.

 

It's not too late to repent. All I'm asking is a little thought and effort.

 

If you're not going to accept the fact that I said "trolling" was a bad word choice and I edited it while you were replying, then there's no point in continuing. I'll just take the advice from your first post and stop replying to you.

 

I think that's irrelevant to reply to my post the way i worded it.
I think it might be rellevent to let people know if they are precieved by the majority as an Ireland lover who has done no wrong or let people know if the majority percieves them as an Ireland hater that has done nothing right.
I think its obvious that almost everyone who puts full responsibility on Ireland while Parcells was here is typically viewed as an Ireland hater. And almost everyone that says Ireland was not responsible for the Parcell years is viewed as an Ireland defender.
I used words like almost and typically because there are few actual people with a real nuetral stance on Ireland(that will point out the good and bad in their opinion) that have different answers on the responsible years of Ireland.
I for one am truly nuetral and have pointed out what i think is good and what I think is bad about Ireland, and I only hold him accountable for the time after Parcells. There are other truly nuetral people that hold him accountable for all the years he was here.
But for the most part the majority of what I said in the paragraph that starts with.."i think its obvious that...." is true.

 

Who said anything about judging peoples' arguments? That's what we do around here. We judge other peoples' arguments and agree with them or disagree with them. Again, I think you're reading things that I say and extrapolating stuff that isn't there.

Yeah, I do believe that there's a possibility that the poll's public nature may have influenced some votes. It's a theory.

 

Jtrain is on Sherman imo.

 

Unless Philbin turns out to be a dud and McCoy gets a HC job in the offseason and goes on to a great career as a head coach. I guess we would still be pretty close to hopeless, but if that is how it goes it might mean it isn't really Ireland's fault.

 

I envy your malleability.

You went on and on about people saying your stance is emotionally based and how you don't do that, then basically implied 15 people were liars.

 

Do you deny the fact that you put words in my mouth and mis-represented my arguments?

 

And the mere idea that not even a little thought nor effort goes into any of the hundreds of thousands of words I've written about why I feel the way I do about Jeff Ireland is...

A) Insulting
B) Really insulting
C) More martyrdom
D) All of the above

 

1 out of 33 people would say that Ireland they have a positive opinion of Jeff Ireland. Im not sure we need this thread to continue on much longer. What are we really arguing about here?

 

Hmm. Two errors in this argument:

1. I didn't imply all or even most of the votes for neutral came about because of the poll being public instead of private
2. Nor did I say that anyone whose vote may have been swayed by the poll's being public are therefore "liars".

 

Thank you, although i don't know whether or not you claim or are percieved as an Ireland hater or basher. Either way, if you can also name anything you think is a negative about Ireland, I would consider you a rational person.

 

Whats my "Impression of Jeff Ireland as a GM (Gay Man)"?

Wait, is he gay, or are we supposed to be gay?

This is hypothetical, right?

 

That other poll I mentioned by the way, the one that was just favorable or unfavorable, is at about 84% unfavorable, 16% favorable...total of about 200 voters.

 

Here we've got a slight tilt toward the negatives over the neutrals, and entirely fitting, the one positive. Whoops, two positives.

 

How did 32 Jets fans get onto that board?

 

I wish tapatalk let me vote in polls.

 

Why? Whether he had final say or not, he was in the top 2-3 in decision making.

Would you hire someone who was directly under Matt Millen, arguing those drafts were not of their doing? If Bill Parcells was pulling strings who was feeding him the information? Was Bill Parcells on the ground pounding pavement? For some reason I don't think so. Every pick Parcells made, was based off information and scouting reports I'm sure Ireland gave him.

Now, everything in the above paragraph is conjecture, but I believe to be true. Who presented Bill with the information. Did he have his own scouting team independent of Ireland? Ireland threw Sparano under the bus but has never, ever, as far as I know, once made an insinuation that the previous picks were not of his doing. Why? Bill Parcells loves him some Bill Parcells. He'd expose Ireland with the quickness.

This team has a ton of holes after 4 years. The only person left is Ireland. Parcells and Sparano were at fault, but they're gone. Ireland is still here. He's made some good finds, but a few diamonds in the rough don't make a solid team. I give him until the end of this year, but that's about it.

 

I think there's 21 people who've voted so far are voting on emotions.

 

I didn't need the poll to be public to know who the 2nd positive vote was.

 

Can we vote on the majority impression of our fanbase as logical people?