Eels release Kieran Foran

[Dibs]

straight over your head lol

More excuses

 

[El Diablo]

idiot

 

[Bazal]

Well this is truly a battle of the mental giants....

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Circular Pou logic, by the end he is always arguing a different point but as long as he is still able to argue thats all that matters.

More clutching at straws Alan?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

We also lost our halfback Sandow around then, and were stuck with guys like your two favs in Sef and Kelly playing in the halves........

So you reckon judging a player by how much teams win without him maybe isn't the most scientific way to analyse his impact? Of course now you'll accuse me of changing my tune, but the fact is I'm not the one who said this is why Scott is better than Watmough. I claimed Watmough was better than Scott simply by his individual stats. Maybe you should have a go at the bloke who brought up our win record without Scott being worse than our record without Watmough.

 

[Dibs]

Well this is truly a battle of the mental giants....

"El Diablo is a conspicuously obese misdemeanant and a petty flea-infested conglomerate of intellectual constipation."

It's not hard to insult someone intelligently but what's the point if they don't understand

 

[Poupou Escobar]

The Oxford Dictionary tends to disagree.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/comparable

No it doesn't:

Able to be likened to another; similar:
'the situation in Holland is comparable to that in England'

Of equivalent quality; worthy of comparison:
'nobody is comparable with this athlete'

Watmough and Scott were both recent Origin forwards. Their defence was absolutely comparable. Scott was a better wrestler with a lower miss rate, Watmough was quicker off the line. Where they weren't comparable was in their attack. Without Watmough our attack lost plenty last year (since at full strength the gameplan gave him a lot of carries) while we lose nothing (in attack) when Scott doesn't play. However to argue that less involvement from Scott is better for the team (which I would agree with) then means that Scott contributes more by doing less, is akin to arguing that Vai Toutai (also a better attacker than Scott) is a great contributor because he only plays when someone better is injured.

 

[strider]

Ben Hannant.

He's got about 100 kids, i dont think theres anything bi about that polar

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Ummm...do you have any stats to back that up seeing as though you like objective measures? The only thing I can find is our points for dropping from over 19 points a game with Scott to 11 points without him. As you say, this coincides with some other key absences but if you're going to make ridiculous sweeping statements, expect to get called out on it.

To say that Scott's attacking contribution is easily replaced isn't any 'ridiculous sweeping statement', so good luck calling anyone out on it.

I understand Beau Scott is the hard merkin flavour of the month (I like him too, a lot more than I ever liked Watmough) so you guys are getting defensive about him. But he is a token contributor in attack, just like all the other forwards who regularly make only half a dozen runs in a match. That's your objective stat right there.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Now who's clutching at straws? We lost more games without Watmough because he missed more games (6 games compared to Scotts 2 so far).

We could also say we won more games without Watmough in the team (2 from 7) for a winning percentage of 29% than without Scott. Based on your ridiculous logic we could argue that this year we are incapable of winning without Scott as we have a 100% loss rate when he doesn't play.

However, this reasoning is ridiculous on both fronts and really does indicate you have well and truly lost this argument.

It was a throwaway comment in reply to an equally ridiculous statement, that our recent losses are proof that Scott is more valuable than was Watmough. If we still had the rolleyes emoticon I might have used it.

It's certainly not proof that I've lost this argument, rather, it is evidence that I will give idiotic straw-clutching arguments the respect they deserve. I'm still waiting for you clowns to start seizing on typos.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

"I ended up driving back to my apartment, where I was staying in the city.

If he's worried about his mental health he needs to stay the f**k out of the city: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/feb/25/city-stress-mental-health-rural-kind

 

[Happy MEel]

To say that Scott's attacking contribution is easily replaced isn't any 'ridiculous sweeping statement', so good luck calling anyone out on it.

I understand Beau Scott is the hard merkin flavour of the month (I like him too, a lot more than I ever liked Watmough) so you guys are getting defensive about him. But he is a token contributor in attack, just like all the other forwards who regularly make only half a dozen runs in a match. That's your objective stat right there.

So that's a no to the evidence question then?

 

[Happy MEel]

It was a throwaway comment in reply to an equally ridiculous statement, that our recent losses are proof that Scott is more valuable than was Watmough. If we still had the rolleyes emoticon I might have used it.

It's certainly not proof that I've lost this argument, rather, it is evidence that I will give idiotic straw-clutching arguments the respect they deserve. I'm still waiting for you clowns to start seizing on typos.

So what proof do you use to state that our losses towards the end of last season are proof that Watmough is more valuable than Scott. You can't use an argument to try and prove a point and not let the other side use the same argument to prove theirs.

 

[Happy MEel]

No it doesn't:



Watmough and Scott were both recent Origin forwards. Their defence was absolutely comparable. Scott was a better wrestler with a lower miss rate, Watmough was quicker off the line.

Hang on, didn't you say this:

Beau Scott has his strengths (including being a better defender

So is watmough's defence of equivalent quality, and if so, why would you say Scott is a better defender?

 

[Noise]

If he's worried about his mental health he needs to stay the f**k out of the city: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/feb/25/city-stress-mental-health-rural-kind

Huh? You make it look like I said that??/ I think you are taking the piss but if you aren't mental health / suicide rates are actually higher in rural areas

Edit: On second read, you def taking the piss. Carry on.

 

[El Diablo]

It's not hard to insult someone intelligently but what's the point if they don't understand

that's why people don't bother with you

 

[Poupou Escobar]

So that's a no to the evidence question then?

Only if you think the stats are flawed.

#SeeICanThrowOutGlibOneLinersToo

 

[Poupou Escobar]

So what proof do you use to state that our losses towards the end of last season are proof that Watmough is more valuable than Scott. You can't use an argument to try and prove a point and not let the other side use the same argument to prove theirs.

I didn't use it to prove a point, I used it to invalidate an opposing argument. My own argument is based on Watmough's individual stats. I think our win record without him (or Scott this year or Junior Paulo last year) is mostly irrelevant.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Hang on, didn't you say this:

Beau Scott has his strengths (including being a better defender

So is watmough's defence of equivalent quality, and if so, why would you say Scott is a better defender?

Yeah I think Scott is a better defender, but Watmough wasn't far off. However I think Scott's attack is considerably less effective than Watmough's was last year.

If I had to dumb it down (and you're convincing me I should) then I would rate the two like this:
Scott: Defence 8 Attack 4
Watmough Defence 7 Attack 7

Scott probably has more hit points as well. Mannah has the most mana.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Huh? You make it look like I said that??/ I think you are taking the piss but if you aren't mental health / suicide rates are actually higher in rural areas

Suicide rates are higher in the country because there is a lack of support services but mental illness rates are definitely higher in cities.

And I never said you said that. I just quoted Foran in your post. What are you, paranoid?

Edit: On second read, you def taking the piss. Carry on.

I'm usually taking the piss. The article says it matters less where you live than where you grew up.