It has nothing to do with liking your argument or not. I do not accept your opinions as valid because, as far as I know, they can not be checked in any manner. How do I verify that DC's do not fear Jordy Nelson? How do I verify that other WRs are doubled at a significantly higher rate than Jordy Nelson? Even if I could do the latter, how do I separate this into a metric that accounts for individual performance vs systemic factors (such as GB's offense being designed to spread the ball around, thus making it hard to consistently double any one player)?

If you understand the scientific method to any degree, you would realize that you must check your assumptions to make sure they are correct before presenting an argument. If you can't even check them, how do you expect anyone to see them as valid?

We played this game the other day. If you can actually substantiate your claims I'll be happy to consider your points.

Originally Posted by: earthquake 

I asked you a simple question about RC18...did you answer? No.

I presented factually verifiable data that Jordy is NOT paid like a #1 WR. Why? Because he isn't.

Why did the Packers offer Greg Jennings more long before Jordy got his extension?

Can you answer any of these simple questions? You can...but you won't and are trying to hide behind some concocted high brow reasoning while simplicity escapes you.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

You're throwing out questions with dubious relation to the topic at hand to try and distract from the fact that you've got nothing but subjective opinion based on conjecture that you're touting as truth with the fervor of a religious extremist or conspiracy theorist.

But I'll bite. Randal Cobb having significantly more production that other players on his team wouldn't necessarily make him a legit #1 WR (for the purposes of this I'll assume #1 WR means top 15 in the NFL, and elite means top 5). If he has significantly more production than anyone else on the team, and has performance that compares well to his NFL peers, yes I would consider him a legit #1.

Cobb's production in 2014 puts him at a #1-ish level, but that alone does not make him a legit #1 in my mind. He most likely benefited from having Nelson on the team taking away attention he would otherwise see. I can't tell you this for sure, because once again, I do not have access to any data that makes this clear. Now, in 2015 we can assume this will not be the case and that Cobb will be the focus of the offense, if he puts up similar or better numbers in 2015 as he did in 2014, he makes a strong case for being a legit #1.

RE: Greg Jennings, this one is basically impossible to answer without knowing the scouting information they had on both players, and being in the room when the contract was being negotiated. At the time when Jennings was offered that contract Jordy Nelson wasn't exactly a proven player, and they thought Jennings had a few years of good production in him. That would be my best guess to explain. But again, I don't have anywhere near enough information to come to a conclusion here so what I think on the matter is entirely worthless. Contracts don't always reflect production level in hindsight, and veteran players often get paid more than they probably should relative to production (see: Donald Driver the final few years of his career), so I really fail to see what this question has to do with, well, anything.

Now, please explain how you can objectively prove any of what you've claimed.

Originally Posted by: earthquake