My point is that there's no objective method to talking down a player's production solely because he's a situational pass rusher when you've talked up production of another situational pass rusher without negating their success due to their role. Not their upside, not their future outlooks. Simply their production. Dismissing one while praising another is comically biased. Handled by whom? Please provide a specific example. I'm not outright denying the claim, but we've been down the road where my footage dives provided literally polar opposite counterexamples to the argued notions. The last example of Rashard Robinson shutting down Mike Evans in a literal sense could not have strayed further from the truth, and that was presented as a personally reviewed event, so it's increasingly difficult to take the eye-test accounts at face value.
Dumervil struggled with injuries in 2016 and was nowhere a world-beater, but he was generally productive and therefore an asset. I'm listing a specific number because he's 1st in the category. Does that place him as the best in that facet? Absolutely not. Nowhere near first from an ability standpoint. But the number does support the notion that he's been at least effective in that area. The phrase for all you know is reserved for assumptions. It isn't necessary to presume when the tape's available. In two games that I watched of Dumervil from this season, he stunted inside a combined three times. He faced the RT on most of his snaps, and on just two combined snaps did he see anyone other than an offensive lineman. One of them included a double from the TE and RB. How was his production schemed this season within your eye-test? Looking forward, if I had to wager, I wouldn't be surprised if his production saw a significant decline. He's currently too reliant on the rip after lining up at the eight or nine, and his lateral stiffness will remain an issue. But to this point, he's been effective in that facet, and a situational pass rusher is valuable on any team. Neither of the two points are entirely arguable.
The second point is also being missed here. The notion that players' values can be determined solely by the development of their market directly implies that every decision each FO makes is entirely accurate, which is a strange concept to back considering your criticisms of both moves that were made and moves that weren't. Let's think things through. You're proclaiming that our FO doesn't make the correct calls when it comes to whom we pursue. Then you judge players on whether FOs pursue said players. The concept works against itself. For example, coming off of multiple impressive seasons in coverage, including an outstanding rookie season, Casey Hayward drew a measly three-year, $15 million in the prime of his career. He goes on to play at an elite level, which anyone watching his Green Bay tape wouldn't have been overly surprised by. But apparently if his play reflected his ability, he would've been a hotter commodity, which it did, and he wasn't. It's a woefully shallow strategy for evaluating players. And lastly, I fail to understand the point of the bets. Not the Butler one in particular, but the general sentiment. From the bets of Robinson turning into a Top 3 corner, Michael Campanaro being superior as a WR to Julian Edelman and being on the same level as Brandin Cooks, to the posts with alleged insider information about Dom Campers wanting to sign Mike Neal over Mike Daniels because the former was a superior talent, the fact that some of these claims failed in their respective fashions blunts the impact of taking any future bets. There's nothing to gain in betting against them.
