Some people just have to feel smart on the internet!

---

FYI: “Dotard” was chosen over many others for some very specific reasons. The fact that this word grabbed your attention, a youngster in every material way, only serves to ratify my artistic communicative genius 😂 😂 😂. That aside, even if true that the argument’s author possesses a dearth of command of the language; is this how human beings, purported patriotic Americans, “Christians,” human beings or people that consider themselves moral counter-argue, mocking ideas for their lack of grammar?

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the subject counter-argument constitutes a freakish self-entitled duplicity. While mocking one for using a word tangential to its exact accepted meaning; the counter-argument asserts that English is being “flogged.” Da ways eyes sees it, a language cannot be “flogged;” but I’d be a childish dickhead to make fun of this arguer for using “flog” in such a context.

But, here’s the greater depressive tragedy: universities are teaching sociopathy today instead of a respect for Peoples and their rights. In my day, we would have marched over deportations and profiling, harassment and assassinations of minorities. Far too many youngsters today have lost the ability for civil disagreement; hold an egocentric self-entitlement; and possess a fleeting respect for the rule of law and other pillars of our society. Worst of all, they’re just a lot meaner, they relish playing the part of the bully. Far too many seek-out the majority position, regardless of its morality, so they can be on the winning/bullying side. My generation of university students fought on the side of the weaker.



Another problem with our monosyllabic childish thinking "twitter-brained" society; they think they can understand an argument by reading a headlines or titles. This is why people can be led by the nose by a nonsensical phrase: "Tax cuts to rich will trickle down." The twitter brained dope says, "Doh, oh ya that sounds about right 😂." Since "trickle-down" was first introduced by Reagan, a concept that I personally initially accepted, because it fit many economic models; it simply has been proven NOT to work and there's not a respected economist that says it does. What we learned is that a person making 2 mill per year is already spending all she can; and an extra million is squirreled away in offshore accounts or legally laundered thru foreign pass thru companies. Corporations also squirrel money away in pass thru overseas companies. EG. Caterpiller employees 16K people in US; but its Swiss unit of 125 people accounts for over 30% of the company's profit.

Here's a stat: Executive wages in 70's were about 20x the average worker's wage. Iit exploded to 100x in the 80's due ot Reagan's plan. In 2014 it was measured at 330x. But, a dunce n a subject remains a dunce on the subject if he refutes argument with monosyllabic 140 character twitter thinking.

I digress 😂, I'll give ya the Cliff's notes:
1. Rodgers played like crap, the gunslinger, the cowboy, wilfullly choosing to stat whore and play outside of the practiced offense. This destroyed our odds of winning.
2. 1265 seeks only profit not winning; if fans continue to idolize Rodgers, 1265 has no motivation to correct Rodgers' play.
3. Rodgers is not held accountable by fans, so he doesnt feel negative impact of his crap play. If fans held him accountable he'd stop that crap and get back to playing like the GOAT he was a few years ago.

Here's a fact: Back half '15 he played like crap; but fans blamed everyone and everything else [Except me of course, I just look at the tape]. So his crap play continued in early '16. During the 4 game losing streak; Rodgers regressing even further. But, one thing changed. Fans began to blame Rodgers; the press started savaging him and miracle of miracles, Rodgers played a lot better. Rodgers announced in off season he was "rededicating" himself to football and started playing this year quite well without an OL.

How the fans react to his crap play; will affect his play going forward.

Now use that education for good. Prove you are not a sociopathic majority seeking bully and break with the clique peanut gallery. Argue like an educated adult: if you disagree, attack the argument not the person!

My twitter brain is screaming at me to reply with simply, "I'd like to attack your argument, if you know what I mean." But gay jokes on the internet aren't as fun when everyone is trying to be so serious. Come on guys, lighten up.

So many words, with so little said.

---

Congratulations PFWT, you are the only member of the peanut gallery clique to address the subject at hand.

But, your effective argument [Rodgers’ bad play can’t be quantified because I said so] has to be rejected. If you believe my analysis of the play is or might be wrong, I’d offer that you articulate how.

Of course, I can’t be so certain on every play; but I am 100% certain on this one. I haven’t reviewed my notes to empirically count; but there are about 12 plays that I can breakdown with a high degree of certainty and Rodgers mentally screwed up on about half and executed the other half correctly. There’s another 15 or so plays where Rodgers passed on the first reads; but I can’t say with certainty if the play required the throw to go to the first reads in that given situation or if there was another prevailing reason why Rodgers executed good judgment in not throwing to those first reads. But, given the overall lack of effectiveness relative to what happens when Rodgers is executing the offense correctly and given we know he screwed up a half dozen times out of 12 random plays; it is safe to say goofed on 1/3 to ½ of these plays as well.

Can't find video of that play so I cannot confirm your assessment.

---