So much wrong with this. Sometimes we are incorporating prior arguments and sometimes we are not. If everything said in this forum by default incorporated previous arguments, how cumulative and confusing would that be? There wouldn't even be different sides to a story, just one long statement incorporating other statements.
I think we all can differentiate between when that is and isn't the case. Is that statement the ONLY thing Clarion thinks about these players? Of course not. But he did say it with the intention of that single argument holding a significant amount of weight, and with specific players listed with authority to conclude that Foreman will have a hard transition as a result of what the "offensive system" has or has not produced in this handful of unsuccessful players. I found this to be very un-persuasive in this specific case.
I didn't even know who a lot of these guys were. Looking them up I quit after
2007 UDFA
2006 UDFA
2005 UDFA
So because some JAG UDFAs who played under some vague concept of a system busted, a guy who averaged 184 yards per game and led the FBS is destined for failure? How does that logic line up?
Could he bust? Could he have a tough transition? Sure. Would it be because of this reasoning? No way. All you have done is drag this out, and forced me to show my logic and those agreeing with me that it wasnt a fair critique of Foreman and that the way the argument was made it didn't silently incorporate some bigger statement that us dunces then left out. C'mon man