It is knee-slapping hilarious that you chose a play that was named BTN #1 play of opening weekend in a game where the player in question graded out high enough to be on Pro Football Focus All-Big 10 team of the week, as a means of telling us how that player isn’t anything more than “serviceable” (I'm passive aggressive and this post is here to throw a tantrum)
Your FIRST EXAMPLE OF “proof” is characterizing a really impressive play to make it sound routine. That isn’t proof at all. IT WAS VERY ROUTINE FOR A D1 WR.
The kid beat his defender off the line from the gun with a great release and created separation. (The job of a D1 wide receiver who is starting on the field )The ball was slightly overthrown, he made a “great”
adjustment and lunge to catch the ball on his fingertips, catch his balance, and drag his defender 4 yards and break free with enough presence of mind to leap across the goal line before the next closing in defender could reach him. (TO BE FAIR ITS PROBABLY BECAUSE HE DID MAKE DECWNT PLAY THAT I THOUGHT OF THIS BUT A D1 WR IS GOING TO SCORE TOUCHDOWNS)
As for your other “proof”, that “good” is a perfectly matched synonym for serviceable, I’ve expanded the synonyms in your link as far as they’ll go. It’s not there.( I DONT KNOW WHAT TO TELL YOU OTHER THEN YOUR NOT GOOD AT INTERNETS #SEARCHWIZARD)
But by the time you’re living and dying on the semantics of the word “good” to win an argument, you’ve already lost. (THATS YOU YA CHODE)
I’ll put it like this for you since you’re so hung up on my word. I think Nick Easley is a better player than you think he is. (OK, EVEN IF HE IS AS GOOD AS YOU THINK HE ISNT A DYNAMIC D1 WR)
A “huge” fan of a player who caught 3 balls for 15 yards spending his time diminishing a player who caught 50+ for 500+ in the same season. Sounds about right.
