I've seen your hot takes and gut reads here for some time, this is why i am recommending more objective criteria. Just a suggestion....
Get ready for your petard...
Your memory has failed you on Cory Watson. He was a rock solid receiver with a 10 year career who consistently put up 400 yards and did a ton of dirty work in terms of blocking. He was also a second round pick. Durant should aspire to have had a career like Watson.
You said go by stats, so I did what you recommended I do. I took a NAT I thought of as closest to Durant from memory (Watson), and looked up the stats to compare. They are basically the same stats. when you look at YDS and TD columns (what most people look at)! It is actually the perfect comparison.
What you're doing is what you accuse me of, being subjective using your guts and memory. "Rock solid receiver" and "ton of dirty work" is the definition of using your gut and your memory since it is not a column in the stats sheet. LOL.
Excluding their rookie year and their petering-out years, both receivers were basically the same guy: every year is 300-400 yds and 1-3 TDs, and both have one aberration "star" year where they got 800 yds. For the years-in-active-use they are the same receiver, stats-wise. Watson just lasted longer.
Everything else, such as style of play or type of player or all other subjective measures are literally "gut feelings and memory". But that's my whole point, and you proved it perfectly: the stats don't tell the whole story and our personal impressions of these players is often the correct take because we both watch hundreds of hours of CFL year after year and internalize things that aren't on stats sheets. My take on Durant is pretty correct, yours on Watson is also pretty correct. The only difference is I didn't bash you for your take.
The comparison to Addison is apt because we actually passed on Durant to draft Richards, and the proof is in the pudding as to who the better ball player was. You said you were glad we never touched Durant, but that certainly can't be based on any kind of objective analysis, because we took an inferior player at the same position.
You and I both know the draft is at least one half part luck. And I didn't say or mean I wanted to DP Richards over Durant, I was referring to being glad that we never made a FA splash to get Durant. I actually had no idea about where Durant or Richards stood in the draft, no idea we passed on Durant, and had actually completely forgotten about Richards.
The entire argument is from Aards saying Durant didn't live up to his hype. I still 100% agree with Aards. Durant over-promised and under-delivered. My Demski comparison is the counter-example of UPOD, and it's still a great counter-example. Demski was kind of Petermann-esque in SSK and that's why they just let him walk. Fans were happy to see him go. TSN never hyped Demski even close to how they did Durant. Suits et al were always stroking Durant; I can't remember how many times I got so sick of hearing it during CGY vs whoever games. Aards remembers.
But to slag him off as not having had the tools, is just a lot of wind....
I never said that. I said I was glad we never signed big-$$ Durant (in FA). I stand by that. He was never a good fit for WPG, and I'm pretty sure he was never on our radar. That would mean The Mafia agreed, too.
