MyrtleBeachRedskin wrote:Second, if anyone in here thinks that if you miss a full years work that your boss does not look at you and expect you to work that much harder when you come back. You are insane. Once again, I do not think we should get rid of him. OVERRATED is definitely what I think he deserves right now.
Let's pretend you are the best person at your job and you were injured at work. By accident.
Does it mean you weren't a top performer before the injury? No.
Does it mean you won't be a top performer after you come back? No - who knows?
Overrate \O`ver*rate"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Overrated; p. pr.
& vb. n. Overrating.]
To rate or value too highly.
I don't really understand. We are not rating LaVar's performance during his injury. Because he DIDN'T PERFORM. How can you rate anything? And to say that he was overrated BEFORE his injury is ridiculous.
If you re-worded it, someone could make the argument for people having
higher expectations of his performance - which could not even be determined until
after his comeback season.
I read a post earlier in this thread that suggested LaVar is overrated. The post also said that, while he is not the best at his position, his past performances rank him
among the best. How can anyone argue that he is a solid performer and puts up numbers among the best - and is still overrated?
The bottom line is that he is rated/valued for his performance - which was top-notch every year except last year, when he didn't play. What does being overrated have to do with an injury - especially since NO ONE has seen him perform since?
And what does the shooting at his house (which he had no part of, btw) have to do with his skills as a football player?
Anyone who says he is overrated because they
think he won't perform after his injury is not making sense. Let's have this debate next February. One side will be then be able to tell the other side "I told you so," but at least a debate then will make sense - AFTER we see him play.