The point I was trying to make was that when the English didn't have their near perfect setup in a battle, it was decidedly harder for the longbows to make an impact. If they had been superbly great, mowing down charging Frenchmen (be it knights of mailclad men-at-arms), would the same results not have applied to the battle where the longbows DIDN'T get to do their little setup? Ok, not the same results, but similar results (more losses and harder fighting but generally the same events).

That wasn't what happened. So the point Kobal was making was that the longbowmen could have been superbly trained shortbow archers, and the difference in battles would be slight. It came down to how these archers were used, rather than the weapon they carried.
These longbowmen were so good that shortbows would still ahve left the French flabbergasted in battle.

The longbow was undoubtedly better than the shortbow. *duh*
But the difference might have been quite a bit smaller than often asumed. So when these great guys did their little show of sending French knights facedown in the mud, it was their achievement, not the bows'. They could have done only slightly less with shortbows, but I firmly believe that the French would still have lost Agincourt had the longbowmen been shortbowmen, but the longbow added that little extra that made the battle so astoundingly odd...