jason423 Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 No, they really don't. They can do whatever they want. It's not an exhaustive study of comparables and it doesn't claim to be. If you would prefer that they write that article instead, try asking and they very well might. I think what you expect from the site is some more basis behind the analysis. Its not ike Russell is the only guy they mention. They mention names like Neil Lomax and Jim Everett as the "high end" comparables and other like Billie Joe Tolliver as the more realistic ones. So they are obviously comparing his performance and giving you a range based on their "similarity scores" as to where he will be. Sean explained pretty well that the main criteria was age and experience in determining the comparables. He specificically stated in TJB that the age 23 was a big factor as if Sanchez is an older rookie. He is compared to Matt Stafford and Josh Freeman. He isnt compared to most other rookie QBs who, like Mark, were 22 when the year began and turned 23 during the course of the season. I dont even care that they compare Sanchez to a crummy QB. Sanchez had a bad rookie season. That is not a debate. The debate is the content of the article itself which I believe is poor. My beef is that there are comparable QBs using any metric you want(compl%, age, I/A, Att, YPA, actual starting year, etc...) that were worse than Sanchez yet went on to far better careers than the "high end comparable" of a 22 year old rookie named Neil Lomax who started 7 games in 1981. The way that they crafted the article you would assume that if Sanchez was even worse he would have somehow compared favorably to Troy Aikman because a 23 year old rookie Aikman was worse than Sanchez and Russell. It's just an article written for the sake of getting a headline and to further point out that they put a high probability on Sanchez busting in the NFL based on his collegiate performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aten Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Slapping a teaser on the article that he projects as Jamarcus Russell V2 is simply a way to attempt to get people to pony up for ESPN Insider. So that's all this is? Shocked indignation at the fact that media outlets sensationalize headlines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aten Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 I think what you expect from the site is some more basis behind the analysis. That's what you expect. I don't deal in amorphous concepts like 'more basis' and I don't have expectations of content I'm basically stealing. It's just an article written for the sake of getting a headline and to further point out that they put a high probability on Sanchez busting in the NFL based on his collegiate performance. And being that everybody perfectly well understands this to be the case, again, what is the problem? Take it for the trifle it is and get on with your lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 So that's all this is? Shocked indignation at the fact that media outlets sensationalize headlines? I think SMC's argument is that by throwing that teaser on there, most casual readers will leap to that conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 I really wish I didn't have to go to class right now. Between the 90s SNL references and the increasingly acrimonious arguing, this thread is just getting good. That's right, Bennet Brauer here with another commentary. Didn't think the suits would have me back perhaps. Thought they'd have my dairy-air replaced by one of them store mannequins. Well maybe I'm not "the norm". I'm not "camera friendly", I don't "wear clothes that fit me", I'm not a "heartbreaker", I haven't had "sex with a woman", I don't know "how that works", I don't "fall in line", I'm not "hygienic", I don't "wipe properly", I lack "style", I don't have "self-esteem", I have no "charisma", I don't "own a toothbrush", I don't "let my scabs heal", I can't "reach all the parts of my body", when I sleep I sweat profusely. But I guess the powers that be will keep signing my pay check until Jack and Jane K. Viewer start to go for the remote so they can get back to commentators who don't "frighten children", who don't "eat their own dandruff", who don't "pop their whiteheads with a compass they used in high school". Thank you, Kevin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 I think SMC's argument is that by throwing that teaser on there, most casual readers will leap to that conclusion. I don't see how that's possible considering you're what most casual readers are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 I think SMC's argument is that by throwing that teaser on there, most casual readers will leap to that conclusion. The best part is that the guys from FO probably didn't even write the headline.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 I think what you expect from the site is some more basis behind the analysis. Its not ike Russell is the only guy they mention. They mention names like Neil Lomax and Jim Everett as the "high end" comparables and other like Billie Joe Tolliver as the more realistic ones. So they are obviously comparing his performance and giving you a range based on their "similarity scores" as to where he will be. Sean explained pretty well that the main criteria was age and experience in determining the comparables. He specificically stated in TJB that the age 23 was a big factor as if Sanchez is an older rookie. He is compared to Matt Stafford and Josh Freeman. He isnt compared to most other rookie QBs who, like Mark, were 22 when the year began and turned 23 during the course of the season. I dont even care that they compare Sanchez to a crummy QB. Sanchez had a bad rookie season. That is not a debate. The debate is the content of the article itself which I believe is poor. My beef is that there are comparable QBs using any metric you want(compl%, age, I/A, Att, YPA, actual starting year, etc...) that were worse than Sanchez yet went on to far better careers than the "high end comparable" of a 22 year old rookie named Neil Lomax who started 7 games in 1981. The way that they crafted the article you would assume that if Sanchez was even worse he would have somehow compared favorably to Troy Aikman because a 23 year old rookie Aikman was worse than Sanchez and Russell. It's just an article written for the sake of getting a headline and to further point out that they put a high probability on Sanchez busting in the NFL based on his collegiate performance. The methodology just doesn't make sense, Jason. Sanchez turned 23 on November 11 and Troy Aikman turned 23 on November 26 his rookie year. But Eli Manning turned 23 on January 3, 2004, which means he was 23 for his entire rookie season. Eli's numbers were worse than Sanchez, he was older than Sanchez, but FO somehow says Sanchez is not comparable? So, as you said, if Sanchez performed worse would FO say that he's comparable to Aikman and Eli? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 The methodology just doesn't make sense, Jason. Sanchez turned 23 on November 11 and Troy Aikman turned 23 on November 26 his rookie year. But Eli Manning turned 23 on January 3, 2004, which means he was 23 for his entire rookie season. Eli's numbers were worse than Sanchez, he was older than Sanchez, but FO somehow says Sanchez is not comparable? So, as you said, if Sanchez performed worse would FO say that he's comparable to Aikman and Eli? Oh God. FO went for the sensationalized angle in an effort to garner attention, and they've certainly gotten yours. They win. Let Fatcessa talk about the article on his show. That way I can ignore it twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimZeel Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I don't know... sounds like they kind of nailed it in this article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius del Sol Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I know that no one on the FO staff thinks anything but that Sanchez has a bright future ahead of him Lewin's numbers said he sucked, Lewin liked him anyway. FO's numbers said he sucked, FO liked him anyway. What is it with this goddamned kid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 3 years later and Matt Foley and Bennett Bauer are still just as hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I liked Neil Lomax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizard King Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Well they were about three years ahead of the curve on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.