sirlancemehlot Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Or maybe it doesn't purport to say a single one of those things and you're just stupid. yes, that must be it. I'm stupid. obviously I'm not bright enough to understand how a team sport with 22 players on a field, each with a different assignment, often with several players combining to complete tasks together using perfect timing, misdirection and complicated schemes, creating so many variables that discerning the success of a single player based on arbitrary criteria (multiplied by plays called, packages installed and dependent on co-player's success in completing their tasks) seems kinda rediculous. How about this: we watch football games and see for ourselves who is successful. That's my technique. Of course, I'm just stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish Jet Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 hmmmm so Bart scott was awesome. Funny I didn't see that. David Harris was mediocre at best? Odd, he looked pretty good to me. Sione Pouha was the best DT in the league? Wow. didn't know that. Kerry Rhodes was great and Smith wasn't? Wierd. I didn't see the slightest dropoff when Kerry sat. maybe...just maybe....this is all complete and utter bull$hit. just maybe. Bart Scott was awesome. Harris was good, but bad against the run. Which was true, look at a lot of the big runs we gave up, he was caught out of position on a lot of them, he got a lot of tackles from the room Scott freed up for him. Pouha was not the best DT in the league but he was playing at a pro-bowl level. He was immense after Jenkins went down. Rhodes was meh, not convinced he was as good as they say he was. He was better than Smith though, that's for damn sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aten Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 yes, that must be it. I'm stupid. obviously I'm not bright enough to understand how a team sport with 22 players on a field, each with a different assignment, often with several players combining to complete tasks together using perfect timing, misdirection and complicated schemes, creating so many variables that discerning the success of a single player based on arbitrary criteria (multiplied by plays called, packages installed and dependent on co-player's success in completing their tasks) seems kinda rediculous. How about this: we watch football games and see for ourselves who is successful. That's my technique. Of course, I'm just stupid. You're stupid for arguing with what you mistakenly believe the numbers say without bothering to read the articles conveniently posted in the thread which explain what they actually say. And for thinking Bart Scott isn't awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirlancemehlot Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 You're stupid for arguing with what you mistakenly believe the numbers say without bothering to read the articles conveniently posted in the thread which explain what they actually say. And for thinking Bart Scott isn't awesome. I read the article. It notes positive plays versus negative plays. It says Kerry Rhodes did a good job because he "kept plays in front of him". That is the epitome of arbitrary criteria. Smith was a hitter and a force against the run. Anquan Boldin knows what he brings to the table. Where is the criteria for that? You can make any player successful or unsuccessful depending on how you grade them and what criteria you judge upon and how much weight you give to each set of standards. IT IS NONSENSE. And Bart Scott is an awesome person who brings leadership, brotherhood and swagger to the defense. He doesn't carry guns, do drugs or beat his wife and his doors are always open to his teammates. Judge him on those criteria and you have a top-ten player in the league. Judge him by his play last season and you will see he was not the best linebacker on the team. Seriously open any gameday thread and you'll get a reminder of this. Would I trade hime for a better LB with less character? Hell no. He's an asset which cannot be replaced. So in that sense I will state that Bart Scott is awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirlancemehlot Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 " It really is play by play stuff. We do give extra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aten Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 yes, that must be it. I'm stupid. obviously I'm not bright enough to understand how a team sport with 22 players on a field, each with a different assignment, often with several players combining to complete tasks together using perfect timing, misdirection and complicated schemes, creating so many variables that discerning the success of a single player based on arbitrary criteria (multiplied by plays called, packages installed and dependent on co-player's success in completing their tasks) seems kinda rediculous. 2009 season and postseason Harris: 127 tackles Scott: 103 Harris: 6.5 sacks Scott: 1 Harris: 2 INTs Scott: 0 Harris: 3 FF Scott: 0 Harris: 4 PD Scott: 2 Doesn't seem so ridiculous when the numbers in question are ones that are simple enough for you to feel like you understand them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirlancemehlot Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 Doesn't seem so ridiculous when the numbers in question are ones that are simple enough for you to feel like you understand them. numbers are objective. Simple is taking another person's word for it that what you see with your own eyes is less accurate than their subjective "analysis". draw your own opinions. if they jibe with the analysis, great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJ Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 That guy is usually villianized...much like Rhodes was...there's two options...keep him or don't...we didn't. " Villainized? I didn't know Rhodes was a villain. I thought he was just a guy with narcissistic personality disorder and a vagina. Those horrible press and media people ... they picked on him for no reason and turned all the fans against a true leader ... a man among men ... giving it his all and being a living example of how there is no I in TEAM. It's little things...biases...things we forget...things we choose to remember that play into fan analysis...while this is "just numbers"...numbers pumped out by "people who never played the game, man." Why don't you regale us from your many hours on the football field as to what happens when teammates not only sense, but know, another player is shying away from hitting and making plays under the guise of other coverage? Teammates know because they know other proximity coverage aside from their own. Are these the same teammates that couldn't wait to see fantasy boy get his all expenses paid trip to the desert? Press must have brainwashed them too. Thanks to the guys that took the time to watch the film and and write the reviews, but they have only a vague idea of what Rhode's coverage was on a given play. Looks like you're going to have to wait awhile for your hero to be vindicated. After his first all-pro season for the Cards I'll rethink my posture on him but it won't change the 2+ years of half effort garbage he put out here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 Villainized? I didn't know Rhodes was a villain. You're right, heel is probably a better word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 ...because the stone-throwers don't seem to have any problem whatsoever with using Bryan Thomas' sack numbers as the end-all in that department. Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 The essence of statistics is reflective, not predictive. Baseball is essentially a numbers game, and even the PECOTA guys are off by an average of four and a half wins per team per season. This rings true for efficiency measures in football over probably any other statistic in any other sport. Too many mistake them for league-wide ranking measures rather than gages of how good player x is in system y with those specific teammates around him (i.e. David Harris' ranking in one category is affected by Bart Scott's contributions in the same). The rankings are a byproduct of that measure, not the goal. I think in sports like baseball and basketball individual performances are so much easier to get a handle on because of the nature of the games, but football is by far the trickiest and it's pretty baffling that in baseball, stats have evolved accordingly in what seems to be an almost universally accepted sense, while new football numbers get shunned by a good amount of fans who ironically know that traditional statistics seem to get more flawed by the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyzmul Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 " It really is play by play stuff. We do give extra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.