to the contrary, his one post that "owned me" in your words, has been proven to be as erroneous as my initial statement of 10%, I recognized my error and corrected it. Now if you don't give to shits about jcotchrocket, why do you claim that a completely erroneous posts owned me?
going back to your support on this one, his quote of 24 second round picks and 12 of them starting on opening day is false, first of all over the previous 5 years draft there were 26, not 24 OL taken in the second round to Illustrate. 2009, Eben Britton, Max Unger, Andy Levitre, Phil Loadholt, Sebastian Vollmer, William Beatty were taken in the second round. Of those six Britton, Unger, Levitre, loadholt started on opening day, that's 4 of 6... 2008, Chilo Rachal and Mike Pollak were drafted in the second round neither started opening day....that's now 4 of 8 2007, Arron Sears, Justin Blalock, Tony Ugoh, Ryan Kalil, Samson Satele were drafted in round 2. That year all 5 did start opening day, 9 of 13 2006, Winston Justice, Deuce Lutui, Daryn Colledge, Marcus McNeill, Ryan Cook, Andrew Whitworth, Chris Chester, Jeremy Trueblood were all selected in the 2nd round, of those 8 picks only McNeill was the opening day starter, that's now 10 out of 21. 2005, David Baas, Michael Roos, Marcus Johnson, Khalif Barnes, and Adam Terry were drafted in the second round of those 5 only Roos and Johnson started on opening day. That's now 12 out of 26. Or again, less than the 50% claimed (12 out of 24) by JCrotchrocket in the post you claimed gave me aides and "owned me". That stats he used were obtained by omitting draftee's either through error or intent. Fact remains, the information was incorrect, as was my initial 10% starters, the difference, I researched and corrected my error...he continued with his error and proceeded to inflate it. Rebuke it with facts if you can, good luck and good night. (edit) all draft and games started are drawn from NFL.com Draft history page and from NFL.Com Game Log Stats from the players appropriate rookie year as these are official NFL statistics and records.
Wrong. If anyone here used misdirection, it was you. You say that JCotch changed the focus? Here was his original response to your unclear assertion: It looks to me like he gave you BOTH the opening day stats AND the overall season stats. What did you do to contradict those statistics? I haven't seen you provide a single shred of evidence that his statistics are incorrect. Instead, you: 1) Changed the argument to suggest that you need to achieve an arbitrary number of starts in order to be considered either an opening day starter or a rookie starter. 2) Admitted that you didn't actually know how many people lost their jobs due to injury and failed to account for that. 3) Attacked his statistics with the following: So, he argues using the data from the past 5 years, and suddenly your decision to go an additional 5, apply conditions, and then admit to ONLY accounting for injury when it helped your cause suddenly disproves his stats? What the hell? As far as the "well over 50%" line? That wasn't what he said at all. If you want to hold him to opening day starts, he clearly stated that was 50% for 2nd round OL. How is his 50% number, achieved using a separate set of data, "just as erroneous" than your 10%? Are 5 and 35 suddenly equivalent? And I agree with your initial statement that if the Jets were shopping AF prior to the draft, it signals a certain level of comfort with Slauson as the starter. That doesn't change how horribly flawed your line of reasoning was. No, it wasn't erroneous. You never even addressed his argument using data from the past 5 years. You shifted the grounds and then decided his data must be wrong. I'm sure you could apply your conditions and change the argument to bring it down 2 or 3 percent, but you're still going to come off looking foolish.
Oh my God! He was off by 3.9%!?! The difference is not that you researched and corrected your error. The difference is approximately 32% of error. I'd say that made you much more erroneous. And yet, rather than simply admit to being wrong, you fought it with made up conditions. Congratulations, this post finally provides some concrete reason why JCotch was wrong...and it still makes you look petty and foolish.
A moronic response that ignores everything said and only addresses what you want addressed in the statement. Well, originally I had used 15 years he countered with 5 years, a fairly small sample and a sample easily shifted in results by one rich draft class, as was the case with the I think it was the 2007 draft where 6 of 8 were opening day starters and that season out of the 5 year sample was by far the widest percentage that started on opening day, on a small sample size one year can severly distore the end results. Anyone with a background in statistical analysis knows and understands the importantance of sample size. I had used 15 years, he dropped it to 5 years, I comprimised at 10 years. As for additonal conditions? This whole thread the ONLY thing I've talked about until the Jcrotchrocket sidetrip has been who would be the OPENING day starter. Not who would be starting by week 8, 10, 16 or post season, but the OPENING day starter....Until Jcrotch expanded that argument to be a more generalized starts at some point in the season, his expansion not mine, his additional condition, not mine. The point all through this thread has been the focal point of who is starting at the START of the season on opening day, no change in conditions, no changes in what ever. Additionally no arbitrary number of games to determine who started the season. NFL.com seasonal stats reflects whether a player was the starter or just appeared in the game, I know of no other official stat that reflects this information. Whether a player started on opening day was not a matter of how many starts they had in a season, but whether they started on opening day or not. Now if you want to throw in # of games started I know atleast 4 of those 12 opening day starters lost their starting position for portions, if not all, of the season after a couiple of games, atleast one never got his starting postion back on a semi regular basis. As for the 5.7% off, why doctor it at all then? You cling to inaccurate reporting as gospel? again, I've long ago admitted my 10% mistake. The topic of conversation was ALWAYS opening day starter, just repeating that cause clearly your focused on jcrotchy's side step to include players who started anywhere in the season. While my 10% comment was erroneous, the stats you claim as victory and as "ownage" are flawed in both the total computations being off and the selective use of a small sample pool.
ROFL at what point did I not conceed my error on 10%? I've conceded that error many times over now and while you continue to focus on the erroneous 10% comment you do not take into account at all the updated and corrected stats. Pardon my fukin ass for having made one error, But atleast I"m smart enough to correct my errors with proper research and numbers. Have a nice fukin day hoser.
I've made my case for why I think Slauson will win out, concerning the actual situation the Jets are in at the guard position, and you have countered by telling me what position Ducasse and Slauson were draft. Amazing, amazing argument. You don't know shit, chief.
Well, we'll just have to see what happens. My prediction is that by the third pre-season game Ducasse has the job in hand.
I'd like to see Slauson start and give Ducasse time to learn the system. Unless of course Duc just blows the TC away in camp.
Seeing that they've had Ducasse with the first team from snap one of the OTAs, looks like this is a settled issue, doesn't it?
I would hold off on that assumption. They will both probably get first team reps through the summer before a decision is made.
I'm sorry if he wasn't - every media report I've read says that he's been playing with the ones the entire OTA.
He started taking snaps with the first team - without pads, mind you - on May 24th. They had 3 OTA practices prior to that. I'm not ruling out the possibility that Ducasse wins out of TC, but it's way too early to say that he is de facto stater without them even installing the offense in any respect. Edit: I also haven't seen any reports that they are working Ducasse exclusively with the first team.
Burn! There's a 5/24 article from the Newark Star Ledger (I can't link to it for some reason) stating that Ducasse took every single first team rep at the 5/20 practice. It's linked on rotoworld as well. I haven't seen anything stating that Slauson has taken a single first team rep but the info out there is a little scarce.
Okay, so that leaves the OTAs on May 17 and 18. I wasn't aware that he took the snaps on the 20th. After the first 2 practices the official site had pictures of one of the practices and Slauson was lined up next to Mangold in every pic they had of the O-line. Edit: I wouldn't expect Slauson to get much press unless Rex starts talking him up, since Ducasse is the sexier of the 2 for subject matter. High draft picks always are. And for that sole reason, if Slauson does end up winning the job for 2010, expect most of the beat writers to start with the Bust talk early, even if it means nothing.
