Moving on as well. Continuing this would be as ridiculous as that 'delayed' pass interference gift OSU got vs. Miami.
What a sweet release. Quick. What a sharp athlete. That guy coulda played any time any where with any body. That is fukn obvious. With modern medicine he would've thrived in today's NFL. He had it all. GTFOH Namath wasn't great
I hope he pans out, of course, but according to some objective metrics and analysis, it doesn't bode well for Hack. A handful of fans can look at the same video clips and come away with a handful of different opinions, clouded perhaps by the "lens" through which they are viewing it...very subjective. But a well formulated academic approach is a far more objective way of judging prospects... "Two of the public leaders in public football data analysis — Football Outsiders and ProFootballFocus — each crunched their respective numbers and came to the same conclusion: Hackenberg was a huge reach, if not a total waste, of a selection at 51st overall. Football Outsiders’ writer Andrew Healy, who also is a professor of economics at Loyola Marymount University, created a projection model called QBASE to attempt to forecast college quarterbacks’ future performance at the NFL level. Healy said the goal is to “take a quarterback’s college statistics and come up with the simplest way to predict how quarterbacks are going to do early in their NFL careers. So basically just get the stats that matter, throw out all the ones that don’t, and then come up with the projection that way.” And critically, he noted, the system adjusts those stats based on opponents’ and teammates’ skill levels. Hackenberg did not fare well. QBASE projects an 80.1% chance of him turning out to be a bust, with a mean projection total of -414 DYAR (defense-adjusted yards above replacement) in year’s 3-5 of his career. PFF views Hackenberg as even worse than QBASE. The analytics organization designated the quarterback as undraftable based on the grades and statistics it tracks in college and in the NFL. Again, accuracy was his major flaw." http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/f...enberg-sacked-nfl-analytics-article-1.2640197
1. Tell ya what. I am no statistician or a professor but I can guarantee you that every dollar you spend on a lottery ticket will be wasted. 2. Ya know what I mean? The deck is stacked against whoever has to make the pick. That's a low-hanging fruit. After all, draft IS just like lottery. 3. What that news had to include was the performance of QBASE, which I think would be pitiful to say the very least. [They didn't. More reason to laugh at it.]
On your 3rd point, go back and look at the second to last paragraph of what I posted, and you will see that they did include QBASE. (not sure what grounds you have to call it "pitiful", but whatever)
Don't you love how jerkoffs who never saw a player play feel compelled to lecture you on ....how he played....based upon other people's opinions? Jerkoffs. _
So I can see you are no statistician whatsoever as well. But then I was not clear about [what to include] in that original posting - I assumed you'd understand. That's my mistake - and I will clarify below. What I meant to say there was - simply the question of [how reliable is that QBASE bullshit?] In order to do that, they should have included the full analysis of the every QBs since the first NFL draft. It [might] sound a lot, but it's actually not that big of a deal in the age of big data [like now.] You get a few hundred data points each year [TOPS.] And I am being VERY lenient in that analysis too. [No draft has seen the QBs drafted by hundreds.] If QBASE is indeed a good indicator of QB future performance, it will show a very compelling distribution of players from awful to awesome, out of which you should have no problem locating the likes of Mark Sanchezes, Geno Smiths and of course, Hackenbergs. Since I don't even know how well it performs, I have no reason to trust its analysis. I raised the first point for a reason; it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the deck is stacked toward whoever says [Nay.]
Wait. So we can't trust people's opinions who watch him play because everyone will think differently. But Pro Football Focus (a service through which 3 people watch a play and each assign it a grade that gets averaged together) is an objective, end-all evaluation.
[They] tried to pull the fallacy of argument from authority - so I questioned it. And who told you that I trust PFF grade? [I don't; they do show decent statistical analysis notwithstanding.]
I was talking about the other guy, who literally started his argument by devaluing subjective opinions based on watching tape and then proceeded to cite an analytics service that's entirely founded on subjective opinions based on watching tape.
Let it go. The dude doesn't have an original thought in his head. Needs talking points to form an opinion. _
He's also an expert in the field of statistical analysis and an Adobe Certified Graphics Expert. You must recognize the Truth.
