No I just know you can't comprehend anything or have a conversation. even if others including myself don't get along with anyone here, at least we can understand each other. with you it's like someone speaking Chinese trying to converse with someone speaking German and literally everyone here has told you that so instead of trying to pick a fight how about trying to figure out why nobody can even communicate with you?
Idk, he seems to have a solid point that you are bowing out on. You like some subjective statistics and criticize others. You preach "context" but I am not sure you know what that means because when presented with contextual analysis you reject it
the difference with him is I explained things ad nauseam and he changes the subject or doesn't get it and then just question bombards you. I told him months ago I give up and not having a conversation with him because it goes nowhere and makes 0 sense. I haven't done that with anyone else. and yes context matters, I don't really like any "stats" to give a perfect example, I seen a stat on reddit that zach wilson is top 10 in the NFL all time as a 4th down passer. So someone could take that stat and use it as "proof" that he's one of the most clutch QBs to ever play the game. Obviously it's ridiculous but that stats say it's so. You never once seen me say that or use that stat here. but thats what others do. I tell everyone the same. don't quote numbers. watch the game and give your own opinion on what you see, it seems many can't do that. for example KY posts his wilson breakdowns. I might not always agree with them, but I respect his opinion and work because he watched the game and gave a breakdown of what he seen. I've never once discredited or argued with him. people like you go "Q is ass because he only has 2 sacks and anyone in the NFL with more then 2 sacks is betetr then him so he's ranked 70th and isn't starting material" those kind of posts are laughable and ignorant and those are the ones I poke fun at because it's so ridiculous and stupid and comes from nowhere. at the end of the day, when coaches are going over gameplans and film thats what they do. they don't go "this guy has 2k yards so you know cover him he's good" they go over film of what they do good and bad and how to exploit it. becuase of that, we got a game winning pick. The coaches told him to fake a blitz and drop back and hurts will throw it right to him and he did and we won. thats what watching the games does for you. the stats only matter for fantasy football. I used JJ as a perfect example. his play forced 2 turnovers. anyone who watched the game seen it. he had a great game, but his stat line was ass. if you look at the box score you'd think he did nothing. Thats literally the only point I make over and over but people try to counter it with more stats. as far as opinions go, unless it's something ridiculous like there are 500 better NFL QBs then zach or cobb is the best WR in the NFL, I typically don't argue it. I think watt is the best edge in football but if someone thinks it's bosa or parsons I wouldn't argue that. they are all elite. If someone thinks it JFM then yeah i'd say thats ridiculous.
A couple of facts to consider: Fact: Ralebird would be the one speaking German here as I once recall him saying that he was of Teutonic lineage. Fact: Ralebird does not pick fights but instead deals in truth. tru dat
well it’s interesting…there’s a quote somewhere (attributed to Mark Twain I think?) that goes something like…”there are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics”… Personally, I think that over the long haul, stats tend to match the eye test…over a shorter period it can be misleading, both to the good or the bad. So context matters. So for example, a QB’s completion rate may suck if the receivers drop a bunch of passes in a game. On the other hand, if a QB doesn’t see an open receiver in the end zone and therefore doesn’t throw him the ball for a TD, the stats are not impacted, but it was nevertheless a bad play. It cuts both ways. However, over a longer haul, all of those things tend to revert to the mean…receivers will always drop passes, QBs will make great throws and bad throws, etc. Then there is also the issue of how fine a slice you take on them…let’s look at third down passing only, let’s look at 4th quarter yards only, let’s look at throws under 2.5 seconds only, etc. We can go crazy on this kind of stuff. So to me, while some of those finer slices can add some insight into how a player is performing, I really feel that in the end, the overall stats will tend to match the performance or the “eye test”. So with Zach specifically, as he improves, his stats will tend to follow. The past two years, he was at the very bottom of the list of starting QBs on almost every key stat…QB rating, yards per game, completion rate, TDs, etc. this year he’s improved on some of that and the stats are getting better. I hope he can continue to do so…and if he does, the stats will show it. If he can be up in the 15-20 range by the end of the season, I would say that’s a very nice improvement…not Franchise QB worthy, but for sure a nice step up from where he’s been. Here’s hoping!
the problem with football is nothing is ever "static" anytime people analyze data there always has to be a constant. for example if you wanted to test QB accuracy for example, the way to do it would be to set up a target on a fixed spot. have the QB stand at a fix spot. make him throw at the target 100 times. record how many times he hits the target. do that with say 10 QBs. what that stat will tell you is what Qbs are better at making that exact throw consistently. even with that since it is human error involved there could be a hidden variable. maybe 1 QB feels sick from the food they ate. maybe one didn't sleep well and is tired. so those 2 QBs under-performed how they would on a "better day" during an NFL game, nothing is static. no 2 throws are alike. Qbs with bad defenses will tend to have higher numbers to play "keep up" while QBs with better defenses will have lower numbers. Qbs facing good defenses will have worse stats then they would against bad defenses. for example mahomes, allen, and hurts (3 top 5 Qbs) all had their worst games against us. their combined stats are 75 of 116, 719yds, 3TDs, 8INTs, which equals a 61.67QBR. Zachs QB rating for his career is a 71.5 and everyone says he sucks. these 3 elite QBs faired worse against us then zach plays. for reference mahomes career QBR is 105.3, hurts us 91.3 and allen is 93. this is why stats are just that. numbers. with no context. base don your theory if these elite QBs only played us, they would be shit QBs. but they aren't. the schedules aren't even. there is always human error and differences. people aren't machines. stats work with machines aka "specs" they don't work with humans unless it's a specific task. even something like 40 times give a reference of speed, but still some players have better "actual game speed" then their 40 time and some have worse. the "eye test" is really the best way to judge performance which is why teams have scouting departments. If stats told even a fraction of the story, there wouldn't be millions invested in scouts.
The vast majority of this stuff balances out over time. All of these guys play the same sport in the same league.
except it really doesn't. since the schedule has constants and rotates. the best team in the past 20 years was the pats. Us, the bills, and fins all had to play them twice a year every year. NFC teams faced them once every 4 years. over a 20 year period that means we faced the pats 40 times in that span as did the fins and bills. meanwhile a team like say the giants faced them 5 times. we had 35 games more against a historically good team that won 6 SBs in under 2 decades then the giants. the idea things even out isn't actually true as some teams are constantly good and there are only a few of those. some are historically good, and some are bad. the schedule is a fixed rotation mostly. only 2 games IIRC are actually based on your previous record. you get 6 games in division, you get 4 against the other conference in a division that rotates each year, 4 against your conference that rotates each year. thats 14 of the now 17 games predicated by randomness. there is no evening out of consonantly facing certain teams who are constantly good. even in the remaining SOS https://www.eatdrinkandsleepfootball.com/schedule/strength-of-schedule.html the easiest team (falcons) face a total of teams combining for 23 wins while the bengals face teams combining for 46 wins so the bengals winning 8 games is more impressive in a sense then the falcons doing it. even with that the SOS in itself is a lie because a team may have a bad record because they lost to alot of good teams while a team make have a good record for beating bad teams. nothing is standard enough to even out. too many variables.
The Pats were an extreme anomaly. Almost nobody remains as good as they were for as long as they were. Regardless though, I was referring to your post about QB play and about how some QBs have it tougher than others because sometimes QBs don't feel well or didn't sleep well the night before.
anomaly or not, it happened and threw everything off. there is always some anomaly. even if you take 20 years which is a long time. from 2000-2020 the top 3 teams in the NFL were 670-334-4 (67%) the bottom 3 were 357-649-2 (35%) if things "evened out" over time, there wouldn't be such a large disparity. Evening out is flipping a coin 10 times and getting heads 8 out of 10, then doing it 1000 times and and it's 55% heads instead of 80%. it evens out if the probability doesn't change. a coin is a constant. it's always a 50/50 chance for either heads or tails so over time the more you do it, the closer to 50% you'll be. it doesn't work in sports . if things "evened out" we wouldn't be over a decade from our last playoff game. there wouldn't be historically shitty franchises. there would be up and down years only. as fans of a shitty franchise, you'd think this would be obvious.
True, the schedules are what they are, and we have had the historic bad luck to be in a division that was dominated by a great QB and a strong Miami team in the 1980s, then a great QB and a strong Buffalo team in the 1990s, then an all time great QB and a ridiculously strong New England team in the 2000-2020s. While other teams get to be in the NFC South that was total shit last year. We haven’t had a weak division like that ever…maybe you’d have to go back to the 1970s? So sure schedules matter. But still, again, over a large enough sample, that means less and less. I guess another way to look at it is to ask if Zach went to another team, would he be significantly better in stats? Who knows, but history shows that there have been very few QBs who’ve started as bad as he has and later became really really good. I tend to hope that he can become a league average QB but I don’t think he’ll be a true franchise QB…we’ll see.
i'll repeat my other reply above to another poster on why it doesn't even if you take 20 years which is a long time. from 2000-2020 the top 3 teams in the NFL were 670-334-4 (67%) the bottom 3 were 357-649-2 (35%) if things "evened out" over time, there wouldn't be such a large disparity. Evening out is flipping a coin 10 times and getting heads 8 out of 10, then doing it 1000 times and and it's 55% heads instead of 80%. it evens out if the probability doesn't change. a coin is a constant. it's always a 50/50 chance for either heads or tails so over time the more you do it, the closer to 50% you'll be. it doesn't work in sports . if things "evened out" we wouldn't be over a decade from our last playoff game. there wouldn't be historically shitty franchises. there would be up and down years only. as fans of a shitty franchise, you'd think this would be obvious. i'll also add to it. in the NFL each game is more important then other sports. it isn't 160+ like MLB or 80+ like NBA. it's only 17 games (and was 16 until last year, and 14 in 1977 and earlier) so 1 game is usually the difference from a playoff berth to sitting home for quite a few teams. we've seen teams "sneak in" and win or go far all the time. a decade in the NFL is about equal to 1 year of games in baseball. the NFL has the least chance to even out then any sport due to the low number of games, and due to the variables all sports have a less chance of evening out. the evening out only happens when there is a constant factor. If i was flipping a regular coin, then a coin with 2 heads, then a coin with 2 tails, then a 3 sided coin with 2 heads and a tails, and just randomly picked which one to toss each time things wouldn't ever even out because i'm skewing the odds and thats only 4 variables. there are hundreds of variables in the NFL
I mentioned yesterday that I expected to see a relaxed Zach at today's presser. I post his presser, especially for those that continue to stick with their belief that he sucks, & will always suck. Put your anti-Zachitude aside for 7+ minutes, & just watch & listen to him objectively, keeping in-mind how he spoke & looked a year ago. He's a different person. He sounds like an NFL QB, beginning to understand what a QB's job entails. At 5:20, he talks about something clicking in the Chiefs game... where it was the first time he was doing in a game, what he was doing in practice, otas, etc. The questions he's being asked now, are more about process. He's kinda having a football discussion, with beat reporters. He's learning. How much he's raising his ceiling, we'll see, but I expect over the next few games, if the CS removes the shackles, we'll get to see him put together a starting QB-caliber game. Of course, if he bombs against the Giants, I'll be eating a heapin' helpin' of Crow Parmigiana. That said, I've gained so much respect for Zach, for working hard to grow up. His presser -------> https://www.newyorkjets.com/video/z...ing-to-get-better-on-third-downs-the-red-zone .
Get back to us when you understand the difference between fact and opinion and between subjective and objective. Or at least are honest enough to be consistent in how you use them.
The guy on WFAN radio was blasting Wilson for going home to Utah and taking the week off idk seems unfair to me but if Wilson lays an egg after the bye it will be hard to find fault with his points
This WFAN doofus is asleep if it takes this incident to wake him up.- I would be interested to know how many backup QB's who know they're starting after the bye actually fly away and visit family---lots of film to watch, lots of opportunity to work patterns with a WR--maybe Brownlee would have liked to run some routes? You get who you draft.
Robert "Positive Vibes Only" Saleh likely told everyone to take a week off and do what they want. If the team struggles after the bye it will be his fault IMO
