Wait, I thought you wanted me to "think for myself" and not do any research, because you always say that objective research is just "talking points from elders" lol ..... you are too much Stokes.
its pretty impossible to make a pro Smith arguments from a statistical standpoint. any argument in favor of trying Smith again begins and ends with his raw talent as an actual thrower, the brief glimpses of competence he displays and a belief that a certain set of circumstances can optimize his potential and allow him to grow in areas of weakness. or in other words "he's got a good arm and some good weapons in an offense that supposedly favors him so why not". its not a ringing endorsement, but its the only objective pro-geno point to stand on, and theres a chance (small or not) it might even be a correct assertion. maybe these weapons, this OC, and a couple of years is what he needs to find consistency. we can speculate on that much, an actual argument can made from that position. but his statistics? all they do is scream "career backup" at best. and we all know he's just a default option on his last legs as a starter this year. how does one prop up mediocre numbers as a compelling argument for Smiths success? you cant, you only have the smallest of examples that he has what it takes to improve and then go from there. personally,I think he takes a step forward, helps us win a few games and falls off some time before thanksgiving. for the good games he's had consistency is gonna be a persistent issue with Smith… he might be the next chad Henne, we might be able to work with that till someone better comes around.
or maybe it means no comment. I find it hard to berate a guy for stating no comment, especially on questions that leave him between a rock and a hard place. for instance "everyone's got to perform including myself" could be interpreted as a jab to Colon or him blaming others. and dodging the question means he isn't strong willed enough or smart enough to supply a direct answer. damned if you do, damned if you don't, y'know.
I guess I don't see this question as so tricky. It's a reasonable statement by Colon and GS could have prepared a reasonable response. I don't think he even tried to prepare a decent response or attempted to gain the advice of a publicist, etc. Alternatively, one can say he did prepare a bunch of alternatives and concluded that "no comment" was the best response. I can live with that but don't think this was the case.
Do some research so you can get it through your head why ESPNs QBR stat is a made up, biased, non-objective, unscientific "stat". Why no one other than ESPN uses it. And you. _
or maybe, just maybe, he wanted to watch a yankee game and just let the story die. geno probably won't improve, but thinking he won't because he said "no comment" while watching a baseball game just seems like a whole new level of hate
In all fairness, he hasn't sucked as bad as Drew or Didi have this year. But that is a whole new level of suckiness.
BY Mitch Abramson NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Sunday, June 7, 2015, 4:09 PM "Earlier in the game, Smith was shown on the Yankees jumbotron, accompanied with the Paul McCartney and Wings song “Jet” — he was met with a smattering of boos." so there you have it, Yankee fans booed him so it must be true - Geno sucks
I feel like I'm impartial and merely interpreting data--he has historically demonstrated a lack of preparation and his behavior today demonstrated a lack of preparation as well. It would be hard to say he was prepared for the question today--he's got to know he's going to be asked about it at some point. What's so difficult about preparing a response? Maybe they catch him at the supermarket one day--given his situation, he should have a better response prepared than no comment.
The title of your thread is, "Geno Smith: a fair, unbiased analysis." You also defined the categories on the QBR post and classified each of his games (which is biased even though QBR may not be).
seems like "no comment" was the actual best response since therw is nothing being written about it save for a blurb by the d.n. who tried to get him talking. I think he was very prepared to go to watch a game and shut down the reporter who tried to take advantage of his attendance. good job by geno. This story will die quicker now
I hear you. My own opinion is that this "story" should not "die" since it is at the heart of the issue. That is, the Jets spent a ton of money to acquire significant talent. GS past history of mental breakdowns be they poor decision making or poor preparation make doubting him reasonable. Perhaps he wants to let his play dictate his answer and that is fine. We will all find out. It's my opinion that its fair to look for "tells" about how successful he will be--His "no comment" response indicates he did not have a prepared comment that would have shown leadership and maybe put the issue to rest. If he had taken control of the situation, I would personally be more optimistic since this would have indicated mental development. Apparently you and others think his "no comment" response is somehow superior to addressing the issue as a leader. It's probably more likely that those who prefer the "no comment" response are relieved he didn't say anything that would put him deeper in the hole. This does not inspire confidence to me.
When dealing with the media. No comment is almost always better. And you don't want the story to die, i am not sure why it ever had a pulse. Colon didn't say anything earth shattering but the press sure latched on to it. But now thanks to geno it is done and we can go back to hearing the crickets out of florahm park the way it should be
a little unorthodox, but….yeah, you know what? on second thought this would have been a MUCH better response than "No Comment". Geno should have said this to the reporter verbatim, that woulda been a fanf$ckingtactic answer.
And according to that "Objective and mathematical" calculation Smith is the second worst QB in the league.
These are simply made up measurements: Win Probability and Expected Points Dividing Credit But this is my favorite unbiased, objective, scientific metric: Clutch Index The final major step is to look at how "clutch" the situation was when creating expected points. A normal play has a clutch index of 1.0. For instance, first-and-goal from the 10-yard line in a tie game at the start of the second quarter has a clutch index of almost exactly 1.0. A more clutch situation, one late in the game when the game is close -- the same situation as above but midway through the fourth quarter, for example -- has a clutch index of about 2.0. Maximum clutch indices are about 3.0, and minimum indices are about 0.3. These clutch index values came from an analysis of how different situations affect a game's win probability on average. One way to think of it is in terms of pressure. A clutch play is defined before the play by how close the game appears to be. Down four points with three seconds to go and facing third-and-goal from the 3-yard line -- that is a high-pressure and high-clutch index situation because the play can realistically raise the odds of winning to almost 100 percent or bring them down from about 40 percent to almost zero percent. The same situation from midfield isn't as high pressure because it's very unlikely that the team will pull out the victory. Sure, a Hail Mary can pull the game out, but if it doesn't work, the team didn't fail on that play so much as it failed before then. On third-and-goal from the 3-yard line, failure means people will be talking about that final play and what went wrong. The clutch indices are multiplied by the quarterback's expected points on plays when the QB had a significant contribution, then divided by the sum of the clutch indices and multiplied by 100 to get a clutch-valued expected points added per 100 plays. _
