 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Favre to the Jets
Hamilton2
At this ... you will find complete agreement from me.
Knowing that, isn't it easy to see that Favre is clearly an upgrade for the Jets and the Rodgers is clearly a downgrade for the Packers? Just for this one season?
August 11, 2008 at 04:58PM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
football stats suck. they are all extremely flawed. I hate looking at them. im sure I could pull some out here and flaunt them with no particular thought put into it, but the fact is that to post stats, you need to analyze them, validate them, think subjectively about them, and even after all that, it doesnt really tell you as much as baseball stats do. I cant mess with that right now...
Its true, you cant even really particularly easily prove tha Manning and Brady are so clearly better than everyone else in the league with stats, even though they so clearly are.
Also, in re Eli ~~ I have no idea how good he is. He has been around league average for his entire career, but right around playoff time, he played significantly better than any other point in his life. Maybe it was just a fluke, maybe he has turned into a Manning. We will know soon enough.
[Edited on 8-11-2008 by happy]
At this ... you will find complete agreement from me.
Knowing that, isn't it easy to see that Favre is clearly an upgrade for the Jets and the Rodgers is clearly a downgrade for the Packers? Just for this one season?
whiskybear
You know how I know that Brodie Croyle is a Top-5 NFL QB? The powers of alchemy, of course.
August 11, 2008 at 04:59PM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
football stats suck. they are all extremely flawed. I hate looking at them. im sure I could pull some out here and flaunt them with no particular thought put into it, but the fact is that to post stats, you need to analyze them, validate them, think subjectively about them, and even after all that, it doesnt really tell you as much as baseball stats do. I cant mess with that right now...
You know how I know that Brodie Croyle is a Top-5 NFL QB? The powers of alchemy, of course.
happy
Favre clearly an upgrade, no question. Smart move for the Jets. I mean, he maybe wouldnt be worth the cap space (just because they need other stuff a lot more), but they dont have cap problems, so its no big deal. Rodgers may surprise some people. Unproven, no question, but the FO guys have always thought he looked solid, and he is no youngster anymore. More likely than not, Favre will be better this season, but Rodgers really needs to get in there sometime before his career is over.
August 11, 2008 at 05:30PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Hamilton2
Originally posted by happy
football stats suck. they are all extremely flawed. I hate looking at them. im sure I could pull some out here and flaunt them with no particular thought put into it, but the fact is that to post stats, you need to analyze them, validate them, think subjectively about them, and even after all that, it doesnt really tell you as much as baseball stats do. I cant mess with that right now...
Its true, you cant even really particularly easily prove tha Manning and Brady are so clearly better than everyone else in the league with stats, even though they so clearly are.
Also, in re Eli ~~ I have no idea how good he is. He has been around league average for his entire career, but right around playoff time, he played significantly better than any other point in his life. Maybe it was just a fluke, maybe he has turned into a Manning. We will know soon enough.
[Edited on 8-11-2008 by happy]
At this ... you will find complete agreement from me.
Knowing that, isn't it easy to see that Favre is clearly an upgrade for the Jets and the Rodgers is clearly a downgrade for the Packers? Just for this one season?
Favre clearly an upgrade, no question. Smart move for the Jets. I mean, he maybe wouldnt be worth the cap space (just because they need other stuff a lot more), but they dont have cap problems, so its no big deal. Rodgers may surprise some people. Unproven, no question, but the FO guys have always thought he looked solid, and he is no youngster anymore. More likely than not, Favre will be better this season, but Rodgers really needs to get in there sometime before his career is over.
happy
[quote][i]Originally posted by happy[/i]
football stats suck. they are all extremely flawed. I hate looking at them. im sure I could pull some out here and flaunt them with no particular thought put into it, but the fact is that to post stats, you need to analyze them, validate them, think subjectively about them, and even after all that, it doesnt really tell you as much as baseball stats do. I cant mess with that right now...[/quote]
You know how I know that Brodie Croyle is a Top-5 NFL QB? The powers of alchemy, of course. [/quote]
You know alchemy? You must teach me....
August 11, 2008 at 05:30PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
[quote][i]Originally posted by whiskybear[/i]
[quote][i]Originally posted by happy[/i]
football stats suck. they are all extremely flawed. I hate looking at them. im sure I could pull some out here and flaunt them with no particular thought put into it, but the fact is that to post stats, you need to analyze them, validate them, think subjectively about them, and even after all that, it doesnt really tell you as much as baseball stats do. I cant mess with that right now...[/quote]
You know how I know that Brodie Croyle is a Top-5 NFL QB? The powers of alchemy, of course. [/quote]
You know alchemy? You must teach me....
FuriousGiorge
August 11, 2008 at 05:34PM View BBCode
Here's a term to look up, Happy - Appeal to Authority.
Hamilton2
The issue is that you don't seem to understand the impact that a player like Favre has on a team.
QB is the single most important position in professional team sports. It influences every play of every game.
The Jets made more "needed" improvements than Favre this off season. They made no more impactful changes than Favre. He will be the difference between their 4-12 finish last year, and their winning record this year.
QB is just that important.
August 11, 2008 at 05:37PM View BBCode
Happy, I agree that Rodgers will surprise some people. I'll put it this way - I'm not one of those people. I told everyone when the Packers drafted him that they would be all set whenever Favre decided to leave.The issue is that you don't seem to understand the impact that a player like Favre has on a team.
QB is the single most important position in professional team sports. It influences every play of every game.
The Jets made more "needed" improvements than Favre this off season. They made no more impactful changes than Favre. He will be the difference between their 4-12 finish last year, and their winning record this year.
QB is just that important.
FuriousGiorge
Expectations = met.
August 11, 2008 at 05:43PM View BBCode
"I'm rubber, you're glue" seems about the appropriate level for you to land on.Expectations = met.
FuriousGiorge
August 11, 2008 at 05:45PM View BBCode
Well, if he actually worked there, presumably they'd teach him some rudimentary safety lessons. No, best to just send him a couple of passes, courtesy of Anonymous.
whiskybear
August 11, 2008 at 05:48PM View BBCode
I don't know -- Happy seems like just the type of person to doze off during the safety training, thinking it's a waste of his time, and why would he ever need to know how to interpret terms like "Restricted Area," "Caution: High Voltage" and "Warning: Deadly Rollercoasters!"
Hamilton2
Yes. Actually. I do understand logical fallacies.
Like the fact that you are relying on some mythical "improvement" rate for determining that Brees and Palmer are better QB's than Favre is.
Until I've seen that Favre has declined and that they have improved, Favre is a better QB.
Where's the fallacy?
Happy, I like you well enough. You say some entertaining and occassionally intelligent things. (Like the bit about football statistics being unreliable.) Unfortunately, you also rely (or so it seems) entirely on FO for your football opinions and I happen to think that the people running that site are nearly always wrong.
They have a disturbing tendency to alter their positions based on what actually happens and then, when things work out differently than they "predict" they blame it on "incomplete data." They try to have authoratative statistical statements and then they dismiss the very data they use if it happens to work against them.
If that isn't a logical fallacy, I'm not sure that I've seen one today.
August 11, 2008 at 05:52PM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
You dont understand logical fallacies do you?
Yes. Actually. I do understand logical fallacies.
Like the fact that you are relying on some mythical "improvement" rate for determining that Brees and Palmer are better QB's than Favre is.
Until I've seen that Favre has declined and that they have improved, Favre is a better QB.
Where's the fallacy?
Happy, I like you well enough. You say some entertaining and occassionally intelligent things. (Like the bit about football statistics being unreliable.) Unfortunately, you also rely (or so it seems) entirely on FO for your football opinions and I happen to think that the people running that site are nearly always wrong.
They have a disturbing tendency to alter their positions based on what actually happens and then, when things work out differently than they "predict" they blame it on "incomplete data." They try to have authoratative statistical statements and then they dismiss the very data they use if it happens to work against them.
If that isn't a logical fallacy, I'm not sure that I've seen one today.
FuriousGiorge
August 11, 2008 at 05:52PM View BBCode
That's probably true, although if we're going that route we should probably work the odds and suggest some place that's a combo Amusement/Animal park. Our chances can only improve if there are some deadly animals on premises.
whiskybear
August 11, 2008 at 05:55PM View BBCode
Hmm. And a swimming pool, I would imagine. "lol no diving!"
barterer2002
August 11, 2008 at 06:05PM View BBCode
Hershey Park, Dorney Park, Bush Gardens Williamsburg all have water parks as well as regular parks. All are within an easy 3 hour drive of DC
FuriousGiorge
August 11, 2008 at 06:06PM View BBCode
No animals though. I'd be more confident about Happy getting mauled by a big cat than I would about him drowning in some kiddie pisswater pool.
whiskybear
August 11, 2008 at 06:11PM View BBCode
We need to lure him someplace with the promise of video games and the cold, brutal reality of the gaping maw of a grizzly bear.
Bones2484
Can't go wrong.
August 11, 2008 at 06:40PM View BBCode
Busch Gardens? Rollercoasters, games, and deadly animals.Can't go wrong.
ME
Plays that the QB doesn't effect:
Kickoffs
Punts
Safety Punts
Field Goals (unless you count the 3rd string QB who holds)
All plays on defense
The Coin Toss (if he's not a captain)
That's 4/7ths of the game right there (special teams is about 1/7th of the game, with offense and defense being about 3/7ths each, Football Outsiders did research that shows this seems to be the case). Don't be one of those people who ascribes the entire team's performance to the QB. Remember when Rex Grossman started in a Super Bowl 2 years ago?
Here's Favre over the last 3 years:
2005: 4-12, 3881 yards (6.4 yards per attempt), 20 TDs, league-leading 29 INTs, 24 sacks
2006: 8-8, 3885 yards (6.3 yards per attempt), 18 TDs, 18 INTs, 15 sacks
2007: 12-4, 4155 yards (7.8 yards per attempt), 28 TDs, 15 INTs, 11 sacks
I have a tough time believing a 38 year old would take a big jump like that because he suddenly got better. It makes a lot more sense that his teammates got better and so his stats got better because of it. Sure, maybe he was more motivated and such, but I don't think that can explain that big of a jump. He had a better offensive line so he took fewer sacks and didn't try to throw into double coverage to avoid a sack. He had a better WR corps who got open more and made plays after the catch. He even had a very good running game for half the season (which he hadn't had since Ahman Green's monster 2003). His 2005/2006 don't do him justice, but neither do his 2007 numbers.
August 11, 2008 at 06:59PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Hamilton2
Happy, I agree that Rodgers will surprise some people. I'll put it this way - I'm not one of those people. I told everyone when the Packers drafted him that they would be all set whenever Favre decided to leave.
The issue is that you don't seem to understand the impact that a player like Favre has on a team.
QB is the single most important position in professional team sports. It influences every play of every game.
The Jets made more "needed" improvements than Favre this off season. They made no more impactful changes than Favre. He will be the difference between their 4-12 finish last year, and their winning record this year.
QB is just that important.
Plays that the QB doesn't effect:
Kickoffs
Punts
Safety Punts
Field Goals (unless you count the 3rd string QB who holds)
All plays on defense
The Coin Toss (if he's not a captain)
That's 4/7ths of the game right there (special teams is about 1/7th of the game, with offense and defense being about 3/7ths each, Football Outsiders did research that shows this seems to be the case). Don't be one of those people who ascribes the entire team's performance to the QB. Remember when Rex Grossman started in a Super Bowl 2 years ago?
Here's Favre over the last 3 years:
2005: 4-12, 3881 yards (6.4 yards per attempt), 20 TDs, league-leading 29 INTs, 24 sacks
2006: 8-8, 3885 yards (6.3 yards per attempt), 18 TDs, 18 INTs, 15 sacks
2007: 12-4, 4155 yards (7.8 yards per attempt), 28 TDs, 15 INTs, 11 sacks
I have a tough time believing a 38 year old would take a big jump like that because he suddenly got better. It makes a lot more sense that his teammates got better and so his stats got better because of it. Sure, maybe he was more motivated and such, but I don't think that can explain that big of a jump. He had a better offensive line so he took fewer sacks and didn't try to throw into double coverage to avoid a sack. He had a better WR corps who got open more and made plays after the catch. He even had a very good running game for half the season (which he hadn't had since Ahman Green's monster 2003). His 2005/2006 don't do him justice, but neither do his 2007 numbers.
dirtdevil
happy, i'm afriad this time you've gone off your rocker. brees and palmer better than favre? david garrard and jay cutler are at least as good? you just can not be serious. i mean , you could probably make a case for romo being better, but garrard? does jaxville even use the forward pass?
August 11, 2008 at 07:13PM View BBCode
ME, you are aware, that every play on defence is in some form impacted by the OTHER TEAM'S quarterback? it's not the only important position, to be sure but it is clearly the most important.happy, i'm afriad this time you've gone off your rocker. brees and palmer better than favre? david garrard and jay cutler are at least as good? you just can not be serious. i mean , you could probably make a case for romo being better, but garrard? does jaxville even use the forward pass?
whiskybear
A good offense has a tangible effect on any defense, though -- time of possession, yes? And, sure, a good running game is the best way to maintain possession and keep the defense off the field. But good play from your quarterback certainly helps.
Now, I'm not going to get into a debate with you about Favre's play at quarterback or his efficiency in maintaining possession or any other nonsense, but it's disingenuous to say that the quarterback (or the offense) has no impact on the defense.
This ignores the painfully obvious -- that the offense is what puts a team in position to attempt field goals (which also made your list of things not affected by the QB).
[Edited on 8-11-2008 by whiskybear]
August 11, 2008 at 07:16PM View BBCode
Originally posted by ME
Plays that the QB doesn't effect:
Kickoffs
Punts
Safety Punts
Field Goals (unless you count the 3rd string QB who holds)
All plays on defense
The Coin Toss (if he's not a captain)
That's 4/7ths of the game right there (special teams is about 1/7th of the game, with offense and defense being about 3/7ths each, Football Outsiders did research that shows this seems to be the case). Don't be one of those people who ascribes the entire team's performance to the QB. Remember when Rex Grossman started in a Super Bowl 2 years ago?
A good offense has a tangible effect on any defense, though -- time of possession, yes? And, sure, a good running game is the best way to maintain possession and keep the defense off the field. But good play from your quarterback certainly helps.
Now, I'm not going to get into a debate with you about Favre's play at quarterback or his efficiency in maintaining possession or any other nonsense, but it's disingenuous to say that the quarterback (or the offense) has no impact on the defense.
This ignores the painfully obvious -- that the offense is what puts a team in position to attempt field goals (which also made your list of things not affected by the QB).
[Edited on 8-11-2008 by whiskybear]
happy
not you good sir. FG. He pointed out i used the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, which must mean that he thinks I am trying to deductively prove my point of view by appealing to authority.
August 11, 2008 at 07:16PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Hamilton2
Originally posted by happy
You dont understand logical fallacies do you?
Yes. Actually. I do understand logical fallacies.
Like the fact that you are relying on some mythical "improvement" rate for determining that Brees and Palmer are better QB's than Favre is.
Until I've seen that Favre has declined and that they have improved, Favre is a better QB.
Where's the fallacy?
Happy, I like you well enough. You say some entertaining and occassionally intelligent things. (Like the bit about football statistics being unreliable.) Unfortunately, you also rely (or so it seems) entirely on FO for your football opinions and I happen to think that the people running that site are nearly always wrong.
They have a disturbing tendency to alter their positions based on what actually happens and then, when things work out differently than they "predict" they blame it on "incomplete data." They try to have authoratative statistical statements and then they dismiss the very data they use if it happens to work against them.
If that isn't a logical fallacy, I'm not sure that I've seen one today.
not you good sir. FG. He pointed out i used the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, which must mean that he thinks I am trying to deductively prove my point of view by appealing to authority.