oldmanfan

That’s nice.

I wonder if Dawkins was dealing with long Covid issues last year.

If you sign Hopkins, all it will do is create more Diggs drama when Hopkins gets passes thrown his way.

The next sentence I said is that kind of data. When you have to cherry-pick and take words out of context you show your colors. Not surprised of course.

I do. From every news source and story I have seen McD is a devoted father and husband. That is what one forms opinions on. If we had data that he’s divorced and never sees his kids, I’d say he was not a good family man. Your have two issues. One is your dislike of McD blinds you to any arguments against your position. The second is you think you’re the smartest guy in the town in and can’t deal with it when others challenge you.

Yes I am. McD is a good family man. All available data tells us that. He has done some good things as a HC and needs to improve in others, which is what I said and is pretty much a definition of objectivity. As for your banal proof thing, no one can absolutely prove another man’s thoughts. They can infer the intent of their actions. You thinking you’ve won something on that point is childish. Not thinking a coach can win a SB is a far cry from calling him a fraud. The former is opinion and is reasonable. Some will agree and some not. The latter is something a third grader would say.

So now a good family man who has made his team into a consistent winner, and who held his team together when a player almost died in the field is a fraud? You need to check yourself.

Go look through the many posts I’ve made on this and other subjects.

Actually I am more objective than most. What I’m doing is pointing out flaws in an argument. You don’t like them because it goes against your anti-McD bias. That’s too bad. Here’s the thing. You keep saying because I can’t prove your intent. True. You can’t prove what goes on inside somebody’s head, like what you did with this “study”. But you can use experience with research and by reading someone’s thread history to gain insight into intent. So we all know what you’re trying to do, and it’s stale and tiring. McD will make it or not but he sure as hell isn’t getting fired based on the stuff you’ve posted.

This is just sophomoric. It is not a black and white, yes or no issue. Putting it that way again just shows bias. I would not put McD in a group of great coaches. Those are guys with many years to evaluate. McD is a good coach. He communicates well, has a defined philosophy of play and works in concert with the GM to field a team that has been a consistent winner. He needs to continue to improve on game day decision making, I think he should have gotten rid of Frazier earlier as a couple negatives. If we’re going to have this kind of discussion, have it honestly instead of making up fake straw men.

I don’t have to prove offering an opinion. But I base my opinion on 40 years in research and as a reviewer for multiple professional journals. You began your biased undertaking by starting with an assumption that has been obvious to all that have seen your posts: that McD is bad and needs to be replaced. So you made up an assumption (that many people are thinking McD can’t get a team to a SB) then chose that endpoint because you realized you could slant data to fit the conclusion you wanted. Then when challenged started spouting off all kinds of esoteric statistical formulae. So if I were reviewing this for a journal, I would first ask why you framed your research question as you did. I would ask why you did not for example chose winning a SB instead of getting to a SB, since winning one is the ultimate goal. And because one could point to coaches such as Reid and Belichick. So at first one asks whether the research question has any relevance. Let’s assume your does. Then you look at Materials and methods. And here you never explain why you ignore or throw out data that could impact your analysis. You’d have to look at whether critical injuries kept teams from winning a conference, whether there was a GM change that may have impacted results, and many others. You provide no reason why you did not do so. I would bet you’ll want to say it normalizes out, but without actual data on that you have no way to know that. Finally I would get an independent review from colleagues in the Statistics Department to evaluate the statistical methods. After 40 years I can tell you that the vast majority of the time (over 90%) they tell me the stats are wrongly applied. I and many other reviewers would thus reject this paper because it is fatally flawed. So while the only way I could “prove” your intent would be to do a Vulcan mind meld of the brain or something similar, my experience tells me all I need to know. You go ahead and keep playing your let’s figure out how to bash McD stuff; most here realize what you’re doing and why. McD may win, he may not. At some point in his career he will likely get fired, because the vast majority of coaches in any major league sport do. But it won’t be because of your “analysis”. It will be because he either has an inpatient owner or because the team starts tuning him out. There is no evidence for either at present.

You framed the argument by deciding what you wanted as an answer and then setting up your analysis to give you what you wanted. You deny it, but it is obvious.

Predictive models take into account independent variables

Which only means the first time it happens will be the first time it happens. It is not predictive necessarily. I would say if your QB starts tuning out your HC that might be worthy of a change, but I don’t think it means you automatically make a change.

It remains a multi factorial process regardless.

I agree one should look from a team perspective. You need to convince the guy who started this thread.

The OP relied on a single variable. What other data would you point to? And why would you choose that specific endpoint? For me it is not just getting to a SB, I’d choose winning one since that to me is the only real goal of an NFL team. And using that, it took Reid over twenty years I believe. Belichick around 15. And so on.

The issue is that winning a single football game is multi factorial. The number of variables that goes into winning a single game, let alone a SB, are immense. Simply taking one piece of historical data and trying to wedge it into a prediction isn’t really valid because it does not take into account all the variables that can impact the end point of the analysis.

Local newspapers should have laser focus on what is happening in their towns. That is an invaluable service. It is easy to get national news, but without a good local paper reporting in things like city council meetings, school board meetings and such citizens stay uninformed. That’s not a good thing.

How do they let Kolber go? That’s crazy.

I voted bad because we should have won the first one. But we got ridiculously outcoached.

Nothing to blame Diggs for. Right. Sure. OK.

So at the same time people emphasize that Josh needs to get the ball out quicker and that we need to run the ball more and that Kincaid needs to open the middle of the field, we also want Diggs to get more touches no matter what. The only way I can see to balance all that is to have 2 footballs involved in every play.

The game with the best play in Bills history. The Hit.

Focusing just on Josh: Learn to take the easy throw when it’s there. Focusing on the offense in general: Continue adding to the O line.