oldmanfan

Like dealing with a child. Instead of discussion takes his ball and runs home. To answer your question about presenting data, for the third time now data has been presented which you ignore. My role here is like when I review papers for professional journals; I reject your arguments because they are based on a poor interpretation of data and a confirmation bias.

Before deciding on the worth of Star it would be nice to know what the coaches think. I seem to recall McD being happy with Star's play. He may be doing a non-flashy job that doesn't generate a lot of numbers.

Appreciate the dialog.

Well, it gets back to variables, which you seem determined to ignore. Let's take his sack numbers. What variables could affect that? Well it could be his physical play declined. It could be the coaches asked him to do different things like occupy blockers vs. rush. It could be that players around him were weaker and thus he got doubled more on pass plays. It could be he did not play on as many passing downs as the couple years before. And so on. Given your background you should know this. You should also know the meaning of confirmation bias. I review a lot of manuscripts for publication, and most get rejected for experimental design flaws, a major one being confirmation bias. My reading of your posts suggest you have confirmation bias; you have a negative view of team coaching and management and thus look for data to support that. Which is why I got on you about your holistic and objective comment; I'm not convinced you are either. I have no problem with offering opinions; it's what this place is for. I do object to people misusing data and statistics. A claim was made that snap counts went down; they didn't. I and others pointed that out. It does not mean all his others points are invalid. But when you claim to be objective and then aren't it clouds one's interpretation of other comments. And it's not an ad hominem attack. I think that phrase is much overused.

I'm surprised you have that experience given some of the things you've said. Surely you understand the significance of variables when comparing data sets, right? But you don't acknowlege that in your posts. Football is inherently a multivariate equation. That is why I generally don't get tied up in the weeds when people quote stats; I find the analyses overly simplistic. I try to point this out when people erroneously use stats here. I unfortunately do not have the time to do exhaustive data analysis of the type to do justice to some of the debates. Now, you claim I don't provide data. I don't for the reasons above, plus when someone like Thurman privdes them to refute your point I see no reason to reinvent the wheel. You claimed Star's snaps went down; his data shows they did not. You made a claim, you were wrong. Let's continue to dialog. Given our expertise and backgrounds we could provide an educational effort to the group.

Let's hope he's right

I think the Bills were interested in that Brown had a reputation of being a hard worker that would have fit their model. Given this stuff now they must be glad they dodged that bullet

The stats thrown around so much aren't treated in in a proper statistical way. People don't consider variables as I explained to you in another thread. Oh, and Thurman gave you data. I saw no reason to cite the exact same data since it was already presented and adequately rebutted your holistic and objective claptrap. by the way, I thought I was being ignored?

I know this might be a little complex for you, but when you have data sets and you want to compare you have to examine variables than can affect the comparison. So first show me your data sets. Then tell me about the variables that can affect them. One to be fair would be age of the back. Another would be quality if the offensive line. Another would be quality of the rushing defenses his teams played against. And so on. Gore had a good year last year, his performance this year will depend on him plus our O line, play calls, and such. Serious question for you: what is your background is statistics? I have graduate training in it and use stats in my job every day. If you have statistical training then you should know the influence of variables on stats. If not, you are falling into the trap many do that don't understand stats; they blindly look at numbers without understanding what affects them.

Gore averaged over 4 yards a carry last year. That pesky data again.

You claim statistical expertise that you don't possess.

This is dumb. The data you've showed here is indecipherable vs. what Thurman has shown. You claimed his snap counts went down. They didn't. Then when you get caught on that you switch to things like numbers like sacks. You do 'tiniest what Frazier and McD asked him to do in the context of their D. He presumably ate up double teams to free up other guys. So when people show you're wrong you put them on ignore? Wow. Pretty holistic and objective. The reality is you claim some mythical statistical expertise you don't have.

Watch them play. Not saying Murphy won't be on the roster but Gore is a HOFer with a lot left in the tank.

I admire the optimism, as I like to also look on the bright side, but somewhat premature. The O line should be improved but has to gel. Josh and Edmunds have to continue improvement. Receivers are improved but still not overwhelming.

Hope Ivory lands in a good spot. He was a dependable second back. Doing it now let's him hook on elsewhere before camp.

Right. Sure.

Correct. The process is about having guys dedicated to football and constantly working to improve. As much of a head case as is AB no one ever questioned his work ethic until his dust up with Big Ben. I suspect they would have needed to be as sure as they could be that wouldn't happen again before they would have signed him.

Got his 15 minutes of fame. Now throw his butt in jail.

Football has always been about one guy imposing his will on another. Having big tough guys up front has always been a winning formula.

I think Gore averaged over 4 yards a carry last year. And I think he's being brought in not only because he's still productive but because he can show some younger guys what being a professional is all about. I do think they will have a younger guy in place and that Ivory will be gone as well.

That the holistic objective thing again? How is it the holistic objective thing is constantly negative?

It's funny that the holistic, objective stats guy didn't apparently bother to actually look at the numbers before posting this.

I've been looking for 100 million for 63 years.

I'm having a senior moment, but which team was it in the playoffs that started 7 DBs and won the game? Think it was the Chargers beating the Ravens; using more DBs shut down running lanes for Jackson? At any rate, having more CBs helps with depth and gives you flexibility on your defensive strategies.

You don't understand the concept. Or don't want to understand the concept.