RememberTheRockpile

Makeup for the missed illegal contact call.

Would you would prefer they be the Bills Borg? Resistance if futile ... your tables will be annihilated.

Edited for clarity:

Here is an account from local news source. From this story we know the driver of the Mazda had been drinking but don't know if she was over the legal limit. Even if below the legal limit there is going to be some impairment of reaction time. Also worth noting is the accident occurred at 2:00 a.m. If the driver of the Mazda had been awake since 7:00 a.m. she would have been awake for 19 hours. There is plenty of research showing sleep deprivation can reduce reaction time as significantly as alcohol. From the article the Lamborghini hit the center median which would be south shoulder but Smith and Petara were standing on the north shoulder when she was hit. Sounds like the car ended up back toward the north shoulder. The only thing that makes sense to me is the car came to rest mostly in the right lane facing west. The driver of the Mazda to avoid hitting the Lamborghini swerved right attempting to go around it on the north shoulder. So why wouldn't the Mazda driver swerve left instead? Maybe there was already a car on her left or maybe she was behind another car that swerved left and slammed on the breaks. It's all speculation, we just don't know.

http://thegiantsboard.proboards.com/thread/4293/get-lot-worse-giants-quickly

Pity the poor suckers that have to suffer through the Pats/Dolphins game.

It isn't "data driven" as ESPN's Total QBR is loaded with subjective judgements.

Here are few more quotes: One Giant fan referring to Josh: "I'd trade all of our QBs right now for him" Another Giant fan said: "Their defense is also underrated and top-notch. Their defense is what kept them in that game and the offense won it late. Underestimating any aspect of the Bills is just a bad idea." Another who appears to have watched Josh play: "I like Allen. I think he has a chance to be really good." This Giant fan is paying attention: "4 4th qrt game winning drives in only 12 starts . he has it , dont listen to fans saying he is a bad qb, they just want the Saquan pic to look better(which he is a great player no doubt) they want to make it seem there was no other QB to take, not even close to true , there may be 4 franchise qb's in that draft."

I think the advertisers might have a thing or two to say.

The post had nothing to do with you.

Using letter grades would be a crude form of error margin which would be an improvement. I seriously doubt what is available to the NFL teams is available to the general public. I suspect they have at least 2 markets, pro/college, and consumer where the products are significantly different. I would also expect the pro/college products are customized (big bucks there) to the customers specs and heavily quantitative. The consumer products OTOH are highly subjective that appeal to the general publics desire. As much as we hate the hoodie we respect his knowledge of football. Here is what he has to say: https://bostonsportsmedia.com/2014/06/04/can-pro-football-focus-stats-be-blindly-trusted/ Moral of the story. If people want something that is not possible to provide someone will provide a product that looks like it.

They are not statistics at all. What they are doing is selling you dubious numbers dressed up as "advanced statistics".

The 90% chance would be based on a gaussian distribution which I doubt is valid. In fact I would expect due to the subjective nature of the analisis a well known players distribution would be significantly different from some unknown player entirely due to bias. Oldmanfan does a nice job of highlighting the enormity of pitfalls involved even with trained evaluators.

You just don't get it. If they present a single number they are implicitly declaring it definitive. You claim they are not then where is the margin of error? Is it so big that the number they are presenting would become entirely useless? You don't like what I am saying because it is conflict with what you want to believe. You have failed to address any of the points I have made. You now accuse me of having an agenda which is a rather cute ad hominem considering you have failed to address what is basic statistical practice. It isn't my view, it is the view of anybody that has taken even a basic statistics course. You conclude with saying I am wrong based entirely on your ignorance of statistics.

Your point is statistically wrong. The point of margin of error is because the mean is NOT definitive. If I tell you I have a basket of 50 apples that is definitive. If I tell you I have a basked of 50 apples +/- 5 apples I am telling you that the number of apples is between 45 and 55 which is not definitive. By presenting just one number without a margin of error they are implying the number is definitive. Oh they can claim it isn't "definitive" but without also providing the margin of error the number they provide is essentially useless. For example this week PFF rated: Ed Oliver 80.3 Tremaine Edmunds 78.2 If the error margin is +/- 2 points then both players would be statistically tied. One player cannot be said to rate higher than the other because the margin of error overlaps. The margin of error is an admission that the numbers are NOT definitive but the true value lies someplace in between with some level of confidence.

Margin of error is numerical. So where is the margin of error for Singletary?

Most teams probably subscribe to Sports Illustrated too. PFF provides a variety of statistical packages of which some may prove useful to an NFL team. https://www.pff.com/news/pro-pff-signature-statistics-a-glossary The fact that some or most NFL teams subscribe doesn't prove that PFF performance evaluations under discussion here are of any use to NFL teams. I don't "dismiss any analysis" but I do look for indications that the so called analysis is BS masquerading as legitimate statistical analysis. Statistics are not exact and always include a margin of error. If a hundred people evaluate the same player on a given play there are going to undoubtedly going to be a range of differences. Failure to include at least the margin of error is a sure sign the statistic is BS. Here is my evaluation of Singletary's 6 pass targets: 2nd Qtr - 14:21 Flat out drops it. Started looking upfield before catching the ball. 2nd Qtr - 6:07 Poor pass from Allen. Pass at his feet. Not a catchable ball. 2nd Qtr - Short pass hits him up in his right shoulder pad /facemask. Bounces up and he snatches out of the air without breaking stride. A Jet at the 20 has a good angle but Singletary makes a nice cut at the 21 and gets to the 18. Without the cut he is likely down at the 20. Pass needed to be a foot more in front of him. In my view he did a nice job catching a poorly place pass that in my book is a net positive. 4th Qtr - 11:54 Another short pass coming out of the backfield. Catches it cleanly and gets bracketed by 2 Jets. Pretty much the definition of average play. 4th Qtr - 5:55 Short pass coming out of the backfield with a clean catch. Makes the 1st guy miss and the second Jet gets enough of him to force him out of bounds but he still gets an 2 extra yards pass the push before going out of bounds. 4th Qtr - 3:52 Coming out of the backfield Allen is late throwing the ball giving the Jet line backer time to close. He makes a clean catch and tackled immediately for a 1 yard loss.

Flag is in the air after the interception.

False dichotomy.

There were 9 Jets in the box. Play action might have been a better call.

That's how the boxscore works which in this case is a dubious argument. It's like saying the QB rushed for - 6 yards because he took a knee on the last 3 plays of the game or a hail Mary pass on the last play of a game that gets intercepted. It may say so in the box score but is irrelevant. The reason for the Jets fumble was a desperate attempt to win the game something the box score doesn't discriminate as that is not its purpose.

Just look at the boxscore and ignore the fact the only Jets turnover was on the last play of the game with no time on the clock that looked more like rugby than football. Ignore the fact that it was a desperation play where fumbling the ball was the better option to getting tackled with the ball. Technically you are correct it was a -3 turnover game but for all practical purposes it was a -4 turnover game.

While at the same time ignoring Mosley wagging his finger at Allen while getting up from the tackle.

Actually no. Sentence #2 is adequate since the restrictions on the Franchise Player ability to sign with another club are defined in the CBA as follows: There is no loophole. Clowney cannot negotiate nor sign a contract with any other team. NOTE: Section 2(a)(i) is for the Nonexclusive Franchise Tender.