OCinBuffalo
-
Posts
9,102 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by OCinBuffalo
-
-
Is the correlation I've observed driven by some third factor? Those who suggest it might be would do well to articulate what they feel this third factor might be. As for the random chance possibility, that can be tested with a nice F test. My knowledge of stats is a little rusty, but I'm pretty sure we're looking at 30 degrees of freedom for X and for Y. I obtained an F value of 3.72; which means my findings are significant at alpha levels of both 0.05 and 0.01. In English, this means I'm more than 99% sure the results I obtained aren't due to random chance.
Fine but what is your baseline for comparison - teams or players? Since it's already been established that some of the playoff teams have 2 or more high o line picks, and that some have one or none, doesn't it make sense to start with players and then group?
You can't start with teams(in this case winning teams), transpose that data to players(in this case high o line picks), and then go back to teams and say: there is a greater chance that players from winning teams are good. That's where the no schit sherlock part comes in.
You should start with something that qalifies players(in this case good offensive lineman) only - something that has nothing to do with teams. Let't try o lineman drafted 1st day, played for the drafting team for 4 years minimum, started at least 12 games during each of those four years, for the years 2002-2005 - keep in mind they could have been drafted in 1999 as long as they played, and started at least 12 games a season, during the 2002-05 timeframe. Assuming that the hundred or so head coaches/OC/O line coaches employed over the timeframe cancel each other out in terms of variance(bad decuisions, schemes, etc.), a guy who can meet all those criteria should be classified as "good" or at least - standardized.
Now that we have a group that has been selected by a standard(I believe fair), let's see what we can find out about them - let's say you end up with 20. How many belong to one group(playoff teams) and how many to the other(non-playoff teams). Now we can say what % of them played on playoff teams during the time frame. Find out total # of wins for the group during the timeframe and divide by the number of o lineman = average number of wins per lineman. Divide that by 16 and see avg # wins per season. How many of them played on the same team, and how many of those teams won a lot/playoffs. There's prolly more but - Ya get it? These percentages and averages, because they are based on a standardized set of criteria, should give solid evidence if there is any causal effect between drafting o lineman high and teams winning.
-
It seems we're not on the same page here. My regression was intended to answer a very specific question: "Do teams which build their starting offensive lines through first day picks tend to win more games than teams that don't?" The answer is a strong yes. You suggest various tools that I should be using: control groups, a definition of a good offensive lineman, means of controlling for other variables, etc. While these tools aren't required to answer the question I asked, they may be needed to answer a different question you have in mind. What specific question is it you would like to see answered?
You are still confused I see. Let's breakdown the Question you posed:
Do Teams ( groups not individuals so we will need to group o lineman later on)
which build their starting offensive line ( so now we will have to look at individual and starting offensive lineman as well)
through fist day draft picks(1st and 2nd round individuals drafted)
tend to win more games than teams that don't( now compare one group of individuals to another group - back to groups again)
This should be enough to make my point. You have to identify what you are looking at; indivuduals or teams first - not both at the same time, or worse, relating one to the other prior to drawing a conclusion. Again, define your data as it relates to individuals first, then move on to teams. You can't say a 2nd round pick that plays for 3 years and moves on due to FA, while his team makes the playoffs the next year = good thing they drafted an o lineman high.
-
-
I know the outcome of the second regression may seem obvious in hindsight. But without the regression, could you really say for certain if it was better to fill your offensive line via first-day picks, second-day picks, or free agents? Teams have found successful offensive linemen through each of these three methods; so it's not immediately obvious that finding one's OL starters through the first day of the draft would correlate so strongly with winning. But the correlation is there, which is what the regression shows.
Allright - enough!
I have tried to stay out of this because I didn't want to show my nerd side 
BUT- I can't handle this anymore. While I appreciate your regression attempt - it's mostly right - you really have got to understand the concept of a control. Are u a pschology guy or a pure science guy? (Correlation vs. Causation). I think the reason you are driving some folks nuts here is that your correlations are not enough since they do not show a clear pattern based on consistent(important), raw data - they are just correlations. By messaging the raw data enough I am sure that I could draw a correlation between the appearance of the new Sabres logo and the number of Offesive lineman drafted. You aren't controlling for variables properly here - or at least attempting to hold something constant - or tossing them out altogether. And, I have yet to hear about a consistent model that defines a "good" offensive lineman. So far, what we have is good draft picks = good team = wins = good draft picks = good team. This is defined as circular reasoning. Is it any wonder we have identified a correlation in the midst of a circle?
I see what you are trying to do, and like I said, I appreciate it. But you have to hold at least one costant - some standard to which the rest of the data can be compared. Try defining "good" for an O lineman by itself - not related to anything else,(don't forget to tell us your definition
), hold that standard constant and throw out any O lineman who doesn't qualify.I.E. - I would use something like "played for the team that drafted him for >= 5 years" as part of my definition since we are trying to find the relationship between drafting O line and team wins(other parts might be games started, sacks allowed, etc.). This would remove the free agent, and one year wonder, variables that seem to be tripping you up, and, it would give us a real look at the long term value of drafted O lineman that stay with the team. The nice part about a clear definition like this is that then you can test the opposite definition - O line that played <5 years - while holding the other parts of your definition constant and see what you end up with.
Anyway, once you have cast the data against your definiton now you have your raw list of "good" O lineman. Then tell us what you find as it relates to the draft round selected, number of wins for their team, playoff appearances, or some of these together, or anything else that suits your fancy.
I think if you can get this all done effectively, you might be on to something. -
Just keep in mind the higher the hubris, the farther the fall...
IF we can beat them game one who are they gonna blame this time? The refs? The Red Sox curse? Victor Kiam? Oh I know - Lord and most High Tedi Bruschi will have willed them to lose so that they will learn a valuable lesson early and will be prepared for the rest of the season. 
I checked out the Pats message board and I saw this:Can the Bills beat us? and other posts.
Overconfidence abounds( and the obligatory but clearly superficial "any given sunday" comments). They are looking past us, and the Jets, already - to the Denver game wk 3
- and there is still a pre-season game left. Here's to hoping their dopey fans' attitude is the same as the team's. They act like they have the same legitimate red zone threats they had 2 yrs ago. Like we don't know we have to cover their TEs. And, they have deluded themselves into thinking their old front seven is gonna make up for their sub standard secondary. I think it will be shocking for them when Lee and Peerless are waving "bye" to their DBs after catching another bomb. Make no mistake - there will be mistakes in this game by our guys. What the Pats haven't figured out(except for a few over there) is that they are gonna make mistakes too....
They honestly believe that bad receivers can run bad routes, etc. but that somehow this won't contribute to Brady throwing picks/getting sacked. The logic is that Brady spreading the ball will compensate - against our DBs and LBs in a real game?!??! No mention of TKO at all - full denial mode. Too bad Theisman isn't doing this game so we can hear him say TKO as many times as he said Bruschi last year(i know - never happen). Moreover, they are full of themselves that they beat a Gregg Williams team - something we've known is an easy task for a while now. Exactly one guy reminded them that we were beating them handily into the 4th quarter last year, because of our D, and that they got lucky.My favorite comments: some say that their special teams is better than ours and has been for a while
and others want to cut Corey Dillon - and I thought our Willis bashers were bad. 
Field goals abound in this one - but our guys get wise to this nonsense in the fourth for a TD(o or d)
Bills 23
Pats 16
-
Yes, but if we look at the other 10(I'm ignoring FBs) super bowl starters from both teams we find another 5 1st round picks, 1 2nd & 3 3rds...& a 6th.
This is why this tiresomely posted "always draft OL high" theory makes as much sense as carrying water with a sieve. Every time someone posts statistical "analysis"(questionable) someone else posts contradictory "evidence"(also questionable).
Should the Saints have drafted an O lineman instead of Bush?
Here's a stat for ya: there were two O lineman drafted in the first round. And five, all tackles BTW, in the second. Does this mean that, other than Tampa and the Jets, the rest of the NFL front offices are retarded? Yeah, the Jets are geniouses!
That's it - they are now going to win the division because neither the Patriots, Dolphins, or Bills took an O lineman until after the third round. My point should be clear. However, this does not mean that O lineman should never be drafted in the high rounds, and obviously skill players bust all the time - i.e. Ditka's abortion in 1999(Saints Ricky Williams draft). However drafting O lineman high is not the "absolute" guaranteed path to winning that some of you are representing.
I am not inclined to believe either theory is correct and the "only way" as much as I am not inclined to believe that relying on absolutist thinking is a good way to go through life. (ask the Communists how that's working out)
As Marv has said repeatedly "You either change with the game or the game will change you - you won't be around".Rather, situational thinking coupled with a good set of core values, rather than an instruction manual, is much better. What do I mean? (Well, consider yelling at Willis for not running between the tackles and trying to make something out of nothing - good plan
) Back on point - consider our last draft and the obvious holes we had/were going to have on D. IF drafting OL high is the "only way", then let's reverse the outcome. Assume we used our position to trade down and picked a 1st O lineman, and 2 2nd Olineman. Are all the O Line people saying that it would have been better to keep Milloy, Adams, etc., and not fix our D as immediately as we could? Better yet, are you guys saying that you "know" that Fowler and Reyes - who at minimum have already proved they can play in the NFL - are automatically substandard to a rookie who could be Orlando Pace, or just as easily Mike Williams, merely by virture of how high that rookie is drafted? How about this: do you "know" that Whitner, McCargo, and Youboty are busts even when we have evidence from camp/games that already points in the other direction?We are talking about people here right? Not equipment? The last time I checked, people tend to do things that you "know" they won't do - both good and bad. Situationally, this year we had to do something about the D with players that can/should start immediately or next year. We don't have the luxury of time to wait the ususal 2-3 years for a drafted O lineman to develop when we have much larger issues pressing us right now.
On the flip side, if BillNYC, and the rest, are right and Marv starts drafting DBs next year high, unless something drastic happens injury wise, I will be the first to start yellin'. Hopefully we are set db wise. Also, we have a good enough O line unit right now to be competitive.
The thing that keeps getting missed on these threads is keeping the line together should be our 1st priority, the 2nd prioity should be obtaining solid character, rookie backups at O line through the draft, and developing them into the scheme over time. This way we get them ready, don't let them get a big head, a fat ass, or both; and deliver them, 60% of the time(which is reasonable) ready to start - both physically and mentally. If it happens that we get a shot at the best or #2, #3 OL in the 1st round, we should take him. But only if we are set at QB, RB, and if there isn't an obvious WR or DL that is better pound for pound at his position, and if we aren't completely screwed at another position(like this year). I just hope that we don't find out that we are completely screwed at O line this year, too.
Once and for all, hopefully
, we played the O line revolving door game since 2000 and it has gotten us nowhere. -
-
-
-
That's it - due to these inconsistent plays, both the Steelers and the Eagles are gonna be 5-11 now.
Great, bar fights in this town are going up 500%.
-
Ko was a 4th rounder wasn't he?
And c'mon...he should not start over Troy Vincent...that is rediculous to say. I'd rather have him learn more and ease him onto the field rather than throwing him in there because he's younger and a "ball hawk"
Vincent isn't done yet people! He's got one more year in him!
I agree - I don't necessarily want to start him unless Vincent is obviously bad - that's why I want to see a real game first. However, I think we should get him on the field any way we can
-
If KO is in there this year who's to say we don't have a dominant secondary now?
-
I dunno - I see the college films, I see the preseason and camp films, and I gotta think we need to get him on the field. Ball hawks are what they are: it's like speed you have it or you don't. And there is no doubt KO is a ball hawk.
Vincent keeps getting, and staying, blocked on running plays. It seems he is always there to touch tackle the other team's receiver on the ground after the ball has been caught. Like I said - I dunno, have to see a real game - but I think getting KO significant playing time this year can only help.
-
Ah crap, it is Michael's I was thinking of, not Honey's I got confused. John's is closed?
. Como is better than Fortuna's IMO.
But - I also think you are better off listening to The Dean in general.
-
No big deal just horrible grammar. What they are referring to is the Bills Backer weekend promotion. You can get a travel package(s), tickets and a tour and they are trying to say that the time to make reservations is running out.
-
Both my parents are from the falls so we go there for Chrismas and Easter every year. Anyway here are the places we have been going since I can remember.
The Como 2220 Pine Ave + 23rd St in the Falls. Some of the best Italian I have ever had and I've been all over the country.
I could leave it at that but, if you play along with the (owner?) he will take you on a tour. This place is hilarious! Sound proof rooms, and even the "real" location of Jimmy Hoffa! There is actually 4 levels of basement! Yeah this place is all mob, all day. Just understand that if you embark on this "tour" the guy is kinda losing it - dimentia. You may be there for an hour! However, it is interesting - and kinda sick. It's time to leave when he starts telling you how various "hits" went down over the years.
Based on the pictures alone, this place used to be hugely important as a meeting place for the mob, which in and of itself, should not overshadow how good the food is.
John's Flaming Hearth 1965 Military Rd, Niagara Falls
Killer steaks - killer everything actually a bit of a drive from downtown but worth it.
Honey's Pizza 2626 Pine Ave, Niagara Falls
Great pizza wings/sports bar. It is what it is but the food is good.
Polish Nook 2242 Cudaback Ave, Niagara Falls
Great Polish food that rivals my grandmother. She goes with us and tells us it's good so it must be great. Not much of a risk in terms of ethnic food - it's not like taking a first timer to an Indian place. It's good food, pretty cheap and cool.
There are more, but these are my favorites. There is a bunch of chain restaurants all over as well. Go to any of the addresses listed above and you will see them. As far as Canada goes - I go there to drink not to eat
-
I responded to another(humorous) Bills thread by saying :
"We can act like the Democrats: make lots of nonsense stories up, post them, and see what sticks."
But I didn't want to address the 2 whole bs comments our of 15 I got in that thread - discipline is important.
We all know that the both parties use the internet. But - the Libs seem to fall victim to: "Because I have a blog - everything I say is true" mentality a lot more than they should. This is why they continue to lose elections:
wishing things would go your way and name calling those who don't agree(Donahoe)
vs.
presenting convincing arguments to others that things should go your way(Levy)
=
lose every time.
Moreover - I really think it's funny, but at the same time troubling, that people are still kidding themselves about this war. Make no mistake - it is a global war. But, it's as if they never took Regents History/Social Studies, Economics or were ever involved in a bar fight.
Let's try dealing with each, one at a time. Perhaps I should set the example of how to be convincing rather than simply calling people "Idiot".
History and Warfare:
Do you understand that the Japanse attacked us in WWII becuase we effectively cut off their OIL supply with our "sanctions"? They weren't called that back then but it's the same idea. Please understand, it was REFINED GASOLINE that we were giving them not OIL. They saw their strategic/national economic competitive position as being threatened. We saw them killing thousands of Chinese and said "enough", plus it was convienent for us to hit them in the wallet(this was back when we had balls(maybe too much) at the State Department). From the Japanese perspective - and this is key - we started the war because we gave them no way to continue to grow their economy as we had a significant competitive advantage in all the markets they wanted to get into - to them we essentially had an "unfair" head start. They thought that if they were able to effect a military solution in Southeast and East Asia, they would be able to catch up to us. Didn't work out - sorry dude.
Now, fast forward to today. The entire Arab world sees the same competitive advantage we have/had, but, since they do not posess the military that Japan thought they had, they CHOOSE to effect economic change by means of a phony "Jihad". Any real Muslim will tell you that "Jihad" is not an offensive concept but a defensive one. It's about protection of their right to practice their religion/spirituality not about economic aggression. However, when one country/group wants to attack another's way of life for the purpose of economic gain - offense, not defense, is what they are doing.
ONCE MORE: THE STATED OBJECTIVE OF AL QUEDA IS TO ESTABLISH A CALIPHATE(KINGDOM) FROM SPAIN TO INDONESIA LIKE THEY HAD FROM 750-1600 AD. THIS CALIPHATE WOULD BE RULED BY A CALIPH WHOSE LAWS WOULD BE DICTATED BY THE KORAN. ALL NON-BELIEVERS WOULD BE ALLOWED TO LIVE BUT WOULD BE PERSECUTED ECONOMICALLY AND SOCIALLY. This is a fact - look it up!
This is exactly what Hitler did - use a person's ethnic or religious identity, rather than their choices, as a way to divide and, of course, conquer.
Religion, just like the crusades, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. Religion simply gives these murderers cover. They kill an American and justify it with religion. We kill an Arab an
-
One thing is true: with our pursuit-oriented D, somebody has got to cover McMichael. That guy will kill us if he isn't covered well.
Otoh, if we cover McMichael, and, (hey, they can't run, so stopping the run should be easy) if we stop the run, Crowell, TKO and Whitner will get to tee off on Culpepper. Being able to run will not save him due to our team speed. I think both goals are attainable by this defense.
So, yes, there is a better than average chance that Culpepper doesn't finish one or both games against us and you cannot simply chalk that up to wishful thinking.
-
Meathead playing calling = pulling on a goal line play = turnover on downs! Sound familiar? Oh, wait, I forgot, Meathead is calling the plays for MIA.
-
Miami not looking so hot so far....fat Bennie just got bowled over and the "superstar" Ronnie brown got dropped behind the line. Oh and on third down Brown couldn't run away from a middle linebacker...HA Fat bennie just got used again - Tripplett is gonna kill this guy.
-
i can't see how most are already calling it a failure. Around draft time, the main reason was because we didn't address it with one (or all) of our 1st day picks or that we didn't spend a king's ransom on a "big money" FA.
the best thing for any line is that they perform well TOGETHER and execute the plays that are in their offensive scheme. So with a new offense, how the f*ck does anyone know weather or not the line is successful or not......especially when they haven't played 1 game yet.
Right - one of the biggest problems we have had is far too much of a revolving door at O line. No other group of guys in team sports needs continuity more. While I understand that we needed to make major changes after last year, I hope they will make an effort at least to keep these guys together and maybe only switch one guy every 2 years or so...
-
To the tower! TO THE TOWER!
Rapunzel!!!
-
-
I was waiting for this one -
He had a post at 1:30 am the other night. This is the third time someone's called him out. 
New Name: Nalls_Balls
Offensive line analysis part 2
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
This depends on your definition of "need". I am sure you have needed to take a piss, but I also sure you have NEEDED to take a piss. We NEEDED to shore up our d this year and it looks like we did so far.