coseybedaman Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Yes I read it very well unfortunately. Its 5 minutes I will never get back. If you feel as though Kyle Williams played his position better than anyone in the league, and Justin Smith was the best defensive end, and Matt Ryan was better than Manning and Brady then God Bless You! Enjoy the site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Yes I read it very well unfortunately. Its 5 minutes I will never get back. If you feel as though Kyle Williams played his position better than anyone in the league, and Justin Smith was the best defensive end, and Matt Ryan was better than Manning and Brady then God Bless You! Enjoy the site. I don't agree with it at all. I agree that some of the players on that list played their positions well, stat-wise. Kyle Williams really did. I really think you and others are not understanding what that site is. And are taking their lists as saying these are the 20 best players or these are the 20 best CBs. That's not what they're doing or saying. They actually try to be different if not controversial on purpose. All I said was it can't be complete and utter BS because A) it is just an opinion, he's not laying it out as fact, and B) he's using a way at looking at something different than the average fan would look at it, and listing players based on that formula. I don't even read the site. So again, I am not sticking up for it. I have probably read 10 articles on it ever, and only when they were linked from here (or maybe somewhere else. I don't agree with their lists or formulas. All I'm saying is that it's not complete BS. Complete BS would be using false numbers, or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heitz Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Just caught this on Twitter: "Miami Herald's Barry Jackson reports Vernon Carey has indeed been asked to take a pay cut and is mulling his options today." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrappy Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Just caught this on Twitter: "Miami Herald's Barry Jackson reports Vernon Carey has indeed been asked to take a pay cut and is mulling his options today." That sounds like it's right up our alley, call his agent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Just caught this on Twitter: "Miami Herald's Barry Jackson reports Vernon Carey has indeed been asked to take a pay cut and is mulling his options today." Thanks for this. I take this to imply that he is healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 These are the jamokes who think they can grade players by watching network feeds: "We use TV broadcasts for both the analysis and the player participation data. We've been asked a lot how therefore is it possible to determine who was on the field in every position through TV pictures. Surely that just isn't possible? Well, just because something is not easy doesn't mean it is impossible. Firstly, the high definition picture from which we work is excellent, and that gives us the best starting point outside of coaches' film, which isn't attainable outside of NFL offices." Garbage video in, garbage "analysis" out. I'd be highly learly of going by anything these jokers produce... Just curious. In your opinion is there a middle ground in-between these guys being experts and them being "jamokes" and "jokers?" Don't you think if you were a complete and total football geek who watched thousands of hours of NFL football and attempted to study and break down individual players that you would be better informed than the majority of NFL fans? I would not be that dismissive of these guys. They probably know their stuff pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Just read on PFT that Carey moved to G and took a pay cut to stay with Miami. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Don't you think if you were a complete and total football geek who watched thousands of hours of NFL football and attempted to study and break down individual players that you would be better informed than the majority of NFL fans? Network feeds capture maybe 40% of the actual play, at best. They're focused on entertainment rather than analytical value, which is what the coaches game film allows and why it is so closely guarded. If these guys think breaking down network telecasts give them a true ability to grade players, God love 'em. But IMO, doing it their way is akin to having sex with a blowup doll... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Network feeds capture maybe 40% of the actual play, at best. They're focused on entertainment rather than analytical value, which is what the coaches game film allows and why it is so closely guarded. If these guys think breaking down network telecasts give them a true ability to grade players, God love 'em. But IMO, doing it their way is akin to having sex with a blowup doll... Lurker, I didn't say anything about the guys at PFF having "a true ability to grade players." I suggested that anyone who starts a venture devoted to watching NFL football obsessively and watches thousands of hours of NFL football in an attempt to grade players probably has a much better idea of how things are in the NFL than "Joe Internet Nobody." What's laughable (and I'm not talking about you) is that some people here are dismissive of the guys at PFF… as if they don't know a damn thing. No, they're not anywhere near pro scouts but yes, the chances are that they know much more about NFL players than just about anyone on this board. That was my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 watches thousands of hours of NFL football in an attempt to grade players probably has a much better idea of how things are in the NFL than "Joe Internet Nobody." So if they miss 50%-60% of the action, due to the limited vantage point of the network feed, their grades are useful? Adding a supposed degree of precision to an imprecise data set doesn't make their conclusions very valid, IMO. Then again, guys like Kiper and Scouts Inc. make a living at sounding knowlegeable in virtually the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 (edited) So if they miss 50%-60% of the action, due to the limited vantage point of the network feed, their grades are useful? Adding a supposed degree of precision to an imprecise data set doesn't make their conclusions very valid, IMO. Then again, guys like Kiper and Scouts Inc. make a living at sounding knowlegeable in virtually the same way. In statistics, a sufficiently large random sample is generally representative of the whole. For example, suppose you want to determine the average temperature in January for a given county over the last 100 years. 1) You could look up the high and low temperature for every January day over the past 100 years. 2) You could tell a computer program to randomly select 100 dates, as long as each date was in January and occurred within the past century. Then you'd look up the temperature for each date the computer had chosen, and you'd compute the average. Obviously, 2) involves some error. But the estimate you get from 2) will not differ all that much from what you would have arrived at had you performed the much more labor-intensive 1). SImilarly, if you were to watch 1000 randomly chosen plays of Joe Montana's, you could probably make the determination that he's a Hall of Fame quarterback. You wouldn't need to see every single snap he's ever played to figure this out. What's important here is that the sample needs to be random. For example, suppose there's a player who makes two or three attention-grabbing plays each game, but is mediocre the rest of the time. There's a chance fans may come away remembering his big plays only. That isn't a random sample at all! Someone grading this player would need to watch a lot of his plays, so that the ratio of big plays to mediocre plays in the sample would be similar to the ratio which exists in reality. The biggest potential problem I see with using network TV footage is that the cameras are most likely to zoom in on a player when he's doing something noticeable--either positive or negative. This introduces a source of sampling error. That doesn't make their data worthless. But it does mean we should think about the ways in which the sampling error may cause reported data to differ from the true, underlying facts. For example, if the cameras zoom in on cornerbacks only when they're being picked on, the sampling method could overstate the frequency at which CBs around the league get picked on. Edited August 4, 2011 by Edwards' Arm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 If these guys think breaking down network telecasts give them a true ability to grade players, God love 'em. But IMO, doing it their way is akin to having sex with a blowup doll... How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 So if they miss 50%-60% of the action, due to the limited vantage point of the network feed, their grades are useful? Adding a supposed degree of precision to an imprecise data set doesn't make their conclusions very valid, IMO. Then again, guys like Kiper and Scouts Inc. make a living at sounding knowlegeable in virtually the same way. Let me try this again, Lurker. I'm saying the guys at PFF in all likelihood, know a helluva lot more about NFL players and their abilities than people on this board. Is that simple enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts