AKC Posted January 12, 2005 Author Share Posted January 12, 2005 Again, wrong. Their player rankings are based on last year and last year only. If you decide to can every player who has 1 bad year, then you'd be getting rid of a lot of players. Eric Moulds had one bad year mixed in with some pretty good ones. Still "confused?" 201943[/snapback] Oh, confusion reigns my friend- when it comes to you style boys who have no ability to hold a coherent discussion. You claim to agree with the stats on Football Outsiders. You claim that Moulds had one bad year in but that shouldn't be held against him. Football Outsiders WR Rank for Eric Moulds: He's currently ranked 45th After last season they had him a whopping 54th The season before they had him 55th. The season prior they rated him 70th Which one is the "pretty good year" you're talking about? That's more like a career of sucking (for a guy making top 8 money) according to your love of the Football Outsiders methodology. Now I'll say it again, sh-- or get off the pot- do you embrace this statistical system that completely contradicts the argument you are making or do you continue to fail to recognize that you are destroying your own argument with faulty analysis that you and Coach Tuesday appear to be the only posters foolish enough to embrace? BTW- you might notice that Drew Bledsoe's full seasons go 11th, 11th, 30th, 21st. Those jokers at Football Outsiders REALLY like Bledsoe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Correction: I think the outsiders puts your original claim in perspective -- that the defense skated by while the offense faced stiffer competition. What colclusion can we draw from this? Simple: despite the disparity in quality of opponents faced, the offense was pretty innefective when compared to the defense. To that extend, I agree with their metrics. Now just because they have other rankings doesn't mean I have to swear by everything they say. Their methodology in measuring individual players' effectiveness is also adjusted based on the opponent. While I think that is an apt statistical adjustment in measuring the effectiveness of a unit, I do not think it is particularly effective in measuring the effectiveness of an individual player. AKC, there are times when a statistical adjustment makes sense and there are times when it doesn't. Thats the genesis of my argument. Take it or leave it. You can insult my intelligence all you want, but as an MIT graduate and math major, I really don't care for your condescending drivel. Oh, confusion reigns my friend- when it comes to you style boys who have no ability to hold a rational discussion. Let's see how much Malt Liquor you have left in your glass: You claim to agree with the stats on Football Outsiders. You claim that Moulds had one bad year in but that shouldn't be held against him. Let's see if you can read your computer screen: Football Outsiders WR Rank for Eric Moulds He's currently ranked 45th After last season they had him a whopping 54th The season before they had him 55th. The season prior they rated him 70th That's more like a career of sucking according to your love of the Football Outsiders methodology. Now I'll say it again, sh-- or get off the pot- do you embrace this statistical system that completely contradicts the argument you are making or do you continue to fail to recognize that you are destroying your own argument with faulty analysis that you and Coach Tuesday appear to be the only posters foolish enough to embrace? 202212[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Not to mention the countless other assumptions AKC's pea-brain fails to acknowledge. For example, by his own argument, the fact that our defense played against inferior offenses should've meant better average field position for our offense, which should have in turn led to over-inflated offensive stats (meaning, our offense was actually OVERRATED by his own assumptions). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted January 12, 2005 Author Share Posted January 12, 2005 Correction: I think the outsiders puts your original claim in perspective -- that the defense skated by while the offense faced stiffer competition. MIT graduate and math major, I really don't care for your condescending drivel. 202251[/snapback] And MIT used to be such a good school- what in the world happened? My "original conclusion" was no such thing. I pointed out that while some were claiming that our offense threw a masterful defensive effort under the wheels with their pitiful production in '04, the fact was that the offense faced the more daunting task against better defenses, while our D was to some degree lifted by facing a lesser level of competition. It was offered as an adjunct to the very biased misinformation being bandied about with regards to our offense and defense so that fans exploring this board for additional understanding might consider it versus reading repetitive false hype offered in other strings and some of the media. The fact remains that the '04 Bills were never a fractious group of 3 entities as one might be led to believe by some message board fans but instead played as a team. This allowed them to surpass virtually every major media predication for the season but more importantly develop an atmosphere going into '05 that more resembled the atmospheres around the best teams in the AFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted January 12, 2005 Author Share Posted January 12, 2005 Not to mention the countless other assumptions AKC's pea-brain fails to acknowledge. For example, by his own argument, the fact that our defense played against inferior offenses should've meant better average field position for our offense, which should have in turn led to over-inflated offensive stats (meaning, our offense was actually OVERRATED by his own assumptions). 202265[/snapback] Keep adding onto the pile of crap you've had to assume since I asked you a simple question about the flawed analysis you insisted upon introducing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts