Mcdermott's thoughts on Bills aging backfield.

[WideNine]

4 hours ago, billsfan_34 said:

Wasnt trying to be harsh- I just dont think he is very good. 

 

No worries...didn't see enough to know for sure and never followed the kid before, but we could prob upgrade that position.

 

Interesting approach with all the older RBs the McBeane wants to stock the roster with. Those guys know their business, but they also get dinged fairly easily too.

 

 

 

 

[Shaw66]

4 hours ago, mannc said:

Gore has been a very good back for a long time.  That's worth something, but it should not be enough to get him into the Hall of Fame.  He's really only had one outstanding year--his second year in the league.  Other than that year, he's (arguably) never been a top-three back in the league.  His career numbers are based on his longevity as a good, solid back, rather than brilliance.  No way was he a better back than Edgerrin James, for example.  And his teams have never won squat.

 

A marginally better case can be made for McCoy, I think, because during his best couple years he was probably one of the top two or three backs in the league.  I wouldn't vote for him, though.  

Absent drug use, is there any reason to keep the third all-time home run hitter out of the HOF.   How about the third all-time in passing yards?   How about the third all-time in NBA scoring?  Or assists?   Accomplishments like that once in a generation and they ALWAYS get you in the Hall of Fame.   

 

Franco Harris ever had great seasons - he accumulated yards by playing a long time.   Franco's in the Hall.   Gore is automatic.  

[mannc]

3 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Absent drug use, is there any reason to keep the third all-time home run hitter out of the HOF.   How about the third all-time in passing yards?   How about the third all-time in NBA scoring?  Or assists?   Accomplishments like that once in a generation and they ALWAYS get you in the Hall of Fame.   

 

Franco Harris ever had great seasons - he accumulated yards by playing a long time.   Franco's in the Hall.   Gore is automatic.  

Football is not baseball and Gore is far from automatic; in fact, I’d say he’s a long shot.  He’s never led the league in rushing, he’s never been much of a receiver, he has zero postseason accomplishments, and, most importantly, he’s never been one of the three best in the league at his position, which should be a minimum requirement for HoF enshrinement.

[Ronin]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

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.

 

Graduate degree and significant research in statistics, six-sigma, statistical process control, queueing theory.  

 

Funny tho, for someone with such an extensive background, you don't cite any stats, you just talk.  If you do that daily at your job must be politics.  

 

I cited some stats and you and the other two have merely argued.  Not one of you has provided any contrary data, and while insisting that I'm wrong you have not even bothered to tell me which of the stats I cited, which are all from reputable sources and agree with multiple sources.  

 

Is that your idea of using statistics to prove a point?  Not actually citing any, merely complaining about some that someone else puts forth?  Really?  

 

I can go back and relist all of your posts, there's almost nothing, if anything, statistical/objective/quantitative about them.  Including this one.

 

It doesn't take a degree in statistics, math, or even a degree at all to see the flaw with that approach.  And middle-school student can see that.  I would highly suggest a remedial course in simple research however.    

 

Just sayin' there cowboy!  

 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by TaskersGhost

[Dr. Who]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

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.

I got twenty bucks on oldmanfan . . .

[oldmanfan]

6 minutes ago, TaskersGhost said:

 

Graduate degree and significant research in statistics, six-sigma, statistical process control, queueing theory.  

 

Funny tho, for someone with such an extensive background, you don't cite any stats, you just talk.  If you do that daily at your job must be politics.  

 

I cited some stats and you and the other two have merely argued.  Not one of you has provided any contrary data, and while insisting that I'm wrong you have not even bothered to tell me which of the stats I cited, which are all from reputable sources and agree with multiple sources.  

 

Is that your idea of using statistics to prove a point?  Not actually citing any, merely complaining about some that someone else puts forth?  Really?  

 

I can go back and relist all of your posts, there's almost nothing, if anything, statistical/objective/quantitative about them.  Including this one.

 

It doesn't take a degree in statistics, math, or even a degree at all to see the flaw with that approach.  And middle-school student can see that.  I would highly suggest a remedial course in simple research however.    

 

Just sayin' there cowboy!  

 

 

 

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.

[Ronin]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

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.

 

BTW there Mr. Statistics, I noticed that you completely ignored the actual data.  I find that to be interesting.  And STILL no statistics or actual data from you much less even a sniff of a tenable statistical analysis.  

 

"Show me your data sets."  LMAO 

 

If you have an advanced degree in statistics then you got ripped off.  Those are questions for you since you're the one attempting to make the positive argument.  I'm not the one suggesting that a 36-year old RB that's already in record-breaking territory for longetivity is going to be an upgrade.  The onus befalls you to explain why an exception will A, continue as such, and B, why factors present last season for him that wouldn't have been in Buffalo, are all of a sudden irrelevant.  

 

I'm not arguing those things.  

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

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.

 

Good bye!   

[Shaw66]

19 minutes ago, mannc said:

Football is not baseball and Gore is far from automatic; in fact, I’d say he’s a long shot.  He’s never led the league in rushing, he’s never been much of a receiver, he has zero postseason accomplishments, and, most importantly, he’s never been one of the three best in the league at his position, which should be a minimum requirement for HoF enshrinement.

You're talking about the Hallman Fame you'd like to see. 

 

Reggie Jackson was asked after he retired whether he should be in the Hall of Fame.  He said, "the way it is, sure.  The way it should be, no."

 

The way the football Hall of Fame is, Gore is in.  

 

Franco Harris.  Marcus Allen  - one big year.  

30 minutes ago, mannc said:

Football is not baseball and Gore is far from automatic; in fact, I’d say he’s a long shot.  He’s never led the league in rushing, he’s never been much of a receiver, he has zero postseason accomplishments, and, most importantly, he’s never been one of the three best in the league at his position, which should be a minimum requirement for HoF enshrinement.

How about Larry Fitzgerald?  Led the league in receptions twice, yards never.  Never won anything.  You keeping him out, too?  Second all time receiving yards. 

[Ronin]

6 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

You're talking about the Hallman Fame you'd like to see. 

 

Reggie Jackson was asked after he retired whether he should be in the Hall of Fame.  He said, "the way it is, sure.  The way it should be, no."

 

The way the football Hall of Fame is, Gore is in.  

 

Franco Harris.  Marcus Allen  - one big year.  

How about Larry Fitzgerald?  Led the league in receptions twice, yards never.  Never won anything.  You keeping him out, too?  Second all time receiving yards. 

 

0 Rushing TDs last season.  

 

In three seasons prior to last season in Indy he averaged 3.8 yards-per-carry never even breaking 4.0, which is bottom-dwelling.  

 

The odds that we end up with that rather than an odd season in which he overachieved are significantly greater.  

 

The other two RBs in Miami last season averaged 4.7 yards-per-carry between them.  It's quite possible that Miami had a very good rushing OL.  We do not and our only hot OL signing, Morse, is not known for good run blocking.  

Edited March 27, 2019 by TaskersGhost

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, TaskersGhost said:

 

0 Rushing TDs last season.  

 

In three seasons prior to last season in Indy he averaged 3.8 yards-per-carry never even breaking 4.0, which is bottom-dwelling.  

 

The odds that we end up with that rather than an odd season in which he overachieved are significantly greater.  

 

The other two RBs in Miami last season averaged 4.7 yards-per-carry between them.  It's quite possible that Miami had a very good rushing OL.  We do not and our only hot OL signing, Morse, is not known for good run blocking.  

You just spewing out stuff that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about?

[teef]

This thread has gotten a little spicy. 

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

You just spewing out stuff that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about?

 

2 hours ago, TaskersGhost said:

 

BTW there Mr. Statistics, I noticed that you completely ignored the actual data.  I find that to be interesting.  And STILL no statistics or actual data from you much less even a sniff of a tenable statistical analysis.  

 

"Show me your data sets."  LMAO 

 

If you have an advanced degree in statistics then you got ripped off.  Those are questions for you since you're the one attempting to make the positive argument.  I'm not the one suggesting that a 36-year old RB that's already in record-breaking territory for longetivity is going to be an upgrade.  The onus befalls you to explain why an exception will A, continue as such, and B, why factors present last season for him that wouldn't have been in Buffalo, are all of a sudden irrelevant.  

 

I'm not arguing those things.  

 

Good bye!   

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.

[Uncle Joe]

8 minutes ago, teef said:

This thread has gotten a little spicy. 

Hard to sink your teef into?

[mannc]

3 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

You're talking about the Hallman Fame you'd like to see. 

 

Reggie Jackson was asked after he retired whether he should be in the Hall of Fame.  He said, "the way it is, sure.  The way it should be, no."

 

The way the football Hall of Fame is, Gore is in.  

 

Franco Harris.  Marcus Allen  - one big year.  

How about Larry Fitzgerald?  Led the league in receptions twice, yards never.  Never won anything.  You keeping him out, too?  Second all time receiving yards. 

Larry Fitzgerald is a terrible comparison.  He’s had 4 seasons with over 1400 yards receiving, 5 seasons with over 100 catches and 8 seasons with 90 or more catches.  He was also selected first team all pro 4 times and second team twice.  Gore was selected second team all-pro one time, in 2006.  Case closed.

 

Not sure why you keep referring to baseball players.

Edited March 27, 2019 by mannc

[John from Riverside]

While I only advise graduate stat PhD students def not as good as it hem with the numbers 

 

have to ask though doesnt your back rb because he is more fresh game to game tend to have better numbers

[Ol Dirty B]

19 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

That's a frequently used proverb

 

I know, he never speaks in cliches. What's this gibberish.

[Boca BIlls]

On 3/26/2019 at 4:45 AM, TaskersGhost said:

Just one more sign that maybe McD/McBeane don't understand offense very well.

 

Shady's & Gore's past performances are irrelevant going into this season.  I'd be highly concerned if I were him about relying on a 31-year old RB that saw a significant diminishment in play last season coupled with a 36-year old RB being used to spell him.

 

I don't see that working out the way that McD apparently sees it working out.

It's the RB position... It isn't that important.

[YodaMan79]

10 hours ago, mannc said:

Larry Fitzgerald is a terrible comparison.  He’s had 4 seasons with over 1400 yards receiving, 5 seasons with over 100 catches and 8 seasons with 90 or more catches.  He was also selected first team all pro 4 times and second team twice.  Gore was selected second team all-pro one time, in 2006.  Case closed.

  

***He also had one of the most prolific playoff runs a WR ever had in the playoffs.  In 2008 he put the Cardinals on his back.  If not for a stupid play on the goal line before the half he could have helped bring a ring to what is considered a bottom feeder franchise.  THE CARDINALS!  It's the Hall of Fame...not the very good.  Gore most likely will get in, doesn't mean he should.  I'm of the opinion you should at least be considered the best amongst your peers during their time in the league.  I can think of 5 RBs better than Gore in his prime, 30% of his peers. Times change and how the stats play out are different from era to era.  Look at all the soft stats WRs have been putting up the past ten years for comparison.  Guys with numbers should be and will be left out of the HOF.  

 

Some of the people on here...between McCoy rushing for 1,300 yards in 2019 and Fitzgerald not a HOF?  Not the brightest or best representing the fan base.  DELUSIONAL 

 

Playoffs Receiving & Rushing

				Games		Receiving									Rushing							Total Yds
Year	Age	Tm	Pos	G	GS	Tgt	Rec	Yds	Y/R	TD	Lng	R/G	Y/G	Ctch%	Rush	Yds	TD	Lng	Y/A	Y/G	A/G	Touch	Y/Tch	YScm	RRTD	Fmb
Career				9	9	85	57	942	16.5	10	75	6.3	104.7									57	16.5	942	10	1
2008*+	25	ARI	WR	4	4	42	30	546	18.2	7	64	7.5	136.5									30	18.2	546	7	0
2009*	26	ARI	WR	2	2	16	12	159	13.3	2	33	6.0	79.5									12	13.3	159	2	1
2014	31	ARI	WR	1	1	8	3	31	10.3	0	14	3.0	31.0									3	10.3	31	0	0
2015*	32	ARI	WR	2	2	19	12	206	17.2	1	75	6.0	103.0									12	17.2	206	1	0

Edited March 27, 2019 by YodaMan79

[mannc]

1 minute ago, YodaMan79 said:

***He also had one of the most prolific playoffs runs a WR ever had in the playoffs.  In 2008 he put the Cardinals on his back.  If not for a stupid play on the goal line before the half he could have helped bring a ring to what is considered a bottom feeder franchise.  THE CARDINALS!  It's the Hall of Fame...not the very good.  Gore most likely will get in, doesn't mean he should.  I'm of the opinion you should at least be considered the best amongst your peers during their time in the league.  I can think of 5 RBs better than Gore in his prime, 30% of his peers. Times change and how the stats play out are different from era to era.  Look at all the soft stats WRs have been putting up the past ten years for comparison.  Guys with numbers should be and will be left out of the HOF.  

 

Some of the people on here...between McCoy rushing for 1,300 yards in 2019 and Fitzgerald not a HOF?  Not the brightest or best representing the fan base.  DELUSIONAL 

 

Playoffs Receiving & Rushing

				Games		Receiving									Rushing							Total Yds
Year	Age	Tm	Pos	G	GS	Tgt	Rec	Yds	Y/R	TD	Lng	R/G	Y/G	Ctch%	Rush	Yds	TD	Lng	Y/A	Y/G	A/G	Touch	Y/Tch	YScm	RRTD	Fmb
Career				9	9	85	57	942	16.5	10	75	6.3	104.7									57	16.5	942	10	1
2008*+	25	ARI	WR	4	4	42	30	546	18.2	7	64	7.5	136.5									30	18.2	546	7	0
2009*	26	ARI	WR	2	2	16	12	159	13.3	2	33	6.0	79.5									12	13.3	159	2	1
2014	31	ARI	WR	1	1	8	3	31	10.3	0	14	3.0	31.0									3	10.3	31	0	0
2015*	32	ARI	WR	2	2	19	12	206	17.2	1	75	6.0	103.0									12	17.2	206	1	0

I had forgotten about Fitzgerald’s playoff run, which was pretty amazing.  To be fair, Gore had a few good playoff games for the 49ers.  The problem is, he was never a top 3 back in the league.  Fitzgerald was at least in that neighborhood for a long time.

[Dopey]

16 hours ago, TaskersGhost said:

 

It's highly unusual for RBs over 30 to put up big numbers.  It's folly to rely on 31 and 36-year old RBs.  A band-aid fix at best, absolutely nothing going forward.  

Maybe we should wait til after the draft. Drafting a rb and maybe a udfa will lower our average age for rbs?. Plus learning from 2 potential hof rbs will help develop the youngster(s). I am assuming we draft 1.