Why do people at NFLN take Cynthia Frelund seriously?

[The Senator]

2 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

As eball said that's her ceiling

 

On that one, eball is mistaken...

 

 

[njbuff]

I guess it's a good thing I don't watch the NFL Network

 

The NFL Network is the worst of the major sports exclusive networks by a country mile.

 

Rankings.......

 

4. NFL Network

3. MLB Network

2. NBA Network

1. NHL Network

 

I know that the NFL is even below individual sports in this country, but in terms of covering their own sport, the NHL Network is the best one.

[White Linen]

2 hours ago, hmsmystic said:

She's as qualified as any analytics dude to talk football.  She definitely has some predictions correct.  She also happens to be fantastic looking which helps the mostly male audience at NFLN.  I like here and I like Warren Sharpe- they bring some new information to the table, unlike some of those dopey ex players they trot out there.

 

I'll agree with you on the dopey ex players part.  I mean, like I'm going to seriously consider Jones-Drew a draft expert.  

 

On the other hand Frelund is as bad.  I feel like laughing every time they all act stunned at her immense data.

[The Bills Blog]

1 hour ago, The Senator said:

 

Should any mock draft be taken seriously?

 

Aren’t they all nothing but exercises in fun and guesswork, especially the ones that anticipate all sorts of trades based on nothing, and not even knowing which players will be on or off the board?

.

The reason it's frustrating is because hers claims to be all scientific and blah blah blah, but at the end of the day it's just nonsense like all the other mock drafts.

[gobilz]

That beak 

[The Senator]

1 minute ago, The Bills Blog said:

The reason it's frustrating is because hers claims to be all scientific and blah blah blah, but at the end of the day it's just nonsense like all the other mock drafts.

 

You got me there - I can’t think of anything less scientific than a mock draft.

 

Still, I’d rather see her on my TV screen than all the blowhards on ESPN, FOX, and CBS combined.

.

[Scorp83]

6 hours ago, D521646 said:

I ask because I've been watching her now for a good 3 years, and NOTHING she predicts, says, or even comments on is accurate.  1st off, anyone who plays fantasy stay the hell away from any "analytics" advise Frelund gives you, and that's both season fantasy and especially daily fantasy football.  She's total garbage, and her mocks exercises are not even worth the frequency bandwidth of hot air.  Just recently she gives a mock for this years first round of not where she thinks players will go, but which players will have an immediate impact, taking into account what she believes those teams records will be for 2019.  Um.. what?  Why even bother, it's pointless, and zero football knowledge can be gleaned from any of that nonsense, and to watch the guys criticize her without actually criticizing her is laughable, makes me want to puke.  Brooks just literally said that he agreed with Frelund that Haskins could be picked by the Pats at 32 and that (get this) Haskins is Tom Brady 2.0....  Yes he literally just said that!

 

My point, if not made abundantly clear, is, why is this women on TV talking about football like she's some sage of wisdom every week?  Has anyone ever heard her say anything intelligent when it comes to football fantasy or predictive analytics?  Anything?

 

 

Tim-

Buddy... are you serious right now? Have you seen Cynthia? She's smokin hot! My goodness... yes make up a position for her...analytics...sure... fantasy breakdown...sure.  she's like the hottest frickin weather girl talking football... who cares if the numbers are right or now?!?! ???

3 hours ago, BobChalmers said:

 

Yeah - I find her cute in her way, but she is consistently both not profound and generally awful in her projections.  

 

There has to be someone with better math/analytics skills available.

 

 

Her analytics hit more when it comes to fanatsy

[NoSaint]

6 hours ago, D521646 said:

Well, that's the point of this topic.  I'm asking if anyone has ever heard her speak about football and said, "Oh yeah, that makes sense".. Anyone?

 

Tim-

 

I haven’t thought that about you either but you don’t see me making threads about it. Yeesh.

[RiotAct]

4 hours ago, CommonCents said:

Maybe he is more of a Beth Mowins type of guy. 

giggity

[akcash]

she predicted we would go 6-10 last year.

[Orlando Tim]

6 hours ago, D521646 said:

I ask because I've been watching her now for a good 3 years, and NOTHING she predicts, says, or even comments on is accurate.  1st off, anyone who plays fantasy stay the hell away from any "analytics" advise Frelund gives you, and that's both season fantasy and especially daily fantasy football.  She's total garbage, and her mocks exercises are not even worth the frequency bandwidth of hot air.  Just recently she gives a mock for this years first round of not where she thinks players will go, but which players will have an immediate impact, taking into account what she believes those teams records will be for 2019.  Um.. what?  Why even bother, it's pointless, and zero football knowledge can be gleaned from any of that nonsense, and to watch the guys criticize her without actually criticizing her is laughable, makes me want to puke.  Brooks just literally said that he agreed with Frelund that Haskins could be picked by the Pats at 32 and that (get this) Haskins is Tom Brady 2.0....  Yes he literally just said that!

 

My point, if not made abundantly clear, is, why is this women on TV talking about football like she's some sage of wisdom every week?  Has anyone ever heard her say anything intelligent when it comes to football fantasy or predictive analytics?  Anything?

 

 

Tim-

Dude she is hot- makes everything she says respectable to a certain segment of audience.

[Peace Frog]

6 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Moderately.

 

Eeew...she's got 'soul eater eyes', like a succubus.

8 minutes ago, akcash said:

she predicted we would go 6-10 last year.

How hard is that to do?

Edited April 9, 2019 by Peace Frog

[oldmanfan]

So taking gender out of the equation, you have someone here who certainly has the education in statistical methods to offer a different perspective on things.  I have said many times in this board that stats are misused constantly by not only posters but the media.  So she brings a fresh approach, like this draft article.  She uses modeling to try and project picks.  I have only seen her a couple times on TV, but her draft article takes an interesting slant.

 

So why is she not that predictive of who wins a game, overall records (assuming she's not, which is itself an estimate)?  Maybe it's because of the complexity of an NFL game, and the huge number of variables that can affect performance.  Which makes statitical analysis very difficult.

[bills11]

She fits in with what they are looking for at NFL network...they want a variety of different things. 

Like the fantasy show is not run by football experts either..she has a different type of approach which is what they want.

If they wanted to be super serious they wouldn't have michael irving and deion doing coverage . 

[ganesh]

8 hours ago, White Linen said:

It's very gimmicky when they go to her for analytic opinion on something.   I suppose it's their attempt to look at the NFL from that angle and she's assigned to the spreadsheets.  

 

It's nothing against her personally.  

she is doing her job...trying to bring predictability to their predictions !!!!!

3 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

So taking gender out of the equation, you have someone here who certainly has the education in statistical methods to offer a different perspective on things.  I have said many times in this board that stats are misused constantly by not only posters but the media.  So she brings a fresh approach, like this draft article.  She uses modeling to try and project picks.  I have only seen her a couple times on TV, but her draft article takes an interesting slant.

 

So why is she not that predictive of who wins a game, overall records (assuming she's not, which is itself an estimate)?  Maybe it's because of the complexity of an NFL game, and the huge number of variables that can affect performance.  Which makes statitical analysis very difficult.

IT is not that the statistical analysis is difficult.  The Modeling is what is difficult and the sample data size in NFL Draft is small enough for it be anything but accurate.

[/dev/null]

7 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

So taking gender out of the equation, you have someone here who certainly has the education in statistical methods to offer a different perspective on things.

 

So taking gender out of the equation, if this guy

 

 

 

developed a reliable and accurate analytic model, would NFLN replace Freulund with him?

[Max Fischer]

This could be said for virtually every sports analyst. Why stop with her when you could do a rant on anyone?

[Solomon Grundy]

16 hours ago, TOboy said:

Pretty sure they'd be roasted in this Me Too era if they dismissed her findings. 

 

 

I'm not sold on anything she says, but at least it's a little different than everybody else who simply bring an opinion like you or I. 

Yeah??? Well Me Three.

[Mr. WEO]

16 hours ago, D521646 said:

I ask because I've been watching her now for a good 3 years, and NOTHING she predicts, says, or even comments on is accurate.  1st off, anyone who plays fantasy stay the hell away from any "analytics" advise Frelund gives you, and that's both season fantasy and especially daily fantasy football.  She's total garbage, and her mocks exercises are not even worth the frequency bandwidth of hot air.  Just recently she gives a mock for this years first round of not where she thinks players will go, but which players will have an immediate impact, taking into account what she believes those teams records will be for 2019.  Um.. what?  Why even bother, it's pointless, and zero football knowledge can be gleaned from any of that nonsense, and to watch the guys criticize her without actually criticizing her is laughable, makes me want to puke.  Brooks just literally said that he agreed with Frelund that Haskins could be picked by the Pats at 32 and that (get this) Haskins is Tom Brady 2.0....  Yes he literally just said that!

 

My point, if not made abundantly clear, is, why is this women on TV talking about football like she's some sage of wisdom every week?  Has anyone ever heard her say anything intelligent when it comes to football fantasy or predictive analytics?  Anything?

 

 

Tim-

 

 

Whoa....

 

 

Anyway, how long have you been listening to Mel Kiper?

[stony]

11 minutes ago, Max Fischer said:

This could be said for virtually every sports analyst. Why stop with her when you could do a rant on anyone?

This thread could exist with 95% of the football talking head community.  

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

13 hours ago, The Senator said:

 

On that one, eball is mistaken...

 

 

thats the most flattering pic of her..   very bright and overshadows the whats not great features

[Max Fischer]

7 minutes ago, stony said:

This thread could exist with 95% of the football talking head community.  

 

Including the posters. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

2 hours ago, stony said:

This thread could exist with 95% of the football talking head community.  

exactly   I mean 

 

Why do people take Stephen A Smith Seriously?  

[D521646]

Coming back to this thread, since, well, I started it. 

 

Some are saying that she's been right about football scores.  Ok, well, let's look at the statistically.  How often is she more right than wrong?  I don't follow that aspect of the games sports analysis, because frankly, no one gets it right, enough to pay attention to them in my opinion.  Some say she's hot, well, yeah, she's certainly not ugly, that's for sure, but so what?  What irks me about her is that she claims to have this great education and background, but in any other position on the planet when someone is that wrong that much, as a business owner you tend to let them go..  Not saying any of the draft mockers are any better, but the difference is that none of them pretend to be, except maybe Kiper, and McShay.  Mocks are fun to take in for those that participate, me, not so much.  I have about as good a chance to predict the Bills selection or the top ten as anyone else on TV.

 

So, to me, two things bother me.  She pretends to have the inside scoop based on her "sophisticated models", that rarely if ever yield quality predictions, and two, the guys on the show either pretend or outright sit on her every word as if it's gospel...I'm the VP of a very large company, and we've worked really hard over the last 10 years to give women a fair shake in the business world, we treat them like we would treat any other employee, and we don't tip toe around poor performance from ANYONE, male or female.  I just don't understand why she's still employed.  Other than her looks, and to me if that really IS THE ONLY REASON, then shame on the NFLN.  Kay Adams almost always has much better insight and opinions on football, and even when she did fantasy she was better, especially daily fantasy, and she was just wingin it most of the time.  Adams, comes across as genuine, as well, something Frelund does not.  IMO.

 

 

Tim-

[The Senator]

22 minutes ago, D521646 said:

Coming back to this thread, since, well, I started it. 

 

Some are saying that she's been right about football scores.  Ok, well, let's look at the statistically.  How often is she more right than wrong?  I don't follow that aspect of the games sports analysis, because frankly, no one gets it right, enough to pay attention to them in my opinion.  Some say she's hot, well, yeah, she's certainly not ugly, that's for sure, but so what?  What irks me about her is that she claims to have this great education and background, but in any other position on the planet when someone is that wrong that much, as a business owner you tend to let them go..  Not saying any of the draft mockers are any better, but the difference is that none of them pretend to be, except maybe Kiper, and McShay.  Mocks are fun to take in for those that participate, me, not so much.  I have about as good a chance to predict the Bills selection or the top ten as anyone else on TV.

 

So, to me, two things bother me.  She pretends to have the inside scoop based on her "sophisticated models", that rarely if ever yield quality predictions, and two, the guys on the show either pretend or outright sit on her every word as if it's gospel...I'm the VP of a very large company, and we've worked really hard over the last 10 years to give women a fair shake in the business world, we treat them like we would treat any other employee, and we don't tip toe around poor performance from ANYONE, male or female.  I just don't understand why she's still employed.  Other than her looks, and to me if that really IS THE ONLY REASON, then shame on the NFLN.  Kay Adams almost always has much better insight and opinions on football, and even when she did fantasy she was better, especially daily fantasy, and she was just wingin it most of the time.  Adams, comes across as genuine, as well, something Frelund does not.  IMO.

 

 

Tim-

 

Tim, why don’t you write a very long post questioning why Steve Tasker is still employed?  Just about everything he says on the air is wrong, including players names, numbers, what down it is, etc., you know...really basic stuff that you’d expect any broadcaster to get right.

.

Edited April 9, 2019 by The Senator

[eball]

19 hours ago, The Senator said:

 

Really, eball?  Really?

 

 

Yeah, Senator, I'm sorry....really.

 

 

[Rochesterfan]

Well if you really want to hear her side of the predictive model for her Mock - they are having her on One Bills Live - so people can complain about her and Tasker.

 

or People can listen and learn that it is not a mock looking at what teams are expected or should pick, but a mock looking at which picks can give the best potential return based on increased won/lost records based on players and needs.

[The Senator]

21 minutes ago, eball said:

 

Yeah, Senator, I'm sorry....really.

 

 

 

Now come on, eball - anyone that’s in front of the camera as much as her is bound to have a few bad shots.  And that one is not even that bad.

 

I think she sometimes purposely affects a sort of ‘nerdy’ look, for what reason I’m not sure.  But she could come on air every Sunday looking like a supermodel if she wanted.

 

For every not-so-great shot you can find, I’ll find a great one...guess we must each dance to our own tune!

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by The Senator

[hemma]

She mocked Wilkins for us at 9.

 

My pick too.  Must be smart.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

19 minutes ago, The Senator said:

 

Now come on, eball - anyone that’s in front of the camera as much as her is bound to have a few bad shots.  And that one is not even that bad.

 

I think she sometimes purposely affects a sort of ‘nerdy’ look, for what reason I’m not sure.  But she could come on air every Sunday looking like a supermodel if she wanted.

 

For every not-so-great shot you can find, I’ll find a great one...guess we must each dance to our own tune!

 

 

 

makeup and lighting ....  hides the flaws 

 

When you wake up in the morning you hope to see the same sans makeup  

[The Senator]

2 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

makeup and lighting ....  hides the flaws 

 

When you wake up in the morning you hope to see the same sans makeup  

 

I’m sure women feel the same way, Shady.  They’d rather see the handsome, well-groomed, well-dressed guy they had dinner with last evening - not some scruffy, smelly guy with bad breath and mattress-head.

 

It rarely happens.

.

[eball]

28 minutes ago, The Senator said:

 

Now come on, eball - anyone that’s in front of the camera as much as her is bound to have a few bad shots.  And that one is not even that bad.

 

I think she sometimes purposely affects a sort of ‘nerdy’ look, for what reason I’m not sure.  But she could come on air every Sunday looking like a supermodel if she wanted.

 

For every not-so-great shot you can find, I’ll find a great one...guess we must each dance to our own tune!

 

 

 

 

Agreed.  And to be fair, I'm not knocking the 'bod...for me she defines the term butterface.  I'm sure she's a lovely woman, and in the right light... 

[Lurker]

Why single out Frelund?    IMO, they're all full of $hitt...

[The Senator]

1 minute ago, Lurker said:

Why single out Frelund?    IMO, they're all full of $hitt...

 

That’s what puzzles me - why does the OP have such a hair across his butt over Cynthia Frelund?

 

She’s far more intelligent and credentialed than any of the stupid male blowhard pundits,  and defintely much easier on the eyes (and ears).

.

[Gugny]

15 minutes ago, The Senator said:

 

That’s what puzzles me - why does the OP have such a hair across his butt over Cynthia Frelund?

 

She’s far more intelligent and credentialed than any of the stupid male blowhard pundits,  and defintely much easier on the eyes (and ears).

.

 

My theory:  The OP once had a girlfriend or wife who was dirty blonde and loved sports.  The OP caught said significant other getting banged by his two best friends ON HIS BED.  Now the OP hates all women with dirty blonde hair.

 

** Disclaimer:  This is only a theory based on nothing by my personal daydreams/fantasies.  In no way am I saying that this actually happened to anyone - specifically the OP. **

[iinii]

I think you are confusing serious with set dressing.

[LabattBlue]

7 hours ago, Max Fischer said:

This could be said for virtually every sports analyst. Why stop with her when you could do a rant on anyone?

^^^ This.  

[D521646]

1 hour ago, Gugny said:

 

My theory:  The OP once had a girlfriend or wife who was dirty blonde and loved sports.  The OP caught said significant other getting banged by his two best friends ON HIS BED.  Now the OP hates all women with dirty blonde hair.

 

** Disclaimer:  This is only a theory based on nothing by my personal daydreams/fantasies.  In no way am I saying that this actually happened to anyone - specifically the OP. **

 

 

Naw, nothing like that.. I already answered why specifically I was singling her out, maybe you and the others should read it again for the first time.

 

That said, the "others", notwithstanding Kay Adams, whom I like, are just regurgitating what they hear.  In other words, I know what to expect from them, and they, most of the time are not pretentious about themselves.

 

 

Tim-

[The Senator]

2 hours ago, D521646 said:

 

 

Naw, nothing like that.. I already answered why specifically I was singling her out, maybe you and the others should read it again for the first time.

 

That said, the "others", notwithstanding Kay Adams, whom I like, are just regurgitating what they hear.  In other words, I know what to expect from them, and they, most of the time are not pretentious about themselves.

 

 

Tim-

 

Yeah, Tim, I read every word of all your posts in this thread.

 

Maybe you could distill your verbosity a bit, like one sentence...

 

”I don’t like Cynthia Frelund.”

.

[zonabb]

If that was her on OBL, she was smart but a horrible interview. Said "like" about 10,000 times and "right" about 10,000 times. Horrible, had to turn it off. If you can't communicate in a job where, you know, communication is a critical skill, no thanks.