Mr. ChumChums Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05...ding-it-around/ Love the end when he says that "What this shows is that while it is a great concept to get everyone involved in all areas of the offense, there are certain players who simply aren’t cut out to do everything on every play." Obviously referring to Robert Royal. Thank god he's gone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 So the conclusion to that guy's article was this: The key for Schonert’s future success as an offensive coordinator will be if he can discern which of his troops can and cannot do this and adjusts his approach according to their talent and limitations. Finding which players can play and which can't? Wow, that is an awesome discovery. So glad I read an article where he, once again, uses statistics for no purpose other than to state the obvious in an unobvious way. This guy is the king of talks most, says least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. ChumChums Posted May 12, 2009 Author Share Posted May 12, 2009 This guy is the king of talks most, says least. I guess you could put it that way. But my main point was about how amusing it was that Robert Royal was so obviously singled out as the failure of that offense lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach55 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I guess you could put it that way. But my main point was about how amusing it was that Robert Royal was so obviously singled out as the failure of that offense lol. He was truly a "drive-stopper". Without Royal, I wonder if our record would have improved. He always had inopportune mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zonabb Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 So the conclusion to that guy's article was this: Finding which players can play and which can't? Wow, that is an awesome discovery. So glad I read an article where he, once again, uses statistics for no purpose other than to state the obvious in an unobvious way. This guy is the king of talks most, says least. That's the difference between, say having a blowhard opinion on a meaingless fan forum, and conducting actual research that proves or disproves a theory or belief, which is what statistical analysis and academia do. They take perception and find the reality. Don't assume because YOU think something is so, that data and an actual scientific analysis will back your own opinion as FACT. I guess when a GED is your highest education attainment (it means achievement, look it up) that means you think that opinion and fact are in fact the same thing. Get some Bill James book and hone up your understanding of statistics (not the ones on the back of your football card collection, those are descriptive statistics), I mean inferential statistics. Nothing that drives me nuts more is someone undereducated moron slamming something that has science behind because they don't understand the science. Sucks when GM shuts down, we get the board overloaded with idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bizell Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 The one glaring exception to this philosophy was when the Bills threw passes to tight end Robert Royal when he was lined up as a wideout. Buffalo was for 7 for 15 for 108 yards on those aerials, but one of those receptions was a 19-yard gain against a very soft prevent defense. Take that pass out and Royal’s flex YPA was a meager 6.4 yards, but his performance was actually a lot worse than the YPA shows. Three of the throws to Royal were picked off, and two others were nearly intercepted. If that weren’t enough, Royal also dropped two of the throws and the 19-yard gain mentioned previously ended with a lost fumble. ahahahahahahaha gawd royal sucked hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 That's the difference between, say having a blowhard opinion on a meaingless fan forum, and conducting actual research that proves or disproves a theory or belief, which is what statistical analysis and academia do. They take perception and find the reality. Don't assume because YOU think something is so, that data and an actual scientific analysis will back your own opinion as FACT. I guess when a GED is your highest education attainment (it means achievement, look it up) that means you think that opinion and fact are in fact the same thing. Get some Bill James book and hone up your understanding of statistics (not the ones on the back of your football card collection, those are descriptive statistics), I mean inferential statistics. Nothing that drives me nuts more is someone undereducated moron slamming something that has science behind because they don't understand the science. Sucks when GM shuts down, we get the board overloaded with idiots. You tell me the science behind knowing to put the best players on the field vs. putting horrible ones on the field. Please don't tell me that article actually pointed something out to you that wasn't already common sense, because that would be embarrassing. There is no research in that article that proves his conclusion, which has been common knowledge since the dawn of man. Putting players on the field that can execute your offense? Wow... that is astonishing. I sure hope you didn't need that article to point that philosophy out to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 That's the difference between, say having a blowhard opinion on a meaingless fan forum, and conducting actual research that proves or disproves a theory or belief, which is what statistical analysis and academia do. They take perception and find the reality. Don't assume because YOU think something is so, that data and an actual scientific analysis will back your own opinion as FACT. I guess when a GED is your highest education attainment (it means achievement, look it up) that means you think that opinion and fact are in fact the same thing. Get some Bill James book and hone up your understanding of statistics (not the ones on the back of your football card collection, those are descriptive statistics), I mean inferential statistics. Nothing that drives me nuts more is someone undereducated moron slamming something that has science behind because they don't understand the science. Sucks when GM shuts down, we get the board overloaded with idiots. Yeah, me too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksilver Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05...ding-it-around/ Love the end when he says that "What this shows is that while it is a great concept to get everyone involved in all areas of the offense, there are certain players who simply aren’t cut out to do everything on every play." Obviously referring to Robert Royal. Thank god he's gone... And Hello Mr. Nelson! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bourbonboy Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Although I was no fan of Royal, KC's article only applied to the 15 times that Royal was thrown to when he was lined up out wide. That's less than one play per game! I don't think that you can judge Royal solely by this, as pass-catching was never Royal's strength, but it does show our great need for a good pass-catching TE. Nelson should be great in this role! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Finding which players can play and which can't? Wow, that is an awesome discovery. So glad I read an article where he, once again, uses statistics for no purpose other than to state the obvious in an unobvious way. This guy is the king of talks most, says least. Agreed, on the surface, he's stating the obvious that anyone with half a brain cell not yet intoxicated could see. However, when you're an owner or GM and making decisions literally with multi-million dollar price tags attached, its extremely beneficial to have something more than just gut feelings to go on. If I owned a team or company worth $100's of millions, you better bet I'd have an entire team of guys working up statistics like this so that I could make more informed decisions. Granted, I don't think this type of data should be the only factor in the decision, but it should certainly play an important role - IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I like Joyner a lot but I just remember that he thought Losman was a top 15 QB. Mind bottling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazie Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 That's the difference between, say having a blowhard opinion on a meaingless fan forum, and conducting actual research that proves or disproves a theory or belief, which is what statistical analysis and academia do. They take perception and find the reality. Don't assume because YOU think something is so, that data and an actual scientific analysis will back your own opinion as FACT. I guess when a GED is your highest education attainment (it means achievement, look it up) that means you think that opinion and fact are in fact the same thing. Get some Bill James book and hone up your understanding of statistics (not the ones on the back of your football card collection, those are descriptive statistics), I mean inferential statistics. Nothing that drives me nuts more is someone undereducated moron slamming something that has science behind because they don't understand the science. Sucks when GM shuts down, we get the board overloaded with idiots. You are a conceited and uppity fool trying to show off your community college 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 That's the difference between, say having a blowhard opinion on a meaingless fan forum, and conducting actual research that proves or disproves a theory or belief, which is what statistical analysis and academia do. They take perception and find the reality. Don't assume because YOU think something is so, that data and an actual scientific analysis will back your own opinion as FACT. I guess when a GED is your highest education attainment (it means achievement, look it up) that means you think that opinion and fact are in fact the same thing. Get some Bill James book and hone up your understanding of statistics (not the ones on the back of your football card collection, those are descriptive statistics), I mean inferential statistics. Nothing that drives me nuts more is someone undereducated moron slamming something that has science behind because they don't understand the science. Sucks when GM shuts down, we get the board overloaded with idiots. "Nothing that drives me nuts more is someone undereducated moron". Can you see the irony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 What's up with the snotty commenter on that web page? The commenter has good points, but he's being a jerk about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. ChumChums Posted May 12, 2009 Author Share Posted May 12, 2009 What's up with the snotty commenter on that web page? The commenter has good points, but he's being a jerk about it. He sure does bring up some points that I, and probably a lot of people on this board, haven't thought about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadstroke Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 You tell me the science behind knowing to put the best players on the field vs. putting horrible ones on the field. Please don't tell me that article actually pointed something out to you that wasn't already common sense, because that would be embarrassing. There is no research in that article that proves his conclusion, which has been common knowledge since the dawn of man. Putting players on the field that can execute your offense? Wow... that is astonishing. I sure hope you didn't need that article to point that philosophy out to you. It really is hard to pay too much positive attention to someone who posts with an avatar that has a character with a dong in his mouth. Really stupid and tasteless, man, even though it characterizes a hated foe...still dumb and a poor reflection on ans4e64!! Give it up, dummy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 So the conclusion to that guy's article was this: Finding which players can play and which can't? Wow, that is an awesome discovery. So glad I read an article where he, once again, uses statistics for no purpose other than to state the obvious in an unobvious way. This guy is the king of talks most, says least. I hear what you are saying but why have the Bills (the coaching staff particularly) been quicker to come to these same conclusions? Sometimes I really wonder if they outsmart themselves. Bellicheat (while I hate to admit it) and his staff are masters at figuring out issues like this quickly. They also do a great job of figuring out the weaknesses of theor opponents. I am not so convinced at the end of the day that there is great variation in the talent level of one NFL squad to another - in the post free agency era. Teams that are succesful figure out how to make best use of the talent they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 It really is hard to pay too much positive attention to someone who posts with an avatar that has a character with a dong in his mouth. Really stupid and tasteless, man, even though it characterizes a hated foe...still dumb and a poor reflection on ans4e64!! Give it up, dummy! I'm sorry that your attention deficit disorder doesn't allow for you to read a post without being distracted by the cool picture to the left. Man, what in the world did you do in kindergarten when the books also had pictures? I never thought it was possible to meet someone like you without paying admission. Thank you, TBD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 ...... some Bill James book and hone up your understanding of statistics (not the ones on the back of your football card collection, those are descriptive statistics), I mean inferential statistics. Nothing that drives me nuts more is someone undereducated moron slamming something that has science behind because they don't understand the science. Sucks when GM shuts down, we get the board overloaded with idiots. While I generally agree with you with respect to your point about statistics and research... You should consider proof-reading your replys when busting someones balls for their educational attainment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts