Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=That Guy]great, point out the one i actually made instead of stupid baseless claims that you're unwilling to stand by.

you'll throw out accusations and then refuse to defend them.

I'm still waiting on this evidence of yours by the way. I notice you're quick to get sidetracked playing with technicalities to actually make a case, but maybe you should try. I have yet to see any of this "evidence" you're providing or any reason that'd give ANY credibility to whatever point it is you think you're making.[/quote]

I'm very patient. Let's try this one more time.

There is one logical argument only: You cannot claim that your statistic is a measurement of a player's performance when that statistic is a combined measurement of the player's performance and other significant factors (You cannot measure A,B,C,D,E together and rely on it as a measurement of A).

The evidence of its unreliability is in the sharp rise and fall of of the stats of many players when they change teams or when a new coach uses them differently in their scheme.

That's it.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]I'm very patient. Let's try this one more time.

There is one logical argument only: You cannot claim that your statistic is a measurement of a player's performance when that statistic is a combined measurement of the player's performance and other significant factors (You cannot measure A,B,C,D,E together and rely on it as a measurement of A).

The evidence of its unreliability is in the sharp rise and fall of of the stats of many players when they change teams or when a new coach uses them differently in their scheme.

That's it.[/quote]

again, have you taken algebra?

X + Y + Z = 6
2X + Y + Z = 9
X = 3

the more data you have and the more equations you have the better able you are to judge the individual factors and figure out their roles in said equations.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=That Guy]again, have you taken algebra?

X + Y + Z = 6
2X + Y + Z = 9
X = 3

the more data you have and the more equations you have the better able you are to judge the individual factors and figure out their roles in said equations.[/quote]

Alright, how about a demonstration?

Apply your concept to quarterback statistics. You don't have to do it in depth, just give me enough to see what you're doing.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

That Guy

I have to signoff. I'll check this thread in the AM.

Have a good evening.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

what parameters do you want on it? If you want you can treat each team as an equation and each year givess you 32 equations... you compile that data and you can data mine it any way you want.

using all the data to find the one you want, like yearly passing yards for a 10-6 season with 1500 yards rushing and a 10th ranked defene or whatever. Or use it to factor out the differences between a run heavy and pass heavy teams stats.

In the end the stats as they are work well enough that there's no really need to go into that though. you can look at sacks and the QBs escape ability (measured from bledsoe to mcnabb) and have some idea how much of that is on the OL and how much is on the QB.

you can look at fumbles/sack and fumbles/play (or per play hit, to avoid OL factoring in) for QBs to see their ball security averages (with alex smith being one of the worst).

what exactly are you looking to prove and how in depth does it have to be? stats are a measure of production, and when people talk about who's better, they generally mean in terms of production. jim brown is good cause he was productive and he was able to generate wins. Manning is productive because he OD's on film study and produces crazy passing stats.

if manning had moss and cooley and the junk WRs we had last year, he'd put up better numbers than brunell. his stats prove that by the crazy difference in TD/INT, TDs, yards, completion % etc.

If two players are close you can argue the stats may be misleading, but in many cases they point out the obvious quite well. manning isn't the lottery winner of a good scheme, he's the driver. if he had junk WRs his stats wouldn't be as good, but they'd clearly be better than putting brunell or vick or alex smith in the same situation.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]... But, how good is Jake Plummer compared to other QBs? We have no way to know from those QB stats.

The best we can do is to form judgments by watching them play.[/quote]

If this is really true, why would Gibbs (or anyone else) care about stats so much? What you are asking us to believe is that, in spite of Gibbs driving home the importance of all the different stats week after week, is that you can't conclude anything from them. This is in direct contradiction to what Gibbs, a three time winning Super Bowl champion (with three different QBs and RBs), believes. I think he has proved that he knows what he is talking about, but you have only proved that you are obstinate.

The truth is the best you can do is form judgments by watching them play AND comparing thier stats. Alone, either can be misleading.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Brunell's completion % and sacks allowed are lower than Bledsoe's numbers because Brunell is obviously better at throwing the ball away and avoiding the sack, thus lowering the completion %.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=That Guy]
X + Y + Z = 6
2X + Y + Z = 9
X = 3
the more data you have and the more equations you have the better able you are to judge the individual factors and figure out their roles in said equations.[/quote]

That is exactly it! Here is the thing, if you don't understand math and statistics (I mean [I][U]really[/U][/I] understand it), the power that these stats provide will never make sense to you. In the NFL, there are guys who are paid by each team to do just what you did. They take the stats of a team and reduce them down to a point where they can determine how much of an impact each player has. I actually took a linear algebra class from a professor who did this for the NBA as a side job.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]As I said earlier, I didn't see Bledsoe enough to get a good read on his game. What I saw wasn't impressive.

I saw Brunell's game. He looked great for a time in the first half of the season but faded badly after the San Francisco blowout.[/quote] So you didn't see Bledsoe much this year, and yet you felt comfortable enough with rating him as an equal with Brunell, giving them both C's for the year? Now we're getting into seriously flawed logic. A few posts ago, I was reading how stats can't tell you squat, and you can only form opinions by watching guys play. You just admitted you haven't watched Bledsoe, and yet you gave him a grade! Talk about not making sense.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

I thought I had decent reading comprehension skills but after reading this back and forth craziness, I'm lost. What is the argument about exactly? "Stats matter" versus "No, they don't"? If I were a statistical wiz I could probably make a decent living in the sports betting world. But I'm not, so I play fantasy football. Stats tells us what to expect, not what is absolute. Is Brunell better than Bledsoe? Maybe, but did Brunell get any from his old lady last night? Asssuming he did, then he'll be a happy guy with that extra zing in his throws (just like in the Cialis commercials). Or maybe something happened that made him feel real icky and he feels strange reaching up Rabachs butt - thereby affecting his performance. Stats help with making predictions (most of the time) but there are random anomalies that can't be mathmatically accounted for in determining who the better player is going to be every Sunday. Night, night!

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Schneed10]So you didn't see Bledsoe much this year, and yet you felt comfortable enough with rating him as an equal with Brunell, giving them both C's for the year? Now we're getting into seriously flawed logic. A few posts ago, I was reading how stats can't tell you squat, and you can only form opinions by watching guys play. You just admitted you haven't watched Bledsoe, and yet you gave him a grade! Talk about not making sense.[/quote]

You're really grasping at straws. I saw much more of Brunell than I did of Bledsoe. I gave them both C grades based on what I saw, but I'm more confident in my grading of Brunell. Seriously flawed logic? Hardly.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=GoSkins!]That is exactly it! Here is the thing, if you don't understand math and statistics (I mean [I][U]really[/U][/I] understand it), the power that these stats provide will never make sense to you. In the NFL, there are guys who are paid by each team to do just what you did. [/quote]

Your point is irrelevant here since I haven't stated any opinion on the statistical data gathered by professional teams. The topic here is the usefulness of the statistics offered in the media and used by fans in forums like this one.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[GoSkins!][QUOTE]If this is really true, why would Gibbs (or anyone else) care about stats so much? What you are asking us to believe is that, in spite of Gibbs driving home the importance of all the different stats week after week, is that you can't conclude anything from them. This is in direct contradiction to what Gibbs, a three time winning Super Bowl champion (with three different QBs and RBs), believes. I think he has proved that he knows what he is talking about, but you have only proved that you are obstinate.[/QUOTE]

You've made an unwarranted assumption namely that the statistics Joe Gibbs uses are the statistics that are under discussion here. You can bet they're not.

It seems to me that you've proven yourself both rude (in calling me "obstinate") and not overly bright.

[QUOTE] The truth is the best you can do is form judgments by watching them play AND comparing thier stats. Alone, either can be misleading.[/QUOTE]

The truth is that you haven't even figured out what's going on here.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=scowan]Paintrain, those Sacks and INTs that you have highlighted really tell the story of how these 2 QB's are managing the game. That is 26 more times that Bledsoe lost yardage for his team and 7 more times he gave it to the other team. I thought Brunell probably had his most efficent season ever last year, even though he did not put up mind-boggling stats. When you play pretty much the whole season (minus a few quarters in that Chicago game) and only throw 10 INTs. You have really done well. I need to go look at the stats and see if anyone else threw fewer INTs that played 16 games.[/quotebrunell throws LAZORS he is a verrry smart qback lets not kid ourselves he wants to be a good redskin!!
if he starts thats good ! he will be leading us to the playoffs look at JG the man the myth the hall of famer, will play a veteran when its crunch time yesss?]

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

this thread has become the That Guy and THe Huddle fight thread....

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

That Guy

[QUOTE]what parameters do you want on it? If you want you can treat each team as an equation and each year givess you 32 equations... you compile that data and you can data mine it any way you want.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure you can manipulate the numbers and come up all sorts of statistics but I hope you are going to show me how you could produce some that are useful and reliable.

[QUOTE]In the end the stats as they are work well enough that there's no really need to go into that though. you can look at sacks and the QBs escape ability (measured from bledsoe to mcnabb) and have some idea how much of that is on the OL and how much is on the QB.[/QUOTE]

Explain how you do that, please. I'm skeptical.

[QUOTE]if manning had moss and cooley and the junk WRs we had last year, he'd put up better numbers than brunell. his stats prove that by the crazy difference in TD/INT, TDs, yards, completion % etc.[/QUOTE]

In order to prove this, you'd have to assign a weight as a percentage to both the Redkins "support package" and the Colts support package. And, if you were able to do this accurately, you could get a very accurate grade of the quarterback's performance isolated from other factors.

I don't believe you can do it.

How do you grade interceptions, for example. Suppose a QB has 17 for the year. It seems to me that to grade fairly, we need to know when and how they happened. If his team was poor defensively, and their opponents ran out to big leads, then we'd need to make an adjustment to that number for the Hail Marys and other INTs thrown in desperate situations.

If his coach liked to go deep often, or his receivers didn't fight for passes, or if his offensive line didn't protect him...all of these things and others would factor into his total.

So, if A represents INTs that are primarily the fault of the QB, then we have:

A + B + C + D + E = 17 What's the value of A?

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[QUOTE=Huddle]That Guy



I'm sure you can manipulate the numbers and come up all sorts of statistics but I hope you are going to show me how you could produce some that are useful and reliable.



Explain how you do that, please. I'm skeptical.



In order to prove this, you'd have to assign some arbitrary weight as percentage to both the Redkins "support package" and the Colts support package. And, if you were able to do this, you could get a very accurate grade of the quarterback's performance isolated from other factors.

I don't believe you can do it.

How do you grade interceptions, for example. Suppose a QB has 17 for the year. It seems to me that to grade fairly, we need to know when and how they happened. If his team was poor defensively, and their opponents ran out to big leads, then we'd need to make an adjustment to that number for the Hail Marys and other INTs thrown in desperate situations.

If his coach liked to go deep often, or his receivers didn't fight for passes, or if his offensive line didn'tprotect him...all of these things and others would factor into his total.

So, if A represents INTs that are primarily the fault of the QB, then the equation is:

A + B + C + D + E = 17 What's the value of A?[/QUOTE]


Nice job Huddle, don't get to worked up in the argument though, guy's who put all their stock in stats usually can't break the game down, they know what they believe, don't confuse them with reality.:goodjob:

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

What the hell are you guys fighting about. Maybe you should have a meeting and discuss the finer points of statistical analysis. I hope you do this in a sound proof room and manage to cripple each others hands so we won't be privy to any of the horrendously stupid, and ridiculous details.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

hey offiss,how the hell are you?did you wish your boy ramsey good luck?

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle][GoSkins!]
You've made an unwarranted assumption namely that the statistics Joe Gibbs uses are the statistics that are under discussion here. You can bet they're not.

The truth is that you haven't even figured out what's going on here.
[/quote]

Why do you think they are not? Yes he has more, but he also has the same ones. Also, he talked a lot about the turnover statistics all year. This is where this thread started. You can bet some of the other stats are the same too.

Read your own posts like this one....

[quote=Huddle]In order to prove this, you'd have to assign a weight as a percentage to both the Redkins "support package" and the Colts support package. And, if you were able to do this accurately, you could get a very accurate grade of the quarterback's performance isolated from other factors.

I don't believe you can do it.[/quote]

Not being able to understand how it is done does not mean it can't be done. If you can't admit that stats (even the partial media stats) are a valiable part (not the only part) of the evaluation of players then this discussion with you is pointless.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=STPainmaker]What the hell are you guys fighting about. Maybe you should have a meeting and discuss the finer points of statistical analysis. I hope you do this in a sound proof room and manage to cripple each others hands so we won't be privy to any of the horrendously stupid, and ridiculous details.[/quote]

Are you angry because you hate details or because the discussion went over your head? In any case, don't blame us, blame the person who forced you to sit there and read it.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

GoSkins

[QUOTE]Why do you think they are not? Yes he has more, but he also has the same ones. Also, he talked a lot about the turnover statistics all year.This is where this thread started. [/QUOTE]

This thread started on another topic and went off on this tangent when I made remarks about statistics. We don't know nor is it relevant what statistics Joe Gibbs uses or how he uses them.

[QUOTE]Not being able to understand how it is done does not mean it can't be done. [/QUOTE]

Where did I say that it did?

[QUOTE]If you can't admit that stats (even the partial media stats) are a valiable part (not the only part) of the evaluation of players then this discussion with you is pointless.[/QUOTE]

Why should I admit that the same stats we use are valuable to a pro team when neither of us knows whether they are used or how they're used?

I can see a very limited use of these statistics. That's why I said they were [U]almost[/U] useless.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote]Not being able to understand how it is done does not mean it can't be done.

-Where did I say that it did?
[/quote]

how about right here:
[quote]
-In order to prove this, you'd have to assign some arbitrary weight as percentage to both the Redkins "support package" and the Colts support package. And, if you were able to do this, you could get a very accurate grade of the quarterback's performance isolated from other factors.

I don't believe you can do it.
[/quote]

stats and algebra say you can (and there's MORE than enough data to set it up, though it could take weeks or months to make it accurate, its already been done in both baseball and the nba). stats are used to show production and give you an idea of how good players are that you don't have time to watch...

Good players tend to end up with good stats, so in general, the system does work. Sometimes good players have bad stats, but bad players rarely have good numbers. If you can show me an example of a terrible player racking up crazy stats, please do. Otherwise the whole basis for stats still holds.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=offiss]don't confuse them with reality.[/quote]

;)

btw, how's portis's roid binge going?

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Wow, I just got back on...this thread has really taken on a life of it's own.

Anyway, I was hoping someone could confirm the rumor the Spurrier has fled for the CFL?

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

That Guy and others....

Since you have avoided a direct confrontation with the argument I made and the evidence I offered, I'll assume at this point that you can't find a counter argument.

I realize that it's easier for you to put words in my mouth and then trash the things I never said, but for the record:

I did not state that all statistics are useless.

I did not state that the statistics used by pro teams are useless.

I did not state that baseball statistics are useless
.
I did not state that, even given additional new data, it would still be impossible to grade individual performance.

I said that the common football statistics of the kind so often used in this forum and others are [U]almost[/U] useless.

I gave one logical argument for my position and I supplied evidence that the stats are unreliable.

As stated in one of my earlier posts:

There is one logical argument only: You cannot claim that your statistic is a measurement of a player's performance when that statistic is a combined measurement of the player's performance and other significant factors (You cannot measure A,B,C,D,E together and rely on it as a measurement of A).

The evidence of its unreliability is in the sharp rise and fall of of the stats of many players when they change teams or when a new coach uses them differently in their scheme. If the stats were a reliable measure of individual performances, this evidence would not exist.

Unless, there are new arguments on point, I'll rest my case.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

this thread is wack

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Mattyk72]this thread is wack[/quote]

Yes it is. It basically consists of Huddle saying that stats don't matter at all, you can only watch players to form opinions. Then him saying that he didn't watch Bledsoe. Then him saying that he watched Bledsoe a little, enough to form an opinion.

In reality, I think everyone on this board (except maybe Huddle) would agree that stats can tell you some things, but can't tell you everything. And that the only way to form a complete opinion is to take what the stats tell you, and then watch the player to complete your opinion.

I think Huddle would rather argue mundane points (he was obviously one of those debate nerds in high school who pick apart every statement in a futile attempt to discredit an otherwise valid argument), than grasp the big picture. And I've stated the big picture repeatedly: stats tell you SOME things, and with some careful thought, you can form a valid opinion of a player.

This thread is exhausting.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]That Guy and others....

Since you have avoided a direct confrontation with the argument I made and the evidence I offered, I'll assume at this point that you can't find a counter argument.

I realize that it's easier for you to put words in my mouth and then trash the things I never said, but for the record:

I did not state that all statistics are useless.

I did not state that the statistics used by pro teams are useless.

I did not state that baseball statistics are useless
.
I did not state that, even given additional new data, it would still be impossible to grade individual performance.

I said that the common football statistics of the kind so often used in this forum and others are [U]almost[/U] useless.

I gave one logical argument for my position and I supplied evidence that the stats are unreliable.

As stated in one of my earlier posts:

There is one logical argument only: You cannot claim that your statistic is a measurement of a player's performance when that statistic is a combined measurement of the player's performance and other significant factors (You cannot measure A,B,C,D,E together and rely on it as a measurement of A).

The evidence of its unreliability is in the sharp rise and fall of of the stats of many players when they change teams or when a new coach uses them differently in their scheme. If the stats were a reliable measure of individual performances, this evidence would not exist.

Unless, there are new arguments on point, I'll rest my case.[/quote]

either you're not listening or you don't care, but saying no one's confronted your arguement is bullshit. If you can't filter out the other factors with common sense when watching a game or don't feel like doing the math, that's on you, not the stats.

your pussy-footing around the actual arguement and using "that's just an opinion" as your only defense. Your "evidence" is NOTHING of the sort, its "just YOUR opinion" but it is not fact and it proves nothing.

your obstinant need to be right is nice and all, but you're going to have to PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that stats are almost useless to convince anyone (since very few agree with you, you have the burden of proof), and your arguements are not only not persuasive, they're also very weak.

have a nice day.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Anyone else find it ironic that Huddle loves to talk about stats being almost entirely useless. Yet he had no problem reminding us on more than one occassion that over on ES a poll they conducted said Ramsey wasn't treated fairly here by a 2:1 ratio.

I guess fan polls are what tell us the true story

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

I would just like to restate my nomination of this thread (originally made 54 posts ago) as the most pointless thread of 2006 (this time with even more confidence that it deserves such an award).

Why it seems pointless to me:
Stats are a driving force in real-world professional sports. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, players' salaries in all of the major sports are driven by statistics. Pro Bowl selections and MVPs are made based on statistics. Hall of Fame selections are supported by statistics. Player personnel decisions are made in large part based on statistics.

When a player or team opts for arbitration, for example, how do you think that player's salary is set by the arbitrators? I can tell you for certain that statistics are the #1 factor in setting that player's value. Are other factors considered? Of course they are. But the simple reality is no QB who opts for arbitration is going to get paid more than a similar QB that threw for more TDs, less INTs, and a higher completion %.

Now this isn't to say that you have to agree with the emphasis that is placed on statistics in professional sports. But reality is reality, and the reality of this whole ridiculous argument is that regardless of anyone's views on statistics, you're not going to change the system. You're not going to avoid the importance of statistics because there are enough common factors across the game that an overwhelming majority of those involved in professional sports feel stats matter. The size of a football doesn't change depending on who the home team is. All of the fields are 100 yards long. You can't have more than 11 men on the field. Endzones are 10 yards deep. You only get 4 downs to make a first and it takes a gain of 10 yards from the original line of scrimmage to get that first down. etc. etc. etc.

Of course, reasonable arguments take into account variences and other factors. The ball flies further in Denver. When Portis played for Denver, Denver's offensive line was better than the Skins has been over the past few years. David Carr can't get longer than 3 seconds to throw the ball. RBs in the west coast offense aren't likely to get as many carries as those in other systems. But the result of these factors should not be a blanket "statistics are unreliable" conclusion. Rather, the result of the commonalities and variences in football should result in the following type of exchange among reasonable people:

X: Trent Green is twice the QB that David Carr is, just look at his numbers.

Y: Agreed, Green has had much better numbers over the last 3 years, but you have to consider that the Texans offensive line is horrible. The guy is getting killed every game.

X: That's a good point, but I've seen David Carr play a few games and he always seems to be holding on to the ball too long and taking the sack.

Y: Maybe, but in the games I've seen, he's had literally 3 seconds or less to throw the ball. His WRs just aren't able to get open that quickly.

Are the statistics completely useless? No, because what if Trent Green's numbers were just slightly better than Carr's? In that scenario, Y would have a strong argument that Carr is better than Green. If Green's numbers are worlds better than Carr's, however, X's argument is supportable because despite the Texans' difficulties, Green has simply performed at such a higher level that all of the variables still don't account for such statistical discrepencies. Can X prove he is right? Of course not, but he can support his argument with statistics.

Assigning no or "almost no" value to statistics, however, makes it impossible to support any argument about any player. Let's see how this works:

My Statement: Aaron Brooks is the best QB in the league. Prove me wrong, Huddle.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=PSUSkinsFan21]I would just like to restate my nomination of this thread (originally made 54 posts ago) as the most pointless thread of 2006 (this time with even more confidence that it deserves such an award).[/quote]

I'll second that

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=TAFKAS]Anyone else find it ironic that Huddle loves to talk about stats being almost entirely useless. Yet he had no problem reminding us on more than one occassion that over on ES a poll they conducted said Ramsey wasn't treated fairly here by a 2:1 ratio.

I guess fan polls are what tell us the true story[/quote]

Once again, I did not say that all stats are useless. Please try to stay focused on my actual position.

As for the poll, a vote by 250 Redkins fans isn't very reliable but, as support for my position, it certainly beats the completely usupported claims usually heard in these forums.

Anyway, as I've previously stated, one valid use of stats, no matter how unreliable, is to aggravate your debate opponents.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=PSUSkinsFan21]

When a player or team opts for arbitration, for example, how do you think that player's salary is set by the arbitrators? I can tell you for certain that statistics are the #1 factor in setting that player's value. Are other factors considered? Of course they are. But the simple reality is no QB who opts for arbitration is going to get paid more than a similar QB that threw for more TDs, less INTs, and a higher completion %.
[/quote]

This hole theory goes to the can when you look at M. Vicks contract and his stats.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=D'BOYZ]This hole theory goes to the can when you look at M. Vicks contract and his stats.[/quote]

Sorry, D'Boyz but my man was talking about Arbitration here.

The Falcons can set Vicks' value at whatever they deem reasonable without even considering stats at all.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=D'BOYZ]This hole theory goes to the can when you look at M. Vicks contract and his stats.[/quote]

vick sells 25,000 more tickets per game. the team literally jumped 25k in season tickets after he was drafted. it was a business deal if not a football one.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=12thMan]Sorry, D'Boyz but my man was talking about Arbitration here.

The Falcons can set Vicks' value at whatever they deem reasonable without even considering stats at all.[/quote]

Thanks 12thMan, you're exactly right. There is a big distinction between Arbitration and Contracts, D'Boyz.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=That Guy]vick sells 25,000 more tickets per game. the team literally jumped 25k in season tickets after he was drafted. it was a business deal if not a football one.[/quote]

:vomit: vick sucks

taylor jacobs is a pussy.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=PWNED]:vomit: vick sucks

taylor jacobs is a pussy.[/quote]

Such a 14-year-old thing to say. You're sooooooo immature ;) .

Of course, you're also right.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

PSUSkinsFan21

[QUOTE]I would just like to restate my nomination of this thread (originally made 54 posts ago) as the most pointless thread of 2006 (this time with even more confidence that it deserves such an award).[/QUOTE]

I find it amusing that you would make this statement twice and then spend so much time, as you obviously did, in writing your lengthy and well-articulated post.

[QUOTE] Stats are a driving force in real-world professional sports. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, players' salaries in all of the major sports are driven by statistics. Pro Bowl selections and MVPs are made based on statistics. Hall of Fame selections are supported by statistics. Player personnel decisions are made in large part based on statistics. [/QUOTE]

I'm going to assume that you are a fan like myself, with no inside information on the game. If that's the case, you're guessing about the influence of statistics on the game just as I would be.

And, once again, my position has nothing to do with the statistical data gathered and used by professional teams...since most of your post has to do with the pointlessness of trying to change the reality of the sports world, it isn't relevant here.

[QUOTE] Are the statistics completely useless? No, because what if Trent Green's numbers were just slightly better than Carr's? In that scenario, Y would have a strong argument that Carr is better than Green. If Green's numbers are worlds better than Carr's, however, X's argument is supportable because despite the Texans' difficulties, [B]Green has simply performed at such a higher level that all of the variables still don't account for such statistical discrepencies[/B]. [/QUOTE].

How do you know that?

Let's suppose that Santana Moss One still plays for the Jets and in 2005 had his typical Jets stats while Santana Moss Two played for the Redskins in 2005.

The player's ability didn't change but the "support package" produced a wild swing in his stats. A discrepancy that, according to your analysis, should not happen with your reliable stats. So, using the same analysis you applied to Green v Carr, you'd have to conclude that Santana Two was a better player than Santana One.

[QUOTE] Assigning no or "almost no" value to statistics, however, makes it impossible to support any argument about any player. Let's see how this works:

My Statement: Aaron Brooks is the best QB in the league. Prove me wrong, Huddle.[/QUOTE]

The burden of proof is on the claimant. The Aaron Brooks claim is yours to prove. When you try to do it with statistics, I'll simply argue that your stats are worthless and give you reasons.