Quote:This is the same asinine badgering that happened to folks who dared question TwitterScout<sup>TM</sup>s spin doctoring of Bridgewater. Similar nonsense is being spewed here against Fournette.
Citing the word "analytics" doesn't mean you understand analytics or use them properly. You're simply hiding behind a word without having the first clue about what you're trying to talk about, with less understanding of the concept than those you're arguing with.
Is it possible for you to post without blathering on with your schtick? Like it's getting so bad I think you might fail a Turing test.
Quote:Dude I've used tons of different stats over the course of the offseason. This is why it's impossible to have an honest debate. Everyone immediately jumps straight to the logical fallacies.
I've only ever seen you use other stats to backup your opinion on him bring a bad pick because he can't play shotgun.
Also nice job cherry picking past my real point which was that just because a player did do something in college doesn't mean they can't do it in the pros.
Quote:I've only ever seen you use other stats to backup your opinion on him bring a bad pick because he can't play shotgun.
Also nice job cherry picking past my real point which was that just because a player did do something in college doesn't mean they can't do it in the pros.
1. After bashing me for only using one stat you immediately clarify with plural other stats. You knew I use stats multiple and still said that. You weren't interested in having an honest discussion, you started with the ad hominem because you wanted the high ground advantage.
2. I've talked about it a hundred times too. Of course he could suddenly become good in shotgun and become good at identifying rushers or whatnot, but that's a lot of projection when you're taking a guy top 5. I can't address every facet of the guy in every topic.
I would love to talk about other things. I post in almost all of the other topics about players (I mostly avoid the QB ones cause I just don't care this year). For some reason the multi page pitchforks only come out if you don't have a hive mind for Fournette though.
Quote:Is it possible for you to post without blathering on with your schtick? Like it's getting so bad I think you might fail a Turing test.
Hmm, you'd think I was spambotting every thread that has anything positive to say about Fournette, as if on a "whack a mole" mission.
Oh, wait...
Quote:Stop being a drama queen.
If you wanna post, then post. If not, then don't. It's that simple.
I did it because I had like 6 people quoting me in debates and I didn't want them to think I was ignoring it. And I'm doing it again because watching baseball is better than this, so if I don't respond to a quote i'm not just bailing this time either.
And to think there's only 3 more weeks till the draft..should be fun around here.
Quote:Ok, thank you for doing that research for me - lol. :thanks:
I wonder then why we're hearing best prospect since [fill in the blank] or transcendent
player, etc.
Because NFL.com's grades are just guesses like everything else. It's just an opinion. One opinion.
Quote:The funniest thing about discussion is how not having a hive mindset means you are biased. Like it's impossible that someone could watch them play for 3 years, then watch a ton of cutups, and look at numbers on top of all of that and come up with a different opinion without having a raging bias.
Saying Fournette sucked is hyperbole at best and blindness at worst. It would be one thing to say he isn't as good as others think in your opinion. Saying he sucks means something else entirely.
I could care less whether you agree with anyone else. When every single stat of any significance places Fournette at the top of the class in most of them, saying he sucks is nothing other than bias.
Quote:This is the same asinine badgering that happened to folks who dared question TwitterScout<sup>TM</sup>s spin doctoring of Bridgewater. Similar nonsense is being spewed here against Fournette.
Citing the word "analytics" doesn't mean you understand analytics or use them properly. You're simply hiding behind a word without having the first clue about what you're trying to talk about, with less understanding of the concept than those you're arguing with.
Did you see the article I posted that he pulled the blurb with the stats from?
Quote:1. After bashing me for only using one stat you immediately clarify with plural other stats. You knew I use stats multiple and still said that. You weren't interested in having an honest discussion, you started with the ad hominem because you wanted the high ground advantage.
2. I've talked about it a hundred times too. Of course he could suddenly become good in shotgun and become good at identifying rushers or whatnot, but that's a lot of projection when you're taking a guy top 5. I can't address every facet of the guy in every topic.
I would love to talk about other things. I post in almost all of the other topics about players (I mostly avoid the QB ones cause I just don't care this year). For some reason the multi page pitchforks only come out if you don't have a hive mind for Fournette though.
1. I didn't "clarify or change my argument" I said you use one stat eg. Shotgun percentage, any other stat you use is to backup that he sucks in shotgun thats not using more then one example to prove hes a bad pick so my point that you use one stat still stands.
Also thank you total stranger on the Internet for letting me know my intent wasn't to have an honest discussion because I had no clue what my intent was but obviously since your so wise you must know my intent better then me.
2. Tell me one player that won't have something to work on coming out in college. If your basis for drafting someone at 4 is he can't have any flaws in his game then I guys were not taking anyone at 4.
I'm not all that high on Fournette I'm fine with people not liking him or wanting him at 4. I just feel "because he's bad in shotgun" is a stupid reason. I'm sure you have other ones but you keep harping on that one thing.
Quote:Did you see the article I posted that he pulled the blurb with the stats from?
Left quite a lot out of the source material for sure.
What stood out to me most is the misuse of the term "qualitative" in the author's bio. Everyone wants to fashion themselves as someone who knows "analytics." Particularly when most of those can't understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative. It's like someone with poor grammar and spelling trying to convince someone they're Shakespeare.
Quote:Look I fully realize that a stone age NFL message board (or any message board) is not the place to go if you're wanting acceptance of anything new or analytical so I don't really care if you believe it or not. If you want to put your faith in stats that don't even try to account for variables like types of run, types of formations, types of defenses faced, quality of defenses faced, quality of oline that's completely your prerogative, I'll stick to my adjusted and net stats.
I'm reminded of some phrase about leading horses to water or something...
Honestly, people would probably take you more seriously if you didn't act so pompous all the time. I don't know why that is so hard for you to understand as it has been brought up multiple times.
Quote:Honestly, people would probably take you more seriously if you didn't act so pompous all the time. I don't know why that is so hard for you to understand as it has been brought up multiple times.
This^ The problem isn't the opinion it's stating that opinion as fact and then when people disagree with said opinion there cave men stuck in the football stone age banging rocks together.
Quote:Honestly, people would probably take you more seriously if you didn't act so pompous all the time. I don't know why that is so hard for you to understand as it has been brought up multiple times.
^^ this is pretty much the answer to every Fournette thread in this board. Thanks
Quote:Honestly, people would probably take you more seriously if you didn't act so pompous all the time. I don't know why that is so hard for you to understand as it has been brought up multiple times.
As if the posters on the other side of this arent the exact same way. Pirkster is a psuedo intellectual [BLEEP] head all over this board pretending his opinions hold higher value because hes old and he doesnt get info off twitter, and he acts this way as a *Moderator*
This isnt about being pompous or having a bad attitude, if it was it would be an indictment of everyone on here. This is about using information that doesnt align with the preconceived notions of what information is valid and which isnt and where that information aligns you.
Quote:It's not easy, it's easier.
Oh jeez just what we need....another thread turning into a Fournette bash fest. We get it you don't like him. You don't have to scream it in every thread.
Quote:This isnt about being pompous or having a bad attitude, if it was it would be an indictment of everyone on here. This is about using information that doesnt align with the preconceived notions of what information is valid and which isnt and where that information aligns you.
I've said it several times before, football right now is in its analytical infancy like baseball was with Bill James and then the moneyball era so many years ago. And the pushback is similar too.
People couldn't wrap their minds around the fact that you could add these crazy things like walk rates, extra base hits, and park factors to improve the archaic batting average stat into OBP and now wOBA and wRC+. Now broadcasts are mentioning hit probabilities based on exit velocities and launch angles within seconds of a batted ball.
Eventually football will get there too it's inevitable, and everyone will be better off for it.
Graham Barfield @GrahamBarfield Apr 3
Every year around Opening Day I’m reminded how far NFL analytics — both predictive and descriptive — lags behind MLB.
<div>
Graham Barfield @GrahamBarfield Apr 3
Some NFL teams have made small steps implementing analytics on an organizational level. Still, football is light-years behind baseball.
<div>
Graham Barfield @GrahamBarfield Apr 3
MLB teams/analysts have exit velocity, launch angle, hard hit%, etc. readily available. NFL is still resistant to RFID player tracking.
<div>
Graham Barfield @GrahamBarfield Apr 3
This article about NFL analytics —and some of the quotes in it — still blows my mind:
</div>
</div>
</div>
https://theringer.com/nfl-information-wa...b6eee2d39f
Quote:Oh jeez just what we need....another thread turning into a Fournette bash fest. We get it you don't like him. You don't have to scream it in every thread.
Ok, unchecked hive mind lovefest orgies only from now on! No other opinions welcome!