It's called "confirmation bias", people. Look it up.


Actually don't bother looking it up, just read KY's posts.

---

My point is that I'm not so sure we have two good pass rushers yet. Dante is a good overall player, sure, but as a pass rusher he has 4 total hurries this season (which isn't really a bad number that's 59th in the league)...but 3 of them have been unblocked. Yannick has 6 and I can't recall any of them being free rushes, but maybe one of them was that I can't remember exactly.


I do think that we have two good young defensive ends, one of which is a good pass rusher and the other one is just a good all around player but a bit subpar in pass rushing.


Also, Malik is 2nd in the entire league in hurries with 9, behind only Aaron Donald. Impressive.

I think the above his where you run into problems with other ppl on this board. Numbers is not going to tell the whole story. There are too many individual barriers happening each play for advanced metrics to be independently accurate. Furthermore, metrics present too many anomalies with players playing above the numbers. For whatever the numbers are on Dante, he is being schemed to have an impact. Is he getting home every play? No. As the coverage tightens and we are able to play with a lead that forces teams to throw, he going to get home. We've already seen he has bad intentions; he wants game-altering plays. I'm sure you've seen the quote about him being surprised Yannick didn't score on the pick. Long term he may even prove to be more dangerous than Ngakoue, since he can be lined up at multiple spots on the dline.


Football, to a degree, will always remain somewhat unscientific in the same ways a street fight is always somewhat unscientific.

---

It's called "confirmation bias", people. Look it up.


Actually don't bother looking it up, just read KY's posts.

Yeah, screw that guy who has formed a nuanced opinion through the combination of watching every single snap both live and after the fact, athletic test performance results, stats and analytics, and crowd sourcing dozens of other opinions! Oh yeah, and so far all of that has been pretty much exactly on point in this instance. 

 

Just sling mud, toss around some buzzwords, and throw in a personal attack or two, that's all you have to in discussions now! 

---

I think the above his where you run into problems with other ppl on this board. Numbers is not going to tell the whole story. 

I agree with this. Then again, no one has ever said that numbers tell the whole story...especially not me. They are a part of the puzzle though, and probably the easiest part of the puzzle to quantify so that's why I use them. Two different sets of eyes can watch the same play and often come up with different opinions, so you can't really persuade someone who watches the same thing and just sees it differently.

 

You can say that a 7.40 3 cone time is a really poor time for a 6'3'' 261 lb DE, however, and that's impossible to deny. What's dumb is the people who will try to deny that...and unfortunately there are a lot of them. 

---

I agree with this. Then again, no one has ever said that numbers tell the whole story...especially not me. They are a part of the puzzle though, and probably the easiest part of the puzzle to quantify so that's why I use them. Two different sets of eyes can watch the same play and often come up with different opinions, so you can't really persuade someone who watches the same thing and just sees it differently.


You can say that a 7.40 3 cone time is a really poor time for a 6'3'' 261 lb DE, however, and that's impossible to deny. What's dumb is the people who will try to deny that...and unfortunately there are a lot of them.

No, we're not on the same page. It's not hard to tell a player is legit. It might be harder to predict the rate of development, but if someone has real ability it is evident.


Analytics are part of the puzzle, but their percentage of pie its not as high as you lead us to believe. You're mistaking rejection as denial. 3 cone drill on its own isn't an indicator of success, it's a rating of athletic ability.

---

I agree with this. Then again, no one has ever said that numbers tell the whole story...especially not me. They are a part of the puzzle though, and probably the easiest part of the puzzle to quantify so that's why I use them. Two different sets of eyes can watch the same play and often come up with different opinions, so you can't really persuade someone who watches the same thing and just sees it differently.

 

You can say that a 7.40 3 cone time is a really poor time for a 6'3'' 261 lb DE, however, and that's impossible to deny. What's dumb is the people who will try to deny that...and unfortunately there are a lot of them. 

Go back to footballsfuture with the rest of your moronic clan and never come back. THX

 

 

 

 

 

Jeff

---

No, we're not on the same page. It's not hard to tell a player is legit. It might be harder to predict the rate of development, but if someone has real ability it is evident.


Analytics are part of the puzzle, but their percentage of pie its not as high as you lead us to believe. You're mistaking rejection as denial. 3 cone drill on its own isn't an indicator of success, it's a rating of athletic ability.

If only the first line was true...sigh. For example, we (being many of the college football board on here vs me) debated a play where Randy Gregory absolutely destroyed Erick Flowers, but the UM QB got the ball off just before the sack. I said this was a pretty clear sign of trouble when Flowers is getting put on skates by a bull rush from a player where size and power was his biggest weakness. Way too many people simply said that the play didn't result in a sack so Flowers won the duel. So no, unfortunately it's not evident to some people when a player has real ability or a lack theirof. 

 

The second part, I never said how big of a percentage of the pie it is...because no one truly knows. I also didn't say that athletic ability is an indicator of success, although it usually is. I simply said a fact that was true. There is no rejection or denial for what I said it's just the truth. 

---

Yeah, screw that guy who has formed a nuanced opinion through the combination of watching every single snap both live and after the fact, athletic test performance results, stats and analytics, and crowd sourcing dozens of other opinions! Oh yeah, and so far all of that has been pretty much exactly on point in this instance.


Just sling mud, toss around some buzzwords, and throw in a personal attack or two, that's all you have to in discussions now!

You've got a pretty high opinion of yourself, don't you?

---

If only the first line was true...sigh. For example, we (being many of the college football board on here vs me) debated a play where Randy Gregory absolutely destroyed Erick Flowers, but the UM QB got the ball off just before the sack. I said this was a pretty clear sign of trouble when Flowers is getting put on skates by a bull rush from a player where size and power was his biggest weakness. Way too many people simply said that the play didn't result in a sack so Flowers won the duel. So no, unfortunately it's not evident to some people when a player has real ability or a lack theirof.


The second part, I never said how big of a percentage of the pie it is...because no one truly knows. I also didn't say that athletic ability is an indicator of success, although it usually is. I simply said a fact that was true. There is no rejection or denial for what I said it's just the truth.

This is my bad. Yes, truly everyone watching does not necessarily know what a legit football player looks like. Also, everyone who looks legit does not always equal they are long term legit.

SPARQ charts, for example, rate athletic ability based on the available pool and one can also be done historically? This is useful in creating mismatches. If you have a receiver who rates high historically in athletic ability, a la Julio Jones, he may prove to be a problem for an undersized corner. Using that determine the success of a dlineman would prove to be many times harder. This is the push back you are feeling. It is why ppl are throwing Beasley in your face, although his short comings may have nothing to do with his athletic ability.

The dline coach for Atlanta may not be on par with our dline coach and so and so forth.

---

You've got a pretty high opinion of yourself, don't you?

Shouldn't we all have a high opinion of ourselves?

---

It's called "confirmation bias", people. Look it up.


Actually don't bother looking it up, just read KY's posts.

 

Oh the irony.

---

Idk what everyones irrational hatred for analytics is or why people who use them as a *part* of their idea gets insulted. Pretty much every nfl team is using some degree of the stuff being used here.


i think you guys just need to relax

---

If only the first line was true...sigh. For example, we (being many of the college football board on here vs me) debated a play where Randy Gregory absolutely destroyed Erick Flowers...


So no, unfortunately it's not evident to some people when a player has real ability or a lack theirof.

How is Flowers playing this season?

---

Are they both good? Yes. Are they both young? Yes. Are they both pass rushers? Yes.


2 good young pass rushers is what it sounds like to me.

---

Are they both good? Yes. Are they both young? Yes. Are they both pass rushers? Yes.


2 good young pass rushers is what it sounds like to me.

Sometimes, the most simple of observations can be the correct observation.

---

<i>Behold man's final mad disgrace.</i>

<i>He chops his nose to spite his face.</i>

 

-Etrigan the Demon

 

Are they both good? Yes. Are they both young? Yes. Are they both pass rushers? Yes.


2 good young pass rushers is what it sounds like to me.

lol, agree 100%

---

Idk what everyones irrational hatred for analytics is or why people who use them as a *part* of their idea gets insulted. Pretty much every nfl team is using some degree of the stuff being used here.


i think you guys just need to relax

 

1. There are too many people who overuse, rely, and obsess over the use of analytics

2. Don't pretend analytics are something new (look up Princeton rowing from the late 1800's, except don't because it's boring)

3. Know that your data can be misleading and know how to appropriate the information you are looking at/ be careful of bias

4. don't hate

---

Oh the irony.

Do explain.

---

Do explain.

 

Four games in just about every opinion on the guy or response to others opinions is like telling us what you see in a Rorschach blot. Same goes for anyone railing against someone else's opinion of him as if they know they're wrong.

 

The fervor over Fowler so far is reminiscent of the GusBus crowd a couple of years ago when mediocre free agents like Gerheart were coming "because they want to play for Gus." It's too early to be crowning or burying him.

---

The scary part too is that, by all accounts. It SHOULD be even easier going forward for these two to put up more numbers. We've played Rivers, Rodgers & Flacco. Once you get past that you're starting to look at turnover prone QB's like Cutler, Luck (One more time), Stafford, Mariota (Twice) and Osweiler (Twice). So they have a shot at getting into the backfield and piling up sacks and creating tipped passes.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."