9/1 Roster Moves

[Scott Pennock]

15 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

It's best to fill the return roles with your 4th or 5th WR, 2nd or 3rd RB, or DB (we really don't have anyone that fits that mold). Ideally in a perfect world, Campbell and Hines. That way you can go down to 5 WRs (cut Pascal) and upgrade on Rogers in next years deep WR pool (or use Fountain if he comes back). I'd be happy to flip Dulin off the PS and onto the 53 IF and only IF he's a better WR and PR option than Rogers. And I think he has a way to go (but has the raw tools).

Even if Dulin spends the year on the PS making the jump from Malone to the NFL then with his size, speed and athleticism he 'could' be a better fit than both Rogers and Pascal combined. He just needs a bit of polish like Fountain did.

[IndyScribe]

I guess no deal so far.

[1959Colts]

 

[Peterk2011]

12 hours ago, EastStreet said:

 

While I agree record and stats don't tell the story in small doses, it typically is spot on over time. Hoyer has had 10 years.... And like you said, his tape isn't inspiring either.

 

Andy Dalton's career rating and completion percentage is better than Andrew Lucks. Their TD/INT ratio, passing attempts are very close, almost the same, Luck has a slightly better W/L ratio.

 

Do you really think these "over time" stats are spot on?

 

Believe me, I am a mathemetician. Stats - I mean those stats that most people call "stats" - are typically just toys to play with. It's for entertainment, but - analytically - it's just junk. Like spaceship engine noises in movies. You know - I assume you do, not everyone does, lol  - that there is no noise. But silent spaceships in movies would be less entertaining. So they add noise. Football would be less entertaining without these "stats", but that's where it ends. Of course, analitical, "real" statistical studies are different animals. Those are important, and telling. Sometimes they are really spot on. But you still have to ask the right questions to get the right answers, otherwise even those would mislead you.

 

[BeanDiasucci]

14 hours ago, il vecchio said:

 

I'd like both a vet QB and Kelly, also, but I don't like the idea of cutting two guys from what looks like a good roster of 53 to make it happen.

It could turn out that Kelly replaces on the roster, depending on position, somebody who gets injured during Week 1 or 2. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

The rest of the practice squad has been filled.

 

 

[Caleb3502]

Not sure if this was posted here or not: 

 

 

[EastStreet]

8 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

Andy Dalton's career rating and completion percentage is better than Andrew Lucks. Their TD/INT ratio, passing attempts are very close, almost the same, Luck has a slightly better W/L ratio.

 

Do you really think these "over time" stats are spot on?

 

Believe me, I am a mathemetician. Stats - I mean those stats that most people call "stats" - are typically just toys to play with. It's for entertainment, but - analytically - it's just junk. Like spaceship engine noises in movies. You know - I assume you do, not everyone does, lol  - that there is no noise. But silent spaceships in movies would be less entertaining. So they add noise. Football would be less entertaining without these "stats", but that's where it ends. Of course, analitical, "real" statistical studies are different animals. Those are important, and telling. Sometimes they are really spot on. But you still have to ask the right questions to get the right answers, otherwise even those would mislead you.

 

 

I happen to think AD is a pretty good QB who has played on a very bad team.

 

Stats are just part of the story. Just like with AD, over time he's had good O numbers, but also over time, the team around him has put up pretty bad numbers.  There's a reason he's lasted 9 seasons with the same bad team. They know he's not the problem.

 

I don't see it as noise or junk. I've employed a lot of analytics and database guys over the years, and your feelings are an outlier to what I have found from the many I've worked with. You can't use it as gospel, but it does provide critical insight to many things. Data has helped me tremendously manage the business (people, network, finances, etc). Ballard has also beefed up his stats/analytics team two years in a row, so it's fair to say it's not junk/noise to him.

[Peterk2011]

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

I don't see it as noise or junk. I've employed a lot of analytics and database guys over the years, and your feelings are an outlier to what I have found from the many I've worked with. You can't use it as gospel, but it does provide critical insight to many things. Data has helped me tremendously manage the business (people, network, finances, etc). Ballard has also beefed up his stats/analytics team two years in a row, so it's fair to say it's not junk/noise to him.

 

You are talking about "real" analytics, which is real, valuable thing. My company makes a living of it, so you can be sure I agree with that. However, comparing QBR or carreer passing yards are not. It's like pushing a patient's stomach to get an initial clue of what's going on ws throughfully diagnose the problem by taking blood samples, have MRI, etc.

 

The noise was just an analogy. QBR is pushing the stomach. Pushing your son's belly and asking him if it hurst is OK. But be aware, that it is not a professional diagnosis, hence you can't be sure when your son's answer is reliable and when it isn't.