Reich Coaching Decisions Post-game Takes(Mega Merge)

[superrep1967]

On 1/9/2021 at 4:25 PM, Scott Pennock said:

I've stated this MULTIPLE times this year. 

 

Take. The. Flipping. Points.

 

Jeezush Reich you and you alone lost this game for your team. Stop calling plays on emotion, take the points that are there. 

 

You left 4 points on the field.....we win. Period.

 

Full stop!

He calls plays based analytics and the analytics aren't always right but coaches like Reich swear by them and it costs us. 

[Nickster]

12 hours ago, EastStreet said:

I don't want to play super aggressive, but don't want to be super conservative either. A happy medium between Reich and Arians is optimal to me. With the creativity of Reid.... 

 

@Nickster what did you think about Arians yesterday. His risk it biscuit was great on that one call for a TD to the left, but also was responsible for 3 INTs from Brady. It was basically a Winston game yesterday lol. Brady was just more effective short/intermediate, and in the RZ that Winston.

I don’t know East.  I can’t believe Brady won that game.  I’m still dumbfounded the way his teams have won many of their games since what 2014.

 

Whoever was involved in calling Cover 1 there needs to be put in the stocks for the rest of the week outside of Lambeau.  The risk was on 4th down and they probably don’t win if they don’t go for it there.

 

I don’t believe in the paranormal whatsoever in theory, but watching Brady win these games challenges that belief.

 

I can tell you this.  Running the ball is basically irrelevant at the upper levels of football right now IMO.  An afterthought.  Inconsequential.  The game has evolved back to outside receiving talent as teams have squeezed down in the middle.

 

  Also, we don’t have the receiving talent to compete with these teams.  This years playoff has been dominated by alpha receivers.

We need to pay what it takes if Rodgers becomes available and we need alpha dog Allen Robinson if we hope to compete with the elite.

[EastStreet]

11 hours ago, Nickster said:

I don’t know East.  I can’t believe Brady won that game.  I’m still dumbfounded the way his teams have won many of their games since what 2014.

He was simply clutch when he needed to be, and Fournette coming on didn't hurt. He even had a better QBR than Rodgers despite the 3 INTs. 

11 hours ago, Nickster said:

 

Whoever was involved in calling Cover 1 there needs to be put in the stocks for the rest of the week outside of Lambeau.  The risk was on 4th down and they probably don’t win if they don’t go for it there.

That was truly a bad call.

I'd say Rodgers not running it a few times was a bad call by him late, and then not going for it late was another very bad call. 

11 hours ago, Nickster said:

 

I don’t believe in the paranormal whatsoever in theory, but watching Brady win these games challenges that belief.

 

I can tell you this.  Running the ball is basically irrelevant at the upper levels of football right now IMO.  An afterthought.  Inconsequential.  The game has evolved back to outside receiving talent as teams have squeezed down in the middle.

IDK. I agree it's not as important as many think, but you have to admit Fournette had some very key contributions. You could argue it was the difference in the game. 

11 hours ago, Nickster said:

 

  Also, we don’t have the receiving talent to compete with these teams.  This years playoff has been dominated by alpha receivers.

Our WRs and TEs worked pretty well when Reich allowed Rivers to use them. Take a look at the TE usage vs Buffalo.... 

WRs wasn't our problem this year. Rivers had 9 or 10 guys over 200 yards. IMO, Reich is stubborn wanting to be a running team vs too many teams (unless we play Jax, one of the worst run Ds in the league), over rotates pass catchers, and doesn't make teams defend the entire field. 

11 hours ago, Nickster said:

We need to pay what it takes if Rodgers becomes available and we need alpha dog Allen Robinson if we hope to compete with the elite.

You need math help.

[Nickster]

9 hours ago, EastStreet said:

He was simply clutch when he needed to be, and Fournette coming on didn't hurt. He even had a better QBR than Rodgers despite the 3 INTs. 

That was truly a bad call.

I'd say Rodgers not running it a few times was a bad call by him late, and then not going for it late was another very bad call. 

IDK. I agree it's not as important as many think, but you have to admit Fournette had some very key contributions. You could argue it was the difference in the game. 

Our WRs and TEs worked pretty well when Reich allowed Rivers to use them. Take a look at the TE usage vs Buffalo.... 

WRs wasn't our problem this year. Rivers had 9 or 10 guys over 200 yards. IMO, Reich is stubborn wanting to be a running team vs too many teams (unless we play Jax, one of the worst run Ds in the league), over rotates pass catchers, and doesn't make teams defend the entire field. 

You need math help.

Our 50 million dollars worth of QB room is off the books.  We had a good cap number before that.  We paid QBs more than everyone else last year.
 

ole Rodge is a funny one. I would be surprised if he’s not somewhere else in after next season.  

[EastStreet]

15 hours ago, Nickster said:

Our 50 million dollars worth of QB room is off the books.  We had a good cap number before that.  We paid QBs more than everyone else last year.

Not sure what your point is here? But yes, I agree the JB contract was a huge waste and could have equated to 2 very good starters. 

15 hours ago, Nickster said:

ole Rodge is a funny one. I would be surprised if he’s not somewhere else in after next season.  

If he does go somewhere, I think it will be a trip home to Cali, or somewhere sunny to spend his last years with a team more committed to O personnel. 

[Nickster]

40 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Not sure what your point is here? But yes, I agree the JB contract was a huge waste and could have equated to 2 very good starters. 

If he does go somewhere, I think it will be a trip home to Cali, or somewhere sunny to spend his last years with a team more committed to O personnel. 

The point is we have money to spend.  And we need also to focus on offensive talent.

[EastStreet]

10 minutes ago, Nickster said:

The point is we have money to spend.  And we need also to focus on offensive talent.

We're not "rich". Yes we a high cap numbers, but we also have a bunch of vital positions to solve for.

[Nickster]

8 hours ago, EastStreet said:

We're not "rich". Yes we a high cap numbers, but we also have a bunch of vital positions to solve for.

There is nothing more vital than QBs and receiving talent.

[EastStreet]

On 1/28/2021 at 4:42 AM, Nickster said:

There is nothing more vital than QBs and receiving talent.

Yet a guy some called "noodle arm" was top 10ish with what some call "horrible receiving talent".

 

The narrative on both sides (noodle arm and bad receiving talent) is a bit tired. You simply don't achieve top 10ish output with either of those inputs. Not saying an improvement in either area isn't welcome, but neither side of the equation was horrible or even below average. We don't need to back up the truck and overhaul. 

[Nickster]

10 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Yet a guy some called "noodle arm" was top 10ish with what some call "horrible receiving talent".

 

The narrative on both sides (noodle arm and bad receiving talent) is a bit tired. You simply don't achieve top 10ish output with either of those inputs. Not saying an improvement in either area isn't welcome, but neither side of the equation was horrible or even below average. We don't need to back up the truck and overhaul. 

I liked Rivers and our receivers are OK.  We don’t have the receiving talent to go to the next level.  Surprised you can’t see it.

[EastStreet]

2 hours ago, Nickster said:

I liked Rivers and our receivers are OK.  We don’t have the receiving talent to go to the next level.  Surprised you can’t see it.

Sure upgrading either side of the equation would be great. If I could upgrade anything, it would be our pass D, which was clearly the weakest link whenever we played one of the top teams.

 

Our O did fine vs GB and Buffalo. Our pass D did not. Not sure why you can't see that.....

 

Our O would have been fine vs KC or TB too, but we would have given up 300+ to both of their QBs like we did to GB and Buffalo. 

[Nickster]

20 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Sure upgrading either side of the equation would be great. If I could upgrade anything, it would be our pass D, which was clearly the weakest link whenever we played one of the top teams.

 

Our O did fine vs GB and Buffalo. Our pass D did not. Not sure why you can't see that.....

 

Our O would have been fine vs KC or TB too, but we would have given up 300+ to both of their QBs like we did to GB and Buffalo. 

Uh huh.

[EastStreet]

10 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Uh huh.

You are like the boards worst in terms of facts.

 

[Nickster]

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

You are like the boards worst in terms of facts.

 

You are up there on making statistical non sequiters.  You make the demonstrably false assumption that football statistics  are like baseball statistics when it comes to evaluating individual contributions.

In my opinion your on line persona is quite a bit more absolutely confident on its ability to interpret free football data than it should be; if I had to guess I would imagine that man behind the East curtain isn’t as confident in his on line prognostications as the on line persona is because you seem too smart to think you are some sort of stat sage.

 

but I do find your posts interesting.  Pretty biased to support your own positions but food for thought.  I enjoy them.  Sometimes I lean your way in issues, sometimes I don’t.
 

 

I notice you didn’t publish your “evidence” on the red zone woes.  I wonder why?

 

I also notice that Irsay, presumably speaking at least partially in terms of what management sees, recognizes that we don’t have the receiver talent to consistently beat the best.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics East.  Stats are only as useful as the interpretation of their meanings.  
 

Sometimes I disagree with self appointed statistical gurus.

 

sometimes my views turn out to be efficacious, sometimes they don’t.

 

but mostly I just like to talk ball on line and don’t think I am necessarily correct about much.

 

 

[DougDew]

Not following the thread, but my thoughts about Frank's 4th down call in the Bills game.

 

The three options: Either kick the FG, fail on 4th down, or convert the TD

 

With all three options, the Bills get the ball with about 1:30 on the clock.  Its just a matter of where they get the ball.

 

1) If you kick the FG, 3 pts, what are the chances the Bills start off at the 25 (kickoff) and drive a short field to get a FG in 1:30?  

 

We end up ending the first half with the same scoring margin, each team scores three points.

 

2) Make the TD.  We go up 7.  In order for the Bills to keep the score margin the same, they would have to score a TD from the 25 in 1:30.  Not stall out inside the 10, but they would need to score a TD to keep the same scoring margin.

 

3) Fail the 4th down.  The Bills would have to drive the field from the 4 yard line to score either a FG or a TD in 1:30, when our defense was playing pretty well all half.  At the 4, time wastes because Bills would be conservative and not want to turn the ball over at that spot.

 

The Bills did just that, drove the entire field from their own 4.

 

Scenario 1 would not have gained anything.  Scenario 3 should have ended up like scenario 1, we leave the half with the same scoring difference since nobody scores in the last 2 minutes.  No harm no foul for failing to convert the 4th down.  Only scenario 2 would have made a real difference in point margin.

 

The problem wasn't the strategy, the problem was that the defense failed.  As it had all season.  When the opposing O presses the gas, our defense comes up short.  Just like in both HOU games.  Thank god for the fumbles.

[EastStreet]

On 1/31/2021 at 6:25 AM, Nickster said:

You are up there on making statistical non sequiters.  You make the demonstrably false assumption that football statistics  are like baseball statistics when it comes to evaluating individual contributions.

In my opinion your on line persona is quite a bit more absolutely confident on its ability to interpret free football data than it should be; if I had to guess I would imagine that man behind the East curtain isn’t as confident in his on line prognostications as the on line persona is because you seem too smart to think you are some sort of stat sage.

 

but I do find your posts interesting.  Pretty biased to support your own positions but food for thought.  I enjoy them.  Sometimes I lean your way in issues, sometimes I don’t.
 

 

I notice you didn’t publish your “evidence” on the red zone woes.  I wonder why?

 

I also notice that Irsay, presumably speaking at least partially in terms of what management sees, recognizes that we don’t have the receiver talent to consistently beat the best.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics East.  Stats are only as useful as the interpretation of their meanings.  
 

Sometimes I disagree with self appointed statistical gurus.

 

sometimes my views turn out to be efficacious, sometimes they don’t.

 

but mostly I just like to talk ball on line and don’t think I am necessarily correct about much.

Do you even know what a non sequitur is? Begin though, with spelling it correctly. It's a conclusion that doesn't follow logically from the previous statement. Either you're using the term incorrectly, or you just don't understand what it means. You're use of big, and/or lesser known terms is kinda funny at times. If anything, you're one of the biggest "non sequitur" abusers. You constantly jump off topic, or deflect from basic logical discourse when confronted with conversation-relevant stats or data points. 

 

I'm not stretching facts or statistics. The ENTIRE season of stats show that we were top 10ish in run D, pass O, and run O.

 

The only outlier is Pass D. Not sure what your point is about red zone D.... The facts around RZ D actually support my conclusions. All this bull dooky about "bend don't break"... it's lol. "Bend don't break" is allowing yards, and shutting down in the RZ or on 3rd down. We allowed a lot of passing yards, and we were also outside of the top 20 in RZ D... And we're below average on 3rd down D. So obviously we were breaking as well. Thank god for run D or it would have been very ugly. 

 

I'm no sage. I do rely on facts. Stats don't lie. They are just stats. Conclusions however can be bad, and interpretation wrong..... You however seem to either enjoy defying simply facts/stats on purpose, or form your conclusion without any factual or statistical input and then become intellectually dishonest and "non sequitur"-ish when trying to defend. 

[Nickster]

7 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Do you even know what a non sequitur is? Begin though, with spelling it correctly. It's a conclusion that doesn't follow logically from the previous statement. Either you're using the term incorrectly, or you just don't understand what it means. You're use of big, and/or lesser known terms is kinda funny at times. If anything, you're one of the biggest "non sequitur" abusers. You constantly jump off topic, or deflect from basic logical discourse when confronted with conversation-relevant stats or data points. 

 

I'm not stretching facts or statistics. The ENTIRE season of stats show that we were top 10ish in run D, pass O, and run O.

 

The only outlier is Pass D. Not sure what your point is about red zone D.... The facts around RZ D actually support my conclusions. All this bull dooky about "bend don't break"... it's lol. "Bend don't break" is allowing yards, and shutting down in the RZ or on 3rd down. We allowed a lot of passing yards, and we were also outside of the top 20 in RZ D... And we're below average on 3rd down D. So obviously we were breaking as well. Thank god for run D or it would have been very ugly. 

 

I'm no sage. I do rely on facts. Stats don't lie. They are just stats. Conclusions however can be bad, and interpretation wrong..... You however seem to either enjoy defying simply facts/stats on purpose, or form your conclusion without any factual or statistical input and then become intellectually dishonest and "non sequitur"-ish when trying to defend. 

You are a spelling cop too!

 

your conclusions don’t always follow your statistical statements .  
 

duh

[EastStreet]

1 hour ago, Nickster said:

You are a spelling cop too!

 

your conclusions don’t always follow your statistical statements .  
 

duh

Please let me know what I've concluded without either using stats/facts, or either labeled purely as opinion or hot take.

 

I'm actually not the best at spelling (praise Jesus for spell check) as I type quick on a lot of small devices, and my eyes are aging... Reading glasses only go so far. That said, I've managed several divisions and companies where I've had many DB and analytics teams. Your spelling of that particular word stuck out. And the use of the term was improper.

[Nickster]

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

Please let me know what I've concluded without either using stats/facts, or either labeled purely as opinion or hot take.

 

I'm actually not the best at spelling (praise Jesus for spell check) as I type quick on a lot of small devices, and my eyes are aging... Reading glasses only go so far. That said, I've managed several divisions and companies where I've had many DB and analytics teams. Your spelling of that particular word stuck out. And the use of the term was improper.

Those are some heavy credentials East.  I'm impressed.  

I'm just a lowly educator.

[Nickster]

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

Please let me know what I've concluded without either using stats/facts, or either labeled purely as opinion or hot take.

 

I'm actually not the best at spelling (praise Jesus for spell check) as I type quick on a lot of small devices, and my eyes are aging... Reading glasses only go so far. That said, I've managed several divisions and companies where I've had many DB and analytics teams. Your spelling of that particular word stuck out. And the use of the term was improper.

 

YOUR CONCLUSIONS DO NOT ALWAYS FOLLOW FROM YOUR PREMISES.  Language is pliable East.  I get on internet forums like I'm sitting at a bar not at a conference table with the underlings I mangage.  (Or more like a zoom meeting.)

 

I didn't realize the fairly commonly used idea of a non-sequiter was such a baffling concept in internet agorae.  And BTW East, I can literally hit a pitching wedge to Kentucky from my back yard and we pronounce it and spell it with an er.  

 

I hope you are more fun than this in real life.

[EastStreet]

18 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Those are some heavy credentials East.  I'm impressed.  

I'm just a lowly educator.

Educators are not lowly. I have several in my extended family. I've been fortunate in my career. I've overseen the creation at least 5 workflow and PM tools in the last 20 years, including the backend DB and reporting aspects. I'm not a programmer or anything, It's just an integral part the businesses I've been in. It's much easier now, and there are tons of companies that specialize in it. Back in the early 2000s, I had my own programmers. Now there are a ton of off the shelf options for most, and plenty of companies that can customize. It's still a pain though. 

[EastStreet]

33 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

YOUR CONCLUSIONS DO NOT ALWAYS FOLLOW FROM YOUR PREMISES.  Language is pliable East.  I get on internet forums like I'm sitting at a bar not at a conference table with the underlings I mangage.  (Or more like a zoom meeting.)

 

I didn't realize the fairly commonly used idea of a non-sequiter was such a baffling concept in internet agorae.  And BTW East, I can literally hit a pitching wedge to Kentucky from my back yard and we pronounce it and spell it with an er.  

 

I hope you are more fun than this in real life.

Like I said, feel free to give examples..... 

[Nickster]

5 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Educators are not lowly. I have several in my extended family. I've been fortunate in my career. I've overseen the creation at least 5 workflow and PM tools in the last 20 years, including the backend DB and reporting aspects. I'm not a programmer or anything, It's just an integral part the businesses I've been in. It's much easier now, and there are tons of companies that specialize in it. Back in the early 2000s, I had my own programmers. Now there are a ton of off the shelf options for most, and plenty of companies that can customize. It's still a pain though. 

That's awesome dude.  It makes sense that you argue the way you do from your perspective.

 

Dude I am an English teacher, who became interested in Lit through the Beats, Dostoyevsky (sic), and Charles friggin Bukowski. I spent several year on an Indian Reservation in my early and mid 20s then hung out in Seattle and Vancouver for a while before coming back home.  Your perspective and mine are quite different.

 

I was also on some really good football staffs, I am not a real football guy but I have been involved in the process of film study, breakdown, personnel scouting, game planning, etc. under some pretty smart guys for HS FB coaches. 

 

Stats need a lot of context is really all I am saying.  I am very skeptical of over confidence in any bodies interpretation of what football statistics mean.  There are so many variables that it is mind boggling. I am a natural skeptic, but I am not inflexible.  

  

But I really do strongly disagree with your idea that the Colt's RZ issues are mainly coaching issues.  I think it's personnel and I thing the organizaiton does to.  

 

 

[Nickster]

5 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Like I said, feel free to give examples..... 

 

Well East, I am arguing for the limitations of what free internet stats can tell us without knowing the play calls and individual assignments of all the players of both teams with a great degree of certainty.  So it's not going to really make sense for me to cite statistical data to argue for that point.

 

I mean we could do that I have on occasion, but in the end there is always a leap of faith so to speak when going from statistical fact to judgement based on those facts.  The evalutations themselves are subject to evalutation and really so on ad infinitem;)

 

One thing I do know for sure.  One of the staffs I worked on had the HC, DC, and OC all come up with their own grades before our Sunday morning film study of Friday night's games.  They often disagreed even though they knew our playcalls on every play unlike someone breaking down film of another team.  ie. there is often disention on grades, etc.

 

One thing specific that I disagree with you on and we've done stat exchanges on it with you often not accepting my "facts" and me not accetpting your interpretations of the "facts" is that the Colts need to throw more to the TE on the RZ being a greater problem than the lack of alpha receiving talent being a greater RZ issue.  There are many statistics that show the trend in this direction and you don't have to work to hard to find them.

 

I think our TE group is limited in what it can do well.  So when you claim "stats" show they need to be targeted more and that would solve our RZ issues, I disagree with your leap of faith from raw data to fairly inflexible broad conclusion.  This is how logic works man.  And I am not logician either.  But all logical conclusions rely on the validity of the premises.  I don't think your interpretation (conclusion) is necessarily valid in terms of your statistics (premises), and here I am using valid in a strictly logical sense (ie. whether the results really do represent what they are supposed to measure.)

 

And I'm really not trying to be a borass here.

 

I just think we need alpha talent at receiver.

[EastStreet]

14 minutes ago, Nickster said:

That's awesome dude.  It makes sense that you argue the way you do from your perspective.

 

Dude I am an English teacher, who became interested in Lit through the Beats, Dostoyevsky (sic), and Charles friggin Bukowski. I spent several year on an Indian Reservation in my early and mid 20s then hung out in Seattle and Vancouver for a while before coming back home.  Your perspective and mine are quite different.

 

I was also on some really good football staffs, I am not a real football guy but I have been involved in the process of film study, breakdown, personnel scouting, game planning, etc. under some pretty smart guys for HS FB coaches. 

 

Stats need a lot of context is really all I am saying.  I am very skeptical of over confidence in any bodies interpretation of what football statistics mean.  There are so many variables that it is mind boggling. I am a natural skeptic, but I am not inflexible.  

  

But I really do strongly disagree with your idea that the Colt's RZ issues are mainly coaching issues.  I think it's personnel and I thing the organizaiton does to.  

I'm an operations guy in the tech and tech deployment industry. You simply can't be successful without stats/numbers/metrics in that sector. 

 

I used to be well read in my younger days. I liked Dostoyevsky. Bukowski does nothing for me.

 

I looked at a lot of stats the last several weeks. Primarily traits of the top 10 RZ teams. We are definitely an outlier in several facets (especially in the passing game, and the biggest was "bigs" usage. I haven't published because I've been busy and wanted to look at situational running more. I'll likely skip that and just publish what I have this weekend. I just don't have enough time to deep dive some of the stuff, and have competing interests (like the roster) I'd rather spend time on.

[EastStreet]

14 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

Well East, I am arguing for the limitations of what free internet stats can tell us without knowing the play calls and individual assignments of all the players of both teams with a great degree of certainty.  So it's not going to really make sense for me to cite statistical data to argue for that point.

 

I mean we could do that I have on occasion, but in the end there is always a leap of faith so to speak when going from statistical fact to judgement based on those facts.  The evalutations themselves are subject to evalutation and really so on ad infinitem;)

 

One thing I do know for sure.  One of the staffs I worked on had the HC, DC, and OC all come up with their own grades before our Sunday morning film study of Friday night's games.  They often disagreed even though they knew our playcalls on every play unlike someone breaking down film of another team.  ie. there is often disention on grades, etc.

 

One thing specific that I disagree with you on and we've done stat exchanges on it with you often not accepting my "facts" and me not accetpting your interpretations of the "facts" is that the Colts need to throw more to the TE on the RZ being a greater problem than the lack of alpha receiving talent being a greater RZ issue.  There are many statistics that show the trend in this direction and you don't have to work to hard to find them.

 

I think our TE group is limited in what it can do well.  So when you claim "stats" show they need to be targeted more and that would solve our RZ issues, I disagree with your leap of faith from raw data to fairly inflexible broad conclusion.  This is how logic works man.  And I am not logician either.  But all logical conclusions rely on the validity of the premises.  I don't think your interpretation (conclusion) is necessarily valid in terms of your statistics (premises), and here I am using valid in a strictly logical sense (ie. whether the results really do represent what they are supposed to measure.)

 

And I'm really not trying to be a borass here.

 

I just think we need alpha talent at receiver.

LOL. The above is not an example of what I asked you to provide. 

 

It is an example of you deflecting. 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Nickster said:

 

 

I was also on some really good football staffs, I am not a real football guy but I have been involved in the process of film study, breakdown, personnel scouting, game planning, etc. under some pretty smart guys for HS FB coaches. 

 

Stats need a lot of context is really all I am saying.  I am very skeptical of over confidence in any bodies interpretation of what football statistics mean.  There are so many variables that it is mind boggling. I am a natural skeptic, but I am not inflexible.  

   

 

 

Not going to get in the middle here, but the discussion about stats is always interesting.

 

Stats are inferior to actual knowledge.  They are not superior, nor are they equivalent.  They are used as a proxy.  When someone doesn't know something, but yet wants to know enough to form an opinion, they use stats because they don't have the time to acquire real knowledge about a situation.  Its not that stats are not useful, but the sometimes treatment that they answer a question or even provide support for a conclusion is way overused.  And its way overused lately because stats are now everywhere on the internet, accessible to many who don't really even know how they are supposed to be used.

 

Stats are used to try to figure out what happened.  The RB averages 2.1 ypc.  If you had the time to watch tape ov every play the RB made....every "datapoint" that fed the stat, then you would know if the RB sucked or not and the actual stats of 2.1 ypc is completely meaningless because its johnny-come-lately information.  You already know the RB sucks, you don't need a compiled stat to illuminate you.

 

The problem is, there are so many people who want to form an opinion about a RB, the only thing they have is stats, because they don't have the time to watch every play.  Football coaches and GMs have that time. 

 

But stats do not come close to comparing to actually watching the game.  IOW, being onsite when the data is being created is a much better source of knowledge than looking at a compilation of stats from a home office 500 miles away.

[Nickster]

45 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

LOL. The above is not an example of what I asked you to provide. 

 

It is an example of you deflecting. 

I just don't agree with you about deflecting East.  Agree to disagree.  I think you are unwilling to engage in conversations about ideas that you feel like you can't control.  

 

 

 

21 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Not going to get in the middle here, but the discussion about stats is always interesting.

 

Stats are inferior to actual knowledge.  They are not superior, nor are they equivalent.  They are used as a proxy.  When someone doesn't know something, but yet wants to know enough to form an opinion, they use stats because they don't have the time to acquire real knowledge about a situation.  Its not that stats are not useful, but the sometimes treatment that they answer a question or even provide support for a conclusion is way overused.  And its way overused lately because stats are now everywhere on the internet, accessible to many who don't really even know how they are supposed to be used.

 

Stats are used to try to figure out what happened.  The RB averages 2.1 ypc.  If you had the time to watch tape ov every play the RB made....every "datapoint" that fed the stat, then you would know if the RB sucked or not and the actual stats of 2.1 ypc is completely meaningless because its johnny-come-lately information.  You already know the RB sucks, you don't need a compiled stat to illuminate you.

 

The problem is, there are so many people who want to form an opinion about a RB, the only thing they have is stats, because they don't have the time to watch every play.  Football coaches and GMs have that time. 

 

But stats do not come close to comparing to actually watching the game.  IOW, being onsite when the data is being created is a much better source of knowledge than looking at a compilation of stats from a home office 500 miles away.

Well Doug, that's what I've been trying to say.

[Nickster]

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

LOL. The above is not an example of what I asked you to provide. 

 

It is an example of you deflecting. 

 

And East BTW, Dos was very critical of the idea of mathematical rationality as general theory.  He was a former mathematician himself and rejected the applied part of mathematics as the end all be all of human affairs.  

 

Them Russians should have listened to him.  They got in pretty big trouble with univeral arithmetical theories of government and economics.

[EastStreet]

25 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Not going to get in the middle here, but the discussion about stats is always interesting.

 

Stats are inferior to actual knowledge.  They are not superior, nor are they equivalent.  They are used as a proxy.  When someone doesn't know something, but yet wants to know enough to form an opinion, they use stats because they don't have the time to acquire real knowledge about a situation.  Its not that stats are not useful, but the sometimes treatment that they answer a question or even provide support for a conclusion is way overused.  And its way overused lately because stats are now everywhere on the internet, accessible to many who don't really even know how they are supposed to be used.

 

Stats are used to try to figure out what happened.  The RB averages 2.1 ypc.  If you had the time to watch tape ov every play the RB made....every "datapoint" that fed the stat, then you would know if the RB sucked or not and the actual stats of 2.1 ypc is completely meaningless because its johnny-come-lately information.  You already know the RB sucks, you don't need a compiled stat to illuminate you.

 

The problem is, there are so many people who want to form an opinion about a RB, the only thing they have is stats, because they don't have the time to watch every play.  Football coaches and GMs have that time. 

 

But stats do not come close to comparing to actually watching the game.  IOW, being onsite when the data is being created is a much better source of knowledge than looking at a compilation of stats from a home office 500 miles away.

Everyone (almost everyone) on the board watches games. And you have 100 different opinions based on those many different subjective eyes. 

 

Stats aren't subjective. Interpretation can be. And no, they aren't everything. I don't form my opinion based on stats. I typically have an opinion as I'm watching. Sometimes the stats support that opinion, sometimes they challenge me to re-examine my initial opinion (and potentially change my opinion). 

 

In this situation (which you're jumping into without knowing), I stated an opinion that we don't use bigs enough in the RZ. That opinion was more eye than stat. I did dive into the stats, comparing our usage of bigs to the top 10 RZ teams, and we are an outlier. So the stats supported the eye....

 

Thank you for the chuckle... ...

---"I'm not going to jump in the middle here", and proceeds to jump in the middle lol.. 

 

5 minutes ago, Nickster said:

I just don't agree with you about deflecting East.  Agree to disagree.  I think you are unwilling to engage in conversations about ideas that you feel like you can't control.  

You accused me of interacting in a certain way (although you misused and misspelled the term). I simply asked for specific examples. 

5 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Well Doug, that's what I've been trying to say.

Stats aren't everything. Neither are fan's eyes. 

It's just not logical to be so stats-averse lol... but I do understand your outlook as a lit guy / English teacher. 

[Nickster]

4 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Everyone (almost everyone) on the board watches games. And you have 100 different opinions based on those many different subjective eyes. 

 

Stats aren't subjective. Interpretation can be. And no, they aren't everything. I don't form my opinion based on stats. I typically have an opinion as I'm watching. Sometimes the stats support that opinion, sometimes they challenge me to re-examine my initial opinion (and potentially change my opinion). 

 

In this situation (which you're jumping into without knowing), I stated an opinion that we don't use bigs enough in the RZ. That opinion was more eye than stat. I did dive into the stats, comparing our usage of bigs to the top 10 RZ teams, and we are an outlier. So the stats supported the eye....

 

Thank you for the chuckle... ...

---"I'm not going to jump in the middle here", and proceeds to jump in the middle lol.. 

 

You accused me of interacting in a certain way (although you misused and misspelled the term). I simply asked for specific examples. 

Stats aren't everything. Neither are fan's eyes. 

It's just not logical to be so stats-averse lol... but I do understand your outlook as a lit guy / English teacher. 

 

I am in absolute lockstep with you on this.  

[Nickster]

5 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Everyone (almost everyone) on the board watches games. And you have 100 different opinions based on those many different subjective eyes. 

 

Stats aren't subjective. Interpretation can be. And no, they aren't everything. I don't form my opinion based on stats. I typically have an opinion as I'm watching. Sometimes the stats support that opinion, sometimes they challenge me to re-examine my initial opinion (and potentially change my opinion). 

 

In this situation (which you're jumping into without knowing), I stated an opinion that we don't use bigs enough in the RZ. That opinion was more eye than stat. I did dive into the stats, comparing our usage of bigs to the top 10 RZ teams, and we are an outlier. So the stats supported the eye....

 

Thank you for the chuckle... ...

---"I'm not going to jump in the middle here", and proceeds to jump in the middle lol.. 

 

You accused me of interacting in a certain way (although you misused and misspelled the term). I simply asked for specific examples. 

Stats aren't everything. Neither are fan's eyes. 

It's just not logical to be so stats-averse lol... but I do understand your outlook as a lit guy / English teacher. 

 

I'm not stats averse man.  I am just stats interpretation skeptical.  I think we have more of a personnel issue than a play call issue.

 

I think you don't take into account enough that our lack of alpha talent limits what can be called.

THAT BEING SAID.  I am not averse to throwing more to tight ends, especially one's named Ertz; and I think Frank is too stubborn with the "run philosophy" think and doesn't adjust quick enough sometimes.  But I think you agree with this last idea.

[Nickster]

9 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Everyone (almost everyone) on the board watches games. And you have 100 different opinions based on those many different subjective eyes. 

 

Stats aren't subjective. Interpretation can be. And no, they aren't everything. I don't form my opinion based on stats. I typically have an opinion as I'm watching. Sometimes the stats support that opinion, sometimes they challenge me to re-examine my initial opinion (and potentially change my opinion). 

 

In this situation (which you're jumping into without knowing), I stated an opinion that we don't use bigs enough in the RZ. That opinion was more eye than stat. I did dive into the stats, comparing our usage of bigs to the top 10 RZ teams, and we are an outlier. So the stats supported the eye....

 

Thank you for the chuckle... ...

---"I'm not going to jump in the middle here", and proceeds to jump in the middle lol.. 

 

You accused me of interacting in a certain way (although you misused and misspelled the term). I simply asked for specific examples. 

Stats aren't everything. Neither are fan's eyes. 

It's just not logical to be so stats-averse lol... but I do understand your outlook as a lit guy / English teacher. 

 

And Dude yeah, I have statistical interpretation paranoia as a teacher.  There have been ridiculous programs recylcled, rehashed, and rejected that have had disastrous results in American education in the name of data analysis.

[EastStreet]

8 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

And East BTW, Dos was very critical of the idea of mathematical rationality as general theory.  He was a former mathematician himself and rejected the applied part of mathematics as the end all be all of human affairs.  

 

Them Russians should have listened to him.  They got in pretty big trouble with univeral arithmetical theories of government and economics.

lol... Why is Dostoevsky's view on mathematics be relevant here. I like some (not all) of his writings, and found some of opinions on Christianity interesting. That's about it. I don't hold him to any lofty stature. Crime and Punishment was fantastic. Most of his other writings, and he himself, were pretty flawed. He also thought democracy was a waste... lol. And nobody here is saying mathematics should be the end all to human affairs. 

 

 

[EastStreet]

3 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

I'm not stats averse man.  I am just stats interpretation skeptical.  I think we have more of a personnel issue than a play call issue.

 

I think you don't take into account enough that our lack of alpha talent limits what can be called.

THAT BEING SAID.  I am not averse to throwing more to tight ends, especially one's named Ertz; and I think Frank is too stubborn with the "run philosophy" think and doesn't adjust quick enough sometimes.  But I think you agree with this last idea.

I think you said you would re-examine your opinion if we were indeed an outlier to the top RZ teams (on the topic of throwing to bigs), correct?

[Nickster]

2 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

lol... Why is Dostoevsky's view on mathematics be relevant here. I like some (not all) of his writings, and found some of opinions on Christianity interesting. That's about it. I don't hold him to any lofty stature. Crime and Punishment was fantastic. Most of his other writings, and he himself, were pretty flawed. He also thought democracy was a waste... lol. And nobody here is saying mathematics should be the end all to human affairs. 

 

 

It's probably more accurate to say that he felt that Republicanism wouldn't work among Russians, and you have to admit, that it hasn't really been able to take root there.

 

1 minute ago, EastStreet said:

I think you said you would re-examine your opinion if we were indeed an outlier to the top RZ teams (on the topic of throwing to bigs), correct?

On LOOK OUT BELOW!   East has a gotcha stat coming.

[EastStreet]

3 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

And Dude yeah, I have statistical interpretation paranoia as a teacher.  There have been ridiculous programs recylcled, rehashed, and rejected that have had disastrous results in American education in the name of data analysis.

The failures of America's educational system has nothing to do with statistical use of anything IMO. The Nordic and many Asian countries are killing us. The Fins for example have a deep cultural respect for learning. The Asian countries have a deep respect for hard work. The US has neither. We need to learn from S. Korea specifically about determination, and from Finland about cultural buy in to the importance of education. Here in the US, we want to make excuses, let kids disrupt classes, let parents off the hook, and pass kids on to the next grade without a standardized or acceptable level of testing. 

[EastStreet]

15 minutes ago, Nickster said:

It's probably more accurate to say that he felt that Republicanism wouldn't work among Russians, and you have to admit, that it hasn't really been able to take root there.

 

On LOOK OUT BELOW!   East has a gotcha stat coming.

Dostoevsky said both. He said specifically democracy was only interested in helping impoverished. I disagree on that aspect, but I do agree on some of views on Christianity's impact, and also that political parties lead to an unnatural state of conflict amidst citizens. He got a lot of things wrong, and some right. In essence, he's no different than most.

[DougDew]

45 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Everyone (almost everyone) on the board watches games. And you have 100 different opinions based on those many different subjective eyes. 

 

Stats aren't subjective. Interpretation can be. And no, they aren't everything. I don't form my opinion based on stats. I typically have an opinion as I'm watching. Sometimes the stats support that opinion, sometimes they challenge me to re-examine my initial opinion (and potentially change my opinion). 

 

In this situation (which you're jumping into without knowing), I stated an opinion that we don't use bigs enough in the RZ. That opinion was more eye than stat. I did dive into the stats, comparing our usage of bigs to the top 10 RZ teams, and we are an outlier. So the stats supported the eye....

 

Thank you for the chuckle... ...

---"I'm not going to jump in the middle here", and proceeds to jump in the middle lol.. 

I'm not in the middle because I only viewed Nickster's side of your discussion.  I quoted the narrow part of Nickster's comment that focused on stats and quoted them to offer my support and explanation.  I know your general opinion but I don't really know how vibrantly you were stating it because that wasn't my focus.

 

As you know, a 2.1 ypc between 2 RBs can have different nuances.  Once runs against a stacked box and another does not but falls down easily.  Yes, the statisticians solution would be to go fetch more stats, include a metric that shows a stacked box, etc.. Deeper and deeper.  More granular.  You can always add more stats.  Add more cohorts, and pretty soon you might have the same amount of information gathered from 500 miles away than if you had somebody onsite compiling the information with his eyes. 

 

The internet is full of these types of discussions, usually within the umbrella that indirectly asks who is smarter, the guy with the eyes or the guy writing or using the algorithm.  And we know who the  algorithm folks thinks is smarter.  In fact its very trendy to say that, in part, because the algorithm guy can whip out a bunch of formal education credentials where as the eye guy simply has uncredentialled experience.  The terms objective and subjective usually appear.

 

The term "subjective" isn't a pejorative.  Its not inherently inferior to objective.  A lot of cherry picked discussion-points that appear objective start from a subjective theory or position to begin with.

 

The goal is not to be objective and not subjective.  The goal is to be right, and not wrong.

[EastStreet]

8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I'm not in the middle because I only viewed Nickster's side of your discussion.  I quoted the narrow part of Nickster's comment that focused on stats and quoted them to offer my support and explanation.  I know your general opinion but I don't really know how vibrantly you were stating it because that wasn't my focus.

 

As you know, a 2.1 ypc between 2 RBs can have different nuances.  Once runs against a stacked box and another does not but falls down easily.  Yes, the statisticians solution would be to go fetch more stats, include a metric that shows a stacked box, etc.. Deeper and deeper.  More granular.  You can always add more stats.  Add more cohorts, and pretty soon you might have the same amount of information gathered from 500 miles away than if you had somebody onsite compiling the information with his eyes. 

 

The internet is full of these types of discussions, usually within the umbrella that indirectly asks who is smarter, the guy with the eyes or the guy writing or using the algorithm.  And we know who the  algorithm folks thinks is smarter.  In fact its very trendy to say that, in part, because the algorithm guy can whip out a bunch of formal education credentials where as the eye guy simply has uncredentialled experience.  The terms objective and subjective usually appear.

 

The term "subjective" isn't a pejorative.  Its not inherently inferior to objective.  A lot of cherry picked discussion-points that appear objective start from a subjective theory or position to begin with.

 

The goal is not to be objective and not subjective.  The goal is to be right, and not wrong.

Most successful people use both the eye and alg. They are also much more objective than subjective in their decision making.

 

But you are correct in part. A lot of objective conclusion come from a subjective theory to start with. One should always challenge his subjective thought with objective fact. And so long as that person is not blinded by confirmation bias in their examination of objective data, that's the best outcome.