for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

Is the old school run the ball and stop the run mantra dead?

BigBlueDownTheShore : 1/19/2020 6:11 pm
This Chief/Titans game was old school vs new school. Seems like their is more than one way to skin the cat.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 <<Prev | Show All |
What, that a large generation has grown up with social media....  
Britt in VA : 1/23/2020 9:34 am : link
and all of the other generations have not?

Is that not a fact? Because I'm 44, and didn't have an email address until I was in college.
RE: ...  
Britt in VA : 1/23/2020 9:38 am : link
In comment 14790555 christian said:
Quote:
It's funny, the communication on here that offends my sensibilities comes from the guys who I presume are a little older and I suspect actually would speak like that face-to-face.

I think Joey probably wouldn't shy from saying that to someone. He's never appeared to be shy or disingenuous. I don't think FMiC would shy from calling someone something condescending if the opportunity presented itself.

I think Terps has a pretty fixed sense of the world. But Britt, read back what you just typed. Can you see how someome could interpret you as staying your opinion as facts?


Here's the other thing... Have you met anybody from BBI? Because, while I have not met Joey or Fatman in person, I have met countless others WAY back in the day when we all used to go to training camp in Albany. And there was WAY more vitriol spewed on BBI back in those days. It was like the Wild West compared to now. And some of the most vitriolic posters back then were some of the nicest guys you could meet in person and have a beer with.
And it was so simple then....  
Britt in VA : 1/23/2020 9:41 am : link
all arrangements were made on BBI. Stay at this hotel. Meet at the hotel bar. Meet in the lobby for practice. We're all going here for dinner, etc...

But beyond that, you had to walk into a group of 30-40 complete strangers from all walks of life, introduce yourself face to face, and join the conversation. In person.

So you suspect wrong. Because it wasn't like that at all. And that was when it was ME who was in his mid-twenties, interacting with the older posters.

What I didn't do was go in there with some smarmy ass attitude that I was the smartest person in the room, and condemn all others who didn't think like me. THAT's what wouldn't have gone over well in person. And it wouldn't be a big deal, just nobody would want to hang out with you.
imo  
Bill2 : 1/23/2020 9:44 am : link
We are off in the weeds right now

imo, the flash point is not use of social media

imo,the flash point is not pessimists vs optimists

imo, the flash point is certainty and arrogance. Not a generational thing at all. Lets use a parallel to this observation from 2400 years ago

The truth is that what goes on in our heads ( the Forms) as humans is not reality. Reality is out there outside our experience. And the only way to get closer to a real picture is to listen to others in the Cave.

Keeping that in mind every day...helps a lot
RE: imo  
Britt in VA : 1/23/2020 9:47 am : link
In comment 14790611 Bill2 said:
Quote:
We are off in the weeds right now

imo, the flash point is not use of social media

imo,the flash point is not pessimists vs optimists

imo, the flash point is certainty and arrogance. Not a generational thing at all. Lets use a parallel to this observation from 2400 years ago

The truth is that what goes on in our heads ( the Forms) as humans is not reality. Reality is out there outside our experience. And the only way to get closer to a real picture is to listen to others in the Cave.

Keeping that in mind every day...helps a lot


I agree that certainty and arrogance are at the heart of the matter, Bill.

But we have to acknowledge that the way we communicate has evolved, and I think we all understand that words on a screen don't always jive with words spoken directly, lack inflection and emotion, and can sometimes be interpreted not as intended.
That is true...  
bw in dc : 1/23/2020 9:49 am : link
BBI in the ‘90s was raw and unplugged. Very Darwinistic. It was so much better than today’s PC version of BBI.

But it is what it is, so you just adjust. But there is a softness now that is palpable, especially as the BBI mainstream has grown bigger and bigger...
Appearances..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 1/23/2020 9:58 am : link
can be deceiving:

Quote:
Here's the other thing... Have you met anybody from BBI? Because, while I have not met Joey or Fatman in person, I have met countless others WAY back in the day when we all used to go to training camp in Albany.


T-Bone in person was the biggest asshole in the world!!!

I kid I kid.

Just a word of advice, if you ever meet up with CiP, bring a set of snips so you can cut the lock off of his wallet.....
RE: That is true...  
crick n NC : 1/23/2020 10:00 am : link
In comment 14790618 bw in dc said:
Quote:
BBI in the ‘90s was raw and unplugged. Very Darwinistic. It was so much better than today’s PC version of BBI.

But it is what it is, so you just adjust. But there is a softness now that is palpable, especially as the BBI mainstream has grown bigger and bigger...


Are you not a fan of common courtesy towards others? Serious question.
crick..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 1/23/2020 10:07 am : link
I think the concept of "common courtesy" is a difficult one for a message board.

We are in a population where a portion of posters are here to incite or create multiple handles to steer the dialogue or promote certain narratives. It isn't like in person where the guy you see is the same guy you'll see the next time

The key to "common courtesy" is the common part. Oftentimes, two posters don't have that commonality. You can even see in this thread from responses from ron and McL, that they don't believe I am ever courteous. That is their perception because I've not been courteous TO THEM. You may have a different take. A lot of posters on this site have a different take.

Generally courtesy is given until it is shown that it shouldn't be.
RE: crick..  
crick n NC : 1/23/2020 10:09 am : link
In comment 14790648 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
I think the concept of "common courtesy" is a difficult one for a message board.

We are in a population where a portion of posters are here to incite or create multiple handles to steer the dialogue or promote certain narratives. It isn't like in person where the guy you see is the same guy you'll see the next time

The key to "common courtesy" is the common part. Oftentimes, two posters don't have that commonality. You can even see in this thread from responses from ron and McL, that they don't believe I am ever courteous. That is their perception because I've not been courteous TO THEM. You may have a different take. A lot of posters on this site have a different take.

Generally courtesy is given until it is shown that it shouldn't be.


Thanks, that gives me something to chew on for a bit.
RE: And it was so simple then....  
christian : 1/23/2020 10:16 am : link
In comment 14790607 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
So you suspect wrong. Because it wasn't like that at all. And that was when it was ME who was in his mid-twenties, interacting with the older posters.


When I lived in San Francisco I met a ton of BBIers from 2000-2014 at a number of Raider, 9ers games, and bars for games. Probably 50-75. Most of them were everything I'd expected from interacting here. Lots of really great guys and a few who were a little much with their opinions.

No one surprised me, and no one was dramatically different.

Is there nuance and subtlety lost when typing versus in-person? Sure. But I don't buy there is some generational divide that makes those who came of age before social media better communicators on or offline.
for the record my complaint isn't that you aren't curtous  
ron mexico : 1/23/2020 10:55 am : link
its that you spend most of your time discussing other BBIers and very little time actually discussing the team. At least this current version of the team. That my perception anyway.

But whatever man, I'm not a mod. Post how you want.

RE: RE: That is true...  
bw in dc : 1/23/2020 11:06 am : link
In comment 14790635 crick n NC said:
Quote:
In comment 14790618 bw in dc said:


Quote:


BBI in the ‘90s was raw and unplugged. Very Darwinistic. It was so much better than today’s PC version of BBI.

But it is what it is, so you just adjust. But there is a softness now that is palpable, especially as the BBI mainstream has grown bigger and bigger...



Are you not a fan of common courtesy towards others? Serious question.


In general? Sure.

Do I expect it around here? I don't. But I accept those terms and manage around it.
RE: crick..  
.McL. : 1/23/2020 1:03 pm : link
Quote:

Generally courtesy is given until it is shown that it shouldn't be.

Too bad you don't live by this quote.
You're criteria for being courteous is based on whether or not in your view the opinion is critical of the team, or oddly enough, if somebody expresses an opinion and tries to back that opinion with with something more than just blurting it out.

You will notice that there really isn't anybody on this board that I am generally discourteous towards other than you. But, to illustrate the kind of cancer you promote, I have been sharp with crick in the past. In my head, I felt that he had been discourteous towards me in the past. When I looked back I realized why. He has never been directly discourteous, but he has supported you on a few occasions where you were being particularly vile. Googs pointed out to me that he found crick to generally be a thoughtful/introspective poster, and watching him more carefully I agree with Googs. I still don't have a warm fuzzy about him, because he supported some of your vitriol, but, he doesn't deserve being lumped in with you. The way you behave impacts the way others behave, and the way others are perceived. It generally lowers the civility of the discourse, it inhibits honest debate and divides people.
Regarding posting with certainty or "arrogance"  
.McL. : 1/23/2020 1:22 pm : link
One thing I have noticed.

When I express opinions, especially ones that I expect will be somewhat controversial or debatable, I try to provide information that supports my opinion. For example, in this thread, I did the math on how much draft capital based on the draft value chart has actually been spent on the oline. It is things like that which inform my opinion, so I provide it.

When you provide an opinion with supporting information, it makes it much harder to argue an alternative opinion. Not impossible but harder. I think that offends some people and they feel their opinion is being shut out. They feel that I am posting with "certainty" or being "arrogant". But when you read what I write, my opinions are either clearly stated as such, or stated with some caveat. It happened on this thread with a poster whom I generally like and respect. What it means is that it raises the bar for the debate, and if you disagree, it likely means you have to be able to show that the support or evidence isn't valid, and that is a much tougher thing to do, especially if you haven't researched the the evidence being used. Its easier to just attack the poster and claim that they are posting with certainty or arrogance. I am saying this from my personal experience, but, I see others on this site that also use evidence to support their opinions, and I see them being treated the same way in response. It is what it is, but I thought I would throw that out there.
Your not You're  
.McL. : 1/23/2020 1:25 pm : link
in my post before last.
My friend  
Bill2 : 1/23/2020 2:17 pm : link
I had hoped to have pointed out by now that a huge percentage ofanalysis and analytics in football are going to wind up very debatable and in fact easily debatable.

I honor the effort but submit that your conclusion above that they are conclusive support eludes just about everyone in football.

Moby Dick would be a prize but Captain Ahab lost a lot pursuing the elusive.

So did the Old Man going out too far to get the Great Fish
Right approach  
Bill2 : 1/23/2020 2:19 pm : link
In many many fields.

Honorable way to discuss in most fields.

Imo
Right approach  
Bill2 : 1/23/2020 2:20 pm : link
In many many fields.

Honorable way to discuss in most fields.

Imo
RE: My friend  
.McL. : 1/23/2020 2:47 pm : link
In comment 14791091 Bill2 said:
Quote:
I had hoped to have pointed out by now that a huge percentage ofanalysis and analytics in football are going to wind up very debatable and in fact easily debatable.

I honor the effort but submit that your conclusion above that they are conclusive support eludes just about everyone in football.

Moby Dick would be a prize but Captain Ahab lost a lot pursuing the elusive.

So did the Old Man going out too far to get the Great Fish

Bill, I agree with you that much of the analytics and analyses are debatable, and I have always been willing to engage in that debate. You of all people should know that about me by now. In many of our debates, you have forced me to think harder about certain things.

Was I piecing together various bits of information and speculating a conclusion. Absolutely, but it is clearly marked so. I have an opinion about the GMship of the Giants, but I didn't come to that opinion in a vacuum. We can disagree about some of the specifics that led me that opinion, and we can debate those. But I am allowed my opinion. What cannot be debated is that the product they have put on the field has been crappy for a long time. What cannot be debated is that they have failed. Whether it's because they are at 45% good decision making, or 25%, and how much under the 50% threshold does it have to be to result in lousy football, is debatable, but frankly I am not sure it's a debate worth having. There are clearly individuals who are capable of sustaining something over the threshold, and other who are not. What the threshold is and how much above defines success, is immaterial to me.

You're point is that all debate, all opinions are moot because it's all just noise in the machine, random luck, everything reverts to the mean. And in the macro sense over a very long period of time, that is true, I get it, I agree.
But we are not talking about macro trends and such long periods. As I am sure you are aware, there are organizations that know how to make money in a long term flat market. Why, because they know how to trade on the micro trends. As fans our view is generally in the micro... Mostly within a 5 year period. The fact that we have seen guys sustain success for 10, 15, 20 year periods, and others that no matter what can never achieve it, suggests that there is a human element to be considered as part of the micro trend analysis. I want the Giants to be the ones cutting through the noise and riding the crest of those micro trends, as clearly guys like Belichick, Walsh and even Parcels were able to do.

The Giants GMship has ridden under that threshold for a very long time, that is not debatable, and I don't believe that it is just bad luck. It's bad management, and bad decisions.

And while I can't realistically hold out hope for a change in ownership (neither the people, nor their approach), I can hold out hope of a GM that is strong enough to be able take that bull by the horns and manage it, and also be a good enough GM to carry the team to one of those crests. I don't think that description can be applied the Gettleman at this point. As a result, he is useless to me.
Having a lot of data...  
Dan in the Springs : 1/23/2020 3:02 pm : link
and using that data to draw conclusions, is not the same thing as evidence of a reality. Data is suggestive of a reality, not conclusive of it.

Hyperbole used when presenting opinions is generally what causes backlash. IMO one should be careful with the presentation of their opinions. If one fails to see that their opinion is informed by analysis of data (therefore suggestive) and truly believes that it is conclusive, they will likely believe that it to be superior to others. This then leads to arrogance and certainty that Bill2 is referring to.

Not a great way to win friends and influence people.
...  
christian : 1/23/2020 3:30 pm : link
Unless stated otherwise, isn't it assumed exchanges on the internet are opinions to be defended/supported/debated?

I find it a touch strange that's such a touchy subject for some.

One of the nice things about this community is how often strong opinions can collide and evolve into changed minds and better understanding.

Not sure this exchange is still about Terps vs. some of the other things posted on here, but him having a strong, repeated opinion vs. some of the nasty things directed him seems unbalanced.
Not close to my point  
Bill2 : 1/23/2020 3:32 pm : link
And an assertion founded in magical thinking.

Kind of an impasse for the foreseeable future.


Although you are correct in pointing out that all said here is noise in the end. Useful for a of us to keep in mind.

Take care
RE: ...  
crick n NC : 1/23/2020 3:53 pm : link
In comment 14791177 christian said:
Quote:
Unless stated otherwise, isn't it assumed exchanges on the internet are opinions to be defended/supported/debated?

I find it a touch strange that's such a touchy subject for some.

One of the nice things about this community is how often strong opinions can collide and evolve into changed minds and better understanding.

Not sure this exchange is still about Terps vs. some of the other things posted on here, but him having a strong, repeated opinion vs. some of the nasty things directed him seems unbalanced.


Christian, I would say it's popular for us humans to fall into the trap of thinking too highly of ourselves therefore stating our view as if it cannot be challenged. I think it's important to communicate as clearly as possible and not leave things to assumptions. As humans I think we love to show how smart we are which to me leads to an interruption in communicating our message. Why choose to communicate an opinion as fact if that isn't what we intend?
...  
christian : 1/23/2020 4:10 pm : link
Crick, I agree. I assume (maybe incorrectly) exchanges on the internet are nothing more than balled up opinions on sticky notes tossed at the wall for others to read.

I guess all I am saying is I can get over someone coming off as arrogant, and less inclined to get over someone completely losing their shit and saying nasty things to someone.

The latter seems more likely to degrade the quality of exchange.
RE: ...  
crick n NC : 1/23/2020 4:33 pm : link
In comment 14791219 christian said:
Quote:
Crick, I agree. I assume (maybe incorrectly) exchanges on the internet are nothing more than balled up opinions on sticky notes tossed at the wall for others to read.

I guess all I am saying is I can get over someone coming off as arrogant, and less inclined to get over someone completely losing their shit and saying nasty things to someone.

The latter seems more likely to degrade the quality of exchange.


Understood 👍
Thanks for the reply
christian, crick  
.McL. : 1/23/2020 4:40 pm : link
I think both can be true.

I think crick is correct, we should take care when stating opinions that they are stated as such.

On the other hand, as listeners/readers, we should keep in mind that no matter how something is stated, there is plenty that is unknowable by us, so just about everything is opinion.

Bill2, what magical thinking are you referring to? Deriving an opinion/drawing a conclusion from incomplete data? Isn't that what makes us human? The ability to synthesize incomplete data, form a model in our minds (whether correct or incorrect) and base future actions and decisions on that model. Isn't that how science works and advances. We form the model, test it, and while it works we use it until proven otherwise. Newton's laws of gravity are widely considered a brilliant achievement that advanced science considerably. However, in the end the model was wrong. Not that I am comparing what we do on this board to Newton in any way shape or form. Just the fact that as far as we know, the ability to create a abstract model (and thus an opinion) is uniquely human and isn't something to be scoffed at. THe fact that we realize that the model informs our opinion, but that it is still just an opinion is the recognition of of the fact that the data is incomplete. That doesn't change the opinion.
RE: ...  
Dan in the Springs : 1/23/2020 5:01 pm : link
In comment 14791177 christian said:
Quote:
Unless stated otherwise, isn't it assumed exchanges on the internet are opinions to be defended/supported/debated?

I find it a touch strange that's such a touchy subject for some.

One of the nice things about this community is how often strong opinions can collide and evolve into changed minds and better understanding.

Not sure this exchange is still about Terps vs. some of the other things posted on here, but him having a strong, repeated opinion vs. some of the nasty things directed him seems unbalanced.


Often times posters state things as facts, and often provide "evidence" of those facts, when in fact they are opinions. The evidence is carefully curated to support those opinions and any evidence to the contrary is discounted or even disregarded in its entirety.

It is not always enough to be clear about what is your opinion and what isn't. We see today what happens to civilized discussion when opinion is represented as fact and repeated loudly and often enough to where it is nearly universally accepted as fact.

Should this bother anyone? I don't know, clearly the world is too big to worry about all misrepresentations and falsehoods. However, those things you hold dearest (like family) you are more likely to defend from inaccurate statements.

I've spent too much time on BBI since the Dave Gettleman hire trying to fight falsehoods from being unchallenged. A couple of months ago I gave up - I don't have the energy anymore that it takes to come on this site and point out to people where their logic is flawed or where they have overstated their opinions. The NYG are my team that I've been loyal to for decades and I've been bothered by so many falsehoods being spread, but I cannot let it become such a big part of my life. I've got other more important fish to fry.

And in the end, I'm still going to (hopefully) enjoy the games on Sundays regardless of what is believed generally about the team.
Dan is it at all possible  
ron mexico : 1/23/2020 5:14 pm : link
that some of these falsehoods you mention or neither true nor false?

Could you be the one claiming your opinion is fact?
...  
christian : 1/23/2020 5:37 pm : link
Dan - I completely agree we live in a world where the sanctity of truth is getting devalued, and that's a really bad thing.

To me it's important to understand if someone is providing evidence to support their opinion or trying to push off untrue statements as fact.

I don't encounter a lot of people making things up or linking to inaccurate sources, more just interpretations that are different than mine.

Anyway, it's certainly a valuable thing to look out for, and I'll take notice.

As I noted, I more annoyed by the posters who just burst out with rude posts. I've never once seen that tactic lead to an interesting conversation.
RE: RE: ...  
.McL. : 1/23/2020 5:51 pm : link
In comment 14791278 Dan in the Springs said:
Quote:
Often times posters state things as facts, and often provide "evidence" of those facts, when in fact they are opinions. The evidence is carefully curated to support those opinions and any evidence to the contrary is discounted or even disregarded in its entirety.

So lets use my 4% figure that I calculated before on how much DG has spent on the OLine... Is that a "carefully curated" piece of evidence? FMiC seems to think so, he offered 12.5%.

Lets take a look and see which number is more deceptive... Let use a stock portfolio as an example. Lets say you own 2 shares of stock, 1 share in each of two companies. You can say that your portfolio is "balanced" right... 50% of your share are in each company. But is that the right way to look at it. Lets say that 1 company is trading at $1 and the other $99. Isn't it more accurate to say that 99% of your capital is concentrated in 1 company and only 1% in the other?

Back to 4% vs 12.5%. The 4% represents the actual capitalized value based on the a widely accepted metric, the draft value chart. Out of all the 16 picks, there was the 34th pick and one in the 7th (maybe 6th I forget, its not impactful)... But there has been choices that were the 2nd pick, 6th pick, 17th pick, and 30th pick (also numerous in the 3rd 4th and 5th rounds that do affect the weighting significantly). I don't think anybody here is dumb enough to think that a 7th round pick is an equivalent investment to a 1st round pick. Nor is the 34th pick equivalent to the 2nd, 6th, 17th or 30th pick. So which number is the "better" fact? Which one is really the more "curated" one? You can dispute it as FMiC did, you can call it a falsehood, but is it really? But really, which is a more valid representation of the total DRAFT CAPITAL spent by DG?

You can argue that 4% is an incomplete picture, there is FA, waivers, and trades. This is true... But you are right, I discount that, because there are others "facts" out there that show that it has become increasingly rare that good OL become available in FA. Trades are wildcards and difficult to factor in. I appreciate that DG traded for Zietler. But I also put a discount on it because, he had Brown in the spot, Brown stated he wanted to stay, and he wasn't expensive. That means that had he been resigned, and the TRADE CAPITAL could have been better spent on another position... So I don't give a positive grade on the trade when taken as a whole, but that is my opinion. Again, its opinion, but it does have a factual basis underlying it. So, one person might find DGs moves in FA and trades as a compelling evidence that DG is "building" the oline. I look at it as a flawed approach not likely to succeed. My opinion is that the draft is the best way to "build" the OL for the long term. Thus my focus on 4%.

Its ok to have a different opinion. But you cannot expect to change mine without some other evidence that I would find compelling. And that is true of every debate.
.  
Bill2 : 1/23/2020 5:58 pm : link
1) im sick and tired of losing and I want SB an DJ to succeed but I support the length of time it would take to sort through the failure rate and development time for an ol while other areas also need. then I ruthlessly ridicule anyone who doesn't take my slow higher failure rate approach.

2) You think all debate is moot ( a made up accusation spoken as fact and asserted as something I think )

Mirror
Haha  
UConn4523 : 1/23/2020 6:02 pm : link
this is priceless. Debating why people get mad about other people’s posting only to keep posting the same exact way.

I have to ask myself this. If it’s so simple to allocate resources “appropriately” why isn’t it done across the board? What’s your secret sauce that very few people in the NFL know about?

We already know how high the bust rate is for for Olineman, we experienced plenty of it. So what now?
McL  
cosmicj : 1/23/2020 6:03 pm : link
The way the RG position has been managed the last few seasons drives me batty. We have cycled through three starting quality players at that position (Fluker, Brown, Zeitler) and meanwhile paid our injured mediocre starting RT, what I think is one of the most important positions on the team, $1.5mm, and started a journeyman at C. Forget the Solder signing - what’s up with the RG?
You just..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 1/23/2020 6:13 pm : link
refuse to get the point because I am the poster challenging you, so you get defensive:

Quote:
So lets use my 4% figure that I calculated before on how much DG has spent on the OLine... Is that a "carefully curated" piece of evidence? FMiC seems to think so, he offered 12.5%.


The point of challenging the 4% is that it is indeed a curated piece of evidence, presented without context.

Why is using 4% of draft equity (or capital) bad? Why is using 12.5% of the picks bad? Why is using the draft to fill two spots, FA to fill two spots and a trade to fill a spot doing things incorrectly.

Like Uconn just said - there is not special formula yet you want to foist numbers on the board that assumptively say the Giants are building the line incorrectly.

You used numbers and in your mind, that's presenting evidence and stating to the board the right way to do things. And you still fail to see why people take issue with it. Could be a self importance, or it could be because you are concentrating on crafting a 6 string post to address me, an exercise which in itself contradicts a lot of what you've said in the past.
my point was simpler than stated  
Bill2 : 1/23/2020 6:24 pm : link
You have the right to an opinion on how DG was building the Ol. Perfectly fine.

But what you advocated as the right approach has concerns as well. Namely time and risk up against all the needs of the team

Neither is "right or wrong". they are tradeoffs. Hence an analyst exposes both to the light and also remains humble and open to the downsides of choice.

When you start with the GM sucks then the data just shows up to support the pre set conclusion.

That's not a supported opinion. That's a supported take closer to propaganda in its incompleteness.

The point is that no one here has time to complete all the second and third derivatives of any choice in football. So even common sense protection from POV containing the many ways to second guess in a sport with so many variables should leave one with very few declarative positions.

That's feels logical to me.

McL, its not meant as an attack. None of my posts are. Im hoping they help form your own style of getting even better as an analyst of a very tough game to analyze
Haven’t paid too much attention to MCLs theory  
ron mexico : 1/23/2020 6:28 pm : link
But it seems to me he spending a lot of unnecessary effort.

The bottom line is the OL still stinks and DGs moves to correct it have borne little fruit.
RE: .  
.McL. : 1/23/2020 6:31 pm : link
In comment 14791319 Bill2 said:
Quote:
2) You think all debate is moot ( a made up accusation spoken as fact and asserted as something I think )


Perhaps I misunderstood, but you have said words to that effect in the past.
RE: Dan is it at all possible  
Dan in the Springs : 1/23/2020 6:31 pm : link
In comment 14791285 ron mexico said:
Quote:
that some of these falsehoods you mention or neither true nor false?

Could you be the one claiming your opinion is fact?


As much time as I've spent on here in the past 20 years or so I'm sure I've had my opinion taken as a presentation of fact once or twice, but I don't think you'll find many who feel that way about me. Certainly not where I dig in my heels and argue repeatedly with conviction. This is especially true when it comes to interpreting causes for outcomes - I just don't believe I know as much about the game of football as most posters here, so I tend to try and learn what I can. That attitude guides pretty much all my football posts, even ones where I posit an opinion.

I don't deny I could be blind to my own behavior, but I'd welcome evidence that shows me to be wrong in this way.

There are very few absolute facts that get distorted on here, but sometimes they are repeated over and over again and I have tried to set the record straight unsuccessfully about it.

For example, the facts presented around Eli's "benching" regularly get stated wrong, both here and in the general media. There are some absolute facts, but mostly what gets repeated are people's opinions, interpretations, feelings, etc.

I don't want to get into that discussion again right now, but rarely do you get an actual historically accurate description of those events.

I agree that the facts around Eli’s benching get misrepresented  
ron mexico : 1/23/2020 6:43 pm : link
As do a lot of other things. People were convinced Tuck was afraid to get surgery because the usual first course of action is to see if it heals in its own....for example.

Won’t press you on it but would like to hear what you think is misrepresented. I think the same thing but am guessing we don’t see things the same way.
RE: RE: RE: ...  
Dan in the Springs : 1/23/2020 6:48 pm : link
In comment 14791314 .McL. said:
Quote:

Its ok to have a different opinion. But you cannot expect to change mine without some other evidence that I would find compelling. And that is true of every debate.


I don't generally try to assert an opinion, and I'm not going to try to argue against the 4% number. I get it, it's a fine number to use if you want to, but it's not an argument that interests me.

I'll give you a better one that you've been indirectly related to in the past. This is an argument that I've spent too much time on already so don't really want to engage far down this road - what's been said on here is enough already - but I will remind you of the debate to illustrate the overall point.

The debate I'm referring to is the Dave Gettleman/Use of analytics debate.

Definitive assertions have been made about the attitude DG has about using analytics. These assertions have been presented as evidence-based facts. Part of what has been presented as evidence has been "an absence of evidence" - as in "we can't find any evidence from our internet browsers (Reddit, Github, LinkedIn, Giants.com)". A certain poster (not you) has insisted that they've provided evidence that proves DG is anti-analytics. They haven't positioned that as what all the evidence suggests - but as what absolutely is and must be.

Then they've repeated it over and over again until many have simply accepted the opinion as a fact.

I've spent a lot of hours trying to get a few different posters to admit that there MIGHT be more than what we have seen going on. It was painful and I'm not doing it anymore, because these posters were convinced of what reality was and insisted that their position was reality.

In contrast, I was only trying to argue that perhaps there was more than what they could see.
RE: I agree that the facts around Eli’s benching get misrepresented  
Dan in the Springs : 1/23/2020 6:49 pm : link
In comment 14791389 ron mexico said:
Quote:
As do a lot of other things. People were convinced Tuck was afraid to get surgery because the usual first course of action is to see if it heals in its own....for example.

Won’t press you on it but would like to hear what you think is misrepresented. I think the same thing but am guessing we don’t see things the same way.


Maybe sometime at training camp or something? I'm open to visiting on the subject in person - I think it would be better that way.

Cheers!
RE: You just..  
.McL. : 1/23/2020 6:51 pm : link
In comment 14791341 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:

The point of challenging the 4% is that it is indeed a curated piece of evidence, presented without context.

Why is using 4% of draft equity (or capital) bad? Why is using 12.5% of the picks bad? Why is using the draft to fill two spots, FA to fill two spots and a trade to fill a spot doing things incorrectly.

Do I need to explain that the OL represents 5 of 22 stating players or about 23%? When I have posted that 4% in the past, I pointed that out... Do I need to rehash it every time I quote the stat?
Do I need to rehash that we have seen a steady decline in available OL in FA? And a decline in the quality? It has been discussed ad-nauseum.
I also did state that when he took over, the team had 0 starting offensive lineman (I'm not counting Flowers, he lasted only a few games, and everybody knew he has a problem).

By the way, I made mention of all of that context on this thread...

from my original post
Quote:
At the end of the day, Gettleman has only spent 4% of his draft equity on the offensive line, when the point at which the took over the team he had 0 starting offensive lineman. He went to FA where you generally don't find talent


Quote:
And even using your way overly simplistic formula of 2 picks out of 16, the OL represents 23% of the starting lineup, 5 out of 22.


Quote:
The philosophy I would like to see, is using FA to pick up 1 year (maybe 2 year) stopgap types, while long term filling out the position group through a draft heavy approach. Young and decent OL are almost never available in FA.


I went into far more context about the specific FA moves, and trades as well... Saying I stated it completely out of context, disingenuous to say the least, and clearly false. I used the word CAPITAL, and not PICKS... At least to me, CAPITAL implies the weighting, sorry if that wasn't clear.
I never waded too deep into the linked in discussion  
ron mexico : 1/23/2020 6:56 pm : link
But it sure seems that poster is at least directionally correct.

He laid out some facts and came to his own conclusion which is opinion
RE: RE: RE: RE: ...  
.McL. : 1/23/2020 7:02 pm : link
In comment 14791395 Dan in the Springs said:
Quote:
In comment 14791314 .McL. said:


Quote:



Its ok to have a different opinion. But you cannot expect to change mine without some other evidence that I would find compelling. And that is true of every debate.



I don't generally try to assert an opinion, and I'm not going to try to argue against the 4% number. I get it, it's a fine number to use if you want to, but it's not an argument that interests me.

I'll give you a better one that you've been indirectly related to in the past. This is an argument that I've spent too much time on already so don't really want to engage far down this road - what's been said on here is enough already - but I will remind you of the debate to illustrate the overall point.

The debate I'm referring to is the Dave Gettleman/Use of analytics debate.

Definitive assertions have been made about the attitude DG has about using analytics. These assertions have been presented as evidence-based facts. Part of what has been presented as evidence has been "an absence of evidence" - as in "we can't find any evidence from our internet browsers (Reddit, Github, LinkedIn, Giants.com)". A certain poster (not you) has insisted that they've provided evidence that proves DG is anti-analytics. They haven't positioned that as what all the evidence suggests - but as what absolutely is and must be.

Then they've repeated it over and over again until many have simply accepted the opinion as a fact.

I've spent a lot of hours trying to get a few different posters to admit that there MIGHT be more than what we have seen going on. It was painful and I'm not doing it anymore, because these posters were convinced of what reality was and insisted that their position was reality.

In contrast, I was only trying to argue that perhaps there was more than what they could see.

That is fair... And I have always been willing to engage, and engage courteously in debates like that.

For the record, we have no proof of anything with regards to DG and analytics (except that they recently hired 4 people). However there is bits of various evidence that taken as a whole suggest (notice the caveat, people tend to disregard these) that DG is at best far behind in his approach to analytics. And, based on that, I have an opinion about DG and analytics. But it is an opinion.

On the other hand, there are some posters that try to claim that he is as progressive as any body else in football with regards to analytics (which was a mind blowing discussion since there is pretty much no evidence to back that up, and plenty to counter it), or more often, that analytics really don't matter much, so who cares.
RE: RE: .  
.McL. : 1/23/2020 7:05 pm : link
In comment 14791370 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 14791319 Bill2 said:


Quote:


2) You think all debate is moot ( a made up accusation spoken as fact and asserted as something I think )



Perhaps I misunderstood, but you have said words to that effect in the past.

Better said like this. You have said things in the past, that I interpreted that way. Perhaps I misunderstood.
Actually I used the draft EQUITY  
.McL. : 1/23/2020 7:09 pm : link
which is in this case synonymous with Capital.

I.E. back to my stock analogy, the person with 2 shares has 99% of their equity in one stock and 1% in the other. In this context the words are interchangeable.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: ...  
Dan in the Springs : 1/23/2020 7:09 pm : link
In comment 14791423 .McL. said:
Quote:

On the other hand, there are some posters that try to claim that he is as progressive as any body else in football with regards to analytics (which was a mind blowing discussion since there is pretty much no evidence to back that up, and plenty to counter it), or more often, that analytics really don't matter much, so who cares.


Those debates were long enough and wasteful enough already, right? Although it may have seemed that we were on opposite sides, I think you are more likely right than the other side. My argument was that the lack of evidence isn't evidence, and the constant posting as "facts" what we really didn't know needed to stop.

Hope you have a pleasant evening - going to go enjoy what's left of mine now.

Cheers!
Football isn't this complicated, guys.  
Britt in VA : 1/23/2020 8:25 pm : link
It ebbs and flows. No matter what course of action the Giants take, they'll be back in contention shortly (in the big picture). Take a breath, let it play out, and be entertained.

We're not making life and death decisions here. The conversation has gotten too serious (for the past two years).
I agree that football is not life or death  
ron mexico : 1/24/2020 6:56 am : link
But there is no guarantee the giants return to competitiveness any time soon.

We could smack in the middle of our next 15 years of lousy football.

I don’t think the conversations are any more serious or vitriolic now than any other time I’ve been in the board. And that includes when we were winning Super Bowl. Plus, when the team stinks, battles in BBI are a good fall back option for entertainment.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 <<Prev | Show All |
Back to the Corner