What on earth are you taking about? So take all the arrests/legal troubles in the NFL and divide them by 3 and see if it still comes close to how much fewer there are in NBA.
I view the Bills as currently one of the best run franchises in the league. I would trade the Bills front office and coaches for ours in literally a nanosecond.
I don’t “blindly” support Dave Gettelman. I happen to think he isn’t the end all be all for everything wrong with this organization. And seeing the Ed Oliver news is extremely unfortunate but an example of how the vetting process is imperfect. And it isn’t just bad franchises it’s good ones too. How’s that Earl Thomas fella? Sounds like a piece of shit to me. Plenty of successful franchises make mistakes on character - but they’ve got a system in place to make up for it.
I think the Bills are showing a lot of promise. But in recent history they are middle of the pack maybe upper middle based on tangible results. Obviously in the last 20 years one of the worst though.
my consistent lack of faith in DG as the solution since the day he was hired is looking incredibly valid right now. As are a lot of the points I’ve been making along the way.
I wake up every morning glad to be alive and healthy. Being miserable about the sports teams I follow isn’t high on my list. Whether Gettelman fixes this team or not my demeanor towards the Giants won’t change. Thanks for asking though, I hope you find happiness soon.
What on earth are you taking about? So take all the arrests/legal troubles in the NFL and divide them by 3 and see if it still comes close to how much fewer there are in NBA.
The excuse making on this one is mind boggling.
You don’t think teams keep an eye on their players, especially the good ones? Players are investments for the owners. Smaller rosters mean it’s easier to protect the investments. Just because you don’t see as many news headlines about NBA players being in trouble doesn’t meant it isn’t happening. I know it’s a television show but guys like Ray Donovan exist in real life as well.
And I agree with another poster that pointed out the low rate of crime when you look at the whole league. The fact that you have three incidents in one weekend is more coincidence than anything in my opinion.
Uconn: "I don’t agree. Shit excuse - what about the rest of us?"
You're conflating cause and effect with 'excuse'. Like it or not a larger cross section of NFL players come from higher crime environments than the norm. I'm not justifying or rationalizing the behavior but that isn't needed to accept the phenomena is happening.
I have a fantastic partner. Work I’m passionate about that I can do on my schedule with people I choose who I have fun around and respect. I’m close with my family so many great friends in different places.
I just happen to think people doing a crappy job working on something I care about deserve to be called out and the problem needs to be rectified. This doesn’t happen by downplaying said problem.
I’ve been highlighting these problems for years and been extremely validated by what’s transpired. You on the other hand keep on acting like the people that are questioning things are overreacting even as someone like me and the concerns coming to life I actually prognosticated. Like in game technology relationships and the value of integrating advanced data like SportsVu for this and larger value models.
You can mode something like the psychology behind work ethic into traditional stats. The Pats have used methods like this under Ernie Adams for a long time.
Don’t conflate me being pissed off about this with anything else. My happy life affords me the energy to try to take on causes I care about. Like people like you giving the team too much slack actually propping up the legitimacy of a feckless regime.
It’s funny because I used to be a miserable fan that thought
every move stunk prior to the run we went on. And now I realize how fruitless that was, and how me thinking a move stinks doesn’t matter.
I can spend time picking apart moves my teams make all day if I want. I choose not to because I don’t get anything out of it, just isn’t very fun. So chalk that up to whatever cute term you want to address people with who aren’t heavily criticizing every move (which is a shitty way to start a conversation I might add).
you really think you nailed things on the head, don't ya?
Quote:
That’s why Gettleman was passed over for the Giants the first time, that’s why he had a very short stint for a GM in Carolina and that’s why we are where we are now. DG and the broader Giants leadership have a problem of austerity and close mindedness.
You know why Gettleman was passed over? You know that he was even under consideration?
But furthermore, what did you mean by Gettleman had a very short stint for a GM in Carolina?
The Panthers have had 6 GM's in their history. Exactly one of them had longer stint than Gettleman! One. Marty Hurney.
The average tenure of a GM is 3 years. Granted, that includes a lot who flame out immediately, but even then - the terrible Gettleman beat that out.
For a guy who talks analytics, you are really, really shitty at comparative statistics.
Glad you could give definitive insight into his time in Carolina - a subject you continually swing and miss at.
every move stunk prior to the run we went on. And now I realize how fruitless that was, and how me thinking a move stinks doesn’t matter.
I can spend time picking apart moves my teams make all day if I want. I choose not to because I don’t get anything out of it, just isn’t very fun. So chalk that up to whatever cute term you want to address people with who aren’t heavily criticizing every move (which is a shitty way to start a conversation I might add).
I can totally understand just going with the flow and hoping that every move works out, honestly I can.
If you have taken that path, what do you get out of arguing on the internet against people who are still thinking critically? Why bother? That just seems like misery with extra steps
Can't wait to hear the reasoning on how you were right about Gettleman having a short stint in Carolina.
Maybe tie it to critiquing the Giants technology department like you tried to on the Baker thread?
What is it with supposed “analytics experts” on this site? Every single one of them are insufferable windbags. They all think they are the smartest guy in the room, constantly patting themselves on the back for what they perceive as them being “right” and have an arrogance that just makes you want to bitch slap the shit out of them. They aren’t half as smart as they think they are but they are so caught up in their own bloviiating that they have no idea how insufferable they are. NGD is one of the main culprits but he’s certainly not alone. Complete clowns
good question. I guess I’m fascinated by it. Outside of the Baker thread I’ve tried staying off threads about Gettelman because they’ve grown tiresome.
Can't wait to hear the reasoning on how you were right about Gettleman having a short stint in Carolina.
Maybe tie it to critiquing the Giants technology department like you tried to on the Baker thread?
What is it with supposed “analytics experts” on this site? Every single one of them are insufferable windbags. They all think they are the smartest guy in the room, constantly patting themselves on the back for what they perceive as them being “right” and have an arrogance that just makes you want to bitch slap the shit out of them. They aren’t half as smart as they think they are but they are so caught up in their own bloviiating that they have no idea how insufferable they are. NGD is one of the main culprits but he’s certainly not alone. Complete clowns
BBS. I was talking to a few other BBI'ers and when the topic of analytics came up, two guys who are really knowledgeable about building sound data programs said the great irony of the analytics discussions here is that the loudest posters who claim to have analytic prowess continually show time and again that they have a terrible understanding of the subject
The only credit I give them is they sure are tenacious in sticking with the ignorance.
If I'm a guy who leans heavily on data-based arguments, I'd sure as hell get my facts straight about the role Gettleman played in Carolina and how he stacked up against his peers, but instead, I'll just get called a big old meany face!
Can't wait to hear the reasoning on how you were right about Gettleman having a short stint in Carolina.
Maybe tie it to critiquing the Giants technology department like you tried to on the Baker thread?
What is it with supposed “analytics experts” on this site? Every single one of them are insufferable windbags. They all think they are the smartest guy in the room, constantly patting themselves on the back for what they perceive as them being “right” and have an arrogance that just makes you want to bitch slap the shit out of them. They aren’t half as smart as they think they are but they are so caught up in their own bloviiating that they have no idea how insufferable they are. NGD is one of the main culprits but he’s certainly not alone. Complete clowns
BBS. I was talking to a few other BBI'ers and when the topic of analytics came up, two guys who are really knowledgeable about building sound data programs said the great irony of the analytics discussions here is that the loudest posters who claim to have analytic prowess continually show time and again that they have a terrible understanding of the subject
The only credit I give them is they sure are tenacious in sticking with the ignorance.
If I'm a guy who leans heavily on data-based arguments, I'd sure as hell get my facts straight about the role Gettleman played in Carolina and how he stacked up against his peers, but instead, I'll just get called a big old meany face!
To be fair, the BBI analytics gurus spend a great deal of time performing their expertise analyzing LinkedIn profiles. I mean, they can only go by the data LinkedIn provides in their earnest analysis of someone’s qualifications and history. Must be LinkedIn told them Gettleman was a failure in Carolina? I mean, all the data is there! He wasn’t there long so he’s a failure! Who needs detail and perspective? Numbers tell it all. These guys have spent their entire lives analyzing numbers. Don’t argue within. There’s no room for logic and reasoning around here.
arguing that people are underrating the competence of a dumpster fire of an operation
The people I talked to with knowledge of the Giants thinking, those involved in it didn’t understand some very basic concepts in how to apply technology and the systems you’d need to apply that tech.
So am I surprised that a group of fans jerking each other off also don’t understand?
The people I talked to with knowledge of the Giants thinking, those involved in it didn’t understand some very basic concepts in how to apply technology and the systems you’d need to apply that tech.
There were some basic things about the team's structure you didn't even know when you started the crusade on analytics. Let me remind you that at one time, you stood by the belief that Carolina was doing nothing with analytics. You extended that belief to say the Giants weren't either.
So again - a guy who purports to make
data-based reasoning, doesn't even do basic research before spouting off.
Then the goalposts moved from the Giants not doing anything to them hiring a guy who had no credentials worthy of leading an analytic team, famously culled from LinkedIn. Meanwhile, while Siam's reputation was taking the brunt of your "research" you never even acknowledged that Jon Berger has been the team's Director of Football Information for 13 years
I've questioned you competence all along, now I guess we'll have to wonder who the fuck you've talked to "with knowledge of the Giants thinking".
Excuse me for a second - my bullshit monitor is going crazy!
What a large sample size of competence. In the last quarter of a century they’ve made the playoffs, what, 1 or 2 X? Well, we’ve sucked for most of the last 8 years. Thus, by my calculation, we have another 17 years to get our act together and become the model franchise Buffalo has become.
You misunderstand and mischaracterize like it’s your job
1) If you go back and read the first thread we got into it on analytics here. What I was saying about Gettleman being the wrong guy to have the Giants modernize turned out to be 100% correct. Gettleman admitted that he needed to "learn from his mistakes" at the end of the season. Gettleman said himself what I was concerned about turned out to be accurate. Where do you come off acting like you are anything but wrong yourself for acting like we were on top of this?
2) You spent the whole thread I shared, questioning how I could possibly know if the Giants needed to do more on the analytics front, who I was to question the mighty Giants? Now you mock me for using LinkedIn, Github and talking about my background when that's all we have to go on, the performance on the field, their code base, my qualifications and the peoples qualifications of the team. It was only your demands for a never-ending pile of evidence to support my points that we went down that road and no other reason.
3) The asinine point has been tossed around way too much if the Giants did do analytics. And I have continually pointed out that a pivot table is technically analytics and the idea that an organization would not "do analytics" in that sense today is insane, no one would ever claim that. The more relevant point is quality. You continually point out that Gettleman set up and "did analytics" in Carolina but in making his second attempt to build out a good technology analysis pipeline with the Giants he bucked the math and said from the above article "Barkley is 'an outlier' who “transcended such analytics." He doesn’t even understand the terms he is using, an outlier is not something you can predict it is something you uncover after the fact. If you can draw clear or formulaic lines to something, which is absolutely how decisions should be made, it isn’t an outlier. He's saying he knows more than the math and his attempts to articulate his reasoning included phrases like “touched by the hand of god” and poking fun at the kinds of people helping other teams stack wins while we stack losses. Part of the math of why RBs are valued less is they have durability concerns and competition gets by allocating less resources to them. The average of the top 10 G cap hits in the NFL is 21% higher than RB AND we were paying our aging immobile QB tons of money to try to win at the end of his career, a quick lesson in computer modeling and asset allocation. Saquon is the 8th highest paid RB and Quinton Nelson is the 25th highest paid G. Salary arbitrage and team building wins games. Not who is touched by the hand of god and who isn’t. The more important point is not if Gettleman “did analytics” or not in Carolina it is why should his opinion on technology matter? Why should he be leading a team in an industry that increasingly is integrating advanced technology? He clearly doesn’t have enough respect for the field, even if he has been forced to give it more credence don’t you want people leading modernization efforts to want to pursue it more naturally not in front of an angry mob of people they’ve disappointed?
4) Here is a clear line between Deandre Baker and advanced analytics. Ernie Adams is. responsible for making the Patriots final draft value model according to his Wikipedia page. They took Aaron Hernandez in the 4th, they take chances on a lot of players with character risks. They clearly have a way of modeling this. Gettleman is on record rejecting value-based models on their face with Saquon. When you get into more advanced analytics, as I have mentioned in threads recently you can blend psychological factors with traditional statistics to project a player. That’s why it’s laughable when you compare Baker Mayfield to Deandre Baker, he had his own set of issues, but his effort was never in question. To act like the risk of Baker Mayfield and Deandre Baker is in the same category is woefully inadequate analysis in the fields of both psychology and data science. Yet you claim to have a knowledge of the field and speak out on it so often. There are plenty of professional sports organizations doing this down to eye movements and electrical signals in the brain in addition to written or conversation syntax. Are models still wrong sometimes? Of course. But when you trade up for a player, acting like you know something the league doesn’t know when other teams like the Pats clearly have purely mathematical sanity checks on things like this it means you better be right. Furthermore, instead of declaring yourself some grand arbiter of what good culture is (this coming from someone again who was fired for difficult relationships with players in the past) other teams are putting together models including psychological factors into who might be fits on their teams. We hear a lot about JJ matching players to scheme but you can even start earlier and match players to your other players. I know shocking right? Believe it or not the world is not filled with good apples or bad apples waiting for our glorious leader DG to weigh in on their apple quality. There is more nuance and it is much more about fitting personalities into the group you have and to the strengths of your coaches.
5) Maybe our last two coaches looking bad has just as much to do with the front office supporting them as it does with them being the stupid villains who also were the best men for the job a short while before that. The funny thing about all of this as you again act like I have something to prove when you have never offered up any context on why your opinions in the technology field matter at all. While you have been acting like my posts are useless drivel they have gotten me information on actually what is going on inside the walls of the building through contacts I have formed on this board. I don't mind making statements like that because they are the truth and if they weren't i'm sure you'd relish sniffing them out. But you'd rather pretend like you know more through bluster instead of making real points. That's your MO.
One more overarching point:
Our record with Ty Siam running our analytics – 29-51
Title: Football operations analyst
Prior experience:
2 years and 10 months as a consultant
Ernie Adams
Title: Director of Football Research
Prior experience:
Worked as a coach’s assistant for 6 years
Director of Pro Personnel for 3
5 years as a Wall St. Trader
4 years running his own investment firm
This illustrates a simple point, why do we continue to have no evidence of technological qualifications at the top of our organization when there was an admission that we should have addressed this more? I do not claim to be the end all be all on technology, I posted a whole system architecture verified by another expert McL. A poster that I know offline came on to validate my background and expertise in this field. You don’t have to be an expert to know our staffing qualifications and codebase are disappointing and pairing that with our on field performance there is no defense for, the team knows its indefensible which is why they addressed that this offseason specifically. One thing that I do know with 100% certainty is these processes are iterative but the more systems leaders have built the more shortcuts you know. The 5 broad areas of expertise needed to build a system that can offer value-based assessments and real time recommendations for games are advanced mathematics, computer vision, software development, systems architecture, and product design. Gettleman and Siam can lead an effort where we fumble around with tools in the dirt like apes and try to evolve or you can bring in people that can speed up the process significantly because they’ve led technology efforts. And again, I want to be clear we do not have anyone on our senior staff who have built out systems harnessing expertise in ANY of those categories. A strong CTO would have expertise across those functions, but the fact remains bringing in “computer guys” with some of those skills is VASTLY different than having a director of research leading those efforts. We are behind and what we think is a viable solution to catch up was to let the guys that led us into falling behind to lead this new effort to modernize? How flawed is that logic?
Anyone with insider knowledge has supported that the Giants are all but ready to make Kevin Abrams the GM. That is a fatally flawed decision-making process based on clearly the wrong things. It would be one thing if we storm back into the playoffs this year and then we heard those whispers. But the fact that there is so much smoke there, after this terrible period in our history shows the Giants care more about loyalty and comfort than finding the best people in their front office. That has been demonstrated and that is what some people do not seem to care about and until more people do we might just stay in the cellar. The Baker situation is frustrating because we continue to throw up our hands and act like these are all honest mistakes but the "honest mistakes" keep stacking and downplaying them especially in conjunction is irresponsible. And that has nothing to do if Baker goes to jail or not and everything to do with why it is that a team with so many holes wanted this guy so much more than the rest of the NFL that we spent 3 picks on him?
you seriously when Point #1 is a complete fabrication. That wasn't the first discussion about analytics. The first was one where you assertively said Gettleman shunned analytics and didn't use them in Carolina. I showed evidence where he did. You ignored it. If you look later in the thread BrettNYG posts an excerpt showing what Carolina did.
That thread was prior to Tepper doing anything in Carolina. In the linked thread, Tepper has been there
But nevertheless, you asked about it again on the thread linked:
Quote:
3) If your stuff works people know about it, no matter how quiet you try to keep it. Can you show me any articles touting the systems he set up in Carolina? I can easily find stuff on the Jags, Pats, Eagles.
People see through the charade
Just look at two posts by EA:
Quote:
This is the kind of post that I refer to. Every. Single. NFL. Team. Uses. Analytics. The Giants do and heavily. I know this for a fact. They use predictive, they use modelling they track every snap of every player college and pro.
How far do you want to take it though? Clearly you're super committed to it as it's your profession and great for you but for me I think it is just a data point and it will always struggle to be as effective in football as in baseball for what I'm sure are very obvious reasons to you.
Still, you remain convinced the Giants refuse to modernise and the Jags, Eagles and others are mentioned. Do you think Coughlin suddenly became a numbers guy? No... he was for years at the giants. The Eagles are a smart org you say and the numbers told them... to hire Ben McAdoo. I note today Eli is top 4 in passes completed above expectation for example. To steal from the sage Bill2 you can torture the data into confessing any number of ways.
Ultimately numbers rarely tell you who is going to break out, who brings others together in a locker room and who brings something even greater than wins to a community. Football isn't wall street. It's a hugely complex interdependent operation more akin to predicting the weather than analysing trading patterns.
I think this roster is ill equipped for today's NFL. The organisation is not. Trust DG. He won't let you down and certainly not in the manner you suggest.
Quote:
I swear these threads are the absolute pits
English Alaister : 10/1/2018 3:30 pm : link
You bunch of dicks don't even have the first idea what loyalty entails. Instead we get threads like 'Do Gettleman and Schumer (presumably not Amy) deserve to be publicly lashed?' 'Is Vernon tougher than a 6 year old girl?' or this peach. It is no wonder posters like Fatman or B in ALB who has an idea what a pro locker room look like can't take any more of this nonsense. Don't even start me on bw and his jints central act which has routinely been a guide to a team about to go to a superbowl but is now scaling new levels of conjecture and hyperbole.
The reality is this. You cannot realistically expect to judge the owners over a 3 or 4 year period. Mistakes have been made and this is an unforgiving league intolerant of mistakes. I don't think anyone can refute that but the last 32 years have yielded 4 superbowls (and a fifth appearance) whereby statistically they should have yielded approximately one.
That is because the Giants way works. We are a good football organisation that routinely makes solid football decisions and allows people to succeed or fail with class. Meanwhile the same horrific posters who wanted to get rid of Coughlin for McAdoo but now fete him at Jacksonville ponder should they allow their "loyalty" to continue for a 5th week of a new regime. These people would have traded Eli for Fitzpatrick three times by now and wonder why they're still trophyless.
It's just embarrassing to be a part of this fanbase at times.
EA has extensive knowledge about analytics. He also knows some of my expertise, which I do not disclose, especially to asswipes like yourself. Meanwhile, you find ways to often work in your qualifications. Nuggets like this:
Quote:
I've been building predictive systems for financial institutions for 7 years now and I've seen inside many organizations.
You need to keep telling people your qualifications because a lot of people knowledgeable about analytics think you are full of shit and for some reason, you need to throw fake resumes around to appear to be an expert. I came to that conclusion early on in our interactions, yet you keep going like the Energizer Bunny.
You are the American Idol contestant who tells the judges how great they are before sounding like a dying coyote.
If are information is so good are our people that bad
There has to be some flaw in the system. You are glossing over the fact that I said they didn't have the right people to modernize they admitted this past off-season they did a bad job of modernizing and now you think the point is relevant to highlight again that they have the right people in place? Based on what?
i've brought on a BBIer I know in person to confirm the information i've given is on my career is accurate. You won't even share yours and you think that makes you a more reliable source? In what world?
i've brought on a BBIer I know in person to confirm the information i've given is on my career is accurate. You won't even share yours and you think that makes you a more reliable source? In what world?
Plenty of people here know know what I do or have done in the past. The point is - I don't have to reiterate that. You continually do. I'd say you might want to figure out why that is - but you know exactly why that is. People don't take you seriously or think you have accurate information.
I'll just anxious await the next event you try to force analytics into the discussion like you did with Baker.
I suggest the Giants might be behind and DG might not be the best man to lead us forward two years ago.
You call me stupid and ill informed.
I, someone who isn't called stupid very often feel it's appropriate to react with my experience in the field. Something for some reason you hold against me?
I turn out to be right when by his own admission DG says he made mistakes in modernizing that he has to learn from.
You are the one throwing around accusations of how stupid other people are constantly and then get cagey when people ask for your qualifications to call people stupid about everything under the son. Why? What makes you so qualified to be this arbiter of peoples qualifications to speak?
Regardless of my qualifications I was right in that thread. Instead of eating your crow like an adult you want to hold this position that I was always wrong. Why does it matter how qualified certain posters think you are in the shadows when the point you were lambasting me on you were wrong about?
Stay on topic. I'm remaining civil and here you are acting like a petulant child, par for the course.
psychology and audio, visual and in the most rudimentary form text inputs to incorporate potential character issues into value models and you sit here and act like I didn't address that?
DG refused to acknowledge value / asset allocation models were even valid while he was doing his fake typing. Do you know what an outlier is? How do you feel about the statement that Barkley is an outlier who "transcends analytics" ? He said that THIS offseason! Do you realize how ridiculous of an idea it is to say that you can predict outliers? Because that's what he's saying, he will be an outlier in the NFL. But even backwards. What exactly makes him so much better than Barry Sanders or Marshall Faulk coming out of college? (The first who never won and the second who didn't even stay on the team that drafted him #2) And again we are talking about an outlier so we are talking about someone who clearly is beyond them by statistical methods. What exactly are those metrics how touched by god you are? So is Barkley like a 10 on that scale? How touched by the hand of god was Sanders? Like only a 6? Because that's what an outlier actually is where we have like EVERYONE in the 1-6 range and then someone coming in clearly away from the pack.
I realize I didn't paste the DG article where he admits to his mistakes but here it is. After all of his years of implementing analytics systems that you and your pal Dave have, don't you think you both should understand this stuff better?
Instead of trying to discredit me, someone making an honest attempt to hold our management accountable to innovation maybe it's time to just admit that you were the one who was wrong, you had too much faith in them and maybe they have adjusted properly this time. That is the only leg you have to stand on but DG, Siam and the rag tag bunch that have gotten us here and who by EVERY account of what happened this offseason, hiring all the "computer guys" is that they are trying to do new things because they admitted they were behind. The debate in that thread is over and it takes a real pompous jerk of epic proportions to sit here and pretend like someone like me who researched in their free time the goings on of the organization to say hey maybe we need to do better here because we seem under-qualified and have shown some concerning patterns on the field and in our team rhetoric around technology? And you attack me for years for it.
My knowledge of the industry and the signs of success and failure were on point and yours were off base. How dare you sit here and continue to pretend like i'm some huckster when the only huckster here is you.
Of course a healthy Barkley is an outlier, just as Jim Brown, Gale Sayers, Barry Sanders and very few others were. No one had his rookie year. That was Brown, Sayers and Sanders-like. Even with missing a few games last year and performing on virtually one leg he had a solid year. I thought the High Ankle Sprain would have pretty much kept him out most of the year. A great, gutsy. performer with no OL..
He is most certainly a one of a kind, generational back of the “outlier” variety that is seldom seen. Obviously he needs to stay healthy.
What DG and most others saw in him is indeed most special. A true outlier in and of the RB community
modern thinking is heavy investment in the RB position isn't the best use of resources. Sanders is the perfect example, one of the best ever but never won. So yes for DG to throw out the math on RBs he would have to be saying that Barkley was an outlier of the outliers to not have similar team performance results of Sanders. He would have to be far better than the best to such a high degree as to break that pattern.
I actually did a more detailed breakdown in a previous thread
Sanders � 78-82 career record, 48-48 on his second contract
Peterson � 80-79 Career record, 44-51 on 2nd contract when he was taking up an average of 9.59%* of the cap per year
Colts Faulk � 32-48 (if you want to say Faulk is talented enough to win a super bowl, wasn�t really the case for the Colts when he was much more cost effective)
The Discounted QB Winners
Rams Faulk � Think this is about resources more than records. Faulk took up on average 6.24%* of the Rams cap, obviously less than 9.59%* for Peterson but in addition to that Kurt Warner during his 5 years on the Rams took up an average of 8.29%* of the cap. Compare this to the average % of cap for say Kirk Cousins an average to above average QB in the open market at 15.85%* (projecting the cap to rise $10M next year) or even Eli Manning at 13.38%* of the cap for �home grown� as an additional point of reference.
LDT � Quite Simply the entire time LDT was on the Chargers they were successful overall. However, they went from Brees on a rookie deal to Rivers on a rookie deal. There was only one year where Rivers and LDT were on non-rookie deals and LDT was gone the season after.
The Le�Veon Bell Situation
Most viewed Le�Veon bell as the best RB in the league. I think James Connor�s year really calls into question why anyone would spend significant resources on an RB looking at that fact alone. The amount spent on Connor vs. the ~$17M Bell was asking for serves as a warning to anyone thinking about paying even an RB that is one of the better dual threats we�ve seen in a while. This really speaks to investing resources in the QB, OL and WR positions for team success with a star RB not having much impact. Even having to allocate cap dollars in case Bell came to play the Steelers team offense ranks from NFL.com 2018 � 4th YPG, 6th PPG. 2017 � 3rd YPG, 8th PPG.
I�m fine with saying there are things that we as fans can�t evaluate like chemistry and leadership. The problem is that there isn�t any evidence that even the most talented RBs can lead to the most successful teams unless they are paired with a top QB on a discounted deal. If you even want to point to the Chargers, they never even made the Superbowl. If you do want to point to Faulk as the exemplar it is really hard to do that without acknowledging that it looks like Faulk got a relatively cheap deal compared to someone like Peterson and all the arguments people are making on this thread could be used by Saquon�s agent to argue that maybe he deserves more than 9.59% of the cap.
There is additional evidence that if you have an amazing talent at RB and don�t pair them with a great QB you are liable to wallow in mediocrity which in turn makes it more difficult to get a pick that could land you the QB that you need to win. People like to talk about Gurley but Goff playing well on a rookie deal has at minimum the same amount of explanation for this. Maybe more. Mahomes lost a star RB and was still a hair away from the SB, Brady gives the Patriots a deep discount and Brees, while not cheap could certainly make something closer to Rodgers 33.5M AAV than $25M AAV.
One more thing before I throw this back to the anti-analytics sharks. If, IF you want to make the argument that someone is going to be the first example of something working, it is nice to have some basis for this other than your own belief that it will work out. That is the emotional part that McL is referring to. As we�ve talked about in some of these other threads it is possible to quantify the things like leadership and chemistry if you commit to technology. Do players block with more force when Saquon is on the field vs. another RB? Do they move faster? Do they have better body language on the sideline after interacting with him? I would wager that New England has had WaR and expected win delta calculations for years now, the kinds of information that would very much help you quantify whether a safer more talented player like Saquon beats taking more of a risk on a higher value position like QB. Or like McL suggests, trading down (of which Gettlman also seemed to joke about not even entertaining) the Patriots have done wonders with these kinds of moves over the years.
...continued from the thread...
I looked at the other leading rushers since LDT came into the league on their second contracts and their teams records.
Foster (Texans) 32-32
McCoy (Eagles) 24-24
Chris Johnson (Titans) 22-26
Jones-Drew (Jags) 26-54
Murray (Eagles) 7-9 - Traded after one season
"The problem isn't that you can point out why any and all of these players might be different from Barkley. The problem is that giving a big contract to a running back has proven to be quite an ineffective strategy for winning. If we had our solution as a cost effective QB this is a different analysis, but we don't, we have the opposite, a old QB we are overpaying." Older thread on RB value - ( New Window )
put him on any of the Pats teams the last 5 years and pay him $20m per and he’s going to carry you to a title.
Please stop citing the Lions and what they did with the other 52 players as some sort of example of how not to build a team. You know what the Lions should have done? Gotten better players other than Sanders and his cost didn’t prevent them from doing so.
I've stayed on topic. You are the one going on tangents about Barkley and again talking as if you are an expert
Quote:
My knowledge of the industry and the signs of success and failure were on point and yours were off base. How dare you sit here and continue to pretend like i'm some huckster when the only huckster here is you.
What do you mean your knowledge of the industry was on point?? You had originally said Gettleman didn't implement analytics in Carolina. You were dead wrong. That's exhibiting knowledge of the industry??
Your take on the Giants is also offbase, both in the trashing of Siam's credentials and the ignorance of not even knowing Berger was in place. Again - that's shitty knowledge of both the team and the industry.
Here's the bottom line. You haven't like Gettleman or his decisions and you latched on to him commenting dismissively about analytics and ran with it. And you continue to do it by ignoring others giving you knowledge about what the team has done and why Siam's credentials aren't falling short. It's fine if you ignore me because you think I'm a prick. Listen to others who have said it. Listen to Bill2 or EA.
For a guy who claims to be an expert in analytics, if you think either side of the argument can do a victory lap like you are trying to do, you're raising your hands in victory while not being close to the finishing line.
Just another example of you overinflating your knowledge and another beating of the chest with credentials. But you are the adult and I'm the petulant child. Really sounds like something an an adult would say, doesn't it?
put him on any of the Pats teams the last 5 years and pay him $20m per and he’s going to carry you to a title.
Please stop citing the Lions and what they did with the other 52 players as some sort of example of how not to build a team. You know what the Lions should have done? Gotten better players other than Sanders and his cost didn’t prevent them from doing so.
UConn it would be nice if the guys acting like Sanders didn't have an impact look at how dramatic the results were with him vs. without him. They keep pointing to the Lions record with him instead of comparitively looking at it.
And that's the take of a self-proclaimed analytics expert. One example of many on why his expertise is rudimentary.
addressed in this thread. You were the one that made it into this do people do analytics or not thing. I have always talked about what is a legitimate effort or one that apparently doesn't contemplate an accurate use of the word outliers for value based models.
I've addressed Jon Berger in the past, he's worked for the Knicks and Giants for decades would you say those are good examples of analytics operations? Decision making systems? Why is this a point you think is a good one? It is honestly completely laughable that you think I overlooked this when the truth is given the teams he has been involved in and their recent performance I didn't think he needed to be addressed.
The overarching point that you continually fail to understand is that there is ample evidence that suggests that the point i'm making that we have had the wrong leadership in place to address analytics was much more accurate than your supposition that these people are the right people. Which again DG admitted to this past offseason. You and other people who align very closely with the Giants of course have tried to discredit me but you fail to refute my points.
What is the argument for DG, Siam and Berger to lead a modernization effort when they have overseen a period of us falling behind? Please tell me. Please be specific.
perhaps you'd like to show me data supporting the point that taking an RB high is a good use of resources.
You continually criticize my analytical abilities when I am bringing evidence to the table while not making points of your own.
Or diverging the argument to stupid points like if I said the Giants "did analytics" or not. Why does it matter if I said they did analytics or not? I posted the thread, I was very clear on what I meant, others very much understood it. You fixate on these stupid little points because you have no arguments for the larger points.
I disagree with you. Only you are so full of yourself you actually think you are being misunderstood.
So back to the Lions. Did Barry Sanders make them draft bad players? Did he make them sign bad players? Was he the reason they couldn’t find a good quarterback? And you brought the Lions up so here you go...
I’m familiar with NGD’s background and have seen conversations between him and an NFL owner regarding collaborating on an analytics driven project.
The Giants seem behind on analytics. The lack of footprint and hires, for example. Mara’s quote at season end about being deeper into technology/analytics than ever before struck me as worthless without tangible evidence being offered.I think the Giants use analytics. I do think they’re behind those who are best in class. I think being best in class would help this team.
I don’t know everything the Giants do, obviously. But we can see data points of what other teams do and it doesn’t seem the Giants are doing that.
put him on any of the Pats teams the last 5 years and pay him $20m per and he’s going to carry you to a title.
Please stop citing the Lions and what they did with the other 52 players as some sort of example of how not to build a team. You know what the Lions should have done? Gotten better players other than Sanders and his cost didn’t prevent them from doing so.
UConn it would be nice if the guys acting like Sanders didn't have an impact look at how dramatic the results were with him vs. without him. They keep pointing to the Lions record with him instead of comparitively looking at it.
And that's the take of a self-proclaimed analytics expert. One example of many on why his expertise is rudimentary.
The best part about these supposed analytics experts is that they all wanted a QB that draft. Analytics says that’s the right thing to do they say. I’d love to see the analytics on absolutely terrible teams drafting QBs and then that QB suddenly turning that terrible team around during his rookie contract and winning the Super Bowll. How many times has that happened in the past couple of decades? Mahoney was drafted to a team ready to compete. Wilson was drafted to a team ready to compete.
The single most valuable thing in team building is a good, cheap QB on a rookie contract. When a QB is drafted to a team not ready to compete for several years, drafting a QB is an awful idea, so why does the analytics crowd say otherwise? Where’s this data saying it’s a good idea? Had the Giants drafted Darnold, they would still suck. They will likely suck this next season. Is Sam Darnold so good he’s changing that all by himself? The proof is in the Jets, why have had more talent than the Giants and still suck. So now he’s halfway through his rookie contract. So the Giants draft Darnold, now he’s going into his third season and the team still isn’t ready to compete this season. Now what? You’ve just used most of his rookie contract and now have to either pay him $30M per or let him walk. So again, how did that make sense at the time?
No other player in the history of the NFL has been judged on team success in his first two seasons as Barkley has. It’s amazing. He’s the only guy that is getting killed for not putting his team on his shoulders and leading them to a championship. And it’s by the bullshit, fake analytics experts because he’s a RB. Why was a QB the smarter play? It makes no sense. If you don’t take a RB before a team is close to competing, you’d think analytics would say taking a QB and wasting cheap years on his deal for several seasons would be even worse, no? There’s analytically zero prof of a QB being taken by a horrible team and that QB taking that team to the Super Bowl within a couple seasons in recent times. Why haven’t we heard about THOSE analytics?
I disagree with you. Only you are so full of yourself you actually think you are being misunderstood.
So back to the Lions. Did Barry Sanders make them draft bad players? Did he make them sign bad players? Was he the reason they couldn’t find a good quarterback? And you brought the Lions up so here you go...
When someone attacks your credibility constantly it makes you talk about it more and I have done nothing but stand up for myself and the validity of my opinions. Call it what you want.
Now see what you are trying to do here is pick apart one data point when the overall data suggests that RBs are not a good investment, read through the thread I posted if you want more data. I don't need to go through the minutia of Barry Sanders because he is on a long list of extremely talented RBs that didn't have winning teams around them.
put him on any of the Pats teams the last 5 years and pay him $20m per and he’s going to carry you to a title.
Please stop citing the Lions and what they did with the other 52 players as some sort of example of how not to build a team. You know what the Lions should have done? Gotten better players other than Sanders and his cost didn’t prevent them from doing so.
UConn it would be nice if the guys acting like Sanders didn't have an impact look at how dramatic the results were with him vs. without him. They keep pointing to the Lions record with him instead of comparitively looking at it.
And that's the take of a self-proclaimed analytics expert. One example of many on why his expertise is rudimentary.
The best part about these supposed analytics experts is that they all wanted a QB that draft. Analytics says that’s the right thing to do they say. I’d love to see the analytics on absolutely terrible teams drafting QBs and then that QB suddenly turning that terrible team around during his rookie contract and winning the Super Bowll. How many times has that happened in the past couple of decades? Mahoney was drafted to a team ready to compete. Wilson was drafted to a team ready to compete.
The single most valuable thing in team building is a good, cheap QB on a rookie contract. When a QB is drafted to a team not ready to compete for several years, drafting a QB is an awful idea, so why does the analytics crowd say otherwise? Where’s this data saying it’s a good idea? Had the Giants drafted Darnold, they would still suck. They will likely suck this next season. Is Sam Darnold so good he’s changing that all by himself? The proof is in the Jets, why have had more talent than the Giants and still suck. So now he’s halfway through his rookie contract. So the Giants draft Darnold, now he’s going into his third season and the team still isn’t ready to compete this season. Now what? You’ve just used most of his rookie contract and now have to either pay him $30M per or let him walk. So again, how did that make sense at the time?
No other player in the history of the NFL has been judged on team success in his first two seasons as Barkley has. It’s amazing. He’s the only guy that is getting killed for not putting his team on his shoulders and leading them to a championship. And it’s by the bullshit, fake analytics experts because he’s a RB. Why was a QB the smarter play? It makes no sense. If you don’t take a RB before a team is close to competing, you’d think analytics would say taking a QB and wasting cheap years on his deal for several seasons would be even worse, no? There’s analytically zero prof of a QB being taken by a horrible team and that QB taking that team to the Super Bowl within a couple seasons in recent times. Why haven’t we heard about THOSE analytics?
I commend you two for some how being able to have the exact same conversation across multiple threads for multiple years. It's like the dream sequence battles in Inception.
As a fan, the only really interesting question to me; do the 2020 Giants have the best football technology department money can buy, and do management and coaching trust and use the outputs of that department.
Far too many of these debates confuse technology as a discipline with "analytics" -- and create silly arguments from silly premises. And far too many fans really don't have the slightest grasp of the technologies and talents that underlie a strong analytics program.
All of the gnashing of teeth on who, when, how is boring.
Simple question as a ante for a mildly sophisticated conversation on the topic -- do you believe the 2020 Giants have the best football technology department money can buy?
it's both of our positions that in order to approach best in class we need someone to lead the efforts to build out our technology platforms with a CTO background or at least someone that has led innovation or software development teams previously with success.
I would think a sign that the team wanted to make a real modernization effort would include that role having a senior title and viewed overall as more than computer guys.
Also, don't you think it's a very valid data point in deciding if you have the right leaders in place to modernize how much an organization is willing to make real changes at the top after they have fallen behind with those leaders at the helm?
RE: You could correct me if i'm wrong but I believe
it's both of our positions that in order to approach best in class we need someone to lead the efforts to build out our technology platforms with a CTO background or at least someone that has led innovation or software development teams previously with success.
I would think a sign that the team wanted to make a real modernization effort would include that role having a senior title and viewed overall as more than computer guys.
Also, don't you think it's a very valid data point in deciding if you have the right leaders in place to modernize how much an organization is willing to make real changes at the top after they have fallen behind with those leaders at the helm?
I've done less research on Gettleman and his history (forgive my bluntness, but I don't think it matters). Based on Mara's comments, I was a little concerned. I respect Judge, and coming from the Pat's shop, I trust he'll be a big influence.
I'm optimistic the Giants are on their way.
I do wholeheartedly agree the technical needs of a modern football organization requires a CTO.
That's where I start.
For me the analog is the medical side of the shop. Simply having a training department and a few guys running it would be disturbing -- and wouldn't mean there was a top rate medical department. We'd all be asking "where are the doctors, the nutritionists, the strength and conditioning guys. Most importantly who's in charge?"
The excuse making on this one is mind boggling.
I don’t “blindly” support Dave Gettelman. I happen to think he isn’t the end all be all for everything wrong with this organization. And seeing the Ed Oliver news is extremely unfortunate but an example of how the vetting process is imperfect. And it isn’t just bad franchises it’s good ones too. How’s that Earl Thomas fella? Sounds like a piece of shit to me. Plenty of successful franchises make mistakes on character - but they’ve got a system in place to make up for it.
How’s your faith in him looking?
3 arrests probably a few out there we don't knwo about =
3/2800 = .001 1//10th of 1 percent = regular crime wave
Last I read the crime rate in the NFL was 1 in 45, the highest of all sports. And that was calculated before quarantine.
would you calculate the number of murderers in the general population by counting the number of murders in a 3 day period?
The excuse making on this one is mind boggling.
You don’t think teams keep an eye on their players, especially the good ones? Players are investments for the owners. Smaller rosters mean it’s easier to protect the investments. Just because you don’t see as many news headlines about NBA players being in trouble doesn’t meant it isn’t happening. I know it’s a television show but guys like Ray Donovan exist in real life as well.
And I agree with another poster that pointed out the low rate of crime when you look at the whole league. The fact that you have three incidents in one weekend is more coincidence than anything in my opinion.
You're conflating cause and effect with 'excuse'. Like it or not a larger cross section of NFL players come from higher crime environments than the norm. I'm not justifying or rationalizing the behavior but that isn't needed to accept the phenomena is happening.
I just happen to think people doing a crappy job working on something I care about deserve to be called out and the problem needs to be rectified. This doesn’t happen by downplaying said problem.
I’ve been highlighting these problems for years and been extremely validated by what’s transpired. You on the other hand keep on acting like the people that are questioning things are overreacting even as someone like me and the concerns coming to life I actually prognosticated. Like in game technology relationships and the value of integrating advanced data like SportsVu for this and larger value models.
You can mode something like the psychology behind work ethic into traditional stats. The Pats have used methods like this under Ernie Adams for a long time.
Don’t conflate me being pissed off about this with anything else. My happy life affords me the energy to try to take on causes I care about. Like people like you giving the team too much slack actually propping up the legitimacy of a feckless regime.
I can spend time picking apart moves my teams make all day if I want. I choose not to because I don’t get anything out of it, just isn’t very fun. So chalk that up to whatever cute term you want to address people with who aren’t heavily criticizing every move (which is a shitty way to start a conversation I might add).
Don’t confuse the Giants making plenty of shitty moves that need to be criticized because of the bad management with being a negative person.
I’m very positive about the Yankees on this board and have been consistently for years.
You know why Gettleman was passed over? You know that he was even under consideration?
But furthermore, what did you mean by Gettleman had a very short stint for a GM in Carolina?
The Panthers have had 6 GM's in their history. Exactly one of them had longer stint than Gettleman! One. Marty Hurney.
The average tenure of a GM is 3 years. Granted, that includes a lot who flame out immediately, but even then - the terrible Gettleman beat that out.
For a guy who talks analytics, you are really, really shitty at comparative statistics.
Glad you could give definitive insight into his time in Carolina - a subject you continually swing and miss at.
Can't wait to hear the reasoning on how you were right about Gettleman having a short stint in Carolina.
Maybe tie it to critiquing the Giants technology department like you tried to on the Baker thread?
I can spend time picking apart moves my teams make all day if I want. I choose not to because I don’t get anything out of it, just isn’t very fun. So chalk that up to whatever cute term you want to address people with who aren’t heavily criticizing every move (which is a shitty way to start a conversation I might add).
I can totally understand just going with the flow and hoping that every move works out, honestly I can.
If you have taken that path, what do you get out of arguing on the internet against people who are still thinking critically? Why bother? That just seems like misery with extra steps
Can't wait to hear the reasoning on how you were right about Gettleman having a short stint in Carolina.
Maybe tie it to critiquing the Giants technology department like you tried to on the Baker thread?
What is it with supposed “analytics experts” on this site? Every single one of them are insufferable windbags. They all think they are the smartest guy in the room, constantly patting themselves on the back for what they perceive as them being “right” and have an arrogance that just makes you want to bitch slap the shit out of them. They aren’t half as smart as they think they are but they are so caught up in their own bloviiating that they have no idea how insufferable they are. NGD is one of the main culprits but he’s certainly not alone. Complete clowns
Quote:
keep lying then.
Can't wait to hear the reasoning on how you were right about Gettleman having a short stint in Carolina.
Maybe tie it to critiquing the Giants technology department like you tried to on the Baker thread?
What is it with supposed “analytics experts” on this site? Every single one of them are insufferable windbags. They all think they are the smartest guy in the room, constantly patting themselves on the back for what they perceive as them being “right” and have an arrogance that just makes you want to bitch slap the shit out of them. They aren’t half as smart as they think they are but they are so caught up in their own bloviiating that they have no idea how insufferable they are. NGD is one of the main culprits but he’s certainly not alone. Complete clowns
BBS. I was talking to a few other BBI'ers and when the topic of analytics came up, two guys who are really knowledgeable about building sound data programs said the great irony of the analytics discussions here is that the loudest posters who claim to have analytic prowess continually show time and again that they have a terrible understanding of the subject
The only credit I give them is they sure are tenacious in sticking with the ignorance.
If I'm a guy who leans heavily on data-based arguments, I'd sure as hell get my facts straight about the role Gettleman played in Carolina and how he stacked up against his peers, but instead, I'll just get called a big old meany face!
Quote:
In comment 14905548 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
keep lying then.
Can't wait to hear the reasoning on how you were right about Gettleman having a short stint in Carolina.
Maybe tie it to critiquing the Giants technology department like you tried to on the Baker thread?
What is it with supposed “analytics experts” on this site? Every single one of them are insufferable windbags. They all think they are the smartest guy in the room, constantly patting themselves on the back for what they perceive as them being “right” and have an arrogance that just makes you want to bitch slap the shit out of them. They aren’t half as smart as they think they are but they are so caught up in their own bloviiating that they have no idea how insufferable they are. NGD is one of the main culprits but he’s certainly not alone. Complete clowns
BBS. I was talking to a few other BBI'ers and when the topic of analytics came up, two guys who are really knowledgeable about building sound data programs said the great irony of the analytics discussions here is that the loudest posters who claim to have analytic prowess continually show time and again that they have a terrible understanding of the subject
The only credit I give them is they sure are tenacious in sticking with the ignorance.
If I'm a guy who leans heavily on data-based arguments, I'd sure as hell get my facts straight about the role Gettleman played in Carolina and how he stacked up against his peers, but instead, I'll just get called a big old meany face!
To be fair, the BBI analytics gurus spend a great deal of time performing their expertise analyzing LinkedIn profiles. I mean, they can only go by the data LinkedIn provides in their earnest analysis of someone’s qualifications and history. Must be LinkedIn told them Gettleman was a failure in Carolina? I mean, all the data is there! He wasn’t there long so he’s a failure! Who needs detail and perspective? Numbers tell it all. These guys have spent their entire lives analyzing numbers. Don’t argue within. There’s no room for logic and reasoning around here.
The people I talked to with knowledge of the Giants thinking, those involved in it didn’t understand some very basic concepts in how to apply technology and the systems you’d need to apply that tech.
So am I surprised that a group of fans jerking each other off also don’t understand?
No I am not
There were some basic things about the team's structure you didn't even know when you started the crusade on analytics. Let me remind you that at one time, you stood by the belief that Carolina was doing nothing with analytics. You extended that belief to say the Giants weren't either.
So again - a guy who purports to make
data-based reasoning, doesn't even do basic research before spouting off.
Then the goalposts moved from the Giants not doing anything to them hiring a guy who had no credentials worthy of leading an analytic team, famously culled from LinkedIn. Meanwhile, while Siam's reputation was taking the brunt of your "research" you never even acknowledged that Jon Berger has been the team's Director of Football Information for 13 years
I've questioned you competence all along, now I guess we'll have to wonder who the fuck you've talked to "with knowledge of the Giants thinking".
Excuse me for a second - my bullshit monitor is going crazy!
1) If you go back and read the first thread we got into it on analytics here. What I was saying about Gettleman being the wrong guy to have the Giants modernize turned out to be 100% correct. Gettleman admitted that he needed to "learn from his mistakes" at the end of the season. Gettleman said himself what I was concerned about turned out to be accurate. Where do you come off acting like you are anything but wrong yourself for acting like we were on top of this?
2) You spent the whole thread I shared, questioning how I could possibly know if the Giants needed to do more on the analytics front, who I was to question the mighty Giants? Now you mock me for using LinkedIn, Github and talking about my background when that's all we have to go on, the performance on the field, their code base, my qualifications and the peoples qualifications of the team. It was only your demands for a never-ending pile of evidence to support my points that we went down that road and no other reason.
3) The asinine point has been tossed around way too much if the Giants did do analytics. And I have continually pointed out that a pivot table is technically analytics and the idea that an organization would not "do analytics" in that sense today is insane, no one would ever claim that. The more relevant point is quality. You continually point out that Gettleman set up and "did analytics" in Carolina but in making his second attempt to build out a good technology analysis pipeline with the Giants he bucked the math and said from the above article "Barkley is 'an outlier' who “transcended such analytics." He doesn’t even understand the terms he is using, an outlier is not something you can predict it is something you uncover after the fact. If you can draw clear or formulaic lines to something, which is absolutely how decisions should be made, it isn’t an outlier. He's saying he knows more than the math and his attempts to articulate his reasoning included phrases like “touched by the hand of god” and poking fun at the kinds of people helping other teams stack wins while we stack losses. Part of the math of why RBs are valued less is they have durability concerns and competition gets by allocating less resources to them. The average of the top 10 G cap hits in the NFL is 21% higher than RB AND we were paying our aging immobile QB tons of money to try to win at the end of his career, a quick lesson in computer modeling and asset allocation. Saquon is the 8th highest paid RB and Quinton Nelson is the 25th highest paid G. Salary arbitrage and team building wins games. Not who is touched by the hand of god and who isn’t. The more important point is not if Gettleman “did analytics” or not in Carolina it is why should his opinion on technology matter? Why should he be leading a team in an industry that increasingly is integrating advanced technology? He clearly doesn’t have enough respect for the field, even if he has been forced to give it more credence don’t you want people leading modernization efforts to want to pursue it more naturally not in front of an angry mob of people they’ve disappointed?
4) Here is a clear line between Deandre Baker and advanced analytics. Ernie Adams is. responsible for making the Patriots final draft value model according to his Wikipedia page. They took Aaron Hernandez in the 4th, they take chances on a lot of players with character risks. They clearly have a way of modeling this. Gettleman is on record rejecting value-based models on their face with Saquon. When you get into more advanced analytics, as I have mentioned in threads recently you can blend psychological factors with traditional statistics to project a player. That’s why it’s laughable when you compare Baker Mayfield to Deandre Baker, he had his own set of issues, but his effort was never in question. To act like the risk of Baker Mayfield and Deandre Baker is in the same category is woefully inadequate analysis in the fields of both psychology and data science. Yet you claim to have a knowledge of the field and speak out on it so often. There are plenty of professional sports organizations doing this down to eye movements and electrical signals in the brain in addition to written or conversation syntax. Are models still wrong sometimes? Of course. But when you trade up for a player, acting like you know something the league doesn’t know when other teams like the Pats clearly have purely mathematical sanity checks on things like this it means you better be right. Furthermore, instead of declaring yourself some grand arbiter of what good culture is (this coming from someone again who was fired for difficult relationships with players in the past) other teams are putting together models including psychological factors into who might be fits on their teams. We hear a lot about JJ matching players to scheme but you can even start earlier and match players to your other players. I know shocking right? Believe it or not the world is not filled with good apples or bad apples waiting for our glorious leader DG to weigh in on their apple quality. There is more nuance and it is much more about fitting personalities into the group you have and to the strengths of your coaches.
5) Maybe our last two coaches looking bad has just as much to do with the front office supporting them as it does with them being the stupid villains who also were the best men for the job a short while before that. The funny thing about all of this as you again act like I have something to prove when you have never offered up any context on why your opinions in the technology field matter at all. While you have been acting like my posts are useless drivel they have gotten me information on actually what is going on inside the walls of the building through contacts I have formed on this board. I don't mind making statements like that because they are the truth and if they weren't i'm sure you'd relish sniffing them out. But you'd rather pretend like you know more through bluster instead of making real points. That's your MO.
One more overarching point:
Our record with Ty Siam running our analytics – 29-51
Title: Football operations analyst
Prior experience:
2 years and 10 months as a consultant
Ernie Adams
Title: Director of Football Research
Prior experience:
Worked as a coach’s assistant for 6 years
Director of Pro Personnel for 3
5 years as a Wall St. Trader
4 years running his own investment firm
This illustrates a simple point, why do we continue to have no evidence of technological qualifications at the top of our organization when there was an admission that we should have addressed this more? I do not claim to be the end all be all on technology, I posted a whole system architecture verified by another expert McL. A poster that I know offline came on to validate my background and expertise in this field. You don’t have to be an expert to know our staffing qualifications and codebase are disappointing and pairing that with our on field performance there is no defense for, the team knows its indefensible which is why they addressed that this offseason specifically. One thing that I do know with 100% certainty is these processes are iterative but the more systems leaders have built the more shortcuts you know. The 5 broad areas of expertise needed to build a system that can offer value-based assessments and real time recommendations for games are advanced mathematics, computer vision, software development, systems architecture, and product design. Gettleman and Siam can lead an effort where we fumble around with tools in the dirt like apes and try to evolve or you can bring in people that can speed up the process significantly because they’ve led technology efforts. And again, I want to be clear we do not have anyone on our senior staff who have built out systems harnessing expertise in ANY of those categories. A strong CTO would have expertise across those functions, but the fact remains bringing in “computer guys” with some of those skills is VASTLY different than having a director of research leading those efforts. We are behind and what we think is a viable solution to catch up was to let the guys that led us into falling behind to lead this new effort to modernize? How flawed is that logic?
Anyone with insider knowledge has supported that the Giants are all but ready to make Kevin Abrams the GM. That is a fatally flawed decision-making process based on clearly the wrong things. It would be one thing if we storm back into the playoffs this year and then we heard those whispers. But the fact that there is so much smoke there, after this terrible period in our history shows the Giants care more about loyalty and comfort than finding the best people in their front office. That has been demonstrated and that is what some people do not seem to care about and until more people do we might just stay in the cellar. The Baker situation is frustrating because we continue to throw up our hands and act like these are all honest mistakes but the "honest mistakes" keep stacking and downplaying them especially in conjunction is irresponsible. And that has nothing to do if Baker goes to jail or not and everything to do with why it is that a team with so many holes wanted this guy so much more than the rest of the NFL that we spent 3 picks on him?
That thread was prior to Tepper doing anything in Carolina. In the linked thread, Tepper has been there
But nevertheless, you asked about it again on the thread linked:
People see through the charade
Just look at two posts by EA:
How far do you want to take it though? Clearly you're super committed to it as it's your profession and great for you but for me I think it is just a data point and it will always struggle to be as effective in football as in baseball for what I'm sure are very obvious reasons to you.
Still, you remain convinced the Giants refuse to modernise and the Jags, Eagles and others are mentioned. Do you think Coughlin suddenly became a numbers guy? No... he was for years at the giants. The Eagles are a smart org you say and the numbers told them... to hire Ben McAdoo. I note today Eli is top 4 in passes completed above expectation for example. To steal from the sage Bill2 you can torture the data into confessing any number of ways.
Ultimately numbers rarely tell you who is going to break out, who brings others together in a locker room and who brings something even greater than wins to a community. Football isn't wall street. It's a hugely complex interdependent operation more akin to predicting the weather than analysing trading patterns.
I think this roster is ill equipped for today's NFL. The organisation is not. Trust DG. He won't let you down and certainly not in the manner you suggest.
English Alaister : 10/1/2018 3:30 pm : link
You bunch of dicks don't even have the first idea what loyalty entails. Instead we get threads like 'Do Gettleman and Schumer (presumably not Amy) deserve to be publicly lashed?' 'Is Vernon tougher than a 6 year old girl?' or this peach. It is no wonder posters like Fatman or B in ALB who has an idea what a pro locker room look like can't take any more of this nonsense. Don't even start me on bw and his jints central act which has routinely been a guide to a team about to go to a superbowl but is now scaling new levels of conjecture and hyperbole.
The reality is this. You cannot realistically expect to judge the owners over a 3 or 4 year period. Mistakes have been made and this is an unforgiving league intolerant of mistakes. I don't think anyone can refute that but the last 32 years have yielded 4 superbowls (and a fifth appearance) whereby statistically they should have yielded approximately one.
That is because the Giants way works. We are a good football organisation that routinely makes solid football decisions and allows people to succeed or fail with class. Meanwhile the same horrific posters who wanted to get rid of Coughlin for McAdoo but now fete him at Jacksonville ponder should they allow their "loyalty" to continue for a 5th week of a new regime. These people would have traded Eli for Fitzpatrick three times by now and wonder why they're still trophyless.
It's just embarrassing to be a part of this fanbase at times.
EA has extensive knowledge about analytics. He also knows some of my expertise, which I do not disclose, especially to asswipes like yourself. Meanwhile, you find ways to often work in your qualifications. Nuggets like this:
You need to keep telling people your qualifications because a lot of people knowledgeable about analytics think you are full of shit and for some reason, you need to throw fake resumes around to appear to be an expert. I came to that conclusion early on in our interactions, yet you keep going like the Energizer Bunny.
You are the American Idol contestant who tells the judges how great they are before sounding like a dying coyote.
There has to be some flaw in the system. You are glossing over the fact that I said they didn't have the right people to modernize they admitted this past off-season they did a bad job of modernizing and now you think the point is relevant to highlight again that they have the right people in place? Based on what?
Plenty of people here know know what I do or have done in the past. The point is - I don't have to reiterate that. You continually do. I'd say you might want to figure out why that is - but you know exactly why that is. People don't take you seriously or think you have accurate information.
I'll just anxious await the next event you try to force analytics into the discussion like you did with Baker.
You call me stupid and ill informed.
I, someone who isn't called stupid very often feel it's appropriate to react with my experience in the field. Something for some reason you hold against me?
I turn out to be right when by his own admission DG says he made mistakes in modernizing that he has to learn from.
You are the one throwing around accusations of how stupid other people are constantly and then get cagey when people ask for your qualifications to call people stupid about everything under the son. Why? What makes you so qualified to be this arbiter of peoples qualifications to speak?
Regardless of my qualifications I was right in that thread. Instead of eating your crow like an adult you want to hold this position that I was always wrong. Why does it matter how qualified certain posters think you are in the shadows when the point you were lambasting me on you were wrong about?
Stay on topic. I'm remaining civil and here you are acting like a petulant child, par for the course.
DG refused to acknowledge value / asset allocation models were even valid while he was doing his fake typing. Do you know what an outlier is? How do you feel about the statement that Barkley is an outlier who "transcends analytics" ? He said that THIS offseason! Do you realize how ridiculous of an idea it is to say that you can predict outliers? Because that's what he's saying, he will be an outlier in the NFL. But even backwards. What exactly makes him so much better than Barry Sanders or Marshall Faulk coming out of college? (The first who never won and the second who didn't even stay on the team that drafted him #2) And again we are talking about an outlier so we are talking about someone who clearly is beyond them by statistical methods. What exactly are those metrics how touched by god you are? So is Barkley like a 10 on that scale? How touched by the hand of god was Sanders? Like only a 6? Because that's what an outlier actually is where we have like EVERYONE in the 1-6 range and then someone coming in clearly away from the pack.
I realize I didn't paste the DG article where he admits to his mistakes but here it is. After all of his years of implementing analytics systems that you and your pal Dave have, don't you think you both should understand this stuff better?
Instead of trying to discredit me, someone making an honest attempt to hold our management accountable to innovation maybe it's time to just admit that you were the one who was wrong, you had too much faith in them and maybe they have adjusted properly this time. That is the only leg you have to stand on but DG, Siam and the rag tag bunch that have gotten us here and who by EVERY account of what happened this offseason, hiring all the "computer guys" is that they are trying to do new things because they admitted they were behind. The debate in that thread is over and it takes a real pompous jerk of epic proportions to sit here and pretend like someone like me who researched in their free time the goings on of the organization to say hey maybe we need to do better here because we seem under-qualified and have shown some concerning patterns on the field and in our team rhetoric around technology? And you attack me for years for it.
My knowledge of the industry and the signs of success and failure were on point and yours were off base. How dare you sit here and continue to pretend like i'm some huckster when the only huckster here is you.
Barkley "transcends" analytics - ( New Window )
He is most certainly a one of a kind, generational back of the “outlier” variety that is seldom seen. Obviously he needs to stay healthy.
What DG and most others saw in him is indeed most special. A true outlier in and of the RB community
The mediocre when being generous teams
Sanders � 78-82 career record, 48-48 on his second contract
Peterson � 80-79 Career record, 44-51 on 2nd contract when he was taking up an average of 9.59%* of the cap per year
Colts Faulk � 32-48 (if you want to say Faulk is talented enough to win a super bowl, wasn�t really the case for the Colts when he was much more cost effective)
The Discounted QB Winners
Rams Faulk � Think this is about resources more than records. Faulk took up on average 6.24%* of the Rams cap, obviously less than 9.59%* for Peterson but in addition to that Kurt Warner during his 5 years on the Rams took up an average of 8.29%* of the cap. Compare this to the average % of cap for say Kirk Cousins an average to above average QB in the open market at 15.85%* (projecting the cap to rise $10M next year) or even Eli Manning at 13.38%* of the cap for �home grown� as an additional point of reference.
LDT � Quite Simply the entire time LDT was on the Chargers they were successful overall. However, they went from Brees on a rookie deal to Rivers on a rookie deal. There was only one year where Rivers and LDT were on non-rookie deals and LDT was gone the season after.
The Le�Veon Bell Situation
Most viewed Le�Veon bell as the best RB in the league. I think James Connor�s year really calls into question why anyone would spend significant resources on an RB looking at that fact alone. The amount spent on Connor vs. the ~$17M Bell was asking for serves as a warning to anyone thinking about paying even an RB that is one of the better dual threats we�ve seen in a while. This really speaks to investing resources in the QB, OL and WR positions for team success with a star RB not having much impact. Even having to allocate cap dollars in case Bell came to play the Steelers team offense ranks from NFL.com 2018 � 4th YPG, 6th PPG. 2017 � 3rd YPG, 8th PPG.
I�m fine with saying there are things that we as fans can�t evaluate like chemistry and leadership. The problem is that there isn�t any evidence that even the most talented RBs can lead to the most successful teams unless they are paired with a top QB on a discounted deal. If you even want to point to the Chargers, they never even made the Superbowl. If you do want to point to Faulk as the exemplar it is really hard to do that without acknowledging that it looks like Faulk got a relatively cheap deal compared to someone like Peterson and all the arguments people are making on this thread could be used by Saquon�s agent to argue that maybe he deserves more than 9.59% of the cap.
There is additional evidence that if you have an amazing talent at RB and don�t pair them with a great QB you are liable to wallow in mediocrity which in turn makes it more difficult to get a pick that could land you the QB that you need to win. People like to talk about Gurley but Goff playing well on a rookie deal has at minimum the same amount of explanation for this. Maybe more. Mahomes lost a star RB and was still a hair away from the SB, Brady gives the Patriots a deep discount and Brees, while not cheap could certainly make something closer to Rodgers 33.5M AAV than $25M AAV.
One more thing before I throw this back to the anti-analytics sharks. If, IF you want to make the argument that someone is going to be the first example of something working, it is nice to have some basis for this other than your own belief that it will work out. That is the emotional part that McL is referring to. As we�ve talked about in some of these other threads it is possible to quantify the things like leadership and chemistry if you commit to technology. Do players block with more force when Saquon is on the field vs. another RB? Do they move faster? Do they have better body language on the sideline after interacting with him? I would wager that New England has had WaR and expected win delta calculations for years now, the kinds of information that would very much help you quantify whether a safer more talented player like Saquon beats taking more of a risk on a higher value position like QB. Or like McL suggests, trading down (of which Gettlman also seemed to joke about not even entertaining) the Patriots have done wonders with these kinds of moves over the years.
...continued from the thread...
I looked at the other leading rushers since LDT came into the league on their second contracts and their teams records.
Foster (Texans) 32-32
McCoy (Eagles) 24-24
Chris Johnson (Titans) 22-26
Jones-Drew (Jags) 26-54
Murray (Eagles) 7-9 - Traded after one season
"The problem isn't that you can point out why any and all of these players might be different from Barkley. The problem is that giving a big contract to a running back has proven to be quite an ineffective strategy for winning. If we had our solution as a cost effective QB this is a different analysis, but we don't, we have the opposite, a old QB we are overpaying."
Older thread on RB value - ( New Window )
Please stop citing the Lions and what they did with the other 52 players as some sort of example of how not to build a team. You know what the Lions should have done? Gotten better players other than Sanders and his cost didn’t prevent them from doing so.
What do you mean your knowledge of the industry was on point?? You had originally said Gettleman didn't implement analytics in Carolina. You were dead wrong. That's exhibiting knowledge of the industry??
Your take on the Giants is also offbase, both in the trashing of Siam's credentials and the ignorance of not even knowing Berger was in place. Again - that's shitty knowledge of both the team and the industry.
Here's the bottom line. You haven't like Gettleman or his decisions and you latched on to him commenting dismissively about analytics and ran with it. And you continue to do it by ignoring others giving you knowledge about what the team has done and why Siam's credentials aren't falling short. It's fine if you ignore me because you think I'm a prick. Listen to others who have said it. Listen to Bill2 or EA.
For a guy who claims to be an expert in analytics, if you think either side of the argument can do a victory lap like you are trying to do, you're raising your hands in victory while not being close to the finishing line.
Just another example of you overinflating your knowledge and another beating of the chest with credentials. But you are the adult and I'm the petulant child. Really sounds like something an an adult would say, doesn't it?
Please stop citing the Lions and what they did with the other 52 players as some sort of example of how not to build a team. You know what the Lions should have done? Gotten better players other than Sanders and his cost didn’t prevent them from doing so.
UConn it would be nice if the guys acting like Sanders didn't have an impact look at how dramatic the results were with him vs. without him. They keep pointing to the Lions record with him instead of comparitively looking at it.
And that's the take of a self-proclaimed analytics expert. One example of many on why his expertise is rudimentary.
I've addressed Jon Berger in the past, he's worked for the Knicks and Giants for decades would you say those are good examples of analytics operations? Decision making systems? Why is this a point you think is a good one? It is honestly completely laughable that you think I overlooked this when the truth is given the teams he has been involved in and their recent performance I didn't think he needed to be addressed.
The overarching point that you continually fail to understand is that there is ample evidence that suggests that the point i'm making that we have had the wrong leadership in place to address analytics was much more accurate than your supposition that these people are the right people. Which again DG admitted to this past offseason. You and other people who align very closely with the Giants of course have tried to discredit me but you fail to refute my points.
What is the argument for DG, Siam and Berger to lead a modernization effort when they have overseen a period of us falling behind? Please tell me. Please be specific.
You continually criticize my analytical abilities when I am bringing evidence to the table while not making points of your own.
Or diverging the argument to stupid points like if I said the Giants "did analytics" or not. Why does it matter if I said they did analytics or not? I posted the thread, I was very clear on what I meant, others very much understood it. You fixate on these stupid little points because you have no arguments for the larger points.
So back to the Lions. Did Barry Sanders make them draft bad players? Did he make them sign bad players? Was he the reason they couldn’t find a good quarterback? And you brought the Lions up so here you go...
The Giants seem behind on analytics. The lack of footprint and hires, for example. Mara’s quote at season end about being deeper into technology/analytics than ever before struck me as worthless without tangible evidence being offered.I think the Giants use analytics. I do think they’re behind those who are best in class. I think being best in class would help this team.
I don’t know everything the Giants do, obviously. But we can see data points of what other teams do and it doesn’t seem the Giants are doing that.
Quote:
put him on any of the Pats teams the last 5 years and pay him $20m per and he’s going to carry you to a title.
Please stop citing the Lions and what they did with the other 52 players as some sort of example of how not to build a team. You know what the Lions should have done? Gotten better players other than Sanders and his cost didn’t prevent them from doing so.
UConn it would be nice if the guys acting like Sanders didn't have an impact look at how dramatic the results were with him vs. without him. They keep pointing to the Lions record with him instead of comparitively looking at it.
And that's the take of a self-proclaimed analytics expert. One example of many on why his expertise is rudimentary.
The best part about these supposed analytics experts is that they all wanted a QB that draft. Analytics says that’s the right thing to do they say. I’d love to see the analytics on absolutely terrible teams drafting QBs and then that QB suddenly turning that terrible team around during his rookie contract and winning the Super Bowll. How many times has that happened in the past couple of decades? Mahoney was drafted to a team ready to compete. Wilson was drafted to a team ready to compete.
The single most valuable thing in team building is a good, cheap QB on a rookie contract. When a QB is drafted to a team not ready to compete for several years, drafting a QB is an awful idea, so why does the analytics crowd say otherwise? Where’s this data saying it’s a good idea? Had the Giants drafted Darnold, they would still suck. They will likely suck this next season. Is Sam Darnold so good he’s changing that all by himself? The proof is in the Jets, why have had more talent than the Giants and still suck. So now he’s halfway through his rookie contract. So the Giants draft Darnold, now he’s going into his third season and the team still isn’t ready to compete this season. Now what? You’ve just used most of his rookie contract and now have to either pay him $30M per or let him walk. So again, how did that make sense at the time?
No other player in the history of the NFL has been judged on team success in his first two seasons as Barkley has. It’s amazing. He’s the only guy that is getting killed for not putting his team on his shoulders and leading them to a championship. And it’s by the bullshit, fake analytics experts because he’s a RB. Why was a QB the smarter play? It makes no sense. If you don’t take a RB before a team is close to competing, you’d think analytics would say taking a QB and wasting cheap years on his deal for several seasons would be even worse, no? There’s analytically zero prof of a QB being taken by a horrible team and that QB taking that team to the Super Bowl within a couple seasons in recent times. Why haven’t we heard about THOSE analytics?
So back to the Lions. Did Barry Sanders make them draft bad players? Did he make them sign bad players? Was he the reason they couldn’t find a good quarterback? And you brought the Lions up so here you go...
When someone attacks your credibility constantly it makes you talk about it more and I have done nothing but stand up for myself and the validity of my opinions. Call it what you want.
Now see what you are trying to do here is pick apart one data point when the overall data suggests that RBs are not a good investment, read through the thread I posted if you want more data. I don't need to go through the minutia of Barry Sanders because he is on a long list of extremely talented RBs that didn't have winning teams around them.
Quote:
In comment 14907030 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
put him on any of the Pats teams the last 5 years and pay him $20m per and he’s going to carry you to a title.
Please stop citing the Lions and what they did with the other 52 players as some sort of example of how not to build a team. You know what the Lions should have done? Gotten better players other than Sanders and his cost didn’t prevent them from doing so.
UConn it would be nice if the guys acting like Sanders didn't have an impact look at how dramatic the results were with him vs. without him. They keep pointing to the Lions record with him instead of comparitively looking at it.
And that's the take of a self-proclaimed analytics expert. One example of many on why his expertise is rudimentary.
The best part about these supposed analytics experts is that they all wanted a QB that draft. Analytics says that’s the right thing to do they say. I’d love to see the analytics on absolutely terrible teams drafting QBs and then that QB suddenly turning that terrible team around during his rookie contract and winning the Super Bowll. How many times has that happened in the past couple of decades? Mahoney was drafted to a team ready to compete. Wilson was drafted to a team ready to compete.
The single most valuable thing in team building is a good, cheap QB on a rookie contract. When a QB is drafted to a team not ready to compete for several years, drafting a QB is an awful idea, so why does the analytics crowd say otherwise? Where’s this data saying it’s a good idea? Had the Giants drafted Darnold, they would still suck. They will likely suck this next season. Is Sam Darnold so good he’s changing that all by himself? The proof is in the Jets, why have had more talent than the Giants and still suck. So now he’s halfway through his rookie contract. So the Giants draft Darnold, now he’s going into his third season and the team still isn’t ready to compete this season. Now what? You’ve just used most of his rookie contract and now have to either pay him $30M per or let him walk. So again, how did that make sense at the time?
No other player in the history of the NFL has been judged on team success in his first two seasons as Barkley has. It’s amazing. He’s the only guy that is getting killed for not putting his team on his shoulders and leading them to a championship. And it’s by the bullshit, fake analytics experts because he’s a RB. Why was a QB the smarter play? It makes no sense. If you don’t take a RB before a team is close to competing, you’d think analytics would say taking a QB and wasting cheap years on his deal for several seasons would be even worse, no? There’s analytically zero prof of a QB being taken by a horrible team and that QB taking that team to the Super Bowl within a couple seasons in recent times. Why haven’t we heard about THOSE analytics?
I like this. 👍👍🏿
As a fan, the only really interesting question to me; do the 2020 Giants have the best football technology department money can buy, and do management and coaching trust and use the outputs of that department.
Far too many of these debates confuse technology as a discipline with "analytics" -- and create silly arguments from silly premises. And far too many fans really don't have the slightest grasp of the technologies and talents that underlie a strong analytics program.
All of the gnashing of teeth on who, when, how is boring.
Simple question as a ante for a mildly sophisticated conversation on the topic -- do you believe the 2020 Giants have the best football technology department money can buy?
I would think a sign that the team wanted to make a real modernization effort would include that role having a senior title and viewed overall as more than computer guys.
Also, don't you think it's a very valid data point in deciding if you have the right leaders in place to modernize how much an organization is willing to make real changes at the top after they have fallen behind with those leaders at the helm?
I would think a sign that the team wanted to make a real modernization effort would include that role having a senior title and viewed overall as more than computer guys.
Also, don't you think it's a very valid data point in deciding if you have the right leaders in place to modernize how much an organization is willing to make real changes at the top after they have fallen behind with those leaders at the helm?
I've done less research on Gettleman and his history (forgive my bluntness, but I don't think it matters). Based on Mara's comments, I was a little concerned. I respect Judge, and coming from the Pat's shop, I trust he'll be a big influence.
I'm optimistic the Giants are on their way.
I do wholeheartedly agree the technical needs of a modern football organization requires a CTO.
That's where I start.
For me the analog is the medical side of the shop. Simply having a training department and a few guys running it would be disturbing -- and wouldn't mean there was a top rate medical department. We'd all be asking "where are the doctors, the nutritionists, the strength and conditioning guys. Most importantly who's in charge?"