Scathing article

Irrationality's being angry at someone on a message board and all the other baggage that's at work on your side. It's the "you won't admit you're wrong" when we both know this is a difference of opinion. That just doesn't wash - I'm not going to pretend I was wrong just because you're mad and don't want to argue the actual topic or note that this, like everything else you get mad at me about, is difference of opinion.



I never stated "beginning with saying". I said that by you stating (saying) "Jake is actually better..." and then defending it, you're stating an opinion.

I'm always having to restate my position on things you've distorted, a la "you said Jake plays better after he takes hits." We didn't actually go back over that after I posted what I'd actually said, rather than what you told me I was saying. You bitch at me for that, maybe I'm more tolerant.



Again - it's simple. Jake does not currently step into the pocket the way he does when he's most successful.

And there's something behind that. I have an idea, an opinion, as to why.

Call it distrust of the blocking, or too much worry about the rush, or if it makes you feel better that we down Jake, he's playing scared (that last one's from your words as well). Honestly, it sounds like a few different ways to say the same thing, and none of those are directly disproven by the statistics, nor has your extended opinion from those stats directly disproven the ideal.

The thought itself is not a concrete one, it's just an idea. I can't directly prove it anymore than you can actually disprove it - if you can find a way to get inside Jake's head and figure out why he won't step into the pocket this year, do so.

 

QB 1

13/20 200 yards 1 TD 0 int against San Francisco

QB 2

12/22 200 yards 1TD 0 int against Chicago

Which is the better performance?


Why 3 sacks?
Why QB rating of 95?

Collin has formed and opinion that Jake performs better in games where sacked more, then sought out the stats to back it up. Why not use a 100 rating for the reference point or 105? Because they are less likely to support his OPINION. The bottom line is that there are no where near a sufficient number of data points for any meaningful statistical analysis.

 

Statistics are great for historical purposes and provide a fine measure of ones abilities, but as you point out, they can be had picked. Which is why I refuse to indulge in an arguement based on statistical information. I'd rather watch the games and make my own analysis based on what I SEE and use the stats as little as possible.
Stats are factual in theory, but when used selectively they lose thier sharpness. That's one thing I get into trouble with when I do my NFL draft stuff. I haven't seen enough of alot of those guys to really base an analysis on, so I rely on the stats.
One thing that is seemingly lost in all this is looking at the situation of said games. We've had a tendancy to get pass happy in some games and the more you pass the more opportunities there are for sacks.
Not disputing Collins claim, the stats support it...but there are other factors that play into it.

 

Past that, if you look at the games with more than 4 sacks, the 'trend' goes the other way. Not that I hadn't said that before, I think it just got lost in the wash. If you're putting a supposition that sacks = pressure = direct cause of him not stepping into the pocket for months on end, that is.

 

You saved me from having to say this and you said it better than I could have. Thanks.

 

And if you actually look at those games you'll see that turnovers where unusually heigh as well as points off of turnovers. There is a reason we lost most of those.

 

Ok, I lied, but I'm going to do my best and not continue arguing with Satan in this thread, but I did want to respond to the other comments.

Dude, this is beyond ridiculous. You're outright lying when I've said REPEATEDLY all along that I had absolutely no clue that Jake performed better in games where he was sacked more frequently, and that I doubt I would have believed it without seeing the numbers myself. I didn't form that opinion and then seek out evidence because I didn't form an opinion and the facts don't make sense to me. I don't understand why Jake does better when sacked more often, because it seems illogical. Why would a QB do better when sacked more? It made no sense to me and still makes no sense to me, but it's undeniably factual nonetheless.

See, this is yet another difference between me and people like you. I don't just go around looking to justify my preconceptions. I'm not interested in that bullshit. I'm interested in actual knowledge, and therefore I seek out information that doesn't fit with my preconceptions and that I therefore don't understand. I like that kind of thing because it teaches me new things and opens my eyes to different perspectives. I did exactly the opposite of what you claimed I've done (and repeatedly said so, so your claim is more than dishonest), and because I was willing to look at information I didn't understand and that arguably contradicted what I would have expected, I've learned something new. My willingness to learn in that fashion is one of the things that always keeps me ahead of people like you and the Great Satan, who just want to justify your own beliefs and care more about glorifying your own opinions than in actually being correct.

You certainly could. In fact, the most accurate measure is to actually average the QB ratings, but that creates a problem because you can't just average a set of ratios. Theoretically I could add up all the ingredients and then find his QB rating for those combined 9 games, but I don't really feel like doing it. If I do, you and I both already know that it would prove exactly the same thing, that Jake's QB rating is significantly elevated in games where he is sacked three or more times. That's a fact, not an opinion, but for whatever reason you just want to be a stupid ass and argue when you know that you're wrong.

Wrong. The number of data points is included in the calculation, and thus is used as a measure of significance. If Jake had only 3 games with 3+ sacks, being one above his average would not come out as mathematically significance because it would only be one iteration away from the norm. Seriously, take a stats course. You might find it interesting.

Dude, you got your ass handed to you and you just want to pretend that you weren't humiliated. For god's sake, you were dumb enough to look at the ratio of 5/16 and 11/16 rather than 5/9 and 11/34. I would have respected you if you could just be a man and admit that you made a stupid mistake, but instead you acted like most people and wanted to pretend that you didn't get absolutely thrashed.

 

collin, you need to find another board.

 

satan ... lmao.