Scathing article

I'd say there's a bit of a rush that comes from a scramble. It seems he responds to it, just as he does from something good happening intermediately up the field on his passes. I think there's a psychological factor in play with him, akin to his own suggestions of how he's a rhythm passer.
I'm not suggesting it's some Favre-like jawing with Warren Sapp type bullshit.



BTW - with or without stats, it's an opinion. The statistics are "facts", by themselves. It's your interpretations, filling in the blanks, telling us what they mean and why I'm wrong that makes everything else opinion.

I don't and can't explain his trust issues. However, I did state above that the rational inverse of what I'm saying about trust would mean that he's stepping into the pocket, and quite possibly stepping into a few more sacks. That would suggest that either our tackles are susceptible to inside moves once cleared, that the pressure is coming from the middle in more instances, or possibly that there isn't much correlation other than Jake's pocket presence improving with said trust.

 

But you didn't say it was from the scramble, you said he played better when he scrambled and got hit because it seemed to piss him off.

Saying that Jake performs better in games where he is sacked more frequently is a fact, not an opinion, because it's exactly what the statistics prove. Similarly, saying that the stats show that pressure does not appear to adversely affect Jake's performance is also a statement of fact and not opinion. Putting something in words does not automatically make it an opinion, especially when it's coming from the numbers themselves.

That's a completely illogical statement. You're suggesting that Jake would become more trusting of his line when he's getting sacked twice as frequently? If there were an issue with trust, it would presumably become apparent when Jake is actually being subject to said pressure. Instead we find conclusively from the statistics that this is not the case.

 

I never said it pissed him off. I'm not certain, since I've said it off and on for over a year, but I don't think I've ever advocated Jake taking a hit for his betterment.

"saying" at all makes it an opinion. Any extension of those statistics is not a statistic.

Again, trust isn't directly related to the pressure at that particular play, and all the other things I've been saying over and over.

Plus, when you're talking about 3 out of 30 or more, you're not talking about a defining measure of bias toward the other 27.

 

I think this is what you were searching for:

http://thisboardrocks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=99584&highlight=pocket

edit - here's another.

http://thisboardrocks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=96183&page=3&pp=40

 

"Fired up" then, but I find that difference to be entirely semantic. And you actually did suggest that Jake should scramble more because you felt he played better after taking a hit, because it would get him fired up.

Obviously you desperately want to paint that as true, because otherwise you were making a fool of yourself by arguing with facts, but "saying" facts doesn't prevent them from being facts. The statement "Jake's QB rating is significantly better in games where he has been sacked 3 or more times" is no less factual than simply posting the statistics. Saying it does not change it from being a fact.

You're not making any sense, although I think it's because you realize that you've completely lost this argument and have absolutely no way out. We're not talking about just one play. We're talking about a pattern over the course of eight games where Jake is being sacked twice as frequently as he was over the previous eight games. Yet you want to claim that Jake didn't trust his line when he was getting sacked half as often, and did trust them when he was getting sacked twice as much. It makes no sense.

 

:applause:

 

I still don't feel it had anything to do with taking a hit. I can't say with certainty every single word I've stated in the two forums over three years, but I feel fairly confident. I did quote two instances of what I'd meant, just above your last post.

Plus, taking a hit DNE taking a sack, and scrambling certainly will never be confused with an overabundance of confidence that the line will give you all the time you need.

Or it's true. The moment you applied these to the argument your words were opinion. Past that, you've defended and explained the stats in your words, which, guess what, is opinion. Even using these stats as the argument, had you done nothing else, is opinion, much less using the argument to imply my thoughts are wrong.

You said this earlier:

>>What argument did I make? I don't have an argument regarding Jake and sacks.



"Jake's QB rating is significantly better in games where he has been sacked 3 or more times"


I dunno. To me, that's an opinion, and a conclusion, not a statistic or fact. Plus, applying "sack" to "pressure" to "rushed" to whether he trusts his line or not takes not only opinion, but the assumption that the lineage there is 100% correct and there aren't other variables. And there are hundreds.




And again, sack DNE pressure DNE distrust. Honestly, I don't see how my argument is so far off the "Jake's playing scared" theory you've fronted. For a reason, Jake hasn't stepped into the pocket the way he should.

 

You're being completely ridiculous. "Saying that Jake performs better in games where he is sacked more frequently is a fact" is not a statement of opinion, and you claiming otherwise is just plain absurd. Me speculating as to why it happens would be an opinion, but stating that it does happen is simply a summary of the factual statistics. It's no different than posting the numbers themselves. "Saying that Jake has played three seasons with the Panthers" is obviously not an opinion either. You claiming that anything beginning with "Saying" is just silly.

No, they aren't. You really need to look up the definition of "fact. Using words does not make something an opinion, and you claiming otherwise makes you look completely ignorant and uneducated (opinion). My god, I can't believe you would be so petty and bitter to actually claim that anytime you use words instead of numbers that it's necessary an opinion and not a fact. Christ, that's just so stupid that I'm still surprised you would say it despite all the stunts you've pulled over the years in desperate attempts to just admit that you were wrong about something.

Then you're extremely fucking stupid (which you aren't, so I have to assume that you're being an ass both because you're a pathetic waste of oxygen who never admits that he's wrong, and because you just like pissing me off). "Jake's QB rating is significantly better in games where he has been sacked 3 or more times" is as factual as saying "Jake is in his third season with the Panthers" or "Our starting quarterback's name is Jake Delhomme." All those statements are entirely factual and not opinions. Saying "Jake's QB rating is significantly better in games where he has been sacked 3 or more times BECAUSE _______" would be an opinion.

Nice try in avoiding just admitting that you're wrong. It's hard if not impossible to understand how the frequency of sacks allowed wouldn't be an overwhelming determinant in whether or not Jake trusts his line. And as mentioned, Jake was sacked twice as frequently during the second half of 2004 as in the first half of 2004, despite your claim that Jake's play improved in the second half because he trusted his line more.

 

blah - down to just word games now. And the usual tricks and names. Irrationality is not a shade you wear well.

>>You claiming that anything beginning with "Saying" is just silly.

No. By you saying "________" in reference to whether you feel I'm right, that's an opinion. You stating something being correct or not in regard to statistics means you're stating opinion. And that's disregarding the rest of this entire argument, which is a encompassing opinion itself. Defending the statistics around your claims is an opinion.

>>actually claim that anytime you use words instead of numbers

Again, you're telling me I'm saying what you want to see. Not what I'm saying...which is why we had to go back over what I actually said a number of times, just like the "Jake pocket" argument above.

By using anything other than the statistics themselves, you're drawing conclusions, you're making inferences, you're not stating a fact. It certainly seems that everyone else finds this opinion, for whatever that's worth.




Sacks do not directly equate to overall pressure gamewide. Pressure does not directly equate to line trust, since obviously over the three year sample you're using it changes many times. The evidence of Jake's QB rating (which is, of course, not a rating that includes sacks or rushing in its weights - nor should it, but it would have to be to have direct bearing on my opinion) is intriguing, and spreads over a number of data points on both sides - not to mention tons of variables in which washing over is a mistake. Even the simple idea that this is not a universal problem for him, but a varying problem, goes against those statistics - the games he's not had this problem, and some of the games he's had, are both represented.

There's ample suggestion, including from yourself, that in varying statements Jake has recently been apprehensive to step into the pocket.

Your own statistics, as well as further known ideals such as early 2004 v/s late 2004, suggest that, considering when he's stepped into the pocket and when he has not, he's generally fared better. My suggestion is that when he feels he's getting good protection, i.e. he's not worried about the line, he plays better. Combine that with "steps into the pocket/doesn't step into the pocket", and to me, that makes sense.

You even seem to be agreeing with that, here, to a point, though you stated it as a correction.

 

Irrationality would be suggesting that anything beginning with "saying" or conveyed in words is actually an opinion and cannot be a fact. But seriously, this is beyond old. If you don't know that you got your ass handed to you in this thread, and if you don't realize that you have serious emotional and mental problems that prevent you from dealing with failure and acknowledging reality, then I pity you. The truth of the matter is that you're just a coward. You never admit that you're wrong about something unless it's beaten out of you, and you hide behind words and manipulations to avoid taking responsibility for yourself. You're a piece of shit coward, and no amount of brow-beating from me will ever change that. Unfortunately you're always going to be a piece of shit coward, and I'll just have to deal with it.

Hopefully I'll be able to resist the urge to come and continue arguing with a piece of shit coward in this thread, so go ahead and get your last word like you always do.