Wraith
-
Posts
743 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Wraith
-
-
A 100 yard rusher for the terrible OL---oh I forgot that McGahee's problem were all the OLs fault as well.
People have blinders on when watching JP play. There may be only 1-2 teams that would take him as their QB. He stinks! Maybe in 2-3 years he'll get how to play at this level as he did come in at a disadvantage. He has a great work ethic, but he is not a good QB this year.
109 yards on 28 rushes. How many of those yards came after first contact? Those yards were earned by Thomas, not the offensive line.
-
As opposed to eight times by the running game. Yet you blame Losman. Nice logic.
Do not forget, that prior to the sack on third down in the 4th Quarter, the Bills had 2nd and 2 and the offensive line got bowled over and Thomas lost 3 yards. They followed that stunner up by wiffing on one of the best pass rushers in the NFL on the next play.
-
Equally as factual as the hypothesis of this topic.
How can people blame Losman for our ineffectiveness in the red zone when he only attempted three passes in the red zone, completing 1? The other 8 times we RAN THE FREAKIN' BALL and got nothing.
-
Spin all you want moron, but giving up on a player usually indicates that they replace him with someone else.
As far as I could see JP is starting every game, and was in the game the whole time.
I must be missing something. I think the coaches realize the line is the problem, and are trying to do anything to improve pass protection (i.e. shaking up the line);.
Quit acting like you know what you are talking about. It's pretty obvious u don't.
Support the Bills 4 once, instead of trying to find someone to blame 4 ur inability to realize this is a rebuilding year.
Don't bother trying to present an argument. He is incapable of formulating a response and instead will spout off more incomprehensible garbage. He is truly a moron.
-
Exactly. This is how to beat the Colts offense. Tennessee and the Bills are the only teams to come close to beating the Colts and did so throwing 34 times COMBINED. It's the strategy that beat the Bills K-Gun in Super Bowl 25 and it will work when a team with a better running game tries it against the Colts.
New England failed to recognize it last week and died through the air.
-
Evans made an athletic play, yes, but he easily got both hands on the ball and every receiver in the NFL should be able to catch a ball that they can get both hands on the ball with without getting touched by a defender.
-
Thanks for helping to prove my point. Green Bay had only two TD drives against Minnesota, one was only 22 yards after Brad Johnson fumbled and the other on a 82 yard pass on the third play of the drive. Clearly, Minnesota did not force Favre to drive the length of the field and they lost.
-
In case you missed it, Losman was 3 for 3 on third downs during our only lengthy drive which included a 24 yard pass on 3 and 13. Losman then only passed on three more third downs the entire game, completing a 24 yard pass to Evans on 3 and 6 and taking a 6 yard sack once.
Seems like maybe the should have tried a few more passes on third down to me.
-
Absolutely not, it was because Brett Favre has proven that when you force him to drive the length of the field and string together 12 - 14 plays he will often make a mistake and turn the ball over.
-
The coaches don't think enough of Loseman to include him in the offensive gameplan.
The Loseman era is close to the end. if it hasn't ended already. When your coaches show no faith in you what's so ever. What more needs to be said?
Good Bye JP. Have fun hanging out with Rob Johnson and Todd Colins.
You are an idiot. A huge, freakin' idiot. Every week you come in here spewing your nonsense. It's so funny, because you come in like a blathering idiot spewing the same incorrect nonsense that you miss things that could actually be criticized.
Let me spell something out for you because you apparently have your head in the sand. Every week teams come in against the Colts and try to win in a shoot out, and every week they lose. The only teams that have come close to winning are the teams that play ball control, running football, such as the Bills and the Titans. No turnovers, a good running game, and forcing turnovers. Keep the Colts offense OFF THE FIELD AT ALL COSTS.
The Bills limited the Colts to 17 points at home in their cushy little dome despite letting Manning pick them apart in large part because the offense, including Losman, played conservative, ball control offense.
But I don't expect someone as stupid as you to notice such things, as you have proved time and again that depth of thought and subtlety are not things you are capable of.
-
i know the pass protection wasn't there today and the tackles got lit up, but still i didn't losman show any sense of where the pressure was coming from. also he did not avoid a single sack. for all the hype about his mobility he goes down every time a defender gets near him. if he were so mobile a few of those who should break free, scramble for a few yards or at least get off an incompletion. this kid needs a lot of work
Sure he avoided a sack. Freeney came untouched from the blindside early in the game and Losman stepped up into the pocket, shook Freeney loose, and got sacked by McFarland.
-
Which to me, would indicate the probability of regressing to the mean in a normal distribution (regardless of measurement error) and HA's penchant for changing the direction of the conversation when caught with error pants down.
Perhaps he needs to be more specific the first 10 times he tries to explain his position, then this cluster of a thread wouldn't rival NJ Sue.
Couple of points:
- "Regardless of measurement error?"
This particular behavior only happens when there is measurement error.
- He definitely took a long time to explain his hypothesis in detail but this thread would not have degenerated as it did without the presence of certain other members of this board, who have also let their arguements evolve over time.
-
-
Of course I did.
I then asked Holcomb's Arm to clarify his position. He responded to me quickly and publicly:
"Perhaps I need to be more specific about what my hypothesis actually is. (Although it's not really "my" hypothesis since I read about it elsewhere.) Someone who gets an extremely high score on an I.Q. test is likely to get a somewhat lower score if that person is retested. Someone who gets a very low score on an I.Q. test is likely to get a slightly higher score if retested. This phenomenon would vanish if there was no measurement error on either of the tests." - HA.
-
..."Now suppose that you introduce measurement error into this test. Someone who measured out at 6'2" may actually be a 6'0" person who got lucky on the first test. Because there is now measurement error in the system, those who obtained exceptionally high measurements the first time are likely to regress toward the mean upon being remeasured. "
he said it.
Because I have displaced this rubberband, it will now snap back. Absolutely true. Of course elasticity is the cause.
In that quote at least, he is not saying the CAUSE is measurement error. He is correct in implying that without measurement error, the regression towards the mean would not happen (for the obvious reason that without measurement error there would be no deviation from the mean in the first place).
Semantics again.
-
OK. I decided to look objectively at how much time Losman has before he throws or gets sacked. So I watched the Packer game and recorded from the time the ball was snapped until he threw it, got sacked, or took off running. Then I thought why not compare to Manning and Brady, the game was on NFL Replay. I could only do part of that game, because my wife was demanding the TV back.
None the less, I was surprised by the numbers. I thought JP would have far less time to throw, what I found was quite different. Here's the numbers and my conclusions:
JP's Time:
03.7 complete
03.1 incomplete royal not seen
02.3 quick pa to shelton
02.5 sack -pennington beat
03.8 short underneath to evans
03.6 royal dropped - over db on royals hands
02.0 designed dump off to AT
03.3 sack up middle
01.7 complete 3step drop to reed
02.8 scramble to avoid sack
02.9 down field to evans - drop on his hands safety was there if thrown longer
01.9 rollout complete to price
02.9 sack
03.0 incomplete to royal - near interception
03.9 sack
03.2 incomplete high to davis
02.8 short to shelton - designed
03.4 sack up middle
03.2 incomplete - tipped
01.9 incomplete royal drop - low pass
03.6 touchdown to evans
7-14 (5 sacks) (so I missed one somewhere)
Min: 1.7 seconds
Max: 3.9 seconds
Mean: 2.9 seconds
Incomplete pass to Price in 1st quarter; he had Royal underneath, but appeared to be going for the touchdown and over threw. On dropped pass to Evans that was short; the safety was deep and if the ball is thrown deeper, he'd definitely have a play on the ball. So not a bad throw afterall, in my opinion.
Peyton's Time:
02.9 incompete
02.3 incomplete
05.0 compete - scrambled left
02.4 complete
04.1 complete
02.2 touchdown
02.5 complete
02.8 complete
02.6 complete
03.8 complete
03.7 incomplete -PI
02.7 sack
02.9 intereference
01.4 complete
02.3 incomplete
03.8 thrown away
03.1 sack
02.8 complete
04.6 pressured complete
04.1 complete
01.2 touchdown
13-19 (2 sacks) (selected - I didn't watch the whole game)
Min: 1.2 seconds
Max: 5.0 seconds
Mean: 3.0 seconds
Brady's Time:
02.9 complete
02.0 complete
02.4 complete
03.4 complete
02.0 complete
01.8 complete
02.9 scrambles
02.1 incomplete interference
02.5 incomplete
03.7 incomplete
6-9 (0 sacks) (selected - I didn't watch the whole game)
Min: 1.8 seconds
Max: 3.7 seconds
Mean: 2.6 seconds
===============================================================================
It appears from these limited numbers that JP has just about the same amount of time to throw as Manning and Brady.
However (JP haters knew that was coming), on every pass the Buffalo LOS is getting pushed into JP's face. There was almost no pocket to step into. There was almost no separation between him and the pass rush. In contrast, although Brady and Manning got rid of the ball just as quickly; they had far more separation between them and the rush. Quite often, they could step up in the pocket and really get behind their throws.
In conclusion, given this very limited sample survey, I'd offer that the Buffalo line does give JP time to throw. However, they're consistently getting pushed backwards. The result is JP "appears" to have less time in the pocket and defintely is making more "hurried" throws. The other observation, that seems to be missing from Buffalo's passing protection is the occurence of "passing lanes". There are no clear lanes for JP to readily see the reciever. Manning seemed to consistently have great passing lanes to readily see the field.
The other decidedly noticeable observation was the play calling. The Pats and Colts defintely seem to mix the plays up better. Of course, its very obvious that Manning and Brady are definitely more polished QBs; therefore, they're easily able to scan the field and make the quicker decision. Given the separation when they threw, I'd guess they could have easily had an extra 0.5 second to throw the ball; whereas JP seemed to always throw at the last possible instant.
Talk amongst yourselves...
*Disclaimer - I'm not the best with math, so please check my addition and division, if you wish. I also missed a pass in the Bills game and because I was watching Replay, I certainly did not get all the passes for Manning and Brady. However, these numbers do show a trend which I think is representative of reality for these 2 games.
I am not trying to criticize you here because you have already recognized some of the flaws in your study (small sample size, for example).
However, you results do not really seem to prove what you think it indicates.
Your numbers are showing how long the QBs hold the ball, not how much time they have. That is interesting because you would have no idea how much time Manning, Brady, and Losman would have had if they had not chosen to throw the ball.
Your numbers, while clearly not enough to prove anything, tend to show that Losman holds the ball for less time than Manning (2.9 to 3.0 sec) and only slightly more than Brady (2.9 to 2.6 sec). In addition, on plays where you indicate pressure, Losman had 3.13 seconds while Manning had 3.55 seconds until pressure. Brady apparently felt no pressure.
While none of this is anywhere near conclusive, I don't think the data reflects negatively on Losman at all.
-
I've already seen BJ argue, incorrectly, that the behavior HA describes does not exist. It does.
I have then seen that same person, BJ, as well as yourself and few others, argue that the phenonemon is caused by the normal distribution of the population and the error.
I have also seen that same group argue that HA is arguing that measurement error is causing the behavior to happen.
That group has also argued that HA is arguing that measurement error is causing a regression towards the mean.
I have seen HA say that measurement error is necessary for this event to happen. I have not seen HA say that measurement error is causing a regression towards the mean.
Please show me where HA supposedly made this claim that measurement error causes regression towards the mean. Also, keep in mind that at least one of the published scientists/statisticians has already made an incorrect claim in this thread. So if HA did make the claim, admit that it happens and move on as it is clearly not pertinent to HA's stated hypothesis or the current argument.
Most of you are arguing over semantics.
-
I may have missed it when he explicitely stated that measurement error is causing the regression towards the mean, but that doesn't seem to be what the argument is about here at all anymore.
I do not think anyone would argue that the phenomenon HA is describing does not happen. It seems to be that you are arguing about what the cause of that phenomenon is. Fair enough:
Without measurement error, this phenomenon could not occur. That is because without measurement error, there would be no deviation from the true results. So if HA is saying that measurement error is needed for this phenomenon to occur, he would in fact be correct.
However, while measurement error is necessary (because it causes the necessary deviation) the regression towards mean is really happening because the sample population (the range of "true" values) and the error are normally distributed, which is what Bungee Jumper is arguing. This is also true.
I have not seen HA say that the normal distribution is NOT causing the regression. His example he just laid out in a response to me shows he understands how the normal distribution is causing the phenomenon.
So are we really just arguing over semantics?
EDIT: I liken it to someone saying that stretching a rubber band is causing it to snap back to it's original form. Yes, the displacement needs to occur for the snap back to occur, but the snap back is actually occuring because of the elasticity of the rubber band. Both are necessary. It seems to me to be, at least right now, an argument of semantics.
-
-
It was a hypothetical example, intended strictly to show what happens in systems without measurement error versus systems with such error. The fractional inch problem you described isn't relevant to that hypothetical example.
Mostly, the point I'm illustrating is that the presence of measurement error on the first test means that the results from second test will tend to regress toward the mean. The larger the measurement error, the greater the expected regression toward the mean. For instance, say that your measurement system had the potential to be off by a foot. Someone who measured 7'5" the first time around is likely to regress toward the mean quite considerably upon being retested. This is because there are more people who are 6'5" available for getting lucky than there are people who are 8'5" available for getting unlucky.
So what exactly are you arguing for/against in this entire debate? What you've said is true, but not because measurement error is causing regression towards the mean but because both sample population and measurement error are normally distributed. What is the conflict about?
-
Or a die...which you've already said exhibits regression toward the mean because of error. This all just proves you can't define "measurement" or "error", either.
But to take your height example...there is no regression toward the mean when you measure the height of the same person twice, because it's a discrete, exact value. Not probabilistic. However, when two very tall (or very short) people have kids, it is likely (i.e. "it is probable", "there is a probability greater than 50%") that the kids will be closer to average height than the parents.
And it doesn't mean the parents or children are the wrong height. It's strictly because of the frequency distribution of people's height in the population, which is directly related to probability.
Got it now? Is your warped little idiot mind starting to twig to the difference between "error" and "probability" yet?
We are arguing the same side here, but allow me a slight nitpick.
I would very much argue against height being a discrete value. Length in any form (such as height of person) is pretty much as continuous a phenomenon as one could find. An incapable measurement system could make continuous data seem discrete, but it certainly would not make it discrete. It's the so-called "chunky data" effect.
-
Consider a test with no measurement error--height for example. You stand on the scale at the doctor's office, they take out that height measure thing, and measure you. Someone with a height of 6'2" isn't going to get lucky and have a measurement of 6'4"; nor unlucky with a measurement of 6'0". It's the same every time. If your height is measured at 6'2" the first time, it will be 6'2" the second time, and the third time, etc. No regression toward the mean.
Now suppose that you introduce measurement error into this test. Someone who measured out at 6'2" may actually be a 6'0" person who got lucky on the first test. Because there is now measurement error in the system, those who obtained exceptionally high measurements the first time are likely to regress toward the mean upon being remeasured. This is because there are more 6'0"s available for getting lucky, than there are 6'4"s available for getting unlucky.
The logic is the same for the math section of the SAT. You want to know what someone's average score would be if they were to take the test 1000 times. You give them the test one time to estimate this score. This system involves measurement error--someone with a true score of 725 could get lucky and score a 750; or unlucky and score a 700. Therefore, someone who scores very well the first time will tend to regress toward the mean a little upon retaking the test. Take away the measurement error on that first test, and you take away the regression toward the mean.
HA, I'm having a hard time getting past the fact that you claim measuring height has no measurement error. Every measurement system has measurement error, most especially ones that involve human judgement such as measuring height in the manner you describe.
Measuring capability takes different forms. You talk about measurement error in this thread in reference to a system reporting the "true" value. However, for a measurement system to be capable, it must also be able to tell the difference between two samples that are known to be different. In your example measurement system, what happens when I am 6' 2 5/8ths" while you are 6' 2 3/8ths". Your measurement system would report us both as 6' 2", which while somewhat "true" (we would both be 6' 2" something) is not valuable because a reasonable measurement system would notice the distincition.
This is a long way of saying that in your example, you are hiding the measurement error by using an inappropriate and incapable measurement system. The fact that you've used that in an example makes me wonder about your true understanding of what measurement error is.
-
No, that's not an opportunity.
They had two opportunities to score (1 fumble, 1 interception) and they scored on one. 50%.
The offense never touched the ball on the other interception and took a knee with 14 seconds left in the half on their own 6 yard line. I would not count either of those as opportunities and I doubt any reasonable person could.
-
What is exactly is your point? The offense scored on 50% of their opportunities...
Any1 who thinks JP was the reason we lost
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
No he is a moron because he does not support arguments with evidence. When presented with evidence to contradict his garbage, he does not respond and instead starts with his "Loseman..." crap.
Losman has not been good. He has been decidely average. I can point to stats, but I doubt you will accept that. This week, like most weeks, the Bills were in position to win the game in the 4th quarter with Losman doing just enough to keep the game close and just enough not to give the game away. That is pretty average in my book.