finknottle

Not a good starting situation for JP...

I don't know this for a fact, since I lost interest while trying to crunch the stats, but: My theory is that most good teams that run the ball a lot do so because they are winning, not the other way around. Somewhere I think I posted some stats that show that winning-team running backs have most of their production in quarters 2 and 3 - when they are more often than not ahead by a comfortable margin - than in quarter 4 and especially 1. Not conclusive proof by any means, but consistent with the idea that you get ahead and then start running when they are forced to stay on the pass. I think more conclusive proof could be found by looking at the run/pass mix from quarter to quarter for winning teams. The traditional view would say you run more early then pass later, I'm suggesting you pass more early and then start running.

I think the key to getting over the top is to consistently draft 20+. Why? Because you are locked into the salary slotting, those top 5 picks kill your future cap-wise, and they are hard to cut if they don't pan out because of the signing bonus. It's better to pick low. That way guessig wrong doesn't kill you and you have twice as much money to spend on proven free agents. So yeah, I think we fight and claw our way to every win we can get, and the future will take care of itself.

I've never heard such a load of crap. Keep stepping backwards, buddy.

Anytime the Nazi's are raised one has to suspect the speakers agenda... Perhaps you should phrase your argument in terms of something less-strawman. You have convinced me that the best analogy for the Iraqi resistence would be (substituting for the werewolves) the confederate resistance after the civil war. I'm sure that will play well.

Technical footnote: the often-cited 3.4 year figure comes from the players association. I for one can't pin down what it is counting. I think they are averaging the length of career of anybody who signs an NFL contract; two thirds of those guys are gone before the season begins. So if instead you ask what the average career length is of somebody who is on an opening-day roster or practice squad, the answer will be higher. Consider the Bills, whom nobody considers a particularly old team. A quick skim of the roster - nfl.com lists 67 players - shows that the average experience at the beginning of the season was 3.6 years. So if everybody's career was ended at the end of the year like some posters suggest, their careers would have averaged 4.6 years. Clearly, first round picks are probably going to have even greater longevity than lower round picks. I havn't looked into it, but if I had to guess it would be around 8 years.

Fair question. I don't know the answer but expect it to be much lower for each category. One key factor: when players in these other positions, a wr or a dl say, don't live up to expectations, they usually still contribute as the #2 receiver or the lesser guy in the rotation. They don't wind up as busts in the way that a qb who isn't starter material does.

I'm not high-tech enough to find out how to get this linked online, but here's the opening of a piece in today's Washington Post: Robertson Says Town Rejects God by Alan Elener, Reuters Conservative Christian television evangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them yesterday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

Yeah, I can't wait for the day when we religious people finally get up the nerve to criticize atheists.

Yes. And from his point of view, why not? Why should he (or anyone else in that position) actually care about advancing science and knowledge? Unless it's a personal interest, why should he care whether, say, we send a mission to an asteroid today or 200 years from today? Or whether US students are the best or last in science 20 years from now? How does that effect him or any other leader? (Assuming it doesn't get politicized.)

I agree completely. I cranked out the statistics earlier which showed that 50% of first round qb's are essentially busts, and only a third are acceptable long-term starters in the league. IMO you can't waste a first rounder on a guy who more likely than not will be off your roster in four years having contributed no pro-bowl seasons. The only solution is to buy a veteren (not my preference) or draft a qb every year with a pick you can do without, and hope you eventually find a gem.

Of course, if we really wanted to be sure we should have extended him long-term and let him start for 6+ years. Where do we dry the line on evaluating a qb?

I would be surprised if it was not the Chargers. They are more or less resigned to it in San Diego.

I can't believe you are discussing who's dumber, politicians or the electorate. Why not throw rocks and sand in there too?

OR... he flat doesn't care. His position may be based purely on a political calculus, in which the possibility that science gets bastardized for a few years in some local school districts doesn't effect him at all, nor does his standing in the academic community, whereas shoring up his supporters does.

I bet Snyder thinks he can pay him, and Gibbs thinks he can save him. Remember, Gibbs put up with Dexter Manley... with John Riggins... many problem children who can arguably be called the T.O.'s of their day.

I see a future in politics.

This point is worth emphasizing. The idea that we are superior is anthropomorphic. If we asked an alligator (and if they could answer) this 200 million year survivor would probably laugh at us like rookies who've had a great first week of training camp and think we're going to the HOF. I'd be surprised if we were around at all in another 1,000 years. So what about intelligence? It's a particular and usefull tool for survival, nothing more. It also carries a price: running a big brain burns a lot of energy, energy that could have been devoted to physical activity. For us, the sacrifice is worth it. For a bird, maybe not. And we may have peaked, since in the society we have constructed there is no survival advantage that I can see to offspring with further improved intelligence. If anything, the advantage now belongs to those genes encouraging high birthrate/low investment, since the classical disadvantages are weakened by the safety net we have constructed (ie drives toward overbreeding and overuse of resources are mitigated by aid from outside the region).

Because everything either does or does not happen to provide a selective pressure under given circumstances. Those that do not, it doesn't occur to us to discuss. Those that do, we ponder the mystical significance of the existence of the preference and invariably ascribe it to God, destiny, or the orbit of Jupiter in the house of Virgo.

Yes. The merely conservative are now called moderates.

Yes, that makes Rivers more attractive in the short-term, but you're only getting him for 2 years since he's already played 2 years on the current deal. That means that you get him cheap now, but if he works out like you hope you are faced with a mammoth new contract and new signing bonus in only 2 years. Then he has all the leverage since, unlike a linebacker say, you traded for the long haul and you're not going to tell him thanks-and-hit-the-road.

Actually, I would be real happy if they fired Billick at the end of the season and we dropped MM for him. How's that for unpopular and controversial?

I was just crunching some numbers, and under most reasonable assumptions I get that the odds of any team not making it to the playoffs in five years are not good. For example, in a Markov model where you assume (1) non-playoff teams are twice as likely to remain non-playoff teams, and (2) the Bills start off as a non-playoff team, I get the odds of being a 5 time stay-at-home at just 35%.

I agree 100%. It makes no sense for them to step backward and take a chance. The interesting question will be what price Rivers can be had for. Is he worth a first round? Maybe not because of the contract length etc. But on the other hand, SD may have a psychological problem giving him up for less than a first round pick. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Actually, they were giving up on Brees. Not sure, but IIRC they benched him for Flutie the last couple of games. Rivers would have been the starter if he had showed up in training camp instead of holding out... (that's part of what was so attractive about him: Rivers was supposed to be the most game-ready of the top three qbs in the draft.)