Dibs

I guess that's why you resorted to insulting AS rather than showing some credible statistical comparisons to not only pro bowl level players, but also with 'joke' level players so that your bold antagonistic statement could be considered an argument instead. I've never been too sure of what a Troll is.....I'm relatively new to forums(only this one really). Maybe people can help me out..... Is Hammond a Troll?......or just a WuckFit?

Actually they can......when they don't you(& others) say they can't. When the do it's happy days & goes unremembered. MIA shutout NYJ shoutout in second half JAX....apart from a meaningless junk time TD, all they got in the second half was a FG & 4 punts. HOU shutout in second half GB....4th Q goes.....FG, Punt, INT, Downs

......and considering all the negative factors on D......we are 18th in the league in yards allowed & 12th in points per game. That is a great improvement over 29th & 24th respectively.

Who to root for is now irrelevant......we're rooted.

I've only read the first few pages here but I assume it's the same thing over & over till now. I think everyone is assuming that HA is proposing something far more complicated than he actually is. As far as I can see he is simply saying...... ....that out of a large sample size, those(as a group) that score very high on a test that involves an element of luck....when re-tested....will end up(on average) with a lower average(as a group) than when first tested. This is just simple logic.

My guess is 350,000,000.....I'd put money down that I'm as right as everyone else.

Very similar to Queens last 2 albums. Songs written by Freddie with the knowledge of his imminent death....such as...."These are the days of our lives"......"The show must go on"....."Made in Heaven"........"Let me live"......"It's a beautiful day". All beautiful songs but hard to take when feeling a bit maudlin. .....and as I type, Bing Crosby's 'Danny Boy' comes on (listening to my Bing best of...)......I think I'll give the Queen albums another listen now.....

Bing Crosby. Fantastic anytime....but especially around Christmas. Merry Christmas everyone.

I imagine we'd have a lot worse record. I cannot see JP being developed as he has been under a MM regime.....blah, blah....all the obvious stuff.... I would think however that many around here would have been far less stressed & generally happier with MM as HC......until we started losing without hope of improvement again. What I'm getting at is we certainly wouldn't have gone with the Tampa 2 Defence under MM. This means the draft would have been vastly different and I'd be fairly sure we'd have at least 2 wide bodied DTs sitting on the roster.....probably not doing much on the field but.....we'd still have a couple of big DTs.

It won't be much use to you without those other valuable little items called bullets.

He's either likely out......or out for sure. It's a tautology the way you have it. The grammar police strike again.

Good post.

I imagine it's not always the case but (IIRC) Schobel was not even in the top 5 in the popular vote this year. This implies the Players/coaches voted in large numbers for him for him to end up as starter. I tend to think that the players, though not 100%, would pretty much be on the money(as a group).

....and further more.... If you look at this season logically with hindsight you'd have to conclude that the logic points put forward by the 3-13ers was probably of higher importance than the reasonings of yourself(or myself). If not for two fortuitous occurances on the team this year, we could easily have been 3-13 by the finish. 1) The second day draftees have been a boon for us this season. Not just filling in holes but filling those holes with talented play. As example of how important this is.....if Pennington did not look like he could handle things, then after the bye we probably wouldn't have re-shuffled the OL as we did....etc, etc. Getting that much productivity from them could certainly not have been factored into an 8-8 prediction. 2)JP has not only shown that he might be a decent QB but has stepped up to become a very positive factor in games. In any logical analysis(pre-season) one would have had to assume that at best he would progress to become a non-liability this season. If you study the progression & success rates of QBs, historically we should have assumed that JP would still be struggling at this point(if not showing himself to be a total bust). His progression could certainly not have been factored into an 8-8 prediction. If those two things did not happen(along with better coaching than one could have logically expected), I believe we would probably be looking at 3 or 4 wins. I have learned from this. Next time I'm discussing a team which has a total change at not only all the coaching levels but also loses several key veterans....I'll be placing a higher importance on those factors when predicting said teams win/loss. Simply put.......we are lucky to be looking at 7 to 9 wins and those that predicted in that range(myself included) were probably a bit out in our logical analysis of the situation. *Which shows even more so that to deride the logic used by the 3-13ers is not only insulting but illogical.*

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. If we finished 3-13.....which was always very, very possible, what would you have been saying about the predictions? "But it was illogical to predict 3-13."? I predicted 7-9(IIRC).....maybe 8-8. At no time though did I ever believe that that was how things would pan out. I agree with you on the 0 or 1 win predictions. Obviously people who predicted that were not using any form of logic that could be discussed. People who predicted 2-4 wins however were basically predicting us to be one of the worse teams in the league. I disagreed with the logic(or the importance they placed on certain points) but it certainly did not show an irrationality. Look at Ozymandius' points in post #33, you may have placed less importance to his logical reasonings but they WERE logical reasonings. You said earlier..."....and say more about the predictor and their lame attitude toward life than about the team..." By the way you are acting.....as if the only reasoning that is logical is your own reasonings & any other opinion is deserving of derision..... I'd say that says more about you and your insecurities within yourself than it does about your ability to think logically.

I know you don't need others to vindicate you but.....since I'm here....& I'm a little bored..... Even if your reasons(for argument sake) were not as likely to occur as the reasons put forward by an 8-8er, it does not mean your reasons are irrational....nor does it mean they could not have come to pass. Many, many, many a time the consensus opinion on how a team will perform in the upcoming season is totally wrong. We see teams that most predict will finish 4-12 win superbowls & teams that are predicted to win them end bottom 10. I'm really happy that you were wrong in this case(on the positive side that is) & I might have even argued with your predictions at the time....& probably quite strongly.....but in the end they are predictions and any reasoning is about as good as any other(until proven otherwise in the fullness of time). Thanks for letting me but in....again.

Personally I agree(& agreed) with all you said regarding 3 wins etc.....however.....you drew the conclusion of stating "their lame attitude toward life" which is not only insulting but also an illogical conclusion. Predicting 3 wins could have meant many, many things. It might mean they were so disheartened after 7 years of disappointment that they can't bring themselves to see anything brighter.....they might have disagreed with the choice of GM/HC/Drafting/FA acquisitions/Coordinators chosen/Offensive of Defensive scheme used/dislike the QB....any of which could cloud their judgement on how we might do in the coming season......none of which would mean they necessarily have a 'lame attitude on life'.

Ahhh, but what if you require a CB of say.....top 15 caliber, not top 5 caliber? Maybe the problem has been that we have continually drafted too well when drafting CBs. The #12 CB in the league would not demand the huge contract that a top 5 would and we would be able to re-sign them without spending more on the position than is potentially planned. I know this sounds ridiculous but.....I feel the Colts have suffered from a similar situation but in relation to their offensive starters. They have drafted exceedingly well on Offence over the last decade & to keep those players(all in the top 5) they have had to forgo other areas(i.e. defence). In perspective to us.....if NC had not come on gangbusters this season & instead played basic good solid CB, his asking price would be that level lower.....well....he would probably still ask but he would find that only upper echelon get the top dollars. We would then be able to sign him to a BIG contract that did not break the bank. Keep in mind people.....we will have to fork out BIG deals soon to JP, Evans, McGahee(or we let him go & use a 1st to try & replace)....even Peters will have to be reworked in 2 years if he is as good as people say & we want to keep him happy. A top FA OG & maybe someone else.....the money will soon be spent & top, top dollar for a CB just might mean we don't keep ?????(a brighter star). All that being said, I'm hopeful we do re-sign Nate. I trust the guys that know all about where the money gets spent will do as good a job as those selecting the players & those coaching them.

See, that is what I'm talking about. Much harder to argue against all of that. I never actually thought you were wrong(nor right).....just that using simple statistics does not provide a believable argument. I actually looked up a bunch of the stats(relating) & thought you are probably correct.....though last week certainly put a dint in the apparent improvements. Obviously I'm hoping we can worsen your averages back to where they were. *I only used the 2 game example to show how simplicity is not the way to go when you want to get across a point using statistics as your main argument.*

What is potentially misleading is...... Basically to just grab some stats & achieve a conclusion from them without adding in other elements can be very, very misleading. How effective were each opponent going in their rushing ability when they played against you?.....not just how good over the season, other factors such as injury to OL & RB, QB....etc, etc. One factor that I know would(should) be accounted for was the fact that you have won your last 5 games & the loss to the Ravens, you were ahead for most of the game. This would certainly mean that opposing teams would be passing more(last Q) to catch up....therefore rushing less.....therefore your rush D numbers should be lower. If we look at things simplistically further...... the last 2 games TEN has given up on average..... 155 ypg & 4.4ypc ...which is pretty much worse than your season average....so therefore you are getting worse at stopping the run. Basically what I meant was it is too easy to show what you want with stats.....that is why when you do, you should cover all bases.....or prats like me will pick the stats apart.

Actually I was more taking issue with the entire concept that the quality of Dline...or any possition for that matter....will directly relate to the Win/Loss record of a team. We see teams with the best...or the worst...at every possition finishing with every combination of win/loss record. Basically, we've got the Dline of a 7-7 team(because that is our record). We could improve in every other area and even get worse on the Dline & finish with 13-3 next season.....or we could have the best DL in the league & be garbage all over & end up 1-15. Football is a team sport.

I totally do not understand this.

My point was to show that simply grabbing basic statistics without analysing them properly can sometimes show misleading situations. It was in response to Starkiller who grabbed basic statistics, didn't analyse them properly & tried to show something that I believed was misleading. I suppose I shouldn't be so subtle next time.

Where'd that come from?