BillsFan-4-Ever Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Is it no longer acceptable to address posters directly and have conversations within conversations? I just want to make sure I'm up to date on proper MB etiquette. Chan is having a hissyfit and acting like a pubescent teenager. Ignore him. now look up in the shout box and Chan will make a snide comment about me.
Beerball Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 You can stop posting in my topic whenever you want. You can stop being an ass whenever you want.
FireChan Posted March 18, 2015 Author Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) You can stop being an ass whenever you want. I don't go into other peoples topics and complain that they exist. If he doesn't care and doesn't want to talk about it, why post in it? Edited March 18, 2015 by FireChan
Beerball Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 I don't go into other peoples topics and complain that they exist. If he doesn't care and doesn't want to talk about it, why post in it? You are behaving like an ass because people are not agreeing with you. If that's the only style you know then go find a board more suited to that style.
FireChan Posted March 18, 2015 Author Posted March 18, 2015 You are behaving like an ass because people are not agreeing with you. If that's the only style you know then go find a board more suited to that style. That's not what I'm doing.
Beerball Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 That's not what I'm doing. Prove it with your future posts.
NewEra Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Is it no longer acceptable to address posters directly and have conversations within conversations? I just want to make sure I'm up to date on proper MB etiquette. It's acceptable. Is it not acceptable for poster A and poster B to have a conversation and poster C post his opinion on the conversation as well as the overall thread? You can stop being an ass whenever you want. You think he can? I don't I don't go into other peoples topics and complain that they exist. If he doesn't care and doesn't want to talk about it, why post in it? I said I think it's funny how you ripped everyone and their grandmother for spreading hate on Marrone and Hackett last season, while you spread hate on EJ. Just find it hypocritical is all.
FireChan Posted March 18, 2015 Author Posted March 18, 2015 It's acceptable. Is it not acceptable for poster A and poster B to have a conversation and poster C post his opinion on the conversation as well as the overall thread?  You think he can? I don't  I said I think it's funny how you ripped everyone and their grandmother for spreading hate on Marrone and Hackett last season, while you spread hate on EJ. Just find it hypocritical is all. Again, I was not referring to you.
cage Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) You'd trade EJ for a one year rental? Tanny is gonna get paid a massive amount of money by somebody. Â Exactly,... that's why I'm a NO. Someone will pay Andy Dalton ++ money for someone who's much less than that. I'd rather see what EJ can do with the line-up thats being assembled w/ Clay, Harvin, Shady, suffocating Defense. Edited March 18, 2015 by cage
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 It's acceptable. Is it not acceptable for poster A and poster B to have a conversation and poster C post his opinion on the conversation as well as the overall thread?  You think he can? I don't  I said I think it's funny how you ripped everyone and their grandmother for spreading hate on Marrone and Hackett last season, while you spread hate on EJ. Just find it hypocritical is all. guess you were right.
Leroi Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Right now I'd trade a pack of gum for KneEJ. Anything would be an upgrade. Â Â Imo
Deranged Rhino Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Right now I'd trade a pack of gum for KneEJ. Anything would be an upgrade. Imo Why trade him when he's going to be cut two days I to free agency?
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Why trade him when he's going to be cut two days I to free agency? snicker snicker
Leroi Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Why trade him when he's going to be cut two days I to free agency? Â I usually don't respond to careless misunderstandings... Â Reading comprehension is your friend and very important in everyday life, it's all in the details and it's all very specific. Â Â Imo
Deranged Rhino Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 I usually don't respond to careless misunderstandings... Reading comprehension is your friend and very important in everyday life, it's all in the details and it's all very specific. Imo I'm just busting your balls.
OCinBuffalo Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) You mean that one that lost two starters in the middle of 2013, and was one of the worst in the NFL? Â There's a 50/50 chance EJ improves like Tanny did? Where are you getting those numbers? Â Was Blaine Gabbert given up on too early? Hilarious. My post was clearly defined in aggregate terms = "95% of all passing QBs", etc. Your response is limited to a single, anecdotal, guy. Here you go: Â Anyone can pick any story, like Gabbert, to prove they are right. That's called anecdotal evidence.(Protip: anecdote means story). I am speaking in "over the last 30 years" and "ALL QBs" and "overall" terms. Specifically, I am saying that the recent rookie QB anecdotes...fall apart when compared against the 30 years of "ALL QB data" compiled. Period. Â Take EJ's inherent, easily observable to those with trained eyes, physical skill, and compare that skill to the rest of the starting QBs over the last 30 years...then.... Â Actually, nevermind. The "figuring" has already been done for you: look up tQBR by Football Outsiders/ESPN. You'll find that EJ's entire career = ~50% compared against last 30 years of AGGREGATE QB play. When one is at 50%? The logical outcomes: he can either improve, get worse, or stay the same. Since staying the exact same is very unlikely mathematically? Then yes, EJ has a 50/50 chance of improving...by definition, math, logic, and Holy F'ing God! Another emoticon: Â A few dipshits in the media(most likely college football fanboys) have been running this silly "college football = rookie QBs in NFL are day 1 starters" nonsense for about 3 years now, and it's time for it to end. These are the same tools who say "Alabama could be the Jacksonville Jaguars. Yee Haw!" Â You are talking about your opinion. I am talking about sound, fact-based, and properly processed predictive analysis. That is the difference. You can tell if a CB is good right away but it takes three years to pass any sort of judgment on a safety? Andrew Luck has come crashing down to earth? Russell Wilson had a fine season last year and certainly did not play emoticon laughably bad in the Super Bowl. It is indisputable that Manuel has more talent than Tannehill? Why because he's bigger and can thrown the ball farther? Can he? He's not any better of a runner. What about the ability to read defenses and throw the ball accurately? Does that factor in to one's talent? While I agree that the verdict is not quite in, it is not "nonsense" to have an opinion on the prospects of his success. I have one. You do not apparently. If he sucks again this year, am I allowed to say I told you so or is it complete random chance how well he plays this year? Of course I can tell you if CB is good right away, by merely looking at his film/measurables. I wouldn't have said it if I couldn't. Â I'm not alone. Many people can. It's called: knowing what you're seeing. CBs tend to go high in the draft. Why? Unlike other positions, it's much easier to see if a CB has "it" or not. If he does? The surety of his value vs. risk of bust(Pac Man reasons, not play) ratio means his draft stock goes up. Thus he, and all similar CBs, trend higher(much to BillinNYC's chagrin. Whether he likes it or not the "safest" draft pick IS a high end CB, while the "scariest" is a high end C, followed closely by LT, and I will explain below) The equation: (observable, inherent value/ bust potential) + value of shutting down opponents #1 WRs, in 2015's NFL = Draft CB high. Â This is quantifiable observations + basic algebra, not magic. Â Meanwhile, with a S, there are many variables both due to the position, and how the player will physically and mentally grow into it, that simply cannot be known on draft day. A safety has to do a lot more than a CB, has many more skills/angles/recognitions to master, AND, a safety has to make adjustments/tell all other DBs what to do, which requires leadership ability. These things can't be easily measured, and require years of play in the NFL to determine. Â A safety is one of the most unknown positions there is, especially year to year. The same is especially true for Cs and Ts, because of the # of skills and responsibilites they must master, and keep at a high level. OTOH, if a CB is "good" today as a R, 90% chance he's going to be "good" for the next 8 years. Which, is also why they get so much in FA = known, rare commodity. EDIT: The exception that proves the rule Jim Leonhard. The man has inferior measurables, the Bills drafted him and dumped him. Yet, he went on to play S at a high level, for mutliple teams, for years, and even came back to the Bills. How? Because what's inside Jim Leonhard's head == his ability to play S, and we can't see inside his head, can we? Â This is reality, because this is what can be measured, instantly, and therefore quantified, instantly, vs. what takes years to measure, and therefore years to quantify, if at all. Any deviation from reality is, by definition, nonsense. You are allowed to say whatever you want. This is a message board. However, whether we respect it, and you, depends solely on whether you can quantifiably prove it. Â QB is by far the hardest position to quantify. As we've seen with people like Tom Brady, Kurt Warner, and even Ryan Fitzpatrick: trial and error is as good an approach as any. Literally: "Ok, we don't have another QB..so, throw him in there" = Trial.. "No error?" = "Ok, get rid of Bledsoe!", "Start ex-grocery store clerk", "Extend Fitz with big $ now!". Â In the total, aggregate, history of NFL QBs, there's a lot more Tom Brady/Kurt Warner/Fitz...and Drew Brees(ahem, Chargers cut him loose, lest we forget), and a lot less John Elway/Dan Marino. So, if you want to form an opinion, I would suggest you do so based on the proper contexts I have provided here. Understanding that it takes QB's time to develop and being skeptical about EJ Manuel after two years in the league are not mutually exclusive. Also I find it highly interesting that the "you can't possibly know anything about a QB after two years" crowd are the same ones who like to mock Geno Smith and act like, well of course Manuel is better than Geno Smith. When Geno throws more completions to our guys than his guys , and gets yanked, we're not supposed to mock him? Not even a giggle or 2? Show me the last time EJ has done that. Then, check tQBR for both players. Come on. This isn't supposed to be ALL about math/rigorous analytics. We are allowed to have a little fun now and then. But, can Geno improve and be a top 10 starter? Of course he can. He has the physical skills to be very good. But, given the data we have, I'd take EJ's brain(leadership/field reading/decision making) over Geno's 100% of the time. And, don't forget, Geno was the better QB by a mile the last time he faced Tannehill! Â Â Suddenly, an eight year veteran NFL QB like Alex Smith can all of a sudden have all these excuses pulled out of you know where as to why his team lost even though his team only scored 3 points in the last 28 minutes of a playoff game. Yet the second year QB Manuel gets no excuses. It's too funny...LOL That's what's missing here: objective standards of measurement. Instead we have anecdotes and emotion. Â I agree with you that the jury is still out. However, I respectfully opine, based on what I have seen thus far, that the odds are rather slim that EJ develops into a franchise QB. I would give the odds of him being our starting QB on opening day in 2017 at about 5:1. It would surprise me if he won the job from Matt Cassel in fact. I sincerely hope he does. But I do not agree with some of you that two years is still way too early to make any judgments whatsoever on a QB's future success. Have some QB's looked one way after two years and their careers ended up drastically different? Yes of course. Â That's all. Odds. Look what I posted above. Mathematically, it's 50/50 as to whether EJ improves or gets worse, with an infinitesimal chance of him staying the exact same. Since his play thus far has been enough to see him start for this team? He doesn't need to improve by that much to start again, since his play is literally "average" by tQBR so far. His competition? Also "average" or a little below average. Â Therefore, mathematically, your 5:1 odds are on shaky ground at best. How did you come up with them? You might want to reconsider them. Somebody could take you for a lot of $ you don't have. Edited March 18, 2015 by OCinBuffalo
FireChan Posted March 18, 2015 Author Posted March 18, 2015 Hilarious. My post was clearly defined in aggregate terms = "95% of all passing QBs", etc. Your response is limited to a single, anecdotal, guy. You want another emoticon? Here you go: Â Anyone can pick any story, like Gabbert, to prove they are right. That's called anecdotal evidence.(Protip: anecdote means story). I am speaking in "over the last 30 years" and "ALL QBs" and "overall" terms. Specifically, I am saying that the recent rookie QB anecdotes...fall apart when compared against the 30 years of "ALL QB data" compiled. Period. Â Take EJ's inherent, easily observable to those with trained eyes, physical skill, and compare that skill to the rest of the starting QBs over the last 30 years...then.... Â Actually, nevermind. The "figuring" has already been done for you: look up tQBR by Football Outsiders/ESPN. You'll find that EJ's entire career = ~50% compared against last 30 years of AGGREGATE QB play. When one is at 50%? The logical outcomes: he can either improve, get worse, or stay the same. Since staying the exact same is very unlikely mathematically? Then yes, EJ has a 50/50 chance of improving...by definition, math, logic, and Holy F'ing God! Another emoticon: Â A few dipshits in the media(most likely college football fanboys) have been running this silly "college football = rookie QBs in NFL are day 1 starters" nonsense for about 3 years now, and it's time for it to end. These are the same tools who say "Alabama could be the Jacksonville Jaguars. Yee Haw!" Â You are talking about your opinion. I am talking about sound, fact-based, and properly processed predictive analysis. That is the difference. Of course I can tell you if CB is good right away, by merely looking at his film/measurables. I wouldn't have said it if I couldn't. Â I'm not alone. Many people can. It's called: knowing what you're seeing. CBs tend to go high in the draft. Why? Unlike other positions, it's much easier to see if a CB has "it" or not. If he does? The surety of his value vs. risk of bust(Pac Man reasons, not play) ratio means his draft stock goes up. Thus he, and all similar CBs, trend higher(much to BillinNYC's chagrin. Whether he likes it or not the "safest" draft pick IS a high end CB, while the "scariest" is a high end C, followed closely by LT, and I will explain below) The equation: (observable, inherent value/ bust potential) + value of shutting down opponents #1 WRs, in 2015's NFL = Draft CB high. Â This is quantifiable observations + basic algebra, not magic. Â Meanwhile, with a S, there are many variables both due to the position, and how the player will physically and mentally grow into it, that simply cannot be known on draft day. A safety has to do a lot more than a CB, has many more skills/angles/recognitions to master, AND, a safety has to make adjustments/tell all other DBs what to do, which requires leadership ability. These things can't be easily measured, and require years of play in the NFL to determine. Â A safety is one of the most unknown positions there is, especially year to year. The same is especially true for Cs and Ts, because of the # of skills and responsibilites they must master, and keep at a high level. OTOH, if a CB is "good" today as a R, 90% chance he's going to be "good" for the next 8 years. Which, is also why they get so much in FA = known, rare commodity. Â This is reality, because this is what can be measured, instantly, and therefore quantified, instantly, vs. what takes years to measure, and therefore years to quantify, if at all. Any deviation from reality is, by definition, nonsense. You are allowed to say whatever you want. This is a message board. However, whether we respect it, and you, depends solely on whether you can quantifiably prove it. Â QB is by far the hardest position to quantify. As we've seen with people like Tom Brady, Kurt Warner, and even Ryan Fitzpatrick: trial and error is as good an approach as any. Literally: "Ok, we don't have another QB..so, throw him in there" = Trial.. "No error?" = "Ok, get rid of Bledsoe!", "Start ex-grocery store clerk", "Extend Fitz with big $ now!". Â In the total, aggregate, history of NFL QBs, there's a lot more Tom Brady/Kurt Warner/Fitz...and Drew Brees(ahem, Chargers cut him loose, lest we forget), and a lot less John Elway/Dan Marino. So, if you want to form an opinion, I would suggest you do so based on the proper contexts I have provided here. When Geno throws more completions to our guys than his guys , and gets yanked, we're not supposed to mock him? Not even a giggle or 2? Show me the last time EJ has done that. Then, check tQBR for both players. Come on. This isn't supposed to be ALL about math/rigorous analytics. We are allowed to have a little fun now and then. But, can Geno improve and be a top 10 starter? Of course he can. He has the physical skills to be very good. But, given the data we have, I'd take EJ's brain(leadership/field reading/decision making) over Geno's 100% of the time. And, don't forget, Geno was the better QB by a mile the last time he faced Tannehill! Â That's what's missing here: objective standards of measurement. Instead we have anecdotes and emotion. Â Odds. Look what I posted above. Mathematically, it's 50/50 as to whether EJ improves or gets worse, with an infinitesimal chance of him staying the exact same. Since his play thus far has been enough to see him start for this team? He doesn't need to improve by that much to start again, since his play is literally "average" by tQBR so far. His competition? Also "average" or a little below average. Â Therefore, mathematically, your 5:1 odds are on shaky ground at best. How did you come up with them? You might want to reconsider them. Somebody could take you for a lot of $ you don't have. EJ's tQBR in 2014 was less than 20. 50/50? Really?
Beef Jerky Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 What you saw last year was the ceiling for Tannehill.
metzelaars_lives Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 What you saw last year was the ceiling for Tannehill.How in God's name did you determine that? So after two years in the league we know nothing but after three years it's case closed? Not that it matters but do some of you have any idea how much dolphins would laugh at you if they read this thread? If EJ Manuel ever puts up the numbers tannehill put up last year every last one of us would be absolutely elated.
Recommended Posts