Enough incoherence/whining from WGR re: EJ

[JESSEFEFFER]

EJ has become something of a groupthiink joke after his last two games and Marrone's decision to bench him. it is open season. It's not duck, rabbit or Elmer season. It's EJ season.

 

If you happen to see the evidence that EJ's game performances compare favorably to other young QBs at the start of their careers, that allowing your QB, any QB, to get hit/pressured/sacked in ~50$% of your dropbacks means they will have a bad day, that the way EJ was handled in years 1 and 2 was poorly executed and that Kyle Orton ultimatley offered nothing extra in terms of offensive improvement then that means that this EJ ridicule is UNFAIR. If it's UNFAIR then there will be a backlash from those who see it and are calling the others out on it. If it's the product of group think laziness then the backlash will come in buckets.

 

My theory from the time of the HC search process was that Doug Whaley believes most of what I just outlined and wanted the new coaching staff to buy into keeping EJ on the roster and his proper development. That's why EJ never had a chance. Others were brought in to be the 2015 answer so as long as they showed what they needed to, EJ was never in the running. And he won't be unless there are injuries or major face plants from the other two. Cassel's limited playbook and recent 3 year history of poor play could mean he gets benched. Tyrod's style might mean that he takes one too many big hit and he gets hurt. If that happnes, then it's EJ's turn to show how much he may have improved.

[GG]

No I'm not. I gave you the exact example above where polling respondents can be biased, and where you'd be right: by introducing an arbitrary, non-related, limiting parameter on the population == putting the poll on Martha Stewart's website.

 

Do you not understand the concept that EVERY poll/marketing survey is solely comprised of those who "took the time to respond"?

 

Every single poll/survey projects the views of those who "took the time to respond" onto the entire population. This is true regardless of whether a poll is scientific, or not. Some dudes don't answer the phone, some days. They might care a great deal about this issue, or not, but for whatever reason: they didn't respond.

 

What makes a poll scientific is not whether everyone in the entire population responds. It's whether the sample size is enough, and if it accurately represents, in this case, Bills fans who listen to WGR. You are claiming that some Bills fans aren't being represented, or is it, Bills fans outside of the listening area?

 

My question: how would Bills fans outside of the listening area know about the poll, unless they were...listening/attending to WGR? See? This is WHY I charge guys like you, and why it's worth it. You endlessly befuddle yourselves. Usually, the FAIL genereated by your befuddlement, and cleaning up the mess, becomes part of my scope.

 

Moving on: you have no evidence to support the claim that this poll's sample isn't indicative of the population. Even if you did, it wouldn't matter.

 

Why? Because I am NOT using this poll to make a point about ALL Bills fans. I AM using this poll to point out that a clear majority of Bills fans, who are also WGR listeners(key parameter there), do not agree with WGR's analysis/conclusions regarding EJ. This is a poll about a specific issue, that a specific set of fans care about. And 60+% of that group says that WGR's conclusions are wrong.

 

The only people who matter, are the people making the claims that WGR is biased vs those who aren't. That is the point of this thread.

 

The people who don't care? Don't matter. They aren't listening. They aren't responding. Whatever. They matter exactly as much as Martha Stewart.

 

Swing and a miss again. You are cherry picking data from a scientifically invalid poll to support your conclusion. And no matter how many words & emoticons you use won't make you anymore correct.

 

But if you insist on calling your conclusions valid that WGR listeners want to discuss EJ at a 2-1 rate, how does that square with today's poll result that nearly 60% of respondents want TT to start compared to 25% for EJ? Are you saying that half of TT's proponents also want to talk about EJ and the shaft he's gotten from the coaching staff?

[Jerry Jabber]

Guys like Jeremy White, Mike Schopp and Joe Buscgalia are all a bunch of hacks that shouldn't be in the positions that they are. White has been crying ever since the Bills traded up to get Sammy Watkins and what a horrible move it's been. Both White and Joe B are constant Manuel bashers. Schopp is an annoying idiot. Ever since I heard he say "I wished the Bills would have gotten annihilated against the Patriots" in the post-game show last year when the Bills beat the Patriots, I just couldn't stand the guy.

[OCinBuffalo]

 

Swing and a miss again. You are cherry picking data from a scientifically invalid poll to support your conclusion. And no matter how many words & emoticons you use won't make you anymore correct.

 

But if you insist on calling your conclusions valid that WGR listeners want to discuss EJ at a 2-1 rate, how does that square with today's poll result that nearly 60% of respondents want TT to start compared to 25% for EJ? Are you saying that half of TT's proponents also want to talk about EJ and the shaft he's gotten from the coaching staff?

No I'm not. Are you celebrating Obtuse Day? Cherry picking: if there were 5 polls and I only took the results of 2 of them, I would be Cherry Picking.

 

I don't know how one goes about "cherry picking"...a single poll(EDIT, or the only available poll at the time).

 

This is 3 times in a row now that you've proven you don't get the concept, but are happy to use the words. What's next? Are you going to go back to telling us that you know the sample size is wrong/skewed...because you say so? Or, should we look forward: to you misusing yet another concept?

 

Here's an idea! I will explain a concept BEFORE you misuse it. This will save us all time. The concept is: "mutual exclusivity". It means if one thing is true, another cannot be true. Example: Wanting TT to start, is not mutually exclusive of wanting EJ to get a chance with the 1s. These things don't have to "square", because they are not mutually exclusive.

 

A fan wanting EJ to get a chance with the 1s could just as easily be saying "Tyrod looked good, so today I want him to start, but I also want to see if EJ is better" as he could be saying "Tyrod is the answer, but, I don't want EJ cut, so give him a chance", as he could be saying "Tyrod is the answer, play EJ with the 1s so he screws up, proves me right, and we finally put an end to all this". EDIT: (Let's call that last one the Metzelaars_Lives summation )

 

One poll has no relationship to the other. And, if I wanted to follow your example in this thread and cast silly, fact-free aspersions: I could say "All the fans that voted in the new poll are just butthurt people who didn't like how the last poll went".

 

But, no different than everything you've posted thus far: that would be based on either nothing, or a poor understanding of how all this stuff works.

Edited August 26, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[metzelaars_lives]

QBR or passer rating? I was called out for making an error siting that 117 #. Just asking. not intending to criticize.

You are correct sir. QBR only goes to 100. This madness has to stop though. Why don't you guys look up Dan Orlovsky's QBR or passer rating so far this preseason. He's been lights out. What no one seems to understand and what no one wants to talk about was articulated perfectly yesterday by Sean Salsbury (of course someone will say he's a hack) yesterday on Denver's sports talk drive show (Denver's Schopp and the Bulldog except they're not as good)- he said that practices are HUGE in the coaches' determination of who is going to start for them and that the preseason games are not nearly as important as the fans think and that essentially, the coaches already have their minds made up in terms of who they want to start going into the preseason games. So giving me a QB's passer rating from the third quarter of a preseason game means next to nothing. The coaches see these guys all day every day and know exactly what they're capable of. Carry on...

Edited August 26, 2015 by metzelaars_lives

[Kelly the Dog]

You are correct sir. QBR only goes to 100. This madness has to stop though. Why don't you guys look up Dan Orlovsky's QBR or passer rating so far this preseason. He's been lights out. What no one seems to understand and what no one wants to talk about was articulated perfectly yesterday by Sean Salsbury (of course someone will say he's a hack) yesterday on Denver's sports talk drive show (Denver's Schopp and the Bulldog except they're not as good)- he said that practices are HUGE in the coaches' determination of who is going to start for them and that the preseason games are not nearly as important as the fans think and that essentially, the coaches already have their minds made up in terms of who they want to start going into the preseason games. So giving me a QB's passer rating from the third quarter of a preseason game means next to nothing. The coaches see these guys all day every day and know exactly what they're capable of. Carry on...

Rex said before the preseason started that obviously the games are the most important evaluator, and said before the scrimmage that this would be very important in their evaluation. He made a point of saying that a lot of guys look good on the practice field but when the lights go on and the pressure mounts they are not so good. He also said that some guys don't practice all that well but are gamers.

 

He also said something to the affect of "the big picture" and the overall body of work, which supports what you were referring to.

 

The point is that all factors are important but the games are the most important. Plus what I think what Salisbury is saying is mostly true but not true when they really don't know, like with the QBs this year since it is year one with them and two of the guys haven't played a lot of NFL ball.

[joemac]

Can't stand Schopp, for someone who is supposed to be bright, he plays as an unthinking broken record.

[GG]

 

And, if I wanted to follow your example in this thread and cast silly, fact-free aspersions: I could say "All the fans that voted in the new poll are just butthurt people who didn't like how the last poll went".

 

 

And I could also say that a narcissist was butthurt that WGR on air personalities didn't like the results of the first poll, and decided to start an inane thread on a message board, and then proclaimed that he's the one who spurred the on-air discussion in the first place.

[San-O]

IMO.

 

QB rating in a preseason context is of no value.

 

QB play against 2nd, 3rd line guys is of very little value.

 

QB play in camp is huge.

 

QB film of previous real game experience is also pretty big, depending on what they are seeing. Inappropriate O scheme, O-line? Not QB fault. Bad decisions, poor accuracy, bad mechanics, bad reads and progressions?

[OCinBuffalo]

 

And I could also say that a narcissist was butthurt that WGR on air personalities didn't like the results of the first poll, and decided to start an inane thread on a message board, and then proclaimed that he's the one who spurred the on-air discussion in the first place.

As predicted:

GG: Your signature may never be more appropriate and timely than it is to this thread.

You should have waited on this one. GG is way off here. The fun thing is he has no idea why. But, he'll do his usual thing and start personally attacking me, like he already has. In all cases, you won't be seeing any clarity from him here.

GG: You have literally failed in every way to both understand the concepts here and use them properly in a sentence. In every post I have refuted what you have said, leaving you with only the personal attack route, which I literally predicted.

 

If anything, you've proven that I am a great big analytics guy, after all.

 

Now, once again: you've had your analytics lesson for today, and, I've even added a few add-ons at no charge. I'm sure there's some Wall Streeting for you to do, so how's about you get to that, and stop polluting my thread?

[GG]

 

If anything, you've proven that I am a great big analytics guy, after all.

 

 

You've proven a lot over the years.

[TheFunPolice]

33% chance. Its not exactly a bold prediction.he has run with the 3s why is that implausible? And yes they are still slanted and they are still dumb. I predicted Eric Berry was gonna go to KC on draft day and i have documented on here that we were taking John Miller in rd 3. Im not leroi and i have no inside connections. But even a garbage can gets a steak. You keep fishing you are bound to get something right. At some point. What makes them an authority? Why should we think anything else of them for pointing out the obvious... now if they predicted EJ or Matt Simms was gonna be the starter and THAT came to fruition... i would personally apologize to them and withdraw myself from TBD.

 

33% chance?

 

Not even close. Just because there are 3 options that does not mean that each has the same chance of occurring.

 

If Green Bay has 3 QBs each one does not have a 33% chance of starting week 1. Barring injury, Rogers has a 100% chance and the other two have zero.

 

In this case it's not as clear cut, but each guy does not have a 1/3 shot. Manuel has maybe a 10% shot, if that.

[metzelaars_lives]

Rex said before the preseason started that obviously the games are the most important evaluator, and said before the scrimmage that this would be very important in their evaluation. He made a point of saying that a lot of guys look good on the practice field but when the lights go on and the pressure mounts they are not so good. He also said that some guys don't practice all that well but are gamers.

 

He also said something to the affect of "the big picture" and the overall body of work, which supports what you were referring to.

 

The point is that all factors are important but the games are the most important. Plus what I think what Salisbury is saying is mostly true but not true when they really don't know, like with the QBs this year since it is year one with them and two of the guys haven't played a lot of NFL ball.

That's fair. I did not mean to insinuate that preseason games mean nothing at all, I do not believe that. I just think people pointing out EJ's passer rating from 9 possessions or whatever fail to understand that according to literally (yes, I know what literally means) every reporter, analyst, etc., EJ dug a hole for himself in camp and was a clear cut third- at least prior to the preseason games.

Edited August 26, 2015 by metzelaars_lives

[TheFunPolice]

I look forward to seeing Chase Daniel and Mike Kafka under center this season! both have eye-popping QB ratings!

[DrDawkinstein]

Whether OC is a narcissist or not, and/or whether the coaches like EJ or not, does not change the fact that WGR's (specifically Schoop and BD's) coverage, insight, opinions, and rapport with callers are all pretty bad.

[metzelaars_lives]

I look forward to seeing Chase Daniel and Mike Kafka under center this season! both have eye-popping QB ratings!

Did you see what Dan Orlovsky did last game? Actually I think Chase Daniel could be good.

Edited August 26, 2015 by metzelaars_lives

[TheFunPolice]

Hey, they could be good but they will each likely be right on the bench, and it will be because preseason stats mean very little.

 

Sure, it's better to do well than not in the preseason (obviously) but it doesn't mean a whole lot in the end.

[plenzmd1]

OC, do me one favor if you can.

 

Can you write three bullets, none of which is over 1 sentence, what point you are trying to make?

Edited August 26, 2015 by plenzmd1

[A Dog Named Kelso]

I think it is funny that we are discussing bias an empricial data to make informed opinions and then WGR post this gem:

 

The Bills are better at quarterback than most realize

This is not to say they are great at the position. Certainly not. It also doesn't mean there aren’t concerns. Of course there are. But, from where many believed the team was heading into training camp, to what we've seen through seventeen practices and a pair of preseason games, the QBs have settled in and looked more confident and able than most would have thought.

Through two preseason games, the combined QB stats of Matt Cassel, Tyrod Taylor, and EJ Manuel are:

passing

32-for-48 (66.6%)

347 yards

2 TD; 0 INT

rushing

14 carries for 101 yards (7.21 yards/carry)

Those are certainly numbers that can give any team an ability to win football games. Especially a team with the defense the Bills have. Of course, once the regular season starts, all bets are off and any progress made can be mitigated by real defenses playing at full speed showing different looks and game-planning. But, if the QBs play in the regular season the way they have in the first two preseason games, the Bills will have plenty of opportunities to win games, and if they don’t, we may not be looking at QB play as the reason why.

http://www.wgr550.com/Four-things-we-learned-from-Bills-training-camp/21897122

Regardless of how you feel about Taylor, Manuel, or Cassel that fact that they need the merge the data to come up with this picture is a tad disturbing.

Without EJ's TD passes or Without Cassel's completion 5 or without Taylor's running this picture looks completely different, no?

[The Wiz]

 

I think it is funny that we are discussing bias an empricial data to make informed opinions and then WGR post this gem:

Regardless of how you feel about Taylor, Manuel, or Cassel that fact that they need the merge the data to come up with this picture is a tad disturbing.

Without EJ's TD passes or Without Cassel's completion 5 or without Taylor's running this picture looks completely different, no?

 

Here's what it looks like individually:

 

Cassel

7-8 45yds 0 TD

 

TT

12-18 114yds 0 TD

10 - 88 rushing

 

EJ

13 - 22 188yds 2 TD

4 - 13 rushing