Enough incoherence/whining from WGR re: EJ

[thebandit27]

I don't care about other teams, so I don't listen to national broadcasts that give the Bills little coverage. The fact that the Bills are in probably the smallest radio market (Green Bay is covered throughout Wisconsin) means lack of competition compared to other markets, which can factor into the quality of the broadcasts.

 

I prefer critical analysis to just talking about all the positives. I can see what's working, I want to hear about what's wrong, why, and what are the options to correct them.

 

Actually, I agree with this...that's one of my biggest complaints with WGR is that they are masters of the obvious, only after it becomes blatantly obvious.

 

I guess listening to other sources of analysis has spoiled me; I prefer more knowledgeable coverage.

 

Think about this: there isn't, to my knowledge (and again I haven't listened to the programming other than play-by-play or post-game interviews in quite some time), a single former NFL player associated with that station. Would it be that hard to hire a former team player that can provide some actual contextual analysis to their programming?

[Sisyphean Bills]

Someone at WGR is smiling at this publicity.

[OCinBuffalo]

 

You're using a self-selected sample set to project over an entire audience, and think that it's a valid representation? You must be a great big data analytics guy.

 

With most people living outside the GR listening area. Keep digging out numbers. You're on a roll

I'm using what we have. Clearly you don't understand the term self-selected. That's because you're not a great big analytics guy. Did I create the poll, and then select it? No. Hence, you don't understand the term self-selected. Show me some more data about this subject, and I'll be gald to use it.

 

And here's strike 2: I am a great big analytics guy. Which, is why I wrote this thread in the first damn place. We have nothing empirical from these clowns, all we have are impressions, and interpretations. Now, if you want a real example of self-selection? Asking/framing a question of a coach, and then claiming to be "only going by what the coaches are saying". THAT is self-selection.

 

As a great big analytics guy, I'm hyper-attuned to bias. I know it when I hear it, and after so many years of doing this...I NEVER know the exact reason why(anyone who says they always know, probably hasn't seen much, or doesn't actually do this job) without getting down into the problem, conducting interviews, doing the job, etc. However, I cannot unknow what I do know, merely for your convenience.

 

Thus, here's some quantifiable data for you: When I hear 4 distinct fallacy arguments in 24 hours from WGR? There's a high propensity for bias.

Edited August 26, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[PromoTheRobot]

Someone at WGR is smiling at this publicity.

Are they? It's not like they can get bigger ratings. If anything this shows a vulnerability to a new competitor.

[TSOL]

Reading is fundamental. If you go back, and read, you'll see it. If you're too lazy? WGR did a poll and found that 60+% of their listeners, etc. Perhaps not exactly 2-1, but certainly not 50%. In all cases, it's the only quantifiable piece of data in this entire mess....

 

...that isn't based on "reading tea leaves" or "what the coaches are saying(after we ask them a question)" or any other impression/interpretation.

 

My so-called claims are doing just fine, thanks.

 

 

Yeah? While I'm doing that, you guys can look up the words "substantive argument". Make one, or get out of my thread. Once again the irony abounds: I point out the consistent use of fallacy by WGR...and then, in their defense...you give me non sequitor? We should have an irony sound effect for this board.

 

Yeah, and of course, this thread, with 4800 views in < 24 hours, I'm sure has nothing to do with that.

 

-----------

 

No no no....I'm being "manipulated"! I should "seek counseling"!

 

Schopp didn't call his own show a "disaster" yesterday.

 

None of this is happening!

 

And why? Because all data that doesn't support the EJBad choice...must be ignored! Anyone that dares to point out that WGR's last 48 hours points directly to obvious bias? Personally attack them! Must...press...the marginalize...button...on OCinBuffalo...before...it's too late.

 

Sorry kids. You're ship has already been blown up, and pressing the marginalize button was never going to save you. But, by all means keep trying. I'd love to see your next example of unintentional irony.

Was pretty odvious yesterday when I saw this thread what you were doing, OC. You were baiting people to jump all over WGR. It's not a very hard thing to do, as most people on this board already dispise Scoop and to a lesser extent Lapdog. That's a main reason I didn't jump in until the heavy EJ whining took place. What the hell, bashing WGR, is an immensely popular thing to do, and who doesn't love a good old fashioned ride on the bandwagon train once in awhile. So the thread was a little bit like fishing with dynamite.

 

I'm just aggrevated that the legit thread I started for predictions, at roughly the same time, got like 150 views while yours got, what, 4800, I think you said. So congratulations for that. Just know, that not everyone fell for it, and please, don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, self congratulations is so unbecoming.

 

All good natured ribbing aside, it is a pretty nice thought provoking topic, refreshing for me to get away from the typical mud slinging of the supporters vs. the detractors. Because, god, I'm so EJ'ed out at this point.

[OCinBuffalo]

Someone at WGR is smiling at this publicity.

Yeah...

 

And I'm smiling, because Mike Schopp was forced to go on air and call his own show a disaster, and, it only cost me 15 minutes to write the OP.

Was pretty odvious yesterday when I saw this thread what you were doing, OC. You were baiting people to jump all over WGR. It's not a very hard thing to do, as most people on this board already dispise Scoop and to a lesser extent Lapdog. That's a main reason I didn't jump in until the heavy EJ whining took place. What the hell, bashing WGR, is an immensely popular thing to do, and who doesn't love a good old fashioned ride on the bandwagon train once in awhile. So the thread was a little bit like fishing with dynamite.

 

I'm just aggrevated that the legit thread I started for predictions, at roughly the same time, got like 150 views while yours got, what, 4800, I think you said. So congratulations for that. Just know, that not everyone fell for it, and please, don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, self congratulations is so unbecoming.

 

All good natured ribbing aside, it is a pretty nice thought provoking topic, refreshing for me to get away from the typical mud slinging of the supporters vs. the detractors. Because, god, I'm so EJ'ed out at this point.

Given this, let me clarify: You have no idea what I am doing. I doubt you ever will.

 

Your aggravation is noted. A nice side benefit.

 

Is it possible for you to consider that mine is merely a reasoned response to unreasonable behavior?

[Sisyphean Bills]

Yeah...

 

And I'm smiling, because Mike Schopp was forced to go on air and call his own show a disaster, and, it only cost me 15 minutes to write the OP.

 

 

Keep your thumb in the dike.

[GG]

I'm using what we have. Clearly you don't understand the term self-selected. That's because you're not a great big analytics guy. Did I create the poll, and then select it? No. Hence, you don't understand the term self-selected. Show me some more data about this subject, and I'll be gald to use it.

 

And here's strike 2: I am a great big analytics guy. Which, is why I wrote this thread in the first damn place. We have nothing empirical from these clowns, all we have are impressions, and interpretations. Now, if you want a real example of self-selection? Asking/framing a question of a coach, and then claiming to be "only going by what the coaches are saying". THAT is self-selection.

 

As a great big analytics guy, I'm hyper-attuned to bias. I know it when I hear it, and after so many years of doing this...I NEVER know the exact reason why(anyone who says they always know, probably hasn't seen much, or doesn't actually do this job). However, I cannot unknow what I know for your convenience.

 

 

It's self selected because it's not a random poll of WGR listeners, but people who elected to respond to the poll. You know, basic data validation. But, I'm sure a great big data analytics guy understands that. But maybe a narcissistic big data analytics guy doesn't.

Edited August 26, 2015 by GG

[TSOL]

Yeah...

 

And I'm smiling, because Mike Schopp was forced to go on air and call his own show a disaster, and, it only cost me 15 minutes to write the OP.

 

Given this, let me clarify: You have no idea what I am doing. I doubt you ever will.

 

Your aggravation is noted. A nice side benefit.

 

Is it possible for you to consider that mine is merely a reasoned response to unreasonable behavior?

Oh, I fully understand what you're doing, don't pretend it wasn't transparent to anyone w a half a brain. Its unbearably odvious and you acting like you're smarter than everyone is even less bearable. We haven't had a WGR thread, so we were due. Don't act like that's exactly what you were thinking when you wrote it. And yeah, asshat Scoop needs to be kept in check, so I give you credit for that, and believe it or not, the work you put in the op. But 10 , mins, my butt!

 

Once again, good topic, good debate, on anything that's not " EJ sucks, he hit a cameraman in practice" "no he don't he threw a touchdown" that crap is tiresome.

 

And here we are, your topic at the top of the list, with post views doing nothing but going up and up.

 

And one more thing, your next move is very predictable, so... Say what we all know you want to say next

Edited August 26, 2015 by mastershake

[OCinBuffalo]

 

It's self selected because it's not a random poll of WGR listeners, but people who elected to respond to the poll. You know, basic data validation. But, I'm sure a great big data analytics guy understands that. But maybe a narcissistic big data analytics guy doesn't.

Nope, that's still not the right use of the term. And "basic data validation"? That's not the right use of that term either. Validation has to do with collected data passing business rules. What we do with it if it does/doesn't is workflow. Once again: you've probably been to the meeting, and heard some of the words enough times, but you still don't know what they mean.

 

I know. You don't. There is nothing wrong with using that poll. Your "elected to respond" is true....for every poll there is, and ever was. Same thing for every marketing survey ever created. According to you: unless polling data is collected by compulsory polls, that automagically means the method/results are flawed? No it does not.

 

If we put this poll on the Martha Steward website, THEN, and only then, would your objection be valid. Why? Because we'd be reducing the population of respondents to only those who both are interested in the Bills, AND, Martha Stewart. This poll is about a WGR topic, on WGR's website, where any Bills fan may or may not go, but certainly those who are interested in this entire discussion WILL go, without restriction == no methodology problem.

 

Thus, here ends your great big analytics lesson for the day. You're lucky I'm not charging you.

[hullhawk]

I have listened to WGR very sparingly over the last week, however, each and every time I have I heard the same 4-5 statements made by multiple hosts, with regard to their coverage of EJ this preseason.

 

These statements are either bereft of logic, or, on par with the whining of a 2nd grader. Once again I heard Jeremy White re-hash this crap this morning, and normally I wouldn't care, but, enough is enough. So let's get to it:

 

1. "We have been getting emails and tweets that our coverage has been biased against EJ"

 

You don't say? Well, this morining Sal Capaccio said "We aren't as bad off at QB as was expected. It's a tribute to Greg Roman being able to get these QBs ready to play....EVEN EJ." Ah, when you say schit like this, what, exactly, do you expect listeners to conclude?

 

Hey WGR? Fans have observed a clear pattern of behavior from you. Why the F else are you getting the response? Mass Hysteria? A conspiracy to troll you? No. You are causing this problem with comments like that, and instead of introspection, it's blame the fans?

 

I literally heard...what you say you aren't doing...in 2 separate instances this MORNING!, never mind this past week.

 

I like Sal, but, Sal? You chose those words, not the fans. Why throw in the "...even EJ"? Greg Roman has done a good job with all 3 QBs. Well, that is supposedly Sal's premise. Greg Roman is being paid a compliment...so why is the "...even EJ" necessary? It is not. It's totally irrelevent...so why say it? Answer: bias, supporting the choice, made long ago, that EJ == Bad.

 

2. "Either we are liars, or, we don't know how to do our jobs".

 

Holy drama batman. Yes, arguing to the extreme isn't a logical fallacy or anything. Follow that link fellas.

 

Nobody is accusing you of being liars. Some of us have been accusing some of you of not doing your jobs for a decade+ (anybody want to have a meat draft? ) so this is nothing new, and not specific to EJ coverage.

 

The simple fact is that these aren't the only 2 outcomes, and to suggest otherwise is childish. There is all sorts of research that shows the influenece one person or group can have on others. Both confidence bias, and choice-supportive bias are very real, every day occurances that are much more likely to be the culprits here, than intentional deceit, conspiracy, or staggering incompetence. Groupthink is also infinitely more likely, especially in this case, since the QB issue is so acute. Everyone knows the problem, its importance, and thus fears making a mistake, and its consequences, as both will be maginfied. It's much safer, and natural, for everybody to run in the herd together, and nobody strays too far away. This is prime Groupthink territory. Do the reading.

 

So, please, enough with the incoherent emoting. Nobody is accusing you of anything...other than not seeing your own bias. And that's perfectly normal. IF you could see the bias, you wouldn't have it(unless you really did have an agenda).

 

In ALL cases, liar/incompetent aren't the only 2 possible outcomes. I'm not sure WGR's coverage is biased, because I haven't listened enough. But,it sure smells like it given what I've heard in the last 24, especially the statements I've bolded.

 

3. "We do this for a job"

 

What are we doing? Running through EVERY logical fallacy? Now it's Argument from Authority? Thus, this thread is necessary.

 

Do you really want to have this conversation? How about with X and Os, or draft, or other heavy content posters here? Why is it that every time I write a heavy content post here...my topic is discussed by WGR the next day?(Most recent example: 1985 Bears-->46 Defense == WGR articles and air devoted < 24 hours after my post.)

 

This is 2 Bills Drive, and I have news: WE do this for a job too, often 2-3x better than you, and have for years. The only real difference is that we don't get paid, and we aren't "required by our job to watch the Jets game where EJ was horrible". We'd do that anyway. The WGR host/reporter/contributor who thinks they can go toe to toe on Bills Football with any heavy duty poster here is fooling themselves.

 

According to some respected posters here: WGR has an anti-EJ bias. These people have a long history of being right about this team. WGR is just starting to get some football credibility with Sal Capaccio(ahem, see? I have no bias), who actually knows the Xs and Os well enough to discuss them(unlike others at WGR who refuse to learn the game, and defend that by telling us that Xs and Os are: boring...to Bills fans, of all people. /facepalm Hint: This is not Miami.)

 

WGR: You have a problem. Stop blaming others. Don't argue from authority. Especially when you haven't earned said authority. Your work has been shoddy at best...which...is WHY 2 Bills Drive exists.

 

4. "This is coming from some weird place amongst the fans".

 

Um no, the reason fans are saying WGR's coverage is biased: is because it's empirical.

 

Get over yourselves. Fans simply don't care that much about WGR. The notion that this started in some evil little corner of the internet/twitterverse, dedicated solely to the downfall of WGR, is patently retarded.

 

The fans are responding to: you, WGR. If you don't want to hear the calls and see the emails? Simple: clean up your act. Be conscious of the feedback, aware that you DO say things like "...even EJ"...and make the necessary corrections. Realize that people aren't pointing this out because there's something wrong with them. They are pointing it out because there's something wrong with you. As soon as your behavior changes, the response will change.

 

I am tired of the whining as well. You ARE getting paid to do a job. We AREN'T getting paid to listen to you. I am sick and tired of hearing you B word about doing a job you signed up for, and all that comes with it. Keep your whining to yourselves, look inside, realize you are the cause of your own problem, and, how's about resolving to do a better job?

 

Beats the hell out of more incoherent/weak arguments and whining.

 

5. My personal favorite "We are reading the TEA leaves from the coaches/We are merely reacting to what the coaches are saying"

 

Q1: Who asks the coaches the questions?

A1: The media.

C1: What the "coaches are saying" is driven mostly by the media's questions and how they are framed.

QED. The notion that the media is merely reacting in this situation, is patently retarded. Especially when we consider the fact that "reading the TEA leaves" is the basis for most of this analysis.

 

WGR: You are telling us that most of your work is based solely on interpretation....EVERYWHERE! Interpretation of what you see on the field, interpretation of what the coaches are saying, interpretation of how EJ answers the question "How do you expect things to go at your next team?" (No bias in that question at all)

 

NOTHING here is empirical. ALL is based on interpretation...and WGR people are trying to tell us that there's 0 chance for bias?

 

Here's what I do for a job: tell people like WGR that they are the opposite of right, because this environment is the MOST likely to produce bias. Enough delusion, dissonance, problem denial and shifting the blame to fans as though they are the cause.

 

Enough whining and blaming fans for merely responding to what they can clearly see is broken.

 

 

This is a recent exchang ei hadd with jeremey white..Jeremys coments are in bold underline. I tired to point out a bias in the media and even in the coaching staff, but since he'd have to admit fault if ANYTHING I said was true, he replied with the typical arrogance that everyone at GR eventually displays. can't liisten to any of them any more.

 

 

 

 

 

First let me dispel a myth that this coaching staff is unbiased.

 

I have a source, can’t name him , but I trust him ( I know convenient right? Don’t care If you believe me or not) But the source has been reliable and I’m told that Roman refused to come here unless we got Cassel or someone like him. Rex Ryan has absolutely favored Tsquared since he got here he wanted him as a jet and at first opportunity went out and got him.

 

That’s not bias. That’s talent evaluation. The coaches would think “EJ isn’t good” and want help. Standard.

 

We’ve all read the story about how Roman wants Cassel and Ryan wants Tsquared. So that lends further credence to the source. IN my opinion.

So don’t peddle the myth that this coaching staff isn’t biased.

 

We haven’t read this story. You’re saying it to me now.

 

Of course Roman wants a vet that will run the plays he calls and stick to doing what he’s told, rather than a more free-wheeling QB.

Ryan is a gambler and see’s the home run ball in Tsquared. But let’s face it Ryan is a defense first kind of coach, so his judgment is suspect on the O side of the ball.

 

They all want to win. They want the guy that will win.

 

Secondly you can make the case that Ej played against 2 nd and third stringers, BUT he wasn’t with ones, that’s called a level playing field, and with 0 help with his O line and running game, he willed the team to victory. Stayed calm, found the open receiver and threw a strike. Then he went out and got the 2 point conversion. WHAT more could you ask of him? The greatest chef in the world can’t do much behind the counter at McDonalds.

 

“Willed the team to victory” is quite a story. What you could ask of him…is consistent performance for the months worth of practices…but he hasn’t given you that. Instead he gave you a TD against guys that won’t be on an NFL roster.

 

The media here had Ej buried from the start, and the OC and HC had their favorites coming in. EJ would have to be perfect to unseat those guys. He hasn’t been but in my mind he unquestionably took a step forward this season.

 

False. He only has to be the best. He’s 3rd. I’m very sorry this is so hard for some to accept.

[YoloinOhio]

The reason I stopped listening to Schopp wasn't so much his lack of knowledge about football or what comes across the airwaves as a baseless personal hatred of EJ. it was how they get on a high horse about bills players and coaches who aren't perfect and trashing the organization for bringing them in or not getting rid of them when in reality all other NFL teams have same issues and have signed players who supposedly knocked out women and abused children like junior gallette, AP, Greg Hardy..

 

But yet Ryan o Reilly gets zero criticism. It's like it never happened. Unless I missed it.

[GG]

Nope, that's still not the right use of the term. And "basic data validation"? That's not the right use of that term either. Validation has to do with collected data passing business rules. What we do with it if it does/doesn't is workflow. Once again: you've probably been to the meeting, and heard some of the words enough times, but you still don't know what they mean.

 

I know. You don't. There is nothing wrong with using that poll. Your "elected to respond" is true....for every poll there is, and ever was. Same thing for every marketing survey ever created. According to you: unless polling data is collected by compulsory polls, that automagically means the method/results are flawed? No it does not.

 

If we put this poll on the Martha Steward website, THEN, and only then, would your objection be valid. Why? Because we'd be reducing the population of respondents to only those who both are interested in the Bills, AND, Martha Stewart. This poll is about a WGR topic, on WGR's website, where any Bills fan may or may not go, but certainly those who are interested in this entire discussion WILL go, without restriction == no methodology problem.

 

Thus, here ends your great big analytics lesson for the day. You're lucky I'm not charging you.

 

And yet you're wrong again. You're using the data collected on the site of people who took the time to vote in a poll to support your views on the topic and think that it projects over the entire WGR listening audience (bu a factor of 2-1, nonetheless) yet completely ignoring a wide swath of the listeners who could care less about EJ.

 

If you want another scientific poll, take a look at the number of people arguing pro-EJ vs anti-EJ vs lurkers. Just because somebody is more vocal, doesn't mean they represent a prevailing view.

 

But you know that. And you must be drunk again if you think that I would pay a penny for whatever advice you think it is you're giving.

[BillsVet]

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

[GG]

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

 

I think it's applicable in 99.999% of situations.

[OCinBuffalo]

 

And yet you're wrong again. You're using the data collected on the site of people who took the time to vote in a poll to support your views on the topic and think that it projects over the entire WGR listening audience (bu a factor of 2-1, nonetheless) yet completely ignoring a wide swath of the listeners who could care less about EJ.

 

If you want another scientific poll, take a look at the number of people arguing pro-EJ vs anti-EJ vs lurkers. Just because somebody is more vocal, doesn't mean they represent a prevailing view.

 

But you know that. And you must be drunk again if you think that I would pay a penny for whatever advice you think it is you're giving.

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.

Edited August 26, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[TSOL]

I think it's applicable in 99.999% of situations.

Except in the Bruce Smiith/ Biscuit sack dance thing

[OCinBuffalo]

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.

[Kelly the Dog]

 

 

What don't you get about this? These call in shows are this way by design. Look at the biggest in the industry--like WFAN, who at one point employed two of the dumbest guys in sports radio on the same show (they still employ one of them). The WANT guys like you and OC to get all hot and bothered about their dumb talent's dumb comments. They know you're listening and that's all that matters.

 

And do you really think a Buffalo pizza log company and a liquor store are NOT going to advertise on a channel like WGR...ever? Only prohibitively high ad rates would keep these companies off the channel. They don't care what you think about what Bulldog thinks about EJ Manuel...

Yep. In fact, the ONLY time I am ever going to go out and actually buy a pizza log is if I'm totally pissed off out of my mind.

[plenzmd1]

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.

see, i read this post as it wasnt a book! You are a funny guy!