Does it seem like the Bills are adding FA more selectively and with more purpose this year as opposed to previous years?

[Doc]

What was that about throwing mud against a wall again, TG?

[LSHMEAB]

6 hours ago, Doc said:

 

The only thing black and white is saying "we need any diva WR."  Again the Bills want a #1 who doesn't cause problems, but their teams (and there are a lot more than just LF and JJ) aren't looking to get rid of them, for obvious reasons. 

So I assume you like Beane's FA acquisitions at the position and won't be blaming them IF JA doesn't succeed next year?

 

It's kind of a binary choice at this point.

 

We all WANT Allen to succeed, but I'm pretty much at the point where I want to see results and not excuses.

[Ronin]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

The stats thrown around so much aren't treated in in a proper statistical way.  People don't consider variables as I explained to you in another thread.

 

Oh, and Thurman gave you data.  I saw no reason to cite the exact same data since it was already presented and adequately rebutted your holistic and objective claptrap.

 

by the way, I thought I was being ignored?

 

The only  reason why I'm responding to you here is because the only data that Thurman "gave me," was the game-log data for Lotulolei along with a bunch of irrelvant data otherwise.  Didn't you look at it and figure it out?  I saw it even before he posted it.  

 

It still doesn't address what he said was BS, namely that Lotulolei played fewer than 50% of the defensive snaps last season, logged ZERO sacks, had 0 QB Hits.  He disagreed with that.  Which BTW were all WAY BELOW HIS SEASON AVERAGES, ... AS I ALSO POINTED OUT.  He said it was BS.  OK, not sure what to say about that.  The data can be found anywhere, it's a simple matter of public record easily available in seconds via a simple internet search.  Sounds like an area that he struggles with.  

 

So come on there Mr. Statistics, address those?  Forget the nonsense that he posted which is little more than a red-herring accompanied by opinionated drivel.  

 

Now, if I don't see some numbers addressing this stuff in your next post I'm not even going to bother wasting my time responding.  

 

I have no idea why I'm seeing your stuff, you're on my ignore list.  Go ask the site admins.  That's not my strength.  

Edited March 26, 2019 by TaskersGhost

[Doc]

11 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

So I assume you like Beane's FA acquisitions at the position and won't be blaming them IF JA doesn't succeed next year?

 

It's kind of a binary choice at this point.

 

We all WANT Allen to succeed, but I'm pretty much at the point where I want to see results and not excuses.

 

I like the acquisitions but seeing results also applies to them.

[T master]

Beane has had a plan ever since he took the job he apparently paid attention in his previous employment & learned a ton i think the Peg's made a great call hiring him & the Bills along with their fans will reap the benefit of his experiences despite what a few here think Beane & McD are turning this thing around !!

[Bing Bong]

3 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

You claimed his snap counts went down.  They didn't.  Then when you get caught on that you switch to things like numbers like sacks.  You do 'tiniest what Frazier and McD asked him to do in the context of their D.  He presumably ate up double teams to free up other guys.

I find it obnoxious to ignore an assertion that cites various half researched facts because someone spent mind numbing time to find something so minute like Star's snap count. Just because he stated what he thought he saw watching every Bills game and may have been wrong on that supporting argument doesn't change his assertion and all the other points he supported it worth.

 

He's telling you what he saw and noticed watching football. And for all we know Star played garbage time to inflate those snap counts. 

 

It ultimately doesn't matter. It's a single point that he may have missed on. That point is simply one of many supporting points that doesn't necessarily make him wrong on his overall point. It's ad hominem, getting something minute wrong doesn't discredit his argument 

 

I'm team Tasker'sGhost on this argument boys this looks fun.

 

[oldmanfan]

7 minutes ago, TaskersGhost said:

 

The only  reason why I'm responding to you here is because the only data that Thurman "gave me," was the game-log data for Lotulolei along with a bunch of irrelvant data otherwise.  Didn't you look at it and figure it out?  I saw it even before he posted it.  

 

It still doesn't address what he said was BS, namely that Lotulolei played fewer than 50% of the defensive snaps last season, logged ZERO sacks, had 0 QB Hits.  He disagreed with that.  Which BTW were all WAY BELOW HIS SEASON AVERAGES, ... AS I ALSO POINTED OUT.  He said it was BS.  OK, not sure what to say about that.  The data can be found anywhere, it's a simple matter of public record easily available in seconds via a simple internet search.  Sounds like an area that he struggles with.  

 

So come on there Mr. Statistics, address those?  Forget the nonsense that he posted which is little more than a red-herring accompanied by opinionated drivel.  

 

Now, if I don't see some numbers addressing this stuff in your next post I'm not even going to bother wasting my time responding.  

 

I have no idea why I'm seeing your stuff, you're on my ignore list.  Go ask the site admins.  That's not my strength.  

Well, it gets back to variables, which you seem determined to ignore.  Let's take his sack numbers.  What variables could affect that?  Well it could be his physical play declined.  It could be the coaches asked him to do different things like occupy blockers vs. rush.  It could be that players around him were weaker and thus he got doubled more on pass plays.  It could be he did not play on as many passing downs as the couple years before.  And so on.  

 

Given your background you should know this.  You should also know the meaning of confirmation bias.  I review a lot of manuscripts for publication, and most get rejected for experimental design flaws, a major one being confirmation bias.  My reading of your posts suggest you have confirmation bias; you have a negative view of team coaching and management and thus look for data to support that.  Which is why I got  on you about your holistic and objective comment; I'm not convinced you are either.

1 minute ago, BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P said:

I find it obnoxious to ignore an assertion that cites various half researched facts because someone spent mind numbing time to find something so minute like Star's snap count. Just because he stated what he thought he saw watching every Bills game and may have been wrong on that supporting argument doesn't change his assertion and all the other points he supported it worth.

 

He's telling you what he saw and noticed watching football. And for all we know Star played garbage time to inflate those snap counts. 

 

It ultimately doesn't matter. It's a single point that he may have missed on. That point is simply one of many supporting points that doesn't necessarily make him wrong on his overall point. It's ad hominem, getting something minute wrong doesn't discredit his argument 

 

I'm team Tasker'sGhost on this argument boys this looks fun.

 

I have no problem with offering opinions; it's what this place is for.  I do object to people misusing data and statistics.  A claim was made that snap counts went down; they didn't.  I and others pointed that out.  It does not mean all his others points are invalid.  But when you claim to be objective and then aren't it clouds one's interpretation of other comments.

 

And it's not an ad hominem attack.  I think that phrase is much overused.

[Bing Bong]

12 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Well, it gets back to variables, which you seem determined to ignore.  Let's take his sack numbers.  What variables could affect that?  Well it could be his physical play declined.  It could be the coaches asked him to do different things like occupy blockers vs. rush.  It could be that players around him were weaker and thus he got doubled more on pass plays.  It could be he did not play on as many passing downs as the couple years before.  And so on.  

 

Given your background you should know this.  You should also know the meaning of confirmation bias.  I review a lot of manuscripts for publication, and most get rejected for experimental design flaws, a major one being confirmation bias.  My reading of your posts suggest you have confirmation bias; you have a negative view of team coaching and management and thus look for data to support that.  Which is why I got  on you about your holistic and objective comment; I'm not convinced you are either.

I have no problem with offering opinions; it's what this place is for.  I do object to people misusing data and statistics.  A claim was made that snap counts went down; they didn't.  I and others pointed that out.  It does not mean all his others points are invalid.  But when you claim to be objective and then aren't it clouds one's interpretation of other comments.

 

And it's not an ad hominem attack.  I think that phrase is much overused.

It sounded like that's how you were using his point but I'll need to get caught up with the argument. 

 

And yeah.. calling foul with logical fallacies is overplayed.. certainly on a message board. Yelling straw man or ad hominem is also obnoxious. My bad haha just couldn't think another way to phrase what I was saying.

Edited March 27, 2019 by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P said:

It sounded like that's how you were using his point but I'll need to get caught up with the argument. 

 

And yeah.. calling foul with logical fallacies is overplayed.. certainly on a message board. Yelling straw man or ad hominem is also obnoxious. My bad haha just couldn't think another way to phrase what I was saying.

Appreciate the dialog.

[Bing Bong]

4 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

This is dumb.  The data you've showed here is indecipherable vs. what Thurman has shown.  You claimed his snap counts went down.  They didn't.  Then when you get caught on that you switch to things like numbers like sacks.  You do 'tiniest what Frazier and McD asked him to do in the context of their D.  He presumably ate up double teams to free up other guys.

Yeah we're clearly paying too much money for a sub 50% snap count. You guys got so caught up in the snap count trend.. it got debunked. Whatever. It's not a good signing. And we knew he was sub 50% at Carolina.

 

But it doesn't put us in a bind. It hamstrung us from signing offensive players last year which sucked. But AFAIK it's a pretty front loaded contract and flexible. I just never did and still don't get the point. We still need a better DT. Could be through the draft soon. A guy that can do what Star does and more. Carolina thought so too.

 

A good team just has no room to Shell out that much money for so little.

Edited March 27, 2019 by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P

[oldmanfan]

Just now, BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P said:

Yeah we're clearly paying too much money for a sub 50% snap count. You guys got so caught up in the snap count trend.. it got debunked. Whatever. It's not a good signing. And we knew he was sub 50% at Carolina.

 

But it doesn't put us in a bind. It hamstrung us from signing offensive players last year which sucked. But AFAIK it's a pretty front loaded contract and flexible. I just never did and still don't get the point. We still need a better DT. Could be through the draft soon. A guy that can do what Star does and more. Carolina thought so too.

Before deciding on the worth of Star it would be nice to know what the coaches think.  I seem to recall McD being happy with Star's play.  He may be doing a non-flashy job that doesn't generate a lot of numbers.

[Doc]

50 minutes ago, BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P said:

I find it obnoxious to ignore an assertion that cites various half researched facts because someone spent mind numbing time to find something so minute like Star's snap count. Just because he stated what he thought he saw watching every Bills game and may have been wrong on that supporting argument doesn't change his assertion and all the other points he supported it worth.

 

He's telling you what he saw and noticed watching football. And for all we know Star played garbage time to inflate those snap counts. 

 

It ultimately doesn't matter. It's a single point that he may have missed on. That point is simply one of many supporting points that doesn't necessarily make him wrong on his overall point. It's ad hominem, getting something minute wrong doesn't discredit his argument 

 

I'm team Tasker'sGhost on this argument boys this looks fun.

 

It wasn't what he saw: he made up a narrative to fit what he was saying.  And it's a 4 second Google search (3.9 seconds of which is typing-in "Star Lotulelei snap count"). 

[LSHMEAB]

4 hours ago, TaskersGhost said:

  

 

 

 

 

Well then they're stupid for paying a 2-down guy that much money, particularly one that doens't produce.  I know I know, his mere presence on the field was the reason why the D was good otherwise.  LOL  

 

Shouldn't his "presence" also diminish the need for a 3T DT?

 

I mean, if Star is some amazing space eater, the 3T role should easily be filled because his presence makes their job essentially a cakewalk.

 

Yet 3T DT is universally regarded as a need. What gives?

[Bing Bong]

6 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Before deciding on the worth of Star it would be nice to know what the coaches think.  I seem to recall McD being happy with Star's play.  He may be doing a non-flashy job that doesn't generate a lot of numbers.

What I didn't like was the fact that Star was a cornerstone in McDermott's defense before he leaves. Becomes a sub 50% player at Carolina. And is still one back with McDermott. McDermott played him a lot more a few years back. Did he think he was signing the same player? I have to think so.. and why isn't he playing as much as he did in Carolina if McDermott is so happy

[Bing Bong]

2 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Shouldn't his "presence" also diminish the need for a 3T DT?

 

I mean, if Star is some amazing space eater, the 3T role should easily be filled because his presence makes their job essentially a cakewalk.

 

Yet 3T DT is universally regarded as a need. What gives?

He eats the interior OL as well as his fellow 3T DT. He's so good he nullifies all 5 players from doing anything in the game.

[Ronin]

16 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Shouldn't his "presence" also diminish the need for a 3T DT?

 

I mean, if Star is some amazing space eater, the 3T role should easily be filled because his presence makes their job essentially a cakewalk.

 

Yet 3T DT is universally regarded as a need. What gives?

 

Come on now, you're not playing the narrative game properly here.  

 

 

 

[oldmanfan]

17 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Shouldn't his "presence" also diminish the need for a 3T DT?

 

I mean, if Star is some amazing space eater, the 3T role should easily be filled because his presence makes their job essentially a cakewalk.

 

Yet 3T DT is universally regarded as a need. What gives?

They rotate guys to keep them fresh.   I think Star is the only 3 on the roster.  

 

I am not saying he couldn't be better, only that:  1.  He is not the train wreck so many are insinuating, and 2.  The coaches seemed happy with his play.  The coaches are a better arbiter of what constitutes that vs. a bunch of guys on a message board.

[oldmanfan]

On 3/26/2019 at 8:59 PM, LSHMEAB said:

Shouldn't his "presence" also diminish the need for a 3T DT?

 

I mean, if Star is some amazing space eater, the 3T role should easily be filled because his presence makes their job essentially a cakewalk.

 

Yet 3T DT is universally regarded as a need. What gives?

So this thread has stuck in my mind, and after doing some checking I had to circle back.  Star is a 1 techinique.

Edited March 29, 2019 by oldmanfan