Hapless Bills Fan Posted October 7, 2020 Posted October 7, 2020 12 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said: So anyone who says anything provocative, ever, should be ignored forever after? Please. I'm 100% sure that would put me on ignore to the world and I'm willing to bet that you've sometime riled someone up deliberately as well at some point. Facetious answer: Oh, BeHAVE. Now you're just being difficult. Serious answer: PFF is a company that has marketed itself extensively and exhaustively as providing objective analytics to assess player performance. When that's a company's marketing strategy, then YES - if they're actually trash-talking to be provocative, then it damages their credibility and they deserve to be ignored. There are various football pundits like Colin Cowherd and so forth who say provocative stuff all the time, but they market themselves as entertainment, not as providers of metrics and data that are "the best" at objectively assessing performance. 1
Thurman#1 Posted October 7, 2020 Posted October 7, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: Facetious answer: Oh, BeHAVE. Now you're just being difficult. Serious answer: PFF is a company that has marketed itself extensively and exhaustively as providing objective analytics to assess player performance. When that's a company's marketing strategy, then YES - if they're actually trash-talking to be provocative, then it damages their credibility and they deserve to be ignored. There are various football pundits like Colin Cowherd and so forth who say provocative stuff all the time, but they market themselves as entertainment, not as providers of metrics and data that are "the best" at objectively assessing performance. No, it's you who's headed off in the wrong direction on this issue. They do market themselves as providing objective analytics. Their stats. Which are indeed as objective as they can make them. They also provide interviews and articles, which are not marketed as objective. I guess some of the articles, the ones more based on the stats, are more objective, but plenty are putting forth what they think are hopefully interesting opinions and thoughts. What you're referring to came in an interview and was very clearly NOT objective. His partners questioned him on it and the guy said that of course they didn't have enough data to know so far what Hodges was but based on what they'd seen so far, he'd take Hodges over Allen in terms of how they were playing now. Defended it a bit too strongly, as well, if I remember correctly but overall it seemed defensible to me. It was defensible at the time as well. They didn't say Hodges was better. They said he was playing better at that time, which was very reasonable, partly because we'd seen so very little of Hodges by then (he'd only thrown 80 passes at that time and had completed 56 of them, 4 TDs and 2 INTs and 682 yards and was coming off a 16 for 19 game against Arizona with a TD and 0 INTs and Allen was coming off a not especially great 17 for 39 game against an admittedly tough Baltimore team). There was so much of a fuss here about it that I went and watched that interview at the time. Don't remember who the two guys were but they were very clearly doing it to entertain. I wasn't impressed - never went back and watched again, but I thought the point they made on Duck and Josh was interesting. It made me go do a deeper dive on Duck, which was again interesting. Edited October 7, 2020 by Thurman#1
Doc Posted October 7, 2020 Posted October 7, 2020 9 hours ago, Thurman#1 said: No, it was a question that the immature college version of Josh Allen might have blown up at. That's why he cringed at it but was subsequently impressed at Josh's growth and present-day maturity. If it wasn't a punky question, why would Josh have blown up at it?
Recommended Posts