Conner McGovern to Bills

[BullBuchanan]

27 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Scientific knowledge is as scientific knowledge does.  There are plenty of people who have scientific degrees who choose to work outside the field of science.  There are also plenty of people who work in science and engineering fields who, unfortunately, aren't very good scientists.  "Familiar" doesn't mean "Utilizing correctly" 

 

I've read the publicly available link at their site.  Know what it lacks? Information about the details of the actual grading rubric being utilized that would enable an independent, reasonably competent practitioner to reproduce the grades, much less the empirical-sounding "adjustment made to the “raw” grades to adjust for what the player is “expected” to earn given his situation on the field".  That's the part that's critical if you want to claim something is "absolutely scientifically valid".  You have to be willing to open the books and let someone look under the hood and

 

Just look at the little graphic you put in.  "Awful throw that should be intercepted" "Eli Manning's Incredible Game Winning Throw".  It reeks of subjectivity.  It totally lacks any objective criteria for distinguishing between the two that someone could utilize to reproduce the grade, much less any objective criteria for assessing whether the grade is accurately predictive of player contribution.

 

That doesn't mean PFF grades aren't useful - obviously tons of fans who are in to fantasy football or podcasts etc find them meaningful and pay for them.  But useful or not isn't what we're discussing here.  We're discussing your claim that PFF's grades are "absolutely scientifically valid".  You haven't presented a thing to support that contention.

 

 

You didn't post their model methodology.  You posted a link to a high-level general description of what they're trying to do and how they do it.  It's equivalent to me saying "active pharmaceutical ingredients are produced by carefully following a validated manufacturing process under cGMP and occasionally adjusting for individual manufacturing circumstances by using data to support a standard FDA deviation reporting process".  Good luck cooking that stuff!

 

As for the first - if PFF's hypothesis isn't that a player's past performance is reflective of what they're capable of contributing and predictive of their future results, what exact purpose do you believe their grades serve?  For what purpose do you believe they are marketing them?

 

Never mind.  I'm out of here.  I knew from your past performance that the likelihood of an actual discussion was negligible, and you're true to type.  You can go off and thump your chest and claim you won if it suits you.

I've already explained all of this in the thread already and I know you're an intellectually dishonest person from your threads here, so I'm not going to waste my time debating you on this. You don't want to be proven wrong, you just want to stir controversy 20 pages into a thread and show us all how smart you think you are.

I will address one minor point though:

"As for the first - if PFF's hypothesis isn't that a player's past performance is reflective of what they're capable of contributing and predictive of their future results, what exact purpose do you believe their grades serve?  For what purpose do you believe they are marketing them?"

They serve to measure a player's past performance as every sports statistic in the history of sports has done. It's impossible to grade a player's future performance conclusively as the human being behind the player is a massive variable that isn't included int he model. The grades they generate are a data point for future hypothesis. A coach or GM could look at a player's score against certain competition and think that if the player was strong against teams featuring an 'X' type of team and they don't fall off, they could provide Y increase in value over Z player currently on the team. They could use it to identify players are inconsistent but could possibly take the next step with coaching, separate players who apparently had good seasons due to stats from those who actually made big plays, etc.

Just because the data doesn't indicate future results from past performance doesn't mean human beings don't include it in their evaluation. it's also not the end all-be all. A pff analysis could be one of a dozen or more data points in a player evaluation.

27 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

I've read the publicly available link at their site.  Know what it lacks? Information about the details of the actual grading rubric being utilized that would enable an independent, reasonably competent practitioner to reproduce the grades, much less the empirical-sounding "adjustment made to the “raw” grades to adjust for what the player is “expected” to earn given his situation on the field".  That's the part that's critical if you want to claim something is "absolutely scientifically valid".  You have to be willing to open the books and let someone look under the hood and

 

So their method isn't scientific because they don't give you their IP? Their model is their entire business. Privately held companies that operate in a scientific field typically aren't in the habit of discloses the all of the details of the algorithms that you would need to reproduce their work. In my business my companies have observed our customers and potential customers, formed hypothesis, run experiments and analyzed the results of those test to form conclusions and in not one of those companies have we ever shared our methodology in a reproducible way with the general public.

The isn't a peer reviewed paper of a scientific discovery. Do you understand the difference?

Edited March 16, 2023 by BullBuchanan

[Motorin']

[Scott7975]

Well I just clicked on the last page of this thread to hear what people think about this signing without having to read the 24 page thread. All I get is some Garbo about scientific analysis or some crap. Sigh come on guys. Do better. 

[John from Riverside]

Holy ***** what happened to this thread?
 

We should all be rooting for Connor McGovern to be very good

 

 

[Don Otreply]

11 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

Holy ***** what happened to this thread?
 

We should all be rooting for Connor McGovern to be very good

 

 

What happened is, a lot of Bull Sh— got thrown in from some folk who just love the sound of there own key boards/voices, and will follow a tangent any where it goes…, 

 

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Paw and little Joe talk about the bills new O-line guy over a cup of coffee…

[ArtVandalay]

12 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

Holy ***** what happened to this thread?
 

We should all be rooting for Connor McGovern to be very good

 

 

I think everyone is rooting for him to be good, but to this point in his career he has not been good. He was a backup force to play we gave low/moderate deal to, from what i see he's got a cap hit of $3.6 MM this year (depth money not starter) then they can cut him next year post-June 1 for only 1.6 MM dead money.

 

It's essentially a 1 year deal for depth/prove it, then if he performs well they can hang on to him. 

 

Unless his play changes substantially and he "proves it", in no way is this an improvement to our offensive line and I think that's the issue people take. We aren't trying to tread water with our OL, we NEED to IMPROVE it.

 

I understand frustration with the signing but after seeing the minimal cap hit this year this deal screams depth/backup especially considering his flexibility. Considering the structure of the contract looks like he's not the plan at OG, and we are going to sign another or draft someone. McGovern will play any of the 5 line positions once an injury occurs, which is always does on OL... if that's the plan i back the signing. 

[Royale with Cheese]

12 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

Holy ***** what happened to this thread?
 

We should all be rooting for Connor McGovern to be very good

 

 

 

Yeah, I was a main culprit.  It started with me criticizing the statements that McGovern isn't good because of his PFF grade isn't high.  I didn't let it die.

Sorry guys.

[sonyab1974]

Hmmm. Is he any good?

[CNYfan]

1 hour ago, Don Otreply said:

What happened is, a lot of Bull Sh— got thrown in from some folk who just love the sound of there own key boards/voices, and will follow a tangent any where it goes…, 

 

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Paw and little Joe talk about the bills new O-line guy over a cup of coffee…

Ponderosa, it is back at the Ponderosa

[Motorin']

1 hour ago, ArtVandalay said:

I think everyone is rooting for him to be good, but to this point in his career he has not been good. He was a backup force to play we gave low/moderate deal to, from what i see he's got a cap hit of $3.6 MM this year (depth money not starter) then they can cut him next year post-June 1 for only 1.6 MM dead money.

 

It's essentially a 1 year deal for depth/prove it, then if he performs well they can hang on to him. 

 

Unless his play changes substantially and he "proves it", in no way is this an improvement to our offensive line and I think that's the issue people take. We aren't trying to tread water with our OL, we NEED to IMPROVE it.

 

I understand frustration with the signing but after seeing the minimal cap hit this year this deal screams depth/backup especially considering his flexibility. Considering the structure of the contract looks like he's not the plan at OG, and we are going to sign another or draft someone. McGovern will play any of the 5 line positions once an injury occurs, which is always does on OL... if that's the plan i back the signing. 

 

He's the day 1 starter at RG. His pass protection is rated better than some of the top guards in the league, like Quinton Nelson. 

 

His run blocking on the Cowboys power game is bad. But his run blocking in space and on the move is much better. Which is why they used him as a FB. 

 

He'll be better run blocking in the Bills system, and he may be the best pass blocker on the team. 

 

I'm all for drafting an OT and OG/C early. Don't get me wrong. 

[MAJBobby]

 

[TheyCallMeAndy]

Interesting, Sal just tweeted that McG will play LG. 

[Yawning Frog]

He looks a little Herman Munsterish lol😁

[Warcodered]

 

 

[MrEpsYtown]

8 minutes ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

Interesting, Sal just tweeted that McG will play LG. 

 

That I don't get, but I assume Kromer knows more than me. IDK

1 minute ago, Yawning Frog said:

He looks a little Herman Munsterish lol😁

 

He was super awkward. But it's fine. he's a guard. 

[Back2Buff]

Just now, MrEpsYtown said:

 

That I don't get, but I assume Kromer knows more than me. IDK

 

Why would you assume that?  

 

I'm just hoping it wasnt communicated to him yet.

[Warriorspikes51]

1 hour ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

Interesting, Sal just tweeted that McG will play LG. 

Didn't he play better at RG and Bates obviously played better at LG (although hopefully he's a backup)

[TheyCallMeAndy]

Just now, Warriorspikes51 said:

Didn't he play better at RG and Bates obviously played better at LG (although hopefully he's a backup)

Bates won’t be a backup, he was darn good at LG and McG was best at RG. Where a player suspects they’ll line up in March is probably irrelevant. 

[Beck Water]

3 hours ago, Motorin' said:

He's the day 1 starter at RG. His pass protection is rated better than some of the top guards in the league, like Quinton Nelson. 

His run blocking on the Cowboys power game is bad. But his run blocking in space and on the move is much better. Which is why they used him as a FB. 

He'll be better run blocking in the Bills system, and he may be the best pass blocker on the team. 

 

That would all be nice.  Yeah, the Bills are not a power-blocking run team.

 

FWIW though Sal Capaccio quoted him as saying the plan is for him to play LG:

 

3 hours ago, Motorin' said:

I'm all for drafting an OT and OG/C early. Don't get me wrong. 

 

Same.  I just have the sinking feeling Beane will be drafting LB, DL and safety.  His mouth says "we've got to protect the QB" and "we've got to have a run game besides Josh Allen" but his draft board doesn't seem to line up with that.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Beck Water

[TheBeaneBandit]

LG is cool now go and sign Seamalu or Risner for RG and have Bates as the interior backup to all 3 spots. I would feel pretty darn good going into the draft if that was our online.