The Quality of Our Opinions

[Augie]

7 minutes ago, TBBills Fan said:

I feel all of my opinions are high quality. 

 

I would guess most of you feel the same about yours!

 

I would say that around here, most of us have a higher opinion about the quality of our opinions than is probably warranted. 😋

[TBBills Fan]

1 minute ago, Augie said:

 

I would say that around here, most of us have a higher opinion about the quality of our opinions than is probably warranted. 😋

 

If you tell a lie long enough eventually it becomes truth!

[Augie]

Just now, TBBills Fan said:

 

If you tell a lie long enough eventually it becomes truth!

 

That’s a fact…..I read it on the internet. 

[TBBills Fan]

Just now, Augie said:

 

That’s a fact…..I read it on the internet. 

Just like our opinions, the Internet is never wrong!  Smart man

[PBF81]

52 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

It doesn't stop with them, no. But there are far more guys who do know a lot more about what they are doing than the average fan in the street does. As I say, there are always duds, but that isn't the majority.

 

There are also some very astute fans that do the same if not better research into things, unburdened by biases, organizational stressors, or other things.  Many are also better analysts in general as well.  James Lofton had an Industrial Engineering degree for example.

 

Keep in mind that most people at that level have liberal arts academic credentials, not STEM credentials.  Many are sports admin majors which is not analytical in nature in that way.  If they do have a forte` as a general rule, eyeglass probably organizational "soft" skills.

 

This is also part of the reason why draft analyses aren't better and why maybe a third, if that, 1st round draft picks live up to their draft statuses.  

 

 

[GunnerBill]

13 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

There are also some very astute fans that do the same if not better research into things, unburdened by biases, organizational stressors, or other things.  Many are also better analysts in general as well.  James Lofton had an Industrial Engineering degree for example.

 

Keep in mind that most people at that level have liberal arts academic credentials, not STEM credentials.  Many are sports admin majors which is not analytical in nature in that way.  If they do have a forte` as a general rule, eyeglass probably organizational "soft" skills.

 

This is also part of the reason why draft analyses aren't better and why maybe a third, if that, 1st round draft picks live up to their draft statuses.  

 

 

I am not arguing they are geniuses. I am arguing that they have more knowledge to do their football jobs than the average fan. 

 

If you put a load of super smart STEM graduates into those jobs with no training they would fail. If they took entry level jobs and worked themselves up maybe they'd be better, but without that they'd fail. Player evaluation in the NFL is way harder than most other sports, which has been proven when these analytics gurus who have had success elsewhere have tried to translate those approaches to football.

 

[PBF81]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I am not arguing they are geniuses. I am arguing that they have more knowledge to do their football jobs than the average fan. 

 

If you put a load of super smart STEM graduates into those jobs with no training they would fail. If they took entry level jobs and worked themselves up maybe they'd be better, but without that they'd fail. Player evaluation in the NFL is way harder than most other sports, which has been proven when these analytics gurus who have had success elsewhere have tried to translate those approaches to football.

 

 

You're attempting to turn this into a boolean thing.  

 

It's also quite possible that someone with analytical skills and good knowledge on a topic will render a better decision than someone with the experience that has worked themselves up, etc.  Again, Whaley & Brandon did, but they were relative morons.  I wouldn't trust their judgement at all for obvious reasons.  

 

The OP gave us opinions on Allen as a clue, and that someone did not put him among the top-5 QBs in the league, which is a bit ridiculous, but then again, no specific criteria was laid out I suppose one could argue.  

 

What you say would be 100% accurate if all drafts played out as they were supposed to in rounds 1 and 2 at least, but not only is that not the case, it's far from the case.  Generally speaking, look at any given draft.  

 

Was it the talent evaluators that picked the wrong guys?  

The coaches that didn't deploy them propertly?  

 

I know that I don't want McD anywhere near the offense.  He's not even sniffed proving that he knows what he's doing there.  

 

Experience counts for some things, many things perhaps even, but not everything.  Sometimes common sense, intuition, analytical prowess, etc. play a role.  

 

You and I are not big on Coleman, who was the choice of the experts.  So were all of our other underperforming 1st and 2nd rounders.  You're one of the non-experts that the OP is referring to.  That's for personnel, and I'll put my analysis and assessments up against theirs any day as I have many times in the past and come out on top.  

 

On the field, we're no "experts" per se, but honestly, does it really take an "expert" to realize that it's brazenly idiotic to yield 20+ yards to players like Kelce and Hill in their primes when all they need is 30 yards for a FG try?  Was that an expert decision?  

 

We can discuss and argue all night, but so many if not most of the Draftnik talking heads never coached or played at this level, yet they're still heralded as experts.  

 

It's a broad topic area and no one's expert in it all.  No one.  The moment that there's on or two exceptions, there's more. 

 

 

[GunnerBill]

6 hours ago, PBF81 said:

 

You're attempting to turn this into a boolean thing.  

 

It's also quite possible that someone with analytical skills and good knowledge on a topic will render a better decision than someone with the experience that has worked themselves up, etc.  Again, Whaley & Brandon did, but they were relative morons.  I wouldn't trust their judgement at all for obvious reasons.  

 

The OP gave us opinions on Allen as a clue, and that someone did not put him among the top-5 QBs in the league, which is a bit ridiculous, but then again, no specific criteria was laid out I suppose one could argue.  

 

What you say would be 100% accurate if all drafts played out as they were supposed to in rounds 1 and 2 at least, but not only is that not the case, it's far from the case.  Generally speaking, look at any given draft.  

 

Was it the talent evaluators that picked the wrong guys?  

The coaches that didn't deploy them propertly?  

 

I know that I don't want McD anywhere near the offense.  He's not even sniffed proving that he knows what he's doing there.  

 

Experience counts for some things, many things perhaps even, but not everything.  Sometimes common sense, intuition, analytical prowess, etc. play a role.  

 

You and I are not big on Coleman, who was the choice of the experts.  So were all of our other underperforming 1st and 2nd rounders.  You're one of the non-experts that the OP is referring to.  That's for personnel, and I'll put my analysis and assessments up against theirs any day as I have many times in the past and come out on top.  

 

On the field, we're no "experts" per se, but honestly, does it really take an "expert" to realize that it's brazenly idiotic to yield 20+ yards to players like Kelce and Hill in their primes when all they need is 30 yards for a FG try?  Was that an expert decision?  

 

We can discuss and argue all night, but so many if not most of the Draftnik talking heads never coached or played at this level, yet they're still heralded as experts.  

 

It's a broad topic area and no one's expert in it all.  No one.  The moment that there's on or two exceptions, there's more. 

 

 

 

Nah. I'm sorry. You're wrong. It isn't as simple as you make it appear. And the guys who make the top generally, though not always, get there because they are the best at what they do. It is true in every profession. Is opportunity equal? No. And given the same opportunities at the start of a career could other people end up better? Yes. But the idea that any fan who thinks they are smart know more than the pros? They don't. The reason the NFL draft doesn't play out exactly in order is because of the complexity of the exercise not the failings of the professionals. As I say we have seen teams go down the uber analytical with proven experts who have done it successfully in other sports. It hasn't worked in the NFL. 

 

I spend hundreds of hours on the draft every year. Its one of my hobbies. I feel at the end of it like I have a pretty good handle on 140-150 of the guys picked. You don't nail every one and sometimes you completely miss on something but normally when a player over or under performs you have seen why that would happen on tape and the complexity is balancing that element against the reasons it might go the other way. Nobody bats 100 because that is really difficult. 

[Alphadawg7]

On 7/16/2024 at 8:47 AM, hondo in seattle said:

Now if Bill Belichick got on TV to talk about Josh, I'd hang on every word because he knows football 1,000 better than I do.  And he's studied Josh at a level I probably can't even imagine and knows Josh better too.  But if one of the execs Fowler talked to was Justin Chabot, for example - the 49ers Assistant Director of College Scouting - why should I value his opinion about Josh?  While I'm sure Mr. Chabot knows football far better than I do, I bet I know Josh Allen better than him.  All of us do.

 

And FWIW, BB has fawned over Josh and only stated how elite he is essentially when he has made any public comments about him.

[Alphadawg7]

21 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

Nobody bats 100 because that is really difficult.  impossible.

 

Fixed that for you  

 

In reality, no one with any longevity bats .500 either.  The great Bill Walsh traded up a bounty for JJ Stokes and called him the next Jerry Rice.  Also said Jim Druckenmiller reminded him of Joe Montana.  Yeah...none of these guys are batting .500 but it's the quality of the ones they get right that make or break a GM.

[PBF81]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Nah. I'm sorry. You're wrong. It isn't as simple as you make it appear. And the guys who make the top generally, though not always, get there because they are the best at what they do. It is true in every profession. Is opportunity equal? No. And given the same opportunities at the start of a career could other people end up better? Yes. But the idea that any fan who thinks they are smart know more than the pros? They don't. The reason the NFL draft doesn't play out exactly in order is because of the complexity of the exercise not the failings of the professionals. As I say we have seen teams go down the uber analytical with proven experts who have done it successfully in other sports. It hasn't worked in the NFL. 

 

I spend hundreds of hours on the draft every year. Its one of my hobbies. I feel at the end of it like I have a pretty good handle on 140-150 of the guys picked. You don't nail every one and sometimes you completely miss on something but normally when a player over or under performs you have seen why that would happen on tape and the complexity is balancing that element against the reasons it might go the other way. Nobody bats 100 because that is really difficult. 

 

How many hundreds of hours would you say? 

 

Either way, you're shooting yourself in the foot here.

 

Otherwise, as is often the case, you're not understanding the context of my argument.  

 

Anyway, how many hundreds of hours? 

 

 

[GunnerBill]

40 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

How many hundreds of hours would you say? 

 

Either way, you're shooting yourself in the foot here.

 

Otherwise, as is often the case, you're not understanding the context of my argument.  

 

Anyway, how many hundreds of hours? 

 

 

 

Somewhere around 300 is my estimate. I am understanding the context of your argument. It is a bad argument.

[PBF81]

8 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

I spend hundreds of hours on the draft every year. Its one of my hobbies. I feel at the end of it like I have a pretty good handle on 140-150 of the guys picked.

 

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

Somewhere around 300 is my estimate. I am understanding the context of your argument. It is a bad argument.

 

It's not a bad argument, you do not understand what I'm saying, so I'll elaborate.  

 

To start here, you're talking about nearly two months of the equivalent of full-time work.  That's a lot for a hobby/PT thing.  Secondly, you're admitting to spending an average of about 2 hours/player evaluated, which is less than you've said in the past.  

 

I'll typically put in 10+ hours, which is why I don't do pre-draft reviews, only with very rare exceptions, and I typically analyze things that I rarely if ever see anywhere else.  I'm not looking for the same gibberish that every draftnik puts out, I'm looking specifically for things that they've ignored.  

 

 

8 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

You don't nail every one and sometimes you completely miss on something but normally when a player over or under performs you have seen why that would happen on tape and the complexity is balancing that element against the reasons it might go the other way. Nobody bats 100 because that is really difficult. 

 

Here's the thing, where we differ, and we've even covered this somewhat regarding Coleman, you and I personally here.  But consider, while our (yours and mine) methodologies may be different, we disagree with our expert and his team of experts, presumably as to the latter given that it's quite possible Beane overruled his "team of experts," as to Coleman.  They love the guy, we do not.  

 

I look for reasons as to why a player likely will or conversely won't perform at the NFL level, based upon that player's body of work in college.  Others, including most draft "experts," including GMs, don't seem to do that and it's never put out if they do.  It's worked like a charm for me over the years, with far better results than the typical draft expert or even team "experts."  

 

Let's take Coleman for example, there are really no examples, certainly nothing approaching anything significant, of Coleman beating NFL type coverage in college.  All but zero if not zero outright.  And we're not talking about blown coverages here, we're talking beating a player on the field.  Coleman did his excelling against coverages that will not be in the NFL.  

 

My analytical prowess tells me quite clearly that if he's going to excel in the NFL, aka earn that border 1st/2nd round 33rd overall draft status, he'll have to do things in the NFL that he essentially never did in college.  What are the odds?  I pose that as a serious question, what are the odds?  The short answer is that they're incredibly low.  If he does it, it'll be the first time that he does it, ever.  As you've heard me say in the past, I'm not big on firsts happening in the NFL as opposed to lower levels.  Doesn't mean that they don't, it means that it's very rare.  Allen is a fantastic example of that rarity.  

 

So, in contrasting the experts/team's take, or ours, how does that fit into this discussion?  Did they not realize this?  I'm guessing that the answer is no, they did not.  If they did, it's a pretty huge thing to ignore and risk their highest draft pick in a huge need year, no?  ... which is another part of the overall team-building analysis.  

 

But how did I come up with the likelihood that Spiller would be a huge disappointment/bust, while being on an island on that, publicly, while the experts said the exact opposite?  Or how did I determine that Watkins would be a bust while stating that Evans would have a notably better career and that we should have drafted him instead.  People here slammed me for that analysis.  There are others, like my having unequivocally stated that James Hardy would be a bust, granted, 2nd round, but still, and that Stevie would have a better career than he would.  All that before any of them took a snap.  So what's that, pure luck?  How about what's that for all of the experts, ours as well as those that didn't draft them, and the draftniks, how did their expert analysis compare to mine, a non-expert in football circles?  My take on Oliver based upon his collegiate polay was that he'd be day-2 good, not 1st-round good.  That's accurate and he never lived up to the stated expectations and is far from it in consistency.  There are others as well, and not that mine are always accurate, but they're accurate notably more often than not.  I was way off on Edmunds e.g. That's not the point however. 

 

But here's NOT the point that's being made.  To the OP's point, 90% (or thereabouts) of people referred to by him don't have an above-average analytical regimen, background, ability, etc.  Many don't possess much of any quantitative analytical ability whatsoever.  Many don't possess a realistic understanding of players, and it requires a serious ability to refrain from one's own team/player biases and be objective, which clearly isn't most posters here.  Re: the Drafts, it also requires independent research as you well know.  It's understandable, nevertheless, it is what it is.   Then it takes the ability to parse a player's play in detail at the collegiate level.  When we read/listen-to the statements made by GMs following the draft they essentially mimic what the draftniks have written and concluded, and which are generally obtained from highlight reels.  I often tell people that you can create comparable lowlight videos that would make players look incompetent.  That truth is generally, with exceptions, somewhere in the middle.  

 

Anyway, I could go on, but while the OP's point applies generally, there are definitely times when the average voting of the national set of NFL fans online would make better decisions than a GM, front office, etc. 

 

As to on the field, tell us, which "expert" decides that with 13 seconds remaining, and the opponent needing merely a FG, that it's a grand and brilliant idea to leave 50 yards of field wide open to the best QB in the league and the best reader of defenses in the league, that has one of the fastest and two of the top receivers in the entire league?   

 

Does that seem as if it falls under the umbrella of expert?   Because it didn't to just about everyone in the country to the extent that it's become a comedic negative meme.  It'd have been one thing if it were a regular season game, but it was the end in what likely would have been a run to a championship.  Expert?  Nah.  That's also far from the only thing.  

 

Being in the field/league/NFL/etc. definitely has its plusses, but sometimes stepping away from the view of the trees yields a better view of the forest.  

 

Look, I realize that you're never going to agree with me, so this is merely discourse, but to apply with a broad brush something to the entirety of the fans of the NFL is equally errant.  I've read things on draft prospects by avid fans of the teams that they were on that made more sense than any of the experts that analyze draft prospects have written.  

 

We'll see how Coleman does, relatively soon as well.  That'll be our first data point insofar as this particular season goes.  

 

  

 

 

Edited July 19 by PBF81

[GunnerBill]

27 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

 

It's not a bad argument, you do not understand what I'm saying, so I'll elaborate.  

 

To start here, you're talking about nearly two months of the equivalent of full-time work.  That's a lot for a hobby/PT thing.  Secondly, you're admitting to spending an average of about 2 hours/player evaluated, which is less than you've said in the past.  

 

I'll typically put in 10+ hours, which is why I don't do pre-draft reviews, only with very rare exceptions, and I typically analyze things that I rarely if ever see anywhere else.  I'm not looking for the same gibberish that every draftnik puts out, I'm looking specifically for things that they've ignored.  

 

 

 

Here's the thing, where we differ, and we've even covered this somewhat regarding Coleman, you and I personally here.  But consider, while our (yours and mine) methodologies may be different, we disagree with our expert and his team of experts, presumably as to the latter given that it's quite possible Beane overruled his "team of experts," as to Coleman.  They love the guy, we do not.  

 

I look for reasons as to why a player likely will or conversely won't perform at the NFL level, based upon that player's body of work in college.  Others, including most draft "experts," including GMs, don't seem to do that and it's never put out if they do.  It's worked like a charm for me over the years, with far better results than the typical draft expert or even team "experts."  

 

Let's take Coleman for example, there are really no examples, certainly nothing approaching anything significant, of Coleman beating NFL type coverage in college.  All but zero if not zero outright.  And we're not talking about blown coverages here, we're talking beating a player on the field.  Coleman did his excelling against coverages that will not be in the NFL.  

 

My analytical prowess tells me quite clearly that if he's going to excel in the NFL, aka earn that border 1st/2nd round 33rd overall draft status, he'll have to do things in the NFL that he essentially never did in college.  What are the odds?  I pose that as a serious question, what are the odds?  The short answer is that they're incredibly low.  If he does it, it'll be the first time that he does it, ever.  As you've heard me say in the past, I'm not big on firsts happening in the NFL as opposed to lower levels.  Doesn't mean that they don't, it means that it's very rare.  Allen is a fantastic example of that rarity.  

 

So, in contrasting the experts/team's take, or ours, how does that fit into this discussion?  Did they not realize this?  I'm guessing that the answer is no, they did not.  If they did, it's a pretty huge thing to ignore and risk their highest draft pick in a huge need year, no?  ... which is another part of the overall team-building analysis.  

 

But how did I come up with the likelihood that Spiller would be a huge disappointment/bust, while being on an island on that, publicly, while the experts said the exact opposite?  Or how did I determine that Watkins would be a bust while stating that Evans would have a notably better career and that we should have drafted him instead.  People here slammed me for that analysis.  There are others, like my having unequivocally stated that James Hardy would be a bust, granted, 2nd round, but still, and that Stevie would have a better career than he would.  All that before any of them took a snap.  So what's that, pure luck?  How about what's that for all of the experts, ours as well as those that didn't draft them, and the draftniks, how did their expert analysis compare to mine, a non-expert in football circles?  My take on Oliver based upon his collegiate polay was that he'd be day-2 good, not 1st-round good.  That's accurate and he never lived up to the stated expectations and is far from it in consistency.  There are others as well, and not that mine are always accurate, but they're accurate notably more often than not.  I was way off on Edmunds e.g. That's not the point however. 

 

But here's NOT the point that's being made.  To the OP's point, 90% (or thereabouts) of people referred to by him don't have an above-average analytical regimen, background, ability, etc.  Many don't possess a realistic understanding of players, and it requires a serious ability to refrain from one's own team/player biases and be objective, which clearly isn't most posters here.  It's understandable, nevertheless, it is what it is.   Then it takes the ability to parse a player's play in detail at the collegiate level.  When we read/listen-to the statements made by GMs following the draft they essentially mimic what the draftniks have written and concluded, and which are generally obtained from highlight reels.  I often tell people that you can create comparable lowlight videos that would make players look incompetent.  That truth is generally, with exceptions, somewhere in the middle.  

 

Anyway, I could go on, but while the OP's point applies generally, there are definitely times when the average voting of the national set of NFL fans online would make better decisions than a GM, front office, etc. 

 

As to on the field, tell us, which "expert" decides that with 13 seconds remaining, and the opponent needing merely a FG, that it's a grand and brilliant idea to leave 50 yards of field wide open to the best QB in the league and the best reader of defenses in the league, that has one of the fastest and two of the top receivers in the entire league?   

 

Does that seem as if it falls under the umbrella of expert?   Because it didn't to just about everyone in the country.  It'd have been one thing if it were a regular season game, but it was the end in what likely would have been a run to a championship.  Expert?  Nah.  That's also far from the only thing.  

 

Being in the field/league/NFL/etc. definitely has its plusses, but sometimes stepping away from the view of the trees yields a better view of the forest.  

 

Look, I realize that you're never going to agree with me, so this is merely discourse, but to apply with a broad brush something to the entirely of the fans of the NFL is equally errant.  

 

We'll see how Coleman does, relatively soon as well.  That'll be our first data point insofar as this particular season goes.  

 

  

 

 

 

That is a long way of making the same flawed argument. 

[PBF81]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

That is a long way of making the same flawed argument. 

 

That's an incredibly easy way of not addressing the points.  

 

 

[GunnerBill]

6 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

That's an incredibly easy way of not addressing the points.  

 

 

 

There is nothing in addition to the arguments I have already made. We all outsmart the pros from time to time. I had a second round grade on Bryce Huff - he went undrafted and now a $17m AAV player. I had a 3rd on Robby Anderson - he went undrafted and became a 1,000 yard receiver. I had a 2nd on Dak Prescott - he went late 4th and became a perennial all pro Quarterback. I could go on. But that doesn't mean if you just slotted me into a spot of any NFL GM I'd outperform them. In face using annecdotal examples to try and prove your point demonstrates the opposite of the analytical prowess you claim. 

 

(And the 300 hours was a conservative estimate based on 45 mins per game, 3 games per player, 140 players per year. In reality some players get a lot more than 3 games - I watched 8 Keon Coleman games for example - but 3 games is my minimum for anyone I grade.)

 

 

 

[PBF81]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

We all outsmart the pros from time to time.

 

I'd say that we outsmarted GMs like Brandon and Whaley, of which there's no shortage in the NFL, almost all of the time.  

 

Both were low-end.  

 

The point is that simply because someone is "in the league," hardly makes them an expert, anymore than simply because someone has a college degree makes them competent at what they do.  

 

Visa versa, not everyone that knows about college talent and football is "in the league" or works therein.  

 

Again, we're not going to agree here.  But you're looking at a few trees while I'm looking at the forest here.  

 

 

[Avisan]

47 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

But how did I come up with the likelihood that Spiller would be a huge disappointment/bust

I mean... Spiller was a genuine NFL talent whose peak included a whopping 6.0 yards-per-carry season with over 200 attempts.  His career on the whole perhaps didn't warrant a first round pick, but that's true of almost every single RB in the modern era.  I wouldn't hang your hat on this one.

 

48 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

Or how did I determine that Watkins would be a bust

Did you have inside knowledge regarding his substance abuse and mental health issues?  He was a strong talent with two good seasons for us that self-destructed out of the league.  His second year with us had him at over 10 yards per target.

 

These really just highlight GunnerBill's points.  You got "lucky" and think it's because you're smarter thsn GMs, and not because any of us schmucks can get lucky from time to time.

[Augie]

2 minutes ago, Avisan said:

I mean... Spiller was a genuine NFL talent whose peak included a whopping 6.0 yards-per-carry season with over 200 attempts.  His career on the whole perhaps didn't warrant a first round pick, but that's true of almost every single RB in the modern era.  I wouldn't hang your hat on this one.

 

Did you have inside knowledge regarding his substance abuse and mental health issues?  He was a strong talent with two good seasons for us that self-destructed out of the league.  His second year with us had him at over 10 yards per target.

 

These really just highlight GunnerBill's points.  You got "lucky" and think it's because you're smarter thsn GMs, and not because any of us schmucks can get lucky from time to time.

 

I think we have identified someone who has overestimated the quality of and confidence in their opinion. 

[oldmanfan]

6 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

I think we have identified someone who has overestimated the quality of and confidence in their opinion. 

The word you're looking for is hubris.