The Quality of Our Opinions

[Avisan]

1 minute ago, Augie said:

 

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

It pops up in the WR thread, too, where we have a group of provably average NFL talents with Josh Allen throwing them the ball and a certain segment of fandom is convinced that average WRs and Top 3 QB means we're actually doomed to a terrible passing offense

 

Like okay maybe you get "lucky" and things do actually go off the rails but pointing out that things were statistically fine, not great, but fine, is somehow treated as absurd

 

I dunno guys, kinda think that you might not be smarter at football than the GM/Coach combo that has ushered in a pretty amazing run of sustained success

 

 

[GunnerBill]

22 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

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

 

 

 

No you are looking at a row of trees and presuming there is a forest beyond.

[Mikey152]

I kink of think of the whole thing like the Jellybean experiment...

 

Put some jellybeans in a jar and ask 100 people how many there are. Some people will be WAY too low, some people will be WAY too high, and some people will get pretty close. But what's wild is, most of the time the group average is closer to the actual number than most individual guesses.

 

The truth on all the rankings is probably somewhere in the middle of all the various extreme opinions floating throughout the collective conscious.

Edited July 19 by Mikey152

[hondo in seattle]

I'm at peace with the fact that I was born a nobody and will die a nobody.  But, between those two events, I've had the opportunity to sit in division-level strategy sessions while in the army and planning meetings with C-level execs of multinational restaurant companies.  

 

Maybe we've read military history books and eaten in restaurants, so we think we know these fields.  But the average guy off the street wouldn't even understand the conversations that the insiders have.  There are so many acronyms and so much lingo that it's hard to make sense of the discussion.  And the speakers assume that everyone in the group knows certain facts, theories, and concepts that are never explicitly talked about.  But if you don't know them, you won't know what the hell is going on.  

 

I was an insider in both these fields and even I struggled to keep up sometimes.  When I imagine myself in a room with McD and his coordinators, I know I'd be lost at times.   

 

The idea that one of us could come off the street and capably run an NFL team is complete hubris.  And that's true despite the fact that some guys with poor judgment, weak leadership skills, and/or low IQs have gotten high-level NFL jobs.   As has been wisely stated previously in this thread, we tend to overestimate our own abilities while under-appreciating the expertise of the professionals.  

 

 

P.S.  GB, I do know you wouldn't get lost in the verbiage talking with NFL scouts.   And there are a couple of other guys on this board who have interacted with, or been in, the player evaluation world who could keep up.

 

[PBF81]

39 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

No you are looking at a row of trees and presuming there is a forest beyond.

 

That's a ludicrous statement, particularly for someone that admittedly spends an average of two hours addressing draft picks and then argues as you have here.

 

The OP essentially stated that no one outside the employee of the NFL or its teams can as competently or more competently analyze, assess, etc. matters of personnel at one or another level. 

 

The proposition itself is absurd as is the reality.  

 

Few do it, and not nearly across the board, but within a discipline, but it is possible and does happen.  

 

Let's and this some all you have is general "you're wrong's" at this juncture.  

 

🙂

 

 

[PBF81]

1 hour ago, hondo in seattle said:

The idea that one of us could come off the street and capably run an NFL team is complete hubris. 

 

THAT would be hubris, but that's not what you said or implied. 

 

Your pivotal statement was this ...

 

Quote

So I pay close attention when NFL coaches and personnel guys talk.  

 

A lot of people here paid attention when the legendary Bill Walsh stated unequivocally that Trent Edwards would be great.  As one drop on the bucket.  Many of us didn't see that.  

 

As one example.  Look at the litany of crap that Belichick has drafted as another, particularly on the offensive side.  His judgement and decisions re: Peterman were off-the-charts absurd.  

 

And what, we're really supposed to trust McD's judgement regarding all things offense?  Come on now ...

 

You didn't specifically state "running a team," which is different.  

 

There are topical areas that some game may from time to time be better at evaluating than those employed by the league in one or more capacities. 

 

Look at how many people think that Goodell is incompetent for example.  

 

 

BTW, whose the "anonymous NFL exec", aka one of these experts, that absurdly claims that Allen is overrated. 

 

Seems as if those arguing pro here have to defer to agree with him, that expert insider.  

 

To do anything less is to contact oneself.

 

 

Edited July 19 by PBF81

[PBF81]

BTW, there's tremedous irony as well as comedy in this thread.  

 

The irony is that Gunner spends a ton of time and puts together a very well thought out Draft Preview, and while much of it aligns with the mainstream draftniks, he also provides some info that I don't see anywhere else.  Kudos for that and it's well done IMO.  

 

But according to the sentiment here, by implication, he doesn't know as much as every scout and talent evaluator in the league.  

 

The comedy, LOL, is during the season when things aren't going well, how a majority pop out and essentially disprove the going narrative in this thread by explaining where and how all the experts are wrong and what they should be doing instead.  

 

There's never a shortage of amusement here.  

 

 

Edited July 19 by PBF81

[hondo in seattle]

40 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

THAT would be hubris, but that's not what you said or implied. 

 

Your pivotal statement was this ...

 

 

A lot of people here paid attention when the legendary Bill Walsh stated unequivocally that Trent Edwards would be great.  As one drop on the bucket.  Many of us didn't see that.  

 

As one example.  Look at the litany of crap that Belichick has drafted as another, particularly on the offensive side.  

 

And what, we're really supposed to trust McD's judgement regarding all things offense?  Come on now ...

 

You didn't specifically state "running a team," which is different.  

 

There are topical areas that some game may from time to time be better at evaluating than those employed by the league in one or more capacities. 

 

Look at how many people think that Goodell is incompetent for example.  

 

 

BTW, whose the "anonymous NFL exec", aka one of these experts, that absurdly claims that Allen is overrated. 

 

Seems as if those arguing pro here have to defer to agree with him, that expert insider.  

 

To do anything less is to contact oneself.

 

 

 

I often think of Walsh, and his reported admiration for Edwards, when I think about the limits of scouting.  I was one of the people who put stock in Walch's opinion.  I was wrong for that because it turned out Walsh was wrong.

 

But read Walsh's book and then listen to old interviews with him.  He's unequivocally smarter than us when it comes to football.  And his track record was a good one.   But no talent evaluator bats 1.000.  There are too many variables and unknowables.  You added up your limited data set and came up with a different conclusion than he did with a much larger data set.  As it turned out, you were right.  It doesn't make you smarter.  

 

I thought Haynesworth was a dumb signing by Bill Belichick.  I was right.  Bill was wrong.  It's still true that Belichick is a football genius and I'm a freaking kindergartner compared to him.  

 

An expert with a wrong opinion (Walsh/Edwards; anonymous exec/Josh; Belichick/Haynesworth) doesn't negate the importance of expertise.  Some doctors are whack jobs who don't believe in vaccinations, germ theory, a round earth, etc.  But when I'm sick, I still go to a doctor, not a mechanic.  Similarly, if I bought the Bills, I'd hire a coach and GM with good football resumes, not you.  No offense.  I respect professional expertise and experience.  

 

When Covid first emerged in Wuhan, I got curious and searched the internet.  I ignored what the reporters were saying and the random MDs they were quoting.  I looked for the opinions of virologists and epidemiologists with first-hand knowledge of Covid and they talked about how high Covid's R0 (contagiousness) was.  And then I knew Covid would come to the US and it would be a big thing, even though the media was still downplaying it.

The same with football.  While I learn a lot on this site from my fellow posters, many of whom are far more knowledgeable than I am, if I really want to understand something, I turn to the expert insiders.  As for the anonymous exec who said Josh is overrated, I don't know that he truly is an expert insider.  He might be some NFC college personnel guy who doesn't watch tape of AFC pros.  In any case, in any field, there are folks with odd opinions on the fringes.  The mainstream of expert insiders consider Josh among the best and so do I.  

 

It's a game of probabilities.  Trusting the expert insiders won't always give you the right answer.  But you'll get the right answer more often that way than trusting the fan in the stands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Avisan]

14 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

But according to the sentiment here, by implication, he doesn't know what he's talking about.  

Relative to actual experts immersed in this stuff?  He doesn't.  He knows far more than the average fan, and most other posters here acknowledge that his opinions have thought and effort behind them, but at the end of the day he's still a layperson.

[PBF81]

3 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

But read Walsh's book and then listen to old interviews with him.  He's unequivocally smarter than us when it comes to football.  And his track record was a good one.   But no talent evaluator bats 1.000.  There are too many variables and unknowables.  You added up your limited data set and came up with a different conclusion than he did with a much larger data set.  As it turned out, you were right.  It doesn't make you smarter.  

 

You just hit the crux of the debate.  I don't believe anywhere that anyone has argued that overall anyone outside the NFL ranks is better at running an entire team or coaching, but that's been far from my point anyway for anyone that is going to be honest here, and I've even stated as much.  

 

At the same time, that doesn't mean that at times and on topics, particularly regarding player evaluation, where there's an endless number of things to look at and consider, that they're always better.  

 

That's what I meant when I said that Gunner's argument is superficial and generally applied, rather than to the specific disciplines and instances that I've mentioned with a variety of people.  

 

And frankly, even Walsh I'm sure hadn't considered every single variable.  He also only coached ten years, was awful with DeBerg (8-24) and was only good when he had Montana, Rice, Clark, and Craig on offense.  His career was extremely short.  He then went to Stanford and was terrible before retiring.  10-3 with a team that had been 8-4, then 4-7 and 3-7-1.  s

 

Just sayin'.  

 

And it's funny, again, because during the season everyone here knows more than the coaching staff.  LOL  

 

 

3 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

It's a game of probabilities.  Trusting the expert insiders won't always give you the right answer.  But you'll get the right answer more often that way than trusting the fan in the stands.

 

Tell that to Washington fans, Carolina fans, Charger fans, etc.  

 

 

[PBF81]

9 minutes ago, Avisan said:

Relative to actual experts immersed in this stuff?  He doesn't.  He knows far more than the average fan, and most other posters here acknowledge that his opinions have thought and effort behind them, but at the end of the day he's still a layperson.

 

I give him more credit than that.  

 

He and I clearly don't agree on everything, or even most things, but I've picked some stuff that I agree with out of his Draft Analyses that I never read anywhere else.  Far from on every player, but at least on some.  

 

Not once have I argued as y'all are taking the position, that outsiders are ALWAYS more correct than the so-called "experts," but on certain players particularly, since the OP's original point centered around personnel, I disagree wholeheartedly.  

 

I've seen fan analyses on draftees that we far more indepth, more accurate ultimately, and overall notably better than what any of the draftniks put out.  

 

You guys all need to give up on this simply because someone may be more knowledgeable or have done a better analysis on a particular singular topic, that that somehow translates to being better at running an entire football organization, which absolutely no one here claims.  It's an absurd strawman argument and a downright stupid one.  

 

We have a primary example this particular season.  I see very little realistic chance that Coleman ever produces more than late round-3 or even day-3 numbers as a ceiling.  Gunner doesn't think too highly of him either for his own yet different reasons.  That's not a coincidence, i.e., same utlimate conclusion yet different methodologies.  Yet the team thinks he's going to be great.  

 

We'll see, and likely this season as he'll have every opportunity to shine.  

 

Plain and simple.  

 

 

[Avisan]

Just now, PBF81 said:

That's not a coincidence, i.e., same utlimate conclusion yet different methodologies.

That's absolutely a coincidence, though?  If you have different methodologies and reach the same conclusion for different reasons that's the definition of a coincidence.

[PBF81]

16 minutes ago, Avisan said:

Relative to actual experts immersed in this stuff?  He doesn't.  He knows far more than the average fan, and most other posters here acknowledge that his opinions have thought and effort behind them, but at the end of the day he's still a layperson.

 

BTW, how do you reconcile the "anonymous team executive" that claims that Allen is overrated?  

 

On that single issue that is.  That doesn't sound like either an expert or intelligent take to me.  

 

 

2 minutes ago, Avisan said:

That's absolutely a coincidence, though?  If you have different methodologies and reach the same conclusion for different reasons that's the definition of a coincidence.

 

LOL   Not if it's true it isn't.  That's the point.  

 

You've taken math classes in your life.  There's often two different ways to arrive at the same answer.  

 

Is that coincidence?  In your view, yes, it is.  Which is ridiculous.  

 

 

[Avisan]

1 minute ago, PBF81 said:

 

BTW, how do you reconcile the "anonymous team executive" that claims that Allen is overrated?  

 

On that single issue that is.  That doesn't sound like either an expert or intelligent take to me.  

 

 

We have no idea who that person is, and based on the comments made they seem to value pre-snap elements of the game highly.  Given Allen is weak relative to his top peers in that area, that seems to be the basis of the opinion.  I happen to disagree that he's overrated as a QB, but ultimately that means nothing.  Allen by the numbers is pretty boom or bust, but he's been a huge bright spot in my tenure as a fan and I will trust the experts on our team that opted to make him our franchise QB.  The results have reinforced that trust so far, and other subject matter experts have pointed out that things Allen does do very well on numerous occasions.

 

If it came out that the statement came from Bills' leadership personnel, my eyebrows would raise a good bit.  But that seems extremely unlikely.

[Avisan]

11 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

LOL   Not if it's true it isn't.  That's the point.  

 

You've taken math classes in your life.  There's often two different ways to arrive at the same answer.  

 

Is that coincidence?  In your view, yes, it is.  Which is ridiculous.  

 

 

You aren't arriving at the same answer, though.  You're drawing comparable conclusions from different answers.  That you attribute significance to the similarity of your conclusions doesn't change that they are definitionally coincidental.

 

This is pretty straight-forward stuff and a prime example of why I hold the approach I do when it comes to discussions with other laypeople, and why I do my best to shut up and listen when interacting with an actual subject matter expert.

[hondo in seattle]

As for the anonymous exec...

Maybe he's in an environment where his coworkers gush about Allen so much that he feels like Josh is overrated.

 

Maybe he's in the NFC and only watched 3 or 4 Bills games that weren't representative.

Maybe he likes being a contrarian and spewed nonsense to Fowler.    

 

Maybe he has a lot of good takes but this one's a *****.  

 

Maybe, as Avisan says, he's big on the presnap part of the QB's game and that's not Josh's forte.  

 

Maybe he's the food service director at training camp.

 

His bad opinion doesn't impugn all insiders nor does it mean anything to me.  It's an anonymous source and, as such, pretty much meaningless.

 

It's like when Rappaport says, "Sources close to the Bills  tell me..."   Who are his sources?  Local media?  The taxi driver that drove him from the airport one time?   He's paid to deliver content, not evaluate sources.  Journalists often don't care about the quality of their sources as long as they have something to write about.  

 

If ESPN polled all 32 GMs, and only the GMs, that would be worth reading.