What should the Bills have done at QB

[The Senator]

OK... I think I get it now.

 

I did a bad thing...and my uncle has a red pencil box.

[Orton's Arm]

First, let's get this straight - I am perhaps one of the most civil posters on the board - except when it comes to idiots like you, well then I tend to lose my sense of decorum. 

You have a sense of decorum?

And I have addressed your points, which you acknowledge in the fourth sentence of paragraph two, right after your senseless rant in paragraph one.

Wrong. I've acknowledged that you've offered opinions, which you supported neither through factual analysis nor intelligent reasoning. That hardly counts as addressing my--or anyone else's--points.

 

You exude much passion and are, at times, somewhat articulate though, quite obviously, extremely stupid...

Well thanks for that brilliant explanation of zero and negative zero - and good luck on your GED!

Let me give you a little advice. If you're going to call me stupid, you might want to make sure your own facts are straight. I gave an explanation of why your posts in this thread were worth less than zero. Not negative zero, you dimwit. Less than zero. Negative zero and zero are equal to the same thing!!!

[Orton's Arm]

You, after all, are the one who began hurling homophobic insults

609177[/snapback]

Actually, you were the one who began throwing stones with this post:

 

You devise a system? 

 

And that's not manipulating the statistics to serve your needs?

 

Oh.

607803[/snapback]

 

It's one thing to politely ask, "How do I know the system you've created isn't biased?" It's another thing to flat-out accuse me of dishonestly trying to create a flawed system to prove something that isn't true. For crying out loud, did you even try to understand my system before complaining so loudly about me manipulating statistics?

[The Senator]

You have a sense of decorum? 

 

Wrong. I've acknowledged that you've offered opinions, which you supported neither through factual analysis nor intelligent reasoning. That hardly counts as addressing my--or anyone else's--points.

Let me give you a little advice. If you're going to call me stupid, you might want to make sure your own facts are straight. I gave an explanation of why your posts in this thread were worth less than zero. Not negative zero, you dimwit. Less than zero. Negative zero and zero are equal to the same thing!!! 

609210[/snapback]

 

Once again, I am sincerely concerned for your mental health - and as a concerned human being, I want to help you - if I can...

 

No really... hurry up and getmentalhelp.com

 

On the other hand, since you seem so passionately vindictive to those who don't worship Kelly Hocomb, I am reminded of the old adage, "better to remain silent and have the world think you're a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt..."

 

First, let's start with an explanation of negative zero, which apparently they don't teach in your middle school (don't worry - it's not on the GED)...

 

The IEEE 754 binary floating point arithmetic standard has the concept of both a positive zero and a negative zero.

 

A negative zero results from an operation which generates a negative value which is too small to be represented in the floating point precision being used.

 

For example, both -10-200 * 10-200 and -10-200 / 10200 result in negative zero.

 

The division of a positive finite value by -infinity or the division of a negative finite value by +infinity1.

 

For example, 1.0 / ( -10200 * 10200 ) will result in negative zero.

 

The multiplication of a positive finite value by negative zero or the multiplication of any negative finite value by positive zero.

 

For example, 1.0 * ( 10-200 * -10-200 ) will result in negative zero.

 

Two IEEE 754 operations can be used to distinguish between a positive zero and a negative zero - dividing a positive finite value by negative zero results in -infinity (as does dividing a negative finite value by positive zero). Conversely, dividing a positive finite value by positive zero results in +infinity (as does dividing a negative finite value by negative zero).

 

 

OK then.

 

 

Complex? Well, maybe for you, but actually much more simple than your desperate and contrived statistical schemes that attempt to prove your lovers' worth as a starting QB in the NFL.

 

 

 

Now, for you, something much more simple - and perhaps even intuitive...

 

If you're driving at the speed of light and you turn your headlights on, what happens?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doesn't matter - your're WRONG!!!!

 

Holcomb = DOOMED!!!!

[The Senator]

Let's compare Rob Johnson and Kelly Holcomb then. The bold indicates the better between the two.

 

Career games started/games played/years in league:

RJ - 29/48/10

KH - 21/34/10

 

Career QB rating:

RJ - 83.6

KH - 79.9

 

Career Completion %:

RJ - 61.3

KH - 64.6

 

Career passing yards:

RJ - 5795

KH - 5401

 

Career rushing yards:

RJ - 877

KH - 30

 

Career total yards:

RJ - 6672

KH - 5431

 

Career total yards per play:

RJ - 7.05

KH - 6.36

 

Career TD/INT:

RJ - 30/23

KH - 37/37

 

Career fumbles:

RJ - 14

KH - 24

 

Career YPC:

RJ - 7.19

KH - 6.67

 

Career 20+ yard completions:

RJ - 76

KH - 54

 

Career 40+ yard completions:

RJ - 14

KH - 9

 

Career seaons with 100+ QB rating:

RJ - 3 (total 15 games played)

KH - 1 (total 1 game played)

 

Now explain to me why we should think Holcomb is anything more than an OK back up. He doesn't even beat Rob Johnson on 12/13 categories.

607550[/snapback]

The numbers don't lie.

 

(Unless submitted to excruciating torture!)

 

Rob Johnson > Kelly Holcomb

 

Rob Johnson = SUX

 

Therefore...

 

SUX > Kelly Holcomb

 

 

Quod Est Demonstratum.

 

Hic Finis Est.

[The Senator]

As I said earlier, there's no arguing with you.

608120[/snapback]

Well of course there is - only I don't really enjoy arguing, while you seem content having an argument with yourself.

 

I prefer intelligent discourse - please come back when you become intelligent.

[Kultarr]

<snip>

 

It's good to know that after all these years some ardent fascinations are still alive and well on this board.

 

Again, I disagree completely with the basis and thus find most of the stemming hypotheses (such as Butler was a fool) to be weak.

 

Without going down all the meandering tangents and courses of future events, the base argument was stated as: "JB signed RJ and DF to foolish contracts." If we ignore the details of the contracts and the evidence known at the time, then sure, one can go back and revise the history and claim these were foolish contracts.

 

As Jack Nicholson said, "You want the truth?"

 

The reality is that the contract offered to RJ was completely in line with the perceived value at the time. Professional sports teams pay up-and-coming stars a lot of money based on perceived value all the time. All one has to do is see the contracts offered to unproven draft picks to see this. It may seem "foolish"; but, it is the way the business operates. (It's more foolish to assume someone in that business can ignore and whimsically act contrarily to the way others in the business operate.) You're position on "overpaying" is well documented.

 

We can try to conflate various issues of the perceived value of an up-and-coming star QB, with RJ's future performances, and the timing of the signing, but the truth is that the Bills had almost certainly negotiated the new contract with Rob's agent before they finalized the trade. They'd have been foolish not to have done so. The truth is that delaying the signing a few months to audition him a bit in camp (or perhaps up until his first injury?) would've been pointless -- he won the starting QB job. In short, you're suggesting that there was no due diligence before this big trade went down; a position that flies in the face of JB's track record as a GM who was very cautious and hoarded his draft picks.

 

Again without muddling the issues, the DF contract was typical of the many hundreds of camp fodder contracts sent out to aspiring NFL players every year. The contract itself belies your argument that AJ Smith knew that DF was something special and maybe even starter material. There is a difference between giving a guy a chance and promising him a starter's job. Again, when DF was signed the Bills were talent starved at QB, and there was a strong possibility that DF would look better than Todd Collins. (It is amazing that TC is still hanging around the NFL as a 3rd string QB. Is it 12 years now? Talk about late bloomers.) Was DF lied to? DF was given his shot and made the most of it. But again, this camp fodder contract was certainly not foolish. They took a flyer on an old, weak-armed QB who had had some success north of the border in an inferior league to see if he had anything left in the tank, etc. All I see there is an attempt to bring in more competition at QB.

 

So, upon closer inspection, neither contract was really foolish. Indeed, at the time, it seemed like the Bills had pulled off a major coup to replace a pathetic Todd Collins/Alex Van Pelt/Billy Joe Hobert train wreck and increase the talent at the QB position.

 

There is general agreement that the RJ trade did not work out. The high-risk high-reward turned out to be a high-risk disaster. But there is no need to conflate the issues of contracts and confound the issue with assumptions, extrapolations, and conjecture with the RJ trade having been a bad decision.

 

That's it. I'm done with this RJ and DF nonsense for at least another 5 years.

 

PS: As far as RJ's brittleness, yes, it was a concern of mine. In fact, I wrote on the day the Bills made the RJ trade on a predecessor edition of this very Wall that my biggest concern about the trade was RJ's ability to stay healthy. Unfortunately, I was spot on with my concern.

[Orton's Arm]

Once again, I am sincerely concerned for your mental health - and as a concerned human being, I want to help you - if I can...

You have acted neither concerned nor like a human being. But apparently that doesn't bother you.

First, let's start with an explanation of negative zero, which apparently they don't teach in your middle school  (don't worry - it's not on the GED)...

 

The IEEE 754 binary floating point arithmetic standard has the concept of both a positive zero and a negative zero.

609230[/snapback]

What you are describing is a computer programming concept, and not a mathematical concept. Mathematically, zero is zero. Putting a positive or negative sign on it doesn't change it. The floating point arithmetic you're describing relates to numbers very close to zero, which of course can have positive or negative signs, and which are (somewhat sloppily) designated as "positive zero" or "negative zero." True zero has no sign.

 

But even allowing for the sloppy floating point concept of "negative zero," you still spoke incorrectly. (What else is new?) There's a clear difference between less than zero--which is what your posts in this thread are worth--and your so-called "negative zero."

 

I am reminded of the old adage, "better to remain silent and have the world think you're a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt..."

Oh, the irony!

[Orton's Arm]

Well of course there is - only I don't really enjoy arguing, while you seem content having an argument with yourself.

 

I prefer intelligent discourse -

609238[/snapback]

I can't believe you actually have the cheek to make such wild claims. Is there no limit at all to your audacity?

 

Someone suggested measuring a QB's contribution to scoring by the number of TD passes he threw. I didn't agree with him. But did I accuse him of deliberately manipulating data to make Losman look good? Of course I didn't say this. I simply explained why I felt the TD pass wasn't an accurate measure of a QB's scoring contribution.

 

Now along comes the Senator, otherwise known as "Mr. Intelligent Discourse." When Mr. Intelligent Discourse saw that I had created a system to measure a QB's contribution to scoring, he immediately jumped to the conclusion that I was deliberately trying to manipulate and distort data. Did Mr. Intelligent Discourse bother to understand the system before making these accusations against my system and my character? Of course not. Did Mr. Intelligent Discourse ask which QB's average points per game suffered the greater level of reduction through the adjustments I made? Of course he didn't. Had he simply asked this question, he would have learned that Holcomb lost more points-per-game through the adjustments I made than Losman did. Your accusation that I deliberately manipulated data to help Holcomb makes you seem like an ignorant fool. But you haven't let that worry stop you so far, so why start now?

[Nick in RaChaCha]

This was fun reading!!!

 

Thanks guys I learned a lot. (0 and somthing called a -0 can be close to but not the same as +0 ) wow. (math was a big reason why I went into graphic design and multimedia production but you guys make it sound so simple! and stupid)

 

Because I hated math in school this lead some math geeks to believe that I was stupid and/or they were much more intelligent then I was. - the plain and simple truth was I hated math so I put in the least amount of time studing it out of all my classes... I could have spent the time fighting with the "math geeks" about how smart I was... but I thought it would be a waste of time. kinda like trying to win an argument with someone in cyberspace...

 

[Orton's Arm]

but I thought it would be a waste of time. kinda like trying to win an argument with someone in cyberspace... 

609490[/snapback]

When you're right, you're right. Several pages back, I'd already come to the conclusion that there was no arguing with the Senator. Why I kept on trying to argue with him anyway . . . well, it probably wasn't my wisest choice ever.

[sfladave]

When you're right, you're right. Several pages back, I'd already come to the conclusion that there was no arguing with the Senator. Why I kept on trying to argue with him anyway . . . well, it probably wasn't my wisest choice ever. 

609515[/snapback]

No offense but I think that the vast majority of people here would say the same thing about you.

[The Dean]

Why I kept on trying to argue with him anyway . . . well, it probably wasn't my wisest choice ever. 

609515[/snapback]

 

 

Hehehe. Now you know how I feel when we argue. The difference between you and The Senator is, The Sen is intelligent.

[Orton's Arm]

Hehehe.  Now you know how I feel when we argue.  The difference between you and The Senator is, The Sen is intelligent.

609522[/snapback]

Okay, okay. I get it. You work in data research, and that makes you Einstein. You're brilliant, and anyone who disagrees with you is not only wrong, but an idiot. I understand.

 

In your world, you can just proclaim opinions from on high, without showing a single reason or fact to support any of them. We--who you envision as your minions--must meekly accept your lofty words of wisdom and intelligence, because you work in data research, and the rest of us don't.

 

Do you have even the slightest idea how arrogant and repulsive I find your personality? Of course you don't.

 

Oh, oh, let me guess how you're going to respond to all this. Let me take a wild guess. You'll call me an idiot again, as though there was actually any validity in this accusation. Go back to your data research, you worthless piece of trash.

[Ramius]

Oh, the irony! 

609424[/snapback]

 

Kinda like the irony of you calling the Dean a broken record.

[Orton's Arm]

Kinda like the irony of you calling the Dean a broken record.

609544[/snapback]

That's the third time you've mentioned that!

[Like A Mofo]

This may be the most entertaining thread since Oh this is Nice! Real Nice! or "TD is the Son of Satan"

[Ramius]

That's the third time you've mentioned that!

609549[/snapback]

 

Well sometimes it takes 2-3 times to get something through someones head. In your case, it may take a few thousand.

[stuckincincy]

In your world, you can just proclaim opinions from on high, without showing a single reason or fact to support any of them.

609539[/snapback]

 

Hey!!!... that's my job!

 

You youngsters, getting into these spats, I tell ya...

[The Dean]

Okay, okay. I get it. You work in data research, and that makes you Einstein. You're brilliant, and anyone who disagrees with you is not only wrong, but an idiot. I understand.

 

In your world, you can just proclaim opinions from on high, without showing a single reason or fact to support any of them. We--who you envision as your minions--must meekly accept your lofty words of wisdom and intelligence, because you work in data research, and the rest of us don't.

 

Do you have even the slightest idea how arrogant and repulsive I find your personality? Of course you don't.

 

Oh, oh, let me guess how you're going to respond to all this. Let me take a wild guess. You'll call me an idiot again, as though there was actually any validity in this accusation. Go back to your data research, you worthless piece of trash.

609539[/snapback]

 

 

My we're testy...aren't we?

 

As for the research related stuff...I simply corrected you when you showed your ignorance in that area (Wonderlic scores, I believe). That's no big crime (for either of us). Many people don't have the requisite knowledge to properly and intelligently discuss research design, results and application of the data. However, you take it a bit to the extreme with your slavish devotion to data and stats you really don't understand. Then you go beyond that when you try to devise your own system to quantify QB performance. This is an area in which you are ignorant...not, stupid mind you...just ignorant.

 

Your inability to catch the drift of a discussion and your insistence on trying to WIN the argument at all costs (even if it means changing the subject and torturing the point) is annoying and childish. Again, that doesn't make you a moron...it just makes you annoying and childish.

 

Our difference of opinion on (well...let's just pick a topic at random...OH...I got it...) JPL vs KH is simply that...a difference of opinion. My research background doesn't make my football opinion worth any more than your football opinion. And, having a different of opinion than I do doesn't make you a tedious moron. I completely disagree with Bill from NYC on many Bills' related issues. I don't find him a tedious moron...quite the opposite in fact. We have many stimuating discussions that result in us both, I think, learning and adjusting our positions as we aquire new info and are exposed to other ways of thinking and interpreting. Your continued harping on a single issue and your seeming inability to learn and adjust (because you seem to be closed to others' opinions and interpretations) is what makes you a tedious moron.

 

As for you opinion of me, you are incorrect!...you've made it clear you find me to be a superior SOB. You would be correct if you guessed I really don't care what you think. Also, I think most others here can vouch for my (overall) reasonable approach on most matters.

 

One thing to be sure though...I AM a Cheap-Shot Artist and will make the occasional un-called-for wise-ass remark. That's my thing...that's what I do.