Ramius Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 "Notice how he hasn't responded to all the "size is good" stuff I posted from coaches and players?"There is absolutely nothing to respond to. What you have done there is PARROTED. Your PARROTING there is absolutely blown out of the water by the reality of S. Moss, Mason, Smith etc., and yet because it is "guru parroting" you sit there with your beak up sure it is true. What is true is that NFL morons like Jack Del Rio of Jacksonville agree with your BIRDBRAIN that TALL=GOOD and waste a fortune on JJ Stokes Donald Hayes 04 #9 overall pick Reggie Williams 05 #22 overall pick Matt Jones and have very little to show for it except a flock of BAWKING MORONS incapable of assessing the obvious... 709722[/snapback] So, according to you, TALL = BAD.
LaDairis Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 So, according to you, TALL = BAD. 709728[/snapback] LOL!!! No, retard, what I've said over and over is that height is the most unimportant measure of a WR. Since height is all you understand about WR assessment, your confusion on the issue is understandable...
Matt in KC Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 Holy crap, this again? I think I'm coming out on the other side.... The first half hour I spent reading/writing/pissed on this topic I really felt annoyed. Now I kinda see that the board has gone a few days without being ridiculously critical of one of the Bills (you know, since McGahee came back). I think LaDarius has helped us focus our negativity. I think after LaDarius is banned, we might actually feel better about the Bills players. Heck, this topic alone may make 50 people watch Nance a bit closer, and root for him just a bit more on the high passes we're likely to see in training camp....
socalfan Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 ............... I think after LaDarius is banned.........709742[/snapback] Why would you think LaDarius would be banned? Because he disagrees with people on the board? One of his points is you guys just stick together and feed off of each other. Your opinions are group speak. You protect each other. I find it pretty weird that there isn't a more diverse set of opinions here. In any event La Darius is right. If a receiver cannot separate, can't accelerate out of breaks or turn, drops balls, is slow off the line of scrimmage then he isn't going to be a great wide receiver....even if he is 6'4" tall. If Nance suffers from these traits he won't be a great receiver. The question now is can these traits be rectified through coaching and practice. Apparently, the Bills brought him in thinking that it is possible to improve his burst off the line and his ability to separate and turn. Otherwise, he is just camp fodder.
Rico Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 LaDairis, are you The Football Genius? Just wondering...I don't think you'd PARROT h+w+b+40.
Taro T Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 ..."I'm not comprehending your crusade here" The only "crusade" I have here is about the right to post one's own opinion on a subject when such opinion conflicts with the "guru parroting" those who have never seen such player play insist must be true despite facts like this kid was at the Senior Bowl and went undrafted. I have the right to come here and post that I observed Martin Nance 1. drop or bobble 1 out of 4 or so 2. fail to adjust to the ball 3. demonstrate poor turning ability once up to top speed 3. take several strides and seconds to get to top speed If you think that "guru parroting" should so trump my right to post my take, then you are on the side I am crusading against... ... 709692[/snapback] You've posted 33 posts in this thread and 26 on the one 2 weeks ago about Nance. I fail to see where you are not being allowed to state your opinion.
Matt in KC Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 Why would you think LaDarius would be banned? Because he disagrees with people on the board? One of his points is you guys just stick together and feed off of each other. Your opinions are group speak. You protect each other. I find it pretty weird that there isn't a more diverse set of opinions here. In any event La Darius is right. If a receiver cannot separate, can't accelerate out of breaks or turn, drops balls, is slow off the line of scrimmage then he isn't going to be a great wide receiver....even if he is 6'4" tall. If Nance suffers from these traits he won't be a great receiver. The question now is can these traits be rectified through coaching and practice. Apparently, the Bills brought him in thinking that it is possible to improve his burst off the line and his ability to separate and turn. Otherwise, he is just camp fodder. 709747[/snapback] What a fantastically reasonable response and summary. I think almost everyone here agrees with these points. I know I do. The questions become trickier when we try to guess how Nance will fair in the NFL, because we have very little data, or first-hand observation on which to base an opinion. Unfortunately, as we pool our data, quotes, and LaDarius's first-hand observations, we have run into a wall of name calling and generally unpleasant interactions, because it seems like some opinions are being rejected out-of-hand and some interesting data is being treated as invalid. I am tempted to run an SPSS regression on receiver height and a positive outcome (yards?, receptions? TDs?) to see what it says in terms of the percent of variance accounted for by the predictor of height. This would be an opinion-free way to let science judge whether height has (likely) contributed to success, as defined, and to what extent. I think I'd have to ask for help from someone at work to get the access however, so I'll need to coome up with a work-related exercise to get help setting this up....
socalfan Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 What a fantastically reasonable response and summary. I think almost everyone here agrees with these points. I know I do. The questions become trickier when we try to guess how Nance will fair in the NFL, because we have very little data, or first-hand observation on which to base an opinion. Unfortunately, as we pool our data, quotes, and LaDarius's first-hand observations, we have run into a wall of name calling and generally unpleasant interactions, because it seems like some opinions are being rejected out-of-hand and some interesting data is being treated as invalid. I am tempted to run an SPSS regression on receiver height and a positive outcome (yards?, receptions? TDs?) to see what it says in terms of the percent of variance accounted for by the predictor of height. This would be an opinion-free way to let science judge whether height has (likely) contributed to success, as defined, and to what extent. I think I'd have to ask for help from someone at work to get the access however, so I'll need to coome up with a work-related exercise to get help setting this up.... 709755[/snapback] You would have to include covariates for which there is no measure, like ability to come out of a turn, separation, etc. I would say don't bother.
NorCal Aaron Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 Like most player debates, the proof is in the pudding. And the pudding ain't set til the player takes the field in September. This reminds me of when the usual folks attempt to pile on HDonohoe, and come up looking like asses as they defend their plot of speculative quicksand. Rock on L'D!
Ramius Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 You would have to include covariates for which there is no measure, like ability to come out of a turn, separation, etc. I would say don't bother. 709757[/snapback] Like most player debates, the proof is in the pudding. And the pudding ain't set til the player takes the field in September. This reminds me of when the usual folks attempt to pile on HDonohoe, and come up looking like asses as they defend their plot of speculative quicksand. Rock on L'D! 709759[/snapback] isnt this cute? LaDumbass got his little buddies to join in too. On the topic of Nance, here are my thoughts. Height is a good feature in a WR. This is not to say that small WR's cant make it, obviously they can and they can do quite well. Also, height has nothing to do with separation. If Nance cant separate, then he wont make it far in this league. What mickey has been saying is that given the Bills lack of height as a WR, Nance stands a better shot of making the roster, because he's taller than most and fills a void; a red-zone jump ball threat. Obviously this point in null and void if he sucks as a WR, but that remains to be seen. As mickey said, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, take the taller WR over the shorter one. Think about ti this way, Would you rather have a 5'9 Randy Moss, or a 6'4 Randy Moss? Edit: The reason LaDumbass is being piled on is because he has brought nothing to the table in either of his 2 threads except childish name calling, and his refusal to discuss anything. Also, he has taken everything said out of context, and just continued his relentless 3rd grade insults. Perhaps is he would grow up and learn how to talk like a big boy, people wouldnt pile on him and give his opinion more than 0 credibility.
NorCal Aaron Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 isnt this cute? LaDumbass got his little buddies to join in too. On the topic of Nance, here are my thoughts. Height is a good feature in a WR. This is not to say that small WR's cant make it, obviously they can and they can do quite well. Also, height has nothing to do with separation. If Nance cant separate, then he wont make it far in this league. What mickey has been saying is that given the Bills lack of height as a WR, Nance stands a better shot of making the roster, because he's taller than most and fills a void; a red-zone jump ball threat. Obviously this point in null and void if he sucks as a WR, but that remains to be seen. As mickey said, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, take the taller WR over the shorter one. Think about ti this way, Would you rather have a 5'9 Randy Moss, or a 6'4 Randy Moss? 709761[/snapback] A more redundant replay of the past 8 pages could not have been expressed any better. Congrats Enos.
Matt in KC Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 You would have to include covariates for which there is no measure, like ability to come out of a turn, separation, etc. I would say don't bother. 709757[/snapback] Honestly, I don't know. I have a rudimentary understanding of stats; enough to think that there may be a measurable correlation between height and success (admittedly quite watered down by the other factors involved). Though I guess if coaches think height helps (even if it doesn't) they might give taller players more playing time which would lead to the outcomes.... hmm.
Mickey Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 In any event La Darius is right. If a receiver cannot separate, can't accelerate out of breaks or turn, drops balls, is slow off the line of scrimmage then he isn't going to be a great wide receiver....even if he is 6'4" tall. Right, and no one, certainly not me, disagrees with that. What I disagree with is the notion that height is never, ever, ever a relevant factor in evaluating a receiver which is his point and all of us are idiots if we don't agree with him. I pointed out Nance's college stats, his height and his speed and the next thing I knew, LaDipwad was going on and on as if I had said height is all that matters.
Mickey Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 "Notice how he hasn't responded to all the "size is good" stuff I posted from coaches and players?"There is absolutely nothing to respond to. What you have done there is PARROTED. Your PARROTING there is absolutely blown out of the water by the reality of S. Moss, Mason, Smith etc., and yet because it is "guru parroting" you sit there with your beak up sure it is true. What is true is that NFL morons like Jack Del Rio of Jacksonville agree with your BIRDBRAIN that TALL=GOOD and waste a fortune on JJ Stokes Donald Hayes 04 #9 overall pick Reggie Williams 05 #22 overall pick Matt Jones and have very little to show for it except a flock of BAWKING MORONS incapable of assessing the obvious... 709722[/snapback] I am quoting NFL coaches, if that is what you call "parroting" then I'll take such parroting as a far better source of information than anything you have come up with. Lets see.....who has a better notion of the importance of size for a WR, you or NFL coaches? You or actual NFL receivers? Who should we believe you or the professionals? Why do I suspect you came up with "parroting" to refer to the citing of authoritative sources after getting an F on a reserch paper for not having cited, excuse me, "parroted" any sources? How is it that the idea that size can be of benefit to a receiver is "blown away" by the existence of successful shorter receivers? That would only be true if we were declaring absoultes but no one here is doing that but you. No one is saying that a tall receiver is always good or that a short one is always bad. No point has been made other than to say that height can be an advantage. The ony absolute being spewed that would be "blown away" through demonstrating an exception or two is your pathologically ridiculous assertion that height is never, ever, ever a quality worth considering. I have no problem at all with the notion that height alone does not a WR make and have said it many, many times in this thread and yet you keep pretending otherwise. Can you admit that occasionally, height can be an advantage to a WR?
Ramius Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 A more redundant replay of the past 8 pages could not have been expressed any better. Congrats Enos. 709767[/snapback] Congrats for bringing nothing to this inane thread. I now understand why you think so highly of laDumbass.
socalfan Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 ........ What I disagree with is the notion that height is never, ever, ever a relevant factor in evaluating a receiver which is his point and all of us are idiots if we don't agree with him. 709771[/snapback] I don't think that was his point, but he can speak for himself. If you sort through all the BS in Ramius's response you come up with one point...what would you prefer a 6'4" Moss or a 5'4" Moss. The answer is pretty obvious. I pointed out Nance's college stats, his height and his speed and the next thing I knew, LaDipwad was going on and on as if I had said height is all that matters. 709771[/snapback] As you know, college stats are college stats. What a guy does there, he may or may not repeat at the pro level. There are a lot of other factors involved such as the guys in the NFL are bigger, better, stronger, faster, more determined, more persistant, more competitive, more mature, better trained, better schooled, smarter, etc. So maybe college stats only account for 20% of what makes a great NFL player a great NFL player. You are not going to win an argument about Nance having a chance in the NFL with only that ammunition. There are a lot of great college players with big stats that didn't make it. Although the manner was over the top...all LaDarius was saying is that you need a better argument than college stats.
socalfan Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 QUOTE(socalfan @ Jun 16 2006, 05:20 PM)You would have to include covariates for which there is no measure, like ability to come out of a turn, separation, etc. I would say don't bother. isnt this cute? LaDumbass got his little buddies to join in too. ................ 709761[/snapback] I think you quoted the wrong post.
Mikie2times Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 Every so often another one crawls out from under a rock. Eventually they stop getting the attention their mommy didn't give them when they were young and they go away. Although there are some that just get more abusive and we ban 'em. I could care less which one happens. 709672[/snapback] Personally I hope he gets the boot. We come here to talk football, and life. He comes here to post his thoughts and smear everybody that doesn’t' agree with them. You can't reason with somebody like that. I'm sure he'll realize soon enough that this board isn't a democracy. Just ask ICE...... Hell he probably is ICE
LaDairis Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 Folks and Fans, this is the "greater guru theory of parroting" to the letter: "I am quoting NFL coaches, if that is what you call "parroting" then I'll take such parroting as a far better source of information than anything you have come up with. Lets see.....who has a better notion of the importance of size for a WR, you or NFL coaches? You or actual NFL receivers? Who should we believe you or the professionals?" Those who have made their own observations which conflict with Mickey's "greater guru parroting" have no right to present such observations. Only "guru parroting" matters. What you think you saw doesn't matter unless you are a certified "guru." Jack Del Rio is a "certified" "guru" because he is an NFL head coach, never mind the fact that he has spent millions of dollars on FAs and two First Round picks on TALL=GOOD WRs and has very little to show for it. Del Rio was actually "right" all along BECAUSE he is a "guru" and hence Mickey can parrot him... and if you think Reggie Williams was a waste of a #9, you are wrong BECAUSE Jack Del Rio is a "guru" and TALL does equal GOOD even if you think, incorrectly, that Reggie Williams has been a healthy bust...
LaDairis Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 "what would you prefer a 6'4" Moss or a 5'4" Moss. The answer is pretty obvious" A better question might be which Moss you would rather have on your roster right now, Santana or Randy? I'd take the short one right now...
Recommended Posts