2 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I'm sold.   Trade AJ Brown.   Who needs him?  We have Johnny Wilson.  Younger, cheaper and obviously better.  

you think i'm making points with these?

4 hours ago, HazletonEagle said:

Hall got put in injured reserve. Maddox is a safety. Mills can potentially be a backup nickel here. 

Oh, Ick!

33 minutes ago, McMVP said:

lol…plus it’s an example of why RAS is nothing to take seriously.

Raise your hand if you think Johnny Wilson is a better athlete than AJ Brown.  It’s not like these RAS scores are calculated on an annual basis and considered a league stat… At least I don’t believe they are, correct?  If they are collected at the combine only…they are almost useless.  (Note that I used the word ‘almost’).
 

it's 2 sets of numbers next to each other.  Numbers that people here should know.   Usually I put them together to make some point.  Like,  someone was attacking Johnny Wilson,  criticizing his athleticism.  My argument,  which I didn't have to make,  was just to put his numbers next to Browns numbers.

I understand the strong distaste here for objective data.   The hope is that people here, over time,  will have data to support their arguments, or will use data to make arguments.  I don't necessarily think that will happen.  Personal attacks without any data whatsoever is the preferred mode.  

10 hours ago, Freshmilk said:

ESP- yeah, I could see him reading this.  It doesn't boost his loser-ness.

I would argue it would amplify it. 

32 minutes ago, Random Reglar said:

it's 2 sets of numbers next to each other.  Numbers that people here should know.   Usually I put them together to make some point.  Like,  someone was attacking Johnny Wilson,  criticizing his athleticism.  My argument,  which I didn't have to make,  was just to put his numbers next to Browns numbers.

I understand the strong distaste here for objective data.   The hope is that people here, over time,  will have data to support their arguments, or will use data to make arguments.  I don't necessarily think that will happen.  Personal attacks without any data whatsoever is the preferred mode.  

If you think RAS is objective data, I can’t help you.  The amount of assumptions needed to make that claim are too numerous to mention.  It’s data gathered on a given day for a player.  If you want to assume all things are equal…that’s on you

1 hour ago, Iggles_Phan said:

If you're paying... just set the date.  

😎

I wish my wife had your attitude.  

50 minutes ago, McMVP said:

lol…plus it’s an example of why RAS is nothing to take seriously.

Raise your hand if you think Johnny Wilson is a better athlete than AJ Brown.  It’s not like these RAS scores are calculated on an annual basis and considered a league stat… At least I don’t believe they are, correct?  If they are collected at the combine only…they are almost useless.  (Note that I used the word ‘almost’).
 

it's combine and pro day data.   I guess you learned something.   It's a type of objective data.  Good to use objective data.   Some just take their favorite sports talk hosts opinions for everything.  Objective data is a great rebuttal to someone who wants to argue against the objective data. 

"Johhny Wilson is slow"
- here's the data on this.

Or,  Johnny Wilson might seem slow because he's not taking as many strides because he's 6'6.  But I don't particularly want to have to explain how that works.

By the way,  I don't have some sort of privileged access to combine and pro day data.  Everyone can access it.  It's free.  PFF data can be hard to get. 

draftscout.com is a better source of data than ras.  draftscout will tell you the combine data and the pro day data and even personal pro day data,  and the dates of all of these.  ras just gives you one set of data and doesn't tell you where it was from.   but the ras website makes it really easy to make a graphic comparing 2 players.

additionally,  ras counts height as a measurement where tall is always better and we know that is not the case at a number of positions,  so,  a 6'10 230 ILB would have a higher ras than a 6'0 230 ILB.  It's bad but you learn that.  Additionally, the ras formula tends to undercount weight,  so if you put up a 230 pound LB as a DT, who did all the running and jumping, he'll have a great ras.  It's often easy to find cases where some tiny wr gets a 10 ras at DT.    But it's a way to get data out there.  The combine numbers are official,  pro day, not really, but are largely treated as such, and ras numbers definitely not,  but the ras numbers contain official combine data and pro day data.   If data is flawed, it's good to know where the flaws lie,  it's not a good idea just to throw away data, even if it's easier just to have no data.   It's not a good idea just to throw away data even if most people have no data and prefer to attack each other

3 minutes ago, Random Reglar said:

it's combine and pro day data.   I guess you learned something.   It's a type of objective data.  Good to use objective data.   Some just take their favorite sports talk hosts opinions for everything.  Objective data is a great rebuttal to someone who wants to argue against the objective data. 

"Johhny Wilson is slow"
- here's the data on this.

Or,  Johnny Wilson might seem slow because he's not taking as many strides because he's 6'6.  But I don't particularly want to have to explain how that works.

By the way,  I don't have some sort of privileged access to combine and pro day data.  Everyone can access it.  It's free.  PFF data can be hard to get. 

draftscout.com is a better source of data than ras.  draftscout will tell you the combine data and the pro day data and even personal pro day data,  and the dates of all of these.  ras just gives you one set of data and doesn't tell you where it was from.   but the ras website makes it really easy to make a graphic comparing 2 players.

additionally,  ras counts height as a measurement where tall is always better and we know that is not the case at a number of positions,  so,  a 6'10 230 ILB would have a higher ras than a 6'0 230 ILB.  It's bad but you learn that.  Additionally, the ras formula tends to undercount weight,  so if you put up a 230 pound LB as a DT, who did all the running and jumping, he'll have a great ras.  It's often easy to find cases where some tiny wr gets a 10 ras at DT.    But it's a way to get data out there.  The combine numbers are official,  pro day, not really, but are largely treated as such, and ras numbers definitely not,  but the ras numbers contain official combine data and pro day data.   If data is flawed, it's good to know where the flaws lie,  it's not a good idea just to throw away data, even if it's easier just to have no data.   It's not a good idea just to throw away data even if most people have no data and prefer to attack each other

It’s still not objective data.  For it to be 100% objective data, every player tested would have had to be in their respective peak condition before measuring any metrics.  We all know that will never happen…so there goes that idea.

But even if we assumed that was possible, it still would only be worthy of the first 5-10 minutes of a full day interview for a player’s potential.  At the NFL level, I already assume these guys are in the 1% as far as athletic ability goes.  What makes a player great is work ethic, the desire to be great, and their intelligence.

I know it’s not football, but Arnold Palmer had a great quote.  He said it is a "game of inches, the most important being the 6 inches between your ears”.  I’m fairly confident that quote applies to more than just golf.

So I guess we will have to agree to disagree 

 

 

22 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

I wish my wife had your attitude.  

Sorry.  I'm not looking for that kind of commitment.   

19 minutes ago, McMVP said:

If you think RAS is objective data, I can’t help you.  The amount of assumptions needed to make that claim are too numerous to mention.  It’s data gathered on a given day for a player.  If you want to assume all things are equal…that’s on you

Maybe you aren't even understanding what you're looking at?

I've been putting up the ras compares.

What the ras compares do is give the combine and/or pro day data of 2 players. 

2 players.  All the numbers.  One place.  Really simple and easy. No typing.

We all should all already know what combine and pro day numbers are.

Or, do you think I need to explain,  because everyone is already so smart, what those things are?   I don't think I need to do that.  

When it comes to the top ras number,  that's something else.  You can like that number,  or you can not like that number.  I didn't make up that number.  We know the flaws in that system.

The advantage of ras compare to uninformed opinion without data, is that combine data is real data,  pro day data is not quite as good, but good enough.

We know that even official NFL data is wrong sometimes.  So,  we can use that argument.  Some think that, because so many have no data to push out there,  all the data should be thrown out,  banned from conversation, and the winner of arguments is the one who can break forum rules with impunity and attack other people the best.   Yes,  NFL data, even on things that should be simple,  like "who made that sack" is sometimes wrong. Pro day data, in the 40,  is typically timed handheld, which provides an advantage.  Ras adjusts down (sometimes) 40 times by .05.  you'll see a 4.40 40 in one place and a 4.45 on ras.   So,  the combine is an official NFL event, but you see numbers change.  And even official stats are wrong.    All you need to know is that the numbers aren't always a perfect representation of reality.  It's not an excuse to remove objective data from arguments.  

 

13 minutes ago, McMVP said:

It’s still not objective data.  For it to be 100% objective data, every player tested would have had to be in their respective peak condition before measuring any metrics.  We all know that will never happen…so there goes that idea.

But even if we assumed that was possible, it still would only be worthy of the first 5-10 minutes of a full day interview for a player’s potential.  At the NFL level, I already assume these guys are in the 1% as far as athletic ability goes.  What makes a player great is work ethic, the desire to be great, and their intelligence.

I know it’s not football, but Arnold Palmer had a great quote.  He said it is a "game of inches, the most important being the 6 inches between your ears”.  I’m fairly confident that quote applies to more than just golf.

So I guess we will have to agree to disagree 

But you're just making that up. 

It's how fast they did the thing.  Quite often it's the combine, an official NFL event.    What numbers did they get at that event?   Objective data,  what they actually did at the thing.

You are making up your own meaning for the term objective data.   It doesn't measure how fast a person is when they ran the fastest they ever did.   It's the objective data from the NFL Combine,  or, pro day, or (perhaps) a personal pro day.  If, at a pro day,  they were going with 10 inch feet and everyone was jumping 12 feet,  you'd want to take a note of that.  Some of the objective data making up the set of objective data would be junk, but I haven't heard of 10 inch feet being used at pro days.  The objective data might not be precise,  but it's what we have to use.  

2 hours ago, HazletonEagle said:

might be. but then if another one of them got hurt..

Grab McPhearson off the PS as a backup but I believe that to start the season, Maddox is the nickel until DeJean is ready.  Too much being based on snaps and "starts” in TC.  It’s Training camp.  Training Maddox at S.  Training Baun at ILB.  Training Mitchell at both nickel and outside.  Now training DeJean much like Mitchell. 

50 minutes ago, McMVP said:

It’s still not objective data.  For it to be 100% objective data, every player tested would have had to be in their respective peak condition before measuring any metrics.  We all know that will never happen…so there goes that idea.

But even if we assumed that was possible, it still would only be worthy of the first 5-10 minutes of a full day interview for a player’s potential.  At the NFL level, I already assume these guys are in the 1% as far as athletic ability goes.  What makes a player great is work ethic, the desire to be great, and their intelligence.

I know it’s not football, but Arnold Palmer had a great quote.  He said it is a "game of inches, the most important being the 6 inches between your ears”.  I’m fairly confident that quote applies to more than just golf.

So I guess we will have to agree to disagree 

All of those other things are things WE can't measure.  We can't even see the wonderlic scores.

 

We can see the objective data.  (I talked about objective data in other posts).

All those other things are difficult for NFL teams to assess.  Work ethic.   Ask the college coach.  Get some subjective data there.  Intelligence,  wonderlic, but there's more than just wonderlic that could and isn't used to measure intelligence.  Yes, there are a lot of different things.

If the NFL combine things didn't provide useful value, they wouldn't do them.

And so many great NFL players had really high combine and pro day numbers.   You can't tell about work ethic character, the propensity for dwi or wife beating or anything else,  but combine data is objective data, and so often the best athletes are the best players.   There's a really really high correlation between super fast, super big, super strong players and great players.  Great plays on the NFL field are often the result of one player being better than another at one or another of physical categories.  Often faster,  often stronger. 

I've found that good players are found by combining great combine and pro day numbers with players who played multiple positions in high school, sometimes continued to be versatile in college,  and often with QB on the resume.  I suspect that QBs might have above average intellect and work ethic.   They're raw, because they haven't been playing the same position since freshman year of high school or longer, they've had their focus on 2 positions instead of just one.  Because they're raw,  their ceilings are above where they already are.  More room to get better, to outperform their draft position. 

Objective data about things that are relevant is better than opinions from anonymous people with no credibility.

And running QBs are best.

1 hour ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

 

FFS someone get Baldy an editor 

36 minutes ago, Random Reglar said:

All of those other things are things WE can't measure.  We can't even see the wonderlic scores.

 

We can see the objective data.  (I talked about objective data in other posts).

All those other things are difficult for NFL teams to assess.  Work ethic.   Ask the college coach.  Get some subjective data there.  Intelligence,  wonderlic, but there's more than just wonderlic that could and isn't used to measure intelligence.  Yes, there are a lot of different things.

If the NFL combine things didn't provide useful value, they wouldn't do them.

And so many great NFL players had really high combine and pro day numbers.   You can't tell about work ethic character, the propensity for dwi or wife beating or anything else,  but combine data is objective data, and so often the best athletes are the best players.   There's a really really high correlation between super fast, super big, super strong players and great players.  Great plays on the NFL field are often the result of one player being better than another at one or another of physical categories.  Often faster,  often stronger. 

I've found that good players are found by combining great combine and pro day numbers with players who played multiple positions in high school, sometimes continued to be versatile in college,  and often with QB on the resume.  I suspect that QBs might have above average intellect and work ethic.   They're raw, because they haven't been playing the same position since freshman year of high school or longer, they've had their focus on 2 positions instead of just one.  Because they're raw,  their ceilings are above where they already are.  More room to get better, to outperform their draft position. 

Objective data about things that are relevant is better than opinions from anonymous people with no credibility.

And running QBs are best.

 

 

5 hours ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

4th safety who also has versatility to play corner if need be.  

It really boils down to a direct comparison of Bradberry and Mills.  Both are past their prime.  The question is which one is more past that prime.

I don’t see either one on the roster Week One.  Any tie … if there is one … will go to the younger player.

1 hour ago, McMVP said:

It’s still not objective data.  For it to be 100% objective data, every player tested would have had to be in their respective peak condition before measuring any metrics.  We all know that will never happen…so there goes that idea.

But even if we assumed that was possible, it still would only be worthy of the first 5-10 minutes of a full day interview for a player’s potential.  At the NFL level, I already assume these guys are in the 1% as far as athletic ability goes.  What makes a player great is work ethic, the desire to be great, and their intelligence.

I know it’s not football, but Arnold Palmer had a great quote.  He said it is a "game of inches, the most important being the 6 inches between your ears”.  I’m fairly confident that quote applies to more than just golf.

So I guess we will have to agree to disagree 

Three types of lies and all…

2 hours ago, McMVP said:

If you think RAS is objective data, I can’t help you.  The amount of assumptions needed to make that claim are too numerous to mention.  It’s data gathered on a given day for a player.  If you want to assume all things are equal…that’s on you

lol yes, RAS or PFF is not "objective data." It's entirely subjective. Objective data is something like X% of NFL players are under 30 years old.

You'd figure if people were to throw around the term objective data, they might actually know what the term means.

56 minutes ago, Random Reglar said:

All of those other things are things WE can't measure.  We can't even see the wonderlic scores.

 

We can see the objective data.  (I talked about objective data in other posts).

All those other things are difficult for NFL teams to assess.  Work ethic.   Ask the college coach.  Get some subjective data there.  Intelligence,  wonderlic, but there's more than just wonderlic that could and isn't used to measure intelligence.  Yes, there are a lot of different things.

If the NFL combine things didn't provide useful value, they wouldn't do them.

And so many great NFL players had really high combine and pro day numbers.   You can't tell about work ethic character, the propensity for dwi or wife beating or anything else,  but combine data is objective data, and so often the best athletes are the best players.   There's a really really high correlation between super fast, super big, super strong players and great players.  Great plays on the NFL field are often the result of one player being better than another at one or another of physical categories.  Often faster,  often stronger. 

I've found that good players are found by combining great combine and pro day numbers with players who played multiple positions in high school, sometimes continued to be versatile in college,  and often with QB on the resume.  I suspect that QBs might have above average intellect and work ethic.   They're raw, because they haven't been playing the same position since freshman year of high school or longer, they've had their focus on 2 positions instead of just one.  Because they're raw,  their ceilings are above where they already are.  More room to get better, to outperform their draft position. 

Objective data about things that are relevant is better than opinions from anonymous people with no credibility.

And running QBs are best.

RAS is in no way objective data.

it takes objective data and then filters it through someone’s heavily subjective formula that adds weights to each event. RAS is, in itself, subjective. 

25 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

 

 

 

2 hours ago, McMVP said:

I know it’s not football, but Arnold Palmer had a great quote.  He said it is a "game of inches, the most important being the 6 inches between your ears”.  I’m fairly confident that quote applies to more than just golf.

I believe that’s absolutely true.  I played hockey against two guys who made it to the NHL; neither one was the most talented player we played against that year.  They had drive and determination others did not.  

I see why Twitter implemented character limits

6 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

RAS is in no way objective data.

it takes objective data and then filters it through someone’s heavily subjective formula that adds weights to each event. RAS is, in itself, subjective. 

right, or, sorta,  but ras compare is a great efficient way to put 2 sets of objective combine or pro day data next to each other.    And I would say that Ras itself is technically objective, but it's a formula they made up which would give a DT ras of 10 to a fast 7 footer who weighed less than 200.  The formula is objective, but flawed.   Now we know that, then we plow through, knowing that.

Sparq was better than ras, and since this is the us,  things are worse than before.

The ras website, however, is better.  It's easy to put 2 sets of data next to each other.   And those sets of data go into to peoples eyes, then their brains, and then people will have objective data in their brains, and before you know it, they'll be using objective data in their arguments.

2 minutes ago, Random Reglar said:

right, or, sorta,  but ras compare is a great efficient way to put 2 sets of objective combine or pro day data next to each other.    And I would say that Ras itself is technically objective, but it's a formula they made up which would give a DT ras of 10 to a fast 7 footer who weighed less than 200.  The formula is objective, but flawed.   Now we know that, then we plow through, knowing that.

Sparq was better than ras, and since this is the us,  things are worse than before.

The ras website, however, is better.  It's easy to put 2 sets of data next to each other.   And those sets of data go into to peoples eyes, then their brains, and then people will have objective data in their brains, and before you know it, they'll be using objective data in their arguments.

No, it’s not objective when RAS attempts to define what is and isn’t a preferable score. That is subjective.

To state a man runs a 4.40 40 is 100% objective.

To state that is a good 40 time is 100% subjective.

RAS doesn’t just compile objective stats, it rates them. That is completely subjective