Need some sack totals

Veeshik_ya
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:58 am

Re: Need some sack totals

Post by Veeshik_ya »

NWebster wrote:
Veeshik_ya wrote: . . . . After all, this is highly double top secret information. Wouldn't want it getting in the hands of that annoying general public.
I'll actually attempt to give a real answer here, maybe it'll satisfy you, maybe not - but frankly I have no need for all the adolescent sniping.

John and I have, in fact, spent years collecting this info. Neither of us has any illusions of ever making any money off it or even recouping what we've spent in acquiring it. Moreover, neither of us is a web developer, or knows anything about that.

We do, however, want to ensure that it is published in a meaningful way so as not to create further confusion. For example - and there are millions of these little issues - the 1951 data I have for the Browns is from film and is therefore 100% complete (all assigned to individuals, none unassigned) but for the Rams from the same season the data is largely from play by plays and therefore there is a meaningful portion that's missing (not assigned to an individual). Just dumping the data out there absent that context could create the false impression that a particular Brown had more sacks than a particular Ram when that may not be the case.

We are working to compile and present the data in the proper context, but we've got day jobs and families too, frankly it's taking longer than i'd like too.

In the meantime - keep sniping at us if you'd like - but I can assure you there's no massive conspiracy here.
I do in fact appreciate this response, not that you owe me one personally. But when you join an organization that purports to advance football research and you've compiled something significant, then to not put it out there some way, somehow, whether that involves profiting from it (nothing wrong with that, hope you do) or not, is doing a disservice to the spirit or cause of this group.

It's like claiming you have a stack of evidence that Bigfoot exists but then not sharing it, preferring to occasionally leak a piece here or there to a select group of other Bigfoot enthusiasts, none of whom would ever have the audacity to question what you've put together and are all too ready to pat you on the back for it. At the end of the day, how is that advancing the cause?

But, to be honest, it's less about the sacks and more about the haughty vibe put out by your research partner. I'm sure all other fellow members of the Knights of Columbus are already lining up with heartfelt character references, but let me ask you this: how would you like to be a young person interested in pro football checking out this site for the first time only to be told it isn't for the general public or challenging your game film watching acumen?

I'm not describing myself. I'm no spring chicken, and I know what I know. But the general tone of arrogance bugged me.

We all had to learn somewhere, and it's time the leadership of this group face the reality that a few hundred members in an almost four decade old organization is not exactly a shining example of robust business development. Maybe there's a reason for that.
Last edited by Veeshik_ya on Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:16 am, edited 6 times in total.
rhickok1109
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Need some sack totals

Post by rhickok1109 »

Veeshik_ya wrote:
rhickok1109 wrote:
Veeshik_ya wrote:John and Nick, it's truly touching how the two of you look out for each. We should all be lucky enough to have people that circle the wagon for us in times of crisis.

My apology for not picking up on the possibility of a private message. After all, this is highly double top secret information. Wouldn't want it getting in the hands of that annoying general public.

By the way, the actual literal translation for Veehsik_ya is "Gianteth Douchebageth". Don't you forget it.
How could it possibly take you seven days to respond?
Easy. I didn't log in for seven days.
OMG! You mean that if someone had asked a question you could answer, it would have taken you seven days to help? You really ought to log in several times a day to be of service.
JohnTurney
Posts: 2282
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:28 pm

Re: Need some sack totals

Post by JohnTurney »

Veeshik_ya wrote: But the general tone of arrogance bugged me.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, no? Maybe what bugs others about you is your tone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoAE52nzLoY
Veeshik_ya
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:58 am

Re: Need some sack totals

Post by Veeshik_ya »

JohnTurney wrote:
Veeshik_ya wrote: But the general tone of arrogance bugged me.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, no? Maybe what bugs others about you is your tone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoAE52nzLoY
If this is your way of saying, "Gee, Veeshik_ya, you might be right", while still saving a little face, I get it.
JohnTurney
Posts: 2282
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:28 pm

Re: Need some sack totals

Post by JohnTurney »

Veeshik_ya wrote:
JohnTurney wrote:
Veeshik_ya wrote: If this is your way of saying, "Gee, Veeshik_ya, you might be right", while still saving a little face, I get it.
No, in fact, it was quite the opposite.
Veeshik_ya
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:58 am

Re: Need some sack totals

Post by Veeshik_ya »

JohnTurney wrote:
No, in fact, it was quite the opposite.
Allow me to rephrase: if this is your way of saying, "Gee, Veeshik_ya, you make a few solid points but if we let the whippersnappers in they might not play ball with the all talk no walk cache I've built up around here", then I get where you're coming from.
JohnTurney
Posts: 2282
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:28 pm

Re: Need some sack totals

Post by JohnTurney »

Veeshik_ya wrote:
JohnTurney wrote:
No, in fact, it was quite the opposite.
Allow me to rephrase: if this is your way of saying, "Gee, Veeshik_ya, you make a few solid points but if we let the whippersnappers in they might not play ball with the all talk no walk cache I've built up around here", then I get where you're coming from.
You're next "solid point" will be your first.
Veeshik_ya
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:58 am

Re: Need some sack totals

Post by Veeshik_ya »

JohnTurney wrote:
Veeshik_ya wrote:
JohnTurney wrote:
No, in fact, it was quite the opposite.
Allow me to rephrase: if this is your way of saying, "Gee, Veeshik_ya, you make a few solid points but if we let the whippersnappers in they might not play ball with the all talk no walk cache I've built up around here", then I get where you're coming from.
You're next "solid point" will be your first.
Don't say it. Publish it!

Tell you what, if and when you get around to publishing your work (I know..."when you're damn good and ready") feel free to list me last on your list of acknowledgments. :lol:
JohnTurney
Posts: 2282
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:28 pm

Re: Need some sack totals

Post by JohnTurney »

Veeshik_ya wrote:
Don't say it. Publish it!

Tell you what, if and when you get around to publishing your work (I know..."when you're damn good and ready") feel free to list me last on your list of acknowledgments. :lol:
It will be published the day after your book is published.
Veeshik_ya
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:58 am

Re: Need some sack totals

Post by Veeshik_ya »

JohnTurney wrote:
Veeshik_ya wrote:
Don't say it. Publish it!

Tell you what, if and when you get around to publishing your work (I know..."when you're damn good and ready") feel free to list me last on your list of acknowledgments. :lol:
It will be published the day after your book is published.
What if mine already has been?
Locked