Okay, what are your theories for difference?

[JohnTurney]

The SHORTsightedness of your logic was devoured by the more knowledgeable.
The SHORTmindedness of your recall was exposed by a number of thinkers.
The SHORTterm of your good behavior can be due to the fallacy of your posts.

Exemplum de simia, quae, quando plus ascendit, plus apparent posteriora eius

[oldecapecod11]

by JohnTurney » Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:32 pm

Exemplum de simia, quae, quando plus ascendit, plus apparent posteriora eius
JohnTurney

Now, that's better - an ideal self-description. Be all you can be...
And, thank you for sharing your image. Many here wondered who you resembled.
It is a good way to begin an era of peace - something we all seek and practice.

[mwald]

Jesus H. Where's Frank Burns when you need him?

[Reaser]

Bringing this thread back to Brady and stats, since that's what it's about.

Something I've always respected about Brady is his knowing stats don't matter, and his lack of care for stats. I remember a press conference when he was asked about passer rating and said it didn't matter and he didn't care about it. He's always had great answers when it comes to questions about stats and how he doesn't care about them and when asked about what stats matter to him he answers with, "wins", "score more points than the opponent" and the like. It's always come off as very genuine and I've always respected that.

Brady's been long consistent about it. It's a team sport, individual stats are meaningless, the goal is to win.

One could wonder if he's got that from Belichick, who himself has said "stats are for losers", and who himself has said multiple times and multiple variations of; the #1 stat is winning, and the #2 stat is scoring more points than your opponent. He also gives great responses on stats, especially to dumb questions (the usual from media) about stats. Though when he gets a question that interests him more I've seen him "open up" a little on stats though it's not really any different. Most important stat is winning, second is scoring more points than opponent. Any stat after those that he acknowledges - when he's not saying sacks are overrated as a stat, because they are - are ones that correlate towards winning and points (scored and against), common things such as red zone and 3rd down.

Either way, with the way he was in college and early NFL career I think Brady would have the same opinion on stats even if he wasn't in NE the entire time.

He has said on more than one occasion that there is only one stat that matters, winning. Interesting then to think what he would think about his passing stats being better (in years where league-wide passing stats were higher) in one group of years compared to another (years when passing stats league-wide were lower) ...

[Bryan]

[Bryan]

When you compare Brady's years versus the league average in one year versus another, you have to understand that all averages are not created equally. 2007 saw a much higher rate of mid-season turnover rate at the QB position than 2006 -- eleven QBs started 16 games in 2007 versus sixteen in 2006.

I assume that's why Rate+ uses a rolling three year average...to try to somewhat mitigate those outlier seasons.

[Bryan]

and you failed to talk about all the snaps you've taken. Says even more.

How many snaps did Bill Belichick take? I can't find any evidence that he played QB...all I can find is that he played center and tight end.

In addition to our regular forum and our Members Only section, I think PFRA needs to add a third part to its website, a "Taken Snaps" subforum, where the designated intelligentsia of our group (i.e. those who have taken snaps at some point in their lives) can have the high level football discussions that are obviously lacking in our regular forum.

If this does come to pass, then I will be the first to submit my application to the Taken Snaps subforum, citing my NIC-9 Honorable Mention while playing QB in an offense ripped from Jock Sutherland's playbook. I took snaps, dammit!

[JWL]

It certainly helps to have done something than not. One can hear about what it's like to be in the Army from an 'expert' who was never in the Army or hear it from people who were in the Army. Or behind door #3, the best option, join the Army and find out for yourself. (note: Army doesn't pertain specifically to me, just random example.)

I played the trumpet up until 8th grade. I probably can talk about what it takes to play trumpet for the Boston Pops better than someone who never played an instrument can talk about what it takes to play for the Boston Pops. I know what it takes to play an instrument and sit in a band and read music and take direction from a conductor but I don't know how it all exactly goes on the highest level. This is akin to you saying you played high school football and because of that your opinion on football things should be valued more than the opinions of mostly everybody else here.

As you can see in several other recent posts, I am not the only person interpreting your posts as that you are dismissing others' opinions because their history does not contain as much football playing as your history. I like you. I suspect most of the other board members like you too. But this avenue you take and some of the comments you make are off-putting.

At any given time, there are probably 3-5 living U.S. Presidents (the current one and any former ones still alive). Are only those people allowed to have an opinion on the type of performance being given by the current President? After all, those are the only people who truly knows what it takes to do the job.

[mwald]

I played the trumpet up until 8th grade. I probably can talk about what it takes to play trumpet for the Boston Pops better than someone who never played an instrument can talk about what it takes to play for the Boston Pops. I know what it takes to play an instrument and sit in a band and read music and take direction from a conductor but I don't know how it all exactly goes on the highest level. This is akin to you saying you played high school football and because of that your opinion on football things should be valued more than the opinions of mostly everybody else here.

As you can see in several other recent posts, I am not the only person interpreting your posts as that you are dismissing others' opinions because their history does not contain as much football playing as your history. I like you. I suspect most of the other board members like you too. But this avenue you take and some of the comments you make are off-putting.

At any given time, there are probably 3-5 living U.S. Presidents (the current one and any former ones still alive). Are only those people allowed to have an opinion on the type of performance being given by the current President? After all, those are the only people who truly knows what it takes to do the job.

This makes a lot of sense. If I've rebuilt car engines, worked as a mechanic, or even raced as a driver in local races but then used that as justification to say that makes me an expert on what it takes to win a NASCAR race, I'm thinking the NASCAR people would laugh at me. It's a different level.

That said, I respect Reaser's posts and knowledge of pro football. But not because he played high school or college football like millions of others.

***

This post reminds me of a little tiff between Dr. Z and Len Pasquerelli once. Can't remember exactly, but I think a reader sent in a question to Z in his mailbag, pointing out how something Pasquerelli said about NFL offensive lines contradicted what Z said. Z came back in his column with something like, "What do I know? I couldn't begin to speak to the nuances of line play like Len Pasquerelli."

Of course, the way Z said it was funnier and had a bit more vitriol, like only Z could.

[JWL]

That said, I respect Reaser's posts and knowledge of pro football. But not because he played high school or college football like millions of others.

Ditto.


This is a little similar to another forum where NFL history gets discussed from time to time in random threads. Years ago, somebody tried to rip me for even daring to have an opinion about some NFL matter that occurred before each of us were born. The other person contended I should not even have an opinion because the event happened before I was born. My response was something along the lines of, "Well, I guess nobody alive today should be able to discuss dinosaurs."