Jump to content

Nivek

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    14511
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nivek

  1. TIme out for a second. I really wish you wouldn't post like this. Look, you have been open and honest about your struggles, but you should also treat yourself with some dignity and respect. Self-deprecation is fine if there is self-respect. Time in.
  2. This is interesting. Thank you for bringing this up, and bring up a source that I could link to. Since you are more familiar with it, can you elaborate on the on-target rate vs. completion rate and explain the meaning between the differential? For example, CK's 20+ yard differential is ~12% where as SL's and QE's are about 18% differential. Is there a metric which shows how QE was performing this year pre-oblique injury and post injury return, and one from last year and the year before? I think one of the scouting reports I read stated QE had trouble with intermediate passes to his right side, and I was curious if that was present pre-injury data. Source Link. Having read through this site a little further though, I am a little disappointed they do not include their P-values and t-statistics and residual graphs which could be used to validate the null-hypothesis, independent variable, etc. Also on the first table they present on that page, is pretty indicative that the model for intermediate/longer passes are a very poor (again though, not enough information is included here as well). Statistics and regression analysis without the qualifiers is something I would be very skeptical about. I have seen others run regression analysis and not be able to rule out the null-hypothesis just run with it.
  3. I typed that backwards. Thank you for catching that.
  4. His strategy is to ignore what you asked for 3-4 pages/days then ask what you are talking about. See request for receipts.
  5. I could argue that he was precise with his down field passes. His accuracy was off, but he missed his receiver often the same way. /thanks to Magnus for catching my mistake.
  6. That is not it at all. The issue is that it was cheaper to pay them under the table while a toothless NCAA did nothing. Now that the payment is legal, it has become more expensive and cheating through bagmen is no longer competitive. So the poorer schools who cheated cannot keep up. Schools like Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, ND will be able to leave behind OU, Alabama types. Texas Techs of the world will hate this, and they find it cheaper to try to limit others than to shell out the cash on their own. It is also unAmerican to tell people what they can earn on their own time. The NFL has a salary cap, but that cap never prevented a star player from selling insurance as a side gig.
  7. I keep forgetting about the Clemson game, thanks again for the correction.
  8. I think I left it alone based on his looks, but really the guy is a glorified blogger, not a scout/coach for some NFL/CFL team. He did post some numbers, but without any context as to how he arrived at any of it. And without that context, then then it is just junk. To the picture you posted above with the text, there is no link to the source and no context again. And once again, the topic where I got in on it, was that Ewers was a very good college QB for Texas. That he might not measure up to NFL standards is irrelevant to his performance at Texas. To claim that he was inaccurate and imprecise when he was completing approximately 65% over his 3-year career at Texas. This is like listening to people tell me Greg Davis was a horrible coordinator when his teams averaged 40 ppg for 10-years, as if it was just luck.
  9. See this type is misrepresentation is very typical of you, it is a strawman fallacy that they teach in intro philosophy class. I didn't watch the interview with the agent, but it seems maybe it came from there? @Thatguy thinks that rumor started from one of the videos of him. And @AnotherLawyer cited him being in HS and having a video out there of a long pass. I found and linked those. I also posted them with a healthy sense of skepticism because it is very unclear to me where the ball is landing and there is no context. Now you have decided that I believe he could throw a football 80 yards when he was 12 or 14 or whatever, so you could try to represent yourself as a reasonable person when really, you failed to do that from the outset by misrepresenting what was stated and by whom. The weird thing is that this all started because YOU were making all kinds of absurd claims based on his NFL draft when no one else was talking about it, trying to cite that as evidence and then using your alternate account (my assumption) to keep pushing goalposts every other post. This other post here seems to indicate this is something weirdly personal to you. QE is a record holding QB that helped lead Texas to several significant wins, including a playoff victory and statistically he sits up there in the top 10 of Texas QBs. Nothing you can ever say will change that.
  10. I normally don't like doing this, but this is who you cited. Forgive me if the esteemed Cory Kinnan doesn't inspire me with confidence in his opinion on QB play. You stood by the stance, but you are just wrong. 3 Individuals have been presented (1 college, 2 pros) to refute this claim. Now, you can stand by this stance and claim that completion percentage isn't a perfect metric, and you will get no argument from me about that, but when I press you for a better one out there what do you have? For now, it seems like the best proxy out there. And while we are being exacting, let's parse accuracy from precision and see if we can that delineated better? As far as statistics being gamed, I suppose that is true, but I tend to think that coaches will call plays with higher percentages of success than ones with lower percentages more-often, not just QE's coach. Do you have evidence this was happening? Since we are being precise with our terminology now, let's first define what pocket awareness is before bothering to discuss it. Morons like me, think definitions matter. I hardly think you should be calling anyone out for failing to show receipts. I mean you have been only requested to do what you said you could, 3 or 4 times now. Maybe it is fake, I can't tell where he is when he catches it. But it wasn't hard to find. Here is another toss, reportedly at 70 yards. Not that @AnotherLawyer needs my help.
  11. You are correct. I was not precise in my language.
  12. You certainly are a hateful person. I guess getting challenged on a discussion board was too much for you to handle. Which is evident by the ever changing standards. I’ll let you in on a professional secret. It is OK to be wrong, in fact it is good. Because this is how people learn if they have self-confidence. And yes, completion percentage is an objective measure of a mix of accuracy and precision and is being used as a proxy here. It is a much more robust measure than, “Billy said so” or “Billy, Bobby, and Benny said so.” Parsing out accuracy and precision of in game performance would require much more analysis. Or do you have a better statistical measure that is readily available?
  13. So you are absolutely sure there are only 2 guys that have improved in accuracy in the NFL and College? Cause I mentioned JaMarcus Russell's college stats and there was a significant improvement there as well. (Hint: that makes 3, and you brought him up!)
  14. Arch Manning has had coaching from 3 HOF, QBs in his family alone. And yet he went 3/6 for 19 yards and a fumble against a college team!!!! Do you understand how fucking stupid this statement is?
  15. So the goal posts moved in 3 hours. I am noticing a pattern. And bringing up Jamarcus Russell is interesting, since he improved year over year in college from 50% to 67% but flamed out in the NFL as it seems he was no longer a casual user.
  16. It has been stated, but mostly as a platitude. No one wanted to write a dissertation on the value of QE committing to Texas and the impact on recruiting, the upgrade to the position and the success that helped put us on track for additional recruit upgraddes which followed from the additional contributions of a variety of players and coaches across the team and then go into detail about each statement. But some want to spin that as worship or just simply cannot understand the subtly of normal human communications. I can just imagine the poor retail cashier at HEB that greets someone with, "Hi, how are you?" regretting that when some posters really think they want to hear about their rash.
  17. For a guy who doesn't drink he certainly loves the drunks.
  18. BOLD = Anecdotes, possibly more Derkian objectional truth. Not a product of his selective feed/search. Italics = Everyone, we need to thank other players more and send your thanks and praise via CC or PM to Derka/BOW. He will let us all know when it was sufficient. Underlined = No receipts for the supposed cult like behavior of others towards QE, then posts the pussy-on-a-pedestal post above. Note how Derka leaves out Xavier Worthy who wanted to work with QE, and was trying to recruit Barron to Texas as well. And who recruited QE to Texas from Ohio State.
  19. So this is Derka's sock account. You try to strengthen your argument by using terms you clearly do not understand incorrectly, even after this was pointed out to you. A consensus of opinions is not objective data. Otherwise Sanders was the #1/ or #2 QB taken in the draft. Also telling someone to take Xanax is a shot at their mental health, and yet you complain about being teased for your struggles. It is really strange that you cannot handle disagreement and that you resort to fallacies and bombastic misrepresentations to try to self-sooth (including using a second account) or the use of repetition of words you must have recently learned. I called you out because you were being kind of an ass on here, and for days you have claimed to have the receipts but you have failed to produce any evidence to support your claims. You latched on to a draft order as an indicator of a different league of how important a player was to a college team and university, because you failed in every other measure to demonstrate otherwise. Speaking of which, In one brief study, looking at those players based solely on position who were drafted from 2000-2019, and defining success measured by second year contracts, Centers are at 92%, Tackles at 59% and Guards at 50%. All other positions are worse than a coin flip. So using this as a metric for evaluating the collegic impact and performance is anything but objective. It doesn't even bode well for the experts (save for the evaluation of centers). If you put in a little bit of effort, you would have discovered this for yourself. You would have also noticed how the consensus failed to predict Sanders draft, and how several podcast/youtube hosts went into CYA mode to point blame back at Sanders for being drafted below the podcasters expectations. This should have given you pause as to the value of these folks opinions, especially when trying to contrast it with real figures and performance.
  20. 1. Still waiting on those receipts you claim to have. 2. You seem to view people who have different opinions than you do as a collective instead of separating posters. I know you have used multiple account in the past, I never could understand why anyone would put in that much effort, but maybe you are projecting or confusing us? 3. You seem entirely unwilling or incapable of making a coherent argument or using terms correctly. Words have meaning and those meanings are flexible in a punctuated time frame. Objective and subjective are different things. I presented a few quantitative stats to demonstrate my belief, and a few more to support it. You pointed to who won popularity contests and awards. VY doesn't have a Heisman and Bush does. VY showed everyone that fucking day who was the dominant player on CFB and it wasn't the guys with popularity trophies. 4. You keep trying to compare Colt to Quinn for some reason as if Colt is the only standard for successful QB play. In your oddest reactive statement yet, you mention QE's offense losing its top RBs during the preseason/season were a blight on his overall performance, but that Colt's offense which ran RB by committee not losing theirs was somehow a negative against QE? Even funnier is how you ignored that the RB that was injured during the season was present for the UGA game and wasn't injured until Clemson. 5. Since you cherry picked games earlier, I now understand it that if the rushing is good, it is because they are great, but not due to any threat from the QB, but if the rushing is bad, it is because there is no threat from the QB. The heads I win, tails you lose logic. It is clear you cannot actually back up your statement with anything but distractions and outlandish statements or simply false claims of cultish worship with whom despite your declaration of having receipts of, you continue to fail to provide evidence for it.
  21. I am not really certain, I interpreted it as a snake-oil comment.
  22. Yes, I was frustrated by Worthy because it was plain to see the skill he had on the field and it looked like he didn't give it his full effort on several plays that we discussed in the past. It was entirely subjective as a discussion. Jones' challenges coming from a different background I was ignorant of early on, but seeing him take himself out of the play had me wondering why he was the best option we had. I think Chris Hall was not a great player but he played his ass off. Haines, Hager, Swoopes were all frustrating at times, but most of that belongs on the coaches who put them on the field. I was not aware of the underlined part, thanks for that, I would like to check it out sometime in the future (I screwed around too much as of now).
  23. Is this the gaslighting you claimed to be a victim of? Because you claimed that people worship QE, you claimed they were "zealots" akin to MAGA types and people who chug apple cider vinegar. Those are not exactly kind statements and comparisons. And when presented with objective material you just double down instead of refute the material or explain how my interpretation is incorrect. Which it can be.
×
×
  • Create New...