You're missing the point.

 

Nothing gives you a complete view. Sticking with just stats or just what you see will always give you an inherently flawed perception.

You're missing the point.

 

Nothing gives you a complete view. Sticking with just stats or just what you see will always give you an inherently flawed perception.

 

 

I disagree. There is nothing inherently flawed when watching film, imo.

 

Agree to disagree. This could go on forever.

You have the perfect brain, then. Congratulations.

You have the perfect brain, then. Congratulations.

 

 

I'm blessed. What can I say?

Let them get Luck and then trade for Manning. :punching

 

What are you crazy? Manning is damaged goods and on the down side of his career. If the Dolphins were a QB away from going to the Super Bowl, then maybe. But they're not. Manning might be a good fit for the Jets in that regard. If they have Manning last night, they win the game in college blowout fashion.

Let them get Luck and then trade for Manning. :punching

 

What are you crazy? Manning is damaged goods and on the down side of his career. If the Dolphins were a QB away from going to the Super Bowl, then maybe. But they're not. Manning might be a good fit for the Jets in that regard. If they have Manning last night, they win the game in college blowout fashion.

 

But his mechanics are amazing.

i can haz visualization?

You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and sticking out your tongue right now.

 

 

I think it would have been better if you did not respond at all.

 

I gave valid points. If you did not agree with them, ok.

I'll ask your permission next time.

 

All you've done is repeat the same point several times. You've given no reason to think you, or anyone else, can fully overcome biases and [individual] mental limitations (and therefore not need stats and/or understand everything just from film).

Stats can be used as an important tool to analyze players and teams. But so are mechanics AND intangibles (and WINS). You can find a happy medium. It's not that black and white. There will always be skeptics and stat monkeys and there will always be purists, and they will always argue their points to no end. It doesn't change any minds, as much as you want it to. You're just proving your points to yourselves.

Stats can be used as an important tool to analyze players and teams. But so are mechanics AND intangibles (and WINS). You can find a happy medium. It's not that black and white. There will always be skeptics and stat monkeys and there will always be purists, and they will always argue their points to no end. It doesn't change any minds, as much as you want it to. You're just proving your points to yourselves.

 

If you're going to stick your neck into an argument you're not a part of and treat those involved with condescension, at least be right.

 

What do mechanics have to do with it?

 

And get out of here with that "stat monkey" BS. Bobbob clearly said that both ought to be used, and I agree. I think Ashraf might even agree with that statement to some extent, too.

 

Not only are you unfairly characterizing our thoughts, but you're doing it rudely, and all in an argument where you were uninvolved until now.

Man I can't wait til the Bears play Denver

You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and sticking out your tongue right now.

 

 

I think it would have been better if you did not respond at all.

 

I gave valid points. If you did not agree with them, ok.

I'll ask your permission next time.

 

All you've done is repeat the same point several times. You've given no reason to think you, or anyone else, can fully overcome biases and [individual] mental limitations (and therefore not need stats and/or understand everything just from film).

 

Which is not true.

 

I gave you valid points as to why those "mental limitations" and biases are not a problem, you just ignored them.

 

Serious question, why would a person have mental limitations when watching film? You do realize that when you watch film, you watch a play several times in order to break it down, right?

Stats can be used as an important tool to analyze players and teams. But so are mechanics AND intangibles (and WINS). You can find a happy medium. It's not that black and white. There will always be skeptics and stat monkeys and there will always be purists, and they will always argue their points to no end. It doesn't change any minds, as much as you want it to. You're just proving your points to yourselves.

 

If you're going to stick your neck into an argument you're not a part of and treat those involved with condescension, at least be right.

 

What do mechanics have to do with it?

 

And get out of here with that "stat monkey" BS. Bobbob clearly said that both ought to be used, and I agree. I think Ashraf might even agree with that statement to some extent, too.

 

Not only are you unfairly characterizing our thoughts, but you're doing it rudely, and all in an argument where you were uninvolved until now.

 

Why are you so defensive? It's a forum. I'm not being rude, condescending or unfair, I'm just adding my two cents on the debate itself. You also have to understand that I am extremely bored right now. I was merely observing that both parties are set in their arguments and neither will change the other's mind. It's like Republicans and Democrats debating a bill. It gets nowhere. My bored self was just pointing that out. Because it's a forum. I don't see how it was rude or condescending. Being rude would be asking you if it was your time of the month. I'm really just trying to have us all hold hands and sing a song. Something really cool happened in Denver last night and that's what I wanted to focus on.

 

As for bringing up mechanics, my point is critics are always ripping Tebow's mechanics just as they do statistics, but the kid just finds ways to win games despite his unconventional style.

 

I'm sorry?

You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and sticking out your tongue right now.

 

 

I think it would have been better if you did not respond at all.

 

I gave valid points. If you did not agree with them, ok.

I'll ask your permission next time.

 

All you've done is repeat the same point several times. You've given no reason to think you, or anyone else, can fully overcome biases and [individual] mental limitations (and therefore not need stats and/or understand everything just from film).

 

Which is not true.

 

I gave you valid points as to why those "mental limitations" and biases are not a problem, you just ignored them.

 

Serious question, why would a person have mental limitations when watching film? You do realize that when you watch film, you watch a play several times in order to break it down, right?

 

Because the human mind is an inherently imperfect machine. It's literally as simple as that. You bring all of your previous experiences, interpretations, and biases into everything you see, and you view everything through that prism. It's impossible to do anything else.

As for bringing up mechanics, my point is critics are always ripping Tebow's mechanics just as they do statistics, but the kid just finds ways to win games despite his unconventional style.

 

 

I hate this argument.

 

Bomani Jones was ranting about it last night, and he had a pretty great quote that sums things up: "sorry, i'm an economist. the difference between correlation and causation is huge to me. it means little to many, i see."

 

People keep pointing to him as the reason they are winning; "the kid just finds ways to win games despite his unconventional style." However, what is unconventional about his style is that he's a bad quarterback. Just because he happens to be the QB of a team that is winning a game does not mean he's the reason they are winning. Like Jones says, it's the difference between correlation and causation.

You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and sticking out your tongue right now.

 

 

I think it would have been better if you did not respond at all.

 

I gave valid points. If you did not agree with them, ok.

I'll ask your permission next time.

 

All you've done is repeat the same point several times. You've given no reason to think you, or anyone else, can fully overcome biases and [individual] mental limitations (and therefore not need stats and/or understand everything just from film).

 

Which is not true.

 

I gave you valid points as to why those "mental limitations" and biases are not a problem, you just ignored them.

 

Serious question, why would a person have mental limitations when watching film? You do realize that when you watch film, you watch a play several times in order to break it down, right?

 

Because the human mind is an inherently imperfect machine. It's literally as simple as that. You bring all of your previous experiences, interpretations, and biases into everything you see, and you view everything through that prism. It's impossible to do anything else.

 

Ok, and that is true. The human mind is not perfect. You will miss some things when watching film. There will be some bias when watching film. But at the end of the day, watching film is still superior to statistics.

For some people, some of the time.

As for bringing up mechanics, my point is critics are always ripping Tebow's mechanics just as they do statistics, but the kid just finds ways to win games despite his unconventional style.

 

 

I hate this argument.

 

Bomani Jones was ranting about it last night, and he had a pretty great quote that sums things up: "sorry, i'm an economist. the difference between correlation and causation is huge to me. it means little to many, i see."

 

People keep pointing to him as the reason they are winning; "the kid just finds ways to win games despite his unconventional style." However, what is unconventional about his style is that he's a bad quarterback. Just because he happens to be the QB of a team that is winning a game does not mean he's the reason they are winning. Like Jones says, it's the difference between correlation and causation.

 

I hear what you're saying, and that "bad QB" assessment will always be up for debate when it comes to Tim Tebow. I admit he looks awful compared to the guy I watched play in person in Gainesville for four years (one season, 2007, from the sidelines). That, I admit, is my bias. I am used to watching that dude kick ass on the football field. I don't buy into the Jesus or "Tebowing," I just have seen him play up close for years and have nothing but respect for what he does and what he has done -- especially under constant criticism.

I don't think it's up for debate.

 

When you take into account Rushing yards, passing yards, and sacks, he is averages fewer yards per play than Matt Moore this year. He's been really quite bad.

 

I get that you have the emotional connection to him, and many do, and he elicits strong emotions, but when you take him as a player, he's much closer to bad than anything else.

You can't take away the late-game playmaking, though. I'd agree he's "not that good a QB" overall for all the reasons you state, but the fact of the matter is he has made clutch fourth quarter plays with games on the line.

One thing that people tend to continue to overlook is that Denver's defense has been absolutely outstanding (against relatively bad offensive teams).

 

They've without a doubt kept Tebow in all three of his wins. In fact, in all 3 of his wins Tebow left his team out to dry for the first 3 and a half quarters and they saved his ass and he did the bare minimum in order to win the game.

 

I'm not trying to slander him, it's just fact put right in front of you. Tim Tebow has the magical power of making the majority of a nation completely forget about what just happened in the first 50 minutes of regulation time.

You can't take away the late-game playmaking, though. I'd agree he's "not that good a QB" overall for all the reasons you state, but the fact of the matter is he has made clutch fourth quarter plays with games on the line.

 

 

Who is taking that away? If anyone is trying to unfairly weight things, it's the people who say "HE JUST WINS," because they're using one or two good drives to ignore the totality of everything he does.

Glad he can coast on his clutch abilities and pure will to win now, but hopefully he improves fast because watching him for the other three quarters is insufferable and indeed he can't go on playing like that for too much longer. But his winning drives have proved exciting drama and last night turned my dad into an 8-year-old squealing over the phone about his idol.

 

I'm a Dolphins phan anyway so I'm soooo over this season.

The loss is a huge won to the Jets. With six games left, Its going to be hard for them to make it to the play, offs. The Pats are winning the division, imo. So their road to the playoffs will require them to go through several teams.

Well you never know. The Patriots have hardly been impressive this season.