Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
AZ Game Notes
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jaybadger82" data-source="post: 507184" data-attributes="member: 6211"><p>I just made some numbers up to illustrate my point. I'm not a PFF or Stats consumer and I don't know what kind of pressure totals are exceptional, normal, or below average.</p><p></p><p>I agree with your criticism of those that want to evaluate players based solely on the stats. Football doesn't lend itself to the same moneyball analysis that has taken baseball by storm in recent years. But there's a place for numbers in football and I believe stats like pressures/hurries can be one useful metric for evaluating players in conjunction with game film and an understanding of what they're are being asked to do on the field by the coaching staff (e.g., our DTs are often asked to eat up blockers and they rarely put up gaudy stats as a result).</p><p></p><p>I'm far more skeptical of attempts to reduce a player's game performance to a single number (as with the player ratings discussed further above) and, by and large, I suspect we're not that really that far apart on the subject of football statistics. I'll leave further debate for others.</p><p></p><p>P.P.S. Re: ***********: Yep, I believe courts primarily apply the three-part <a href="http://Miller test" target="_blank">Miller test</a> to evaluate whether speech falls outside First Amendment protection as obscenity, which includes ***********. The first two prongs are evaluated using local standards but the third is analyzed under a much broader national standard, which is almost difficult to fail (with some obvious bright-line exceptions like child ***********). As long as speech doesn't fail that third prong, it is basically protected under the First Amendment regardless of whether a local or state legislature thinks it's obscene.</p><p></p><p>I understand your point about Steward's "know it when I see it" line as failing to describe any sort of applicable standard. The Miller test at least offers a framework for analysis but, IMO, it's still remarkably vague. Not much of an improvement on Steward's observation when the test basically boils down to whether the court thinks the speech has "some serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."</p><p></p><p>From a practical standpoint, American courts have been erring on the side of protecting questionable speech for some time (I think the mantra goes "let the marketplace of ideas sort it out") and prosecutors are hesitant to commit limited resources to prosecuting this kind of stuff when there are so many non-violent drug offenders to incarcerate. Nonetheless, when the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church" target="_blank">Westboro Baptist Church</a> exercises its First Amendment right to picket American soldiers' funerals it still strikes me as obscenity, regardless of its constitutionality. Thanks for indulging me on this digression.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jaybadger82, post: 507184, member: 6211"] I just made some numbers up to illustrate my point. I'm not a PFF or Stats consumer and I don't know what kind of pressure totals are exceptional, normal, or below average. I agree with your criticism of those that want to evaluate players based solely on the stats. Football doesn't lend itself to the same moneyball analysis that has taken baseball by storm in recent years. But there's a place for numbers in football and I believe stats like pressures/hurries can be one useful metric for evaluating players in conjunction with game film and an understanding of what they're are being asked to do on the field by the coaching staff (e.g., our DTs are often asked to eat up blockers and they rarely put up gaudy stats as a result). I'm far more skeptical of attempts to reduce a player's game performance to a single number (as with the player ratings discussed further above) and, by and large, I suspect we're not that really that far apart on the subject of football statistics. I'll leave further debate for others. P.P.S. Re: ***********: Yep, I believe courts primarily apply the three-part [URL='http://Miller test']Miller test[/URL] to evaluate whether speech falls outside First Amendment protection as obscenity, which includes ***********. The first two prongs are evaluated using local standards but the third is analyzed under a much broader national standard, which is almost difficult to fail (with some obvious bright-line exceptions like child ***********). As long as speech doesn't fail that third prong, it is basically protected under the First Amendment regardless of whether a local or state legislature thinks it's obscene. I understand your point about Steward's "know it when I see it" line as failing to describe any sort of applicable standard. The Miller test at least offers a framework for analysis but, IMO, it's still remarkably vague. Not much of an improvement on Steward's observation when the test basically boils down to whether the court thinks the speech has "some serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." From a practical standpoint, American courts have been erring on the side of protecting questionable speech for some time (I think the mantra goes "let the marketplace of ideas sort it out") and prosecutors are hesitant to commit limited resources to prosecuting this kind of stuff when there are so many non-violent drug offenders to incarcerate. Nonetheless, when the [URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church']Westboro Baptist Church[/URL] exercises its First Amendment right to picket American soldiers' funerals it still strikes me as obscenity, regardless of its constitutionality. Thanks for indulging me on this digression. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: milani
Today at 12:09 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 10:46 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: DoURant
Yesterday at 4:49 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
F
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: Firethorn1001
Yesterday at 1:20 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
R
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: rmontro
Yesterday at 11:53 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
AZ Game Notes
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
