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
Cole Madison
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="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 835904"><p>The reasons I cited Elliott are as follows:</p><p></p><p>1) Baltimore had the lowest AGL of 29.7 which seemed too low to encompass the full range of injuries a team will suffer from the start of OTAs to the end of the season. Actually, those injuries could reach back to the 2017 season where a guy had a very serious injury, spent that year on IR, and started 2018 on PUP or again on IR.</p><p></p><p>2) Then, Elliott was the first player named in the list I found of 7 Ravens who went to PUP and IR at the start of the season. He was the first and only player I looked at to determine a particular player's games lost. I saw just now that one of those 7 Ravens was a 4th. round wide receiver. Is he or any of the many other players in a similar situation a better example? Maybe.</p><p></p><p>So, having seen only FO's Part I when I first cited Elliott, the very first and only guy I looked at was sufficient to demonstrate FO did not include all injuries in their tallies. For all I know, had Elliott been uninjured and had the opportunity to domonstrate his worth through a full camp and preaseason he might have been cut. Among the many players across the league who started the season on PUP or IR there are probably better examples where the case to exclude them from AGL consideration is more debateable. Of course we'd have a hard time debating some of those without actually knowing if they were excluded or not without a simple extrapolation Elliott happened to provide.</p><p></p><p>Once I saw Part II it became evident (I think) that FO was counting only starters and "rotational players". They don't explicity state the methodology; we glean from the examples that those are the players they are considering which goes to one of my points in the Elliott vs. Cockrell. It isn't until we get deep into Part II we find:</p><p></p><p>"The Carolina Panthers (47.4) had the most defensive back AGL we have ever measured. Free-agent signees <a href="https://www.footballoutsiders.com/player/41684/ross-cockrell" target="_blank">Ross Cockrell</a> and <a href="https://www.footballoutsiders.com/player/27505/danorris-searcy" target="_blank">Da'Norris Searcy</a> missed the entire season with a broken leg and 14 games with a concussion, respectively. <strong>Both would have started if healthy</strong>."</p><p></p><p>Now we see the level of subjectivity and the assumptions involved in the data in Part I. While the particular assumptions might seem obvious in the Elliott vs. Cockrell comparison, how many across the league might not be so simple? And why do we have to so deep into the piece to have to make suppositions?</p><p></p><p>I'm just now thinking about the Packers last season, which begs a couple of questions. Did they count Kumerow in the WR missed games as a possible starter or rotational player at some point in the season had he not been injured? Don't know. Probably not. That's a guess. I'd have to dig through all the receivers who were on the roster and examine the weekly injury reports to attempt some kind of determination. I should not have to do that.</p><p></p><p>Just now I got to thinking about Davis and his missed games to start the season. Did they count him as a "rotational player" as the presumed KO and punt returner? Then it struck me that they have no AGL category for special teams. You have to go all the way to the end of Part II to see that, and then that fact might have escaped one's attention on first reading. There's no accounting at all for kickers and punters so I would guess, and it is just a guess, they would not count players whose primary role is returner. While that is a reasoned guess, it is a guess nonetheless, that Davis is not counted in WR AGL. To figure that out for a certainty you'd have to do a game-by-game dive into the Packers player-by-player 17.3 WR AGL to get an idea. Somebody else can bother with that, but they shouldn't have to.</p><p></p><p>As for Arizona's 47.8 AGL and 14 starters on the O-Line, I see no reason to believe they did not include missed games by players 6-9 in that number, the first line backups who missed games leading to players 10-14 having to take the field. Player 9 might be a third stringer dragged off the PS or the street who had no business starting in the NFL. Or maybe he wasn't injured and just benched for another second or third stringer brought in from somewhere? 5 full season equivalents lost on the OL is a ton. Why not believe, given FO's specific mention of these facts, that they did not include players 6-9 missed games if they were in fact injured? Again, it would take a deep dive to reckon who is included and who is not in that AGL.</p><p></p><p>So, the point is not whether or not this FO analysis is "perfect". I don't expect perfection. What I do expect is transparency and a statement of methodology, not led down some primrose path with a table of raw numbers only to have to surmise, glean, assume and conjecture what those numbers are actually telling me with, at the end, some critical unanswered questions.</p><p></p><p>What we need here is a Part III, a table of all the players for all the teams who were counted in AGL. Why not produce that unless they wish to avoid scrutiny of the subjective elements of the analysis? Is there one? I'm not going on a wild goose chase for something that might not exist. That list should be linked in Part II if there was any interest on FO's part in any kind of "peer review".</p><p></p><p>This is a habit of FO. Lots of data, unstated framing of the terms of the discussion, opaque methodologies, black boxes.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 835904"] The reasons I cited Elliott are as follows: 1) Baltimore had the lowest AGL of 29.7 which seemed too low to encompass the full range of injuries a team will suffer from the start of OTAs to the end of the season. Actually, those injuries could reach back to the 2017 season where a guy had a very serious injury, spent that year on IR, and started 2018 on PUP or again on IR. 2) Then, Elliott was the first player named in the list I found of 7 Ravens who went to PUP and IR at the start of the season. He was the first and only player I looked at to determine a particular player's games lost. I saw just now that one of those 7 Ravens was a 4th. round wide receiver. Is he or any of the many other players in a similar situation a better example? Maybe. So, having seen only FO's Part I when I first cited Elliott, the very first and only guy I looked at was sufficient to demonstrate FO did not include all injuries in their tallies. For all I know, had Elliott been uninjured and had the opportunity to domonstrate his worth through a full camp and preaseason he might have been cut. Among the many players across the league who started the season on PUP or IR there are probably better examples where the case to exclude them from AGL consideration is more debateable. Of course we'd have a hard time debating some of those without actually knowing if they were excluded or not without a simple extrapolation Elliott happened to provide. Once I saw Part II it became evident (I think) that FO was counting only starters and "rotational players". They don't explicity state the methodology; we glean from the examples that those are the players they are considering which goes to one of my points in the Elliott vs. Cockrell. It isn't until we get deep into Part II we find: "The Carolina Panthers (47.4) had the most defensive back AGL we have ever measured. Free-agent signees [URL='https://www.footballoutsiders.com/player/41684/ross-cockrell']Ross Cockrell[/URL] and [URL='https://www.footballoutsiders.com/player/27505/danorris-searcy']Da'Norris Searcy[/URL] missed the entire season with a broken leg and 14 games with a concussion, respectively. [B]Both would have started if healthy[/B]." Now we see the level of subjectivity and the assumptions involved in the data in Part I. While the particular assumptions might seem obvious in the Elliott vs. Cockrell comparison, how many across the league might not be so simple? And why do we have to so deep into the piece to have to make suppositions? I'm just now thinking about the Packers last season, which begs a couple of questions. Did they count Kumerow in the WR missed games as a possible starter or rotational player at some point in the season had he not been injured? Don't know. Probably not. That's a guess. I'd have to dig through all the receivers who were on the roster and examine the weekly injury reports to attempt some kind of determination. I should not have to do that. Just now I got to thinking about Davis and his missed games to start the season. Did they count him as a "rotational player" as the presumed KO and punt returner? Then it struck me that they have no AGL category for special teams. You have to go all the way to the end of Part II to see that, and then that fact might have escaped one's attention on first reading. There's no accounting at all for kickers and punters so I would guess, and it is just a guess, they would not count players whose primary role is returner. While that is a reasoned guess, it is a guess nonetheless, that Davis is not counted in WR AGL. To figure that out for a certainty you'd have to do a game-by-game dive into the Packers player-by-player 17.3 WR AGL to get an idea. Somebody else can bother with that, but they shouldn't have to. As for Arizona's 47.8 AGL and 14 starters on the O-Line, I see no reason to believe they did not include missed games by players 6-9 in that number, the first line backups who missed games leading to players 10-14 having to take the field. Player 9 might be a third stringer dragged off the PS or the street who had no business starting in the NFL. Or maybe he wasn't injured and just benched for another second or third stringer brought in from somewhere? 5 full season equivalents lost on the OL is a ton. Why not believe, given FO's specific mention of these facts, that they did not include players 6-9 missed games if they were in fact injured? Again, it would take a deep dive to reckon who is included and who is not in that AGL. So, the point is not whether or not this FO analysis is "perfect". I don't expect perfection. What I do expect is transparency and a statement of methodology, not led down some primrose path with a table of raw numbers only to have to surmise, glean, assume and conjecture what those numbers are actually telling me with, at the end, some critical unanswered questions. What we need here is a Part III, a table of all the players for all the teams who were counted in AGL. Why not produce that unless they wish to avoid scrutiny of the subjective elements of the analysis? Is there one? I'm not going on a wild goose chase for something that might not exist. That list should be linked in Part II if there was any interest on FO's part in any kind of "peer review". This is a habit of FO. Lots of data, unstated framing of the terms of the discussion, opaque methodologies, black boxes. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
R
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: rmontro
Yesterday at 8:07 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: tynimiller
Yesterday at 6:14 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: milani
Yesterday at 5:41 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 3:06 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
M
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: mradtke66
Yesterday at 2:30 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Cole Madison
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
