I'm Worried About The Vikings

[13 Times Champs]

They lost me at "algorythms". Is that something to do with sayings by a former Vice President?

Too funny. Glad I'm not the only one.

 

[TJV]

It's sad and insulting frankly that all you got from my post was I think it sucks bc ESPN developed it. I am disapointed, I expected more from you.

Hey I’m the new guy here I don’t know why you’d have expectations of me. OTOH, because you’re a vet here, I was going to post my disappointment with your posts on this thread but we don’t know each other well, like I said I’m the new guy, and I was attempting to be more civil.

You clearly have chosen to gloss over my legit complaints against QBR and focused on my comments about the network

This is the first post after mine in which I brought up QBR and listed the top 8 from week one:

Their QBR is as garbage as everything else they put out.

It was so void of content it caused Raptorman, who as far as I can tell is an entirely reasonable poster in spite of being cursed by being a Vikings fan, to post “I want to hear your reasoning… So tell us what’s wrong with it”. You responded to his very reasonable post – reread it if you don’t remember it – in a mocking manner: “LOL sensitive over comments about the great espn?” All Raptorman posted was he’d like to hear your reasoning – hardly a show of sensitivity and in no way advancing the notion that ESPN is great. Your post looks to me to be the sensitive and defensive one.

In that post you bring up the fact that Dan Orlovsky is rated too high on their 2008 list, since he was 0-7 as a starter. That seems to me to be your one substantive point regarding their results: QBR is supposed to reflect a QB’s impact on winning so an 0-7 QB can’t be rated higher than a Super Bowl winning QB, in spite of the fact that QBs don’t control the outcome of games: Obviously a QB can outplay the opposing QB and his team still lose the game. In this thread I listed the 2010 passer rating and QBR leaders. For someone who completely dismisses QBR, I’d think that would provide fertile ground to substantively point out it's flaws. I also related that both passer rating and QBR have Roethlisburger at #24 for the 2008 regular season. You admit you’re somewhat a fan of passer rating yet you don’t comment on that either, except to say the Lions’ QB is rated too high. They show three years of data and as far as I can tell, that’s your one substantive criticism of the results of their rating system. Three seasons, 30+ QBs per season and one complaint?

What we agree on is the error ESPN is making by not publishing their formula. Regarding sacks, if they are doing what they are claiming they are assigning a degree of responsibility, or lack of responsibility to QBs for each and every sack recorded throughout the league. Again, we have no way of knowing that because their methods are double secret at this point.

Ivo610, seriously go back and read your exchanges with Raptorman. You are the one accusing him of twisting your words when all he was trying to do was understand your opinion. You’re the one inferring that he, and presumably I, are members of a “herd” following ESPN. You’re the one being sarcastic and defensive, not him. Except for my first couple of sentences above, IMO Raptorman and I have avoided that.

This subject isn’t that important so I’m done with it unless you ask me a direct question. Anyway in summary, I’m not worried about the Vikings. I never worry about the Vikings.

 

[Wood Chipper]

So... I think we can all agree Vikings suck and Adrian Peterson should be smart and join a real team like us or New England if he ever hopes to win a Super Bowl

 

[Bogart]

I hope you fellas are jotting down notes in the back of your heads on how Minnesota has been playing the first 2 games of the season. It's a Jekyl and Hyde formula, play strong in the first half, and then they are blowing it in the second half

WEEK 1
17-7 at half time

Lost 17-24

Now they were up 10 to 0 and it looks like they blew that lead and are going to let Tampa Bay possibly win.

 

[ivo610]

Hey I’m the new guy here I don’t know why you’d have expectations of me. OTOH, because you’re a vet here, I was going to post my disappointment with your posts on this thread but we don’t know each other well, like I said I’m the new guy, and I was attempting to be more civil.
This is the first post after mine in which I brought up QBR and listed the top 8 from week one: It was so void of content it caused Raptorman, who as far as I can tell is an entirely reasonable poster in spite of being cursed by being a Vikings fan, to post “I want to hear your reasoning… So tell us what’s wrong with it”. You responded to his very reasonable post – reread it if you don’t remember it – in a mocking manner: “LOL sensitive over comments about the great espn?” All Raptorman posted was he’d like to hear your reasoning – hardly a show of sensitivity and in no way advancing the notion that ESPN is great. Your post looks to me to be the sensitive and defensive one.

In that post you bring up the fact that Dan Orlovsky is rated too high on their 2008 list, since he was 0-7 as a starter. That seems to me to be your one substantive point regarding their results: QBR is supposed to reflect a QB’s impact on winning so an 0-7 QB can’t be rated higher than a Super Bowl winning QB, in spite of the fact that QBs don’t control the outcome of games: Obviously a QB can outplay the opposing QB and his team still lose the game. In this thread I listed the 2010 passer rating and QBR leaders. For someone who completely dismisses QBR, I’d think that would provide fertile ground to substantively point out it's flaws. I also related that both passer rating and QBR have Roethlisburger at #24 for the 2008 regular season. You admit you’re somewhat a fan of passer rating yet you don’t comment on that either, except to say the Lions’ QB is rated too high. They show three years of data and as far as I can tell, that’s your one substantive criticism of the results of their rating system. Three seasons, 30+ QBs per season and one complaint?

What we agree on is the error ESPN is making by not publishing their formula. Regarding sacks, if they are doing what they are claiming they are assigning a degree of responsibility, or lack of responsibility to QBs for each and every sack recorded throughout the league. Again, we have no way of knowing that because their methods are double secret at this point.

Ivo610, seriously go back and read your exchanges with Raptorman. You are the one accusing him of twisting your words when all he was trying to do was understand your opinion. You’re the one inferring that he, and presumably I, are members of a “herd” following ESPN. You’re the one being sarcastic and defensive, not him. Except for my first couple of sentences above, IMO Raptorman and I have avoided that.

This subject isn’t that important so I’m done with it unless you ask me a direct question. Anyway in summary, I’m not worried about the Vikings. I never worry about the Vikings.

I try to judge people by the content of their posts, not their post count. So yeah, I did expect more from you, reguardless of how long you have been on the forum.And I felt like Raptorman was twisting my words repeatedly, I guess its all how you read it.

Dan Orlovsky is hardly the only complaint. It just seems like no one is reading the thread, just zeroing in on the anti espn comments. watev.I guess I can sum it up for you if you want, but going to through and repeatedly picking which guy is better than listed is just petty, and just leads to a bunch of arguments about said players, not the bigger issue, the formula. Therefore I felt it was better to just pick out the biggest issue with the system I saw as an example and move on. Big Ben just stood out as he won the SB, and comparing him to trent dilfer is the grade school counter argument for people when they hear someone point out so and so won a SB or several.

1. if you credit winning higher in your secret formula then Dan Orlovsky who didnt win a game as a starter in 08 shouldnt rank higher than the guy that won the SB. On top of that, it values "clutch" they say, but Big Ben is one of the most clutch QBs I have seen in this era, and well, dan O ran out of the endzone.

2. Its a secret objective formula. It requires you to trust their judgment. You can not sit at home and do it yourself unlike the Passer Rating.

3. Its a capped formula. (so is Passer rating)

4. I dont feel it is an improvement over the current system

5. If you are going to count sacks, are you going to weigh strength of schedule too? Or who has a better offensive line?

6. It over inflates running QBs. People were upset with the passer rating, but never thought about what it was, measuring the passing, not their whole body of work.

I have heard other arguments against it but mostly from math nerds.

 

[Kitten]

I'm worried about the LIONS! I shudder to think what Stafford's QBR will be this week. To hell with the Vikings or even the Bears. We really need to turn our attention to the Lions in our division.

 

[Bogart]

I'm worried about the LIONS! I shudder to think what Stafford's QBR will be this week. To hell with the Vikings or even the Bears. We really need to turn our attention to the Lions in our division.

Right on Kitten!, You deserve a cheese nip for that.