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
I'm Worried About The Vikings
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="ivo610" data-source="post: 385486" data-attributes="member: 2128"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>3. Its a capped formula. (so is Passer rating)</p><p></p><p>4. I dont feel it is an improvement over the current system</p><p></p><p>5. If you are going to count sacks, are you going to weigh strength of schedule too? Or who has a better offensive line?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I have heard other arguments against it but mostly from math nerds.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ivo610, post: 385486, member: 2128"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
Firethorn1001
Latest posts
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: milani
28 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: milani
30 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: CarryTheG14
30 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: milani
34 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: DoURant
Today at 2:58 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
I'm Worried About The Vikings
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
