Top to Bottom

[MadHatter]

I've got nothing against high hopes, but believing the light is just going to turn on for Godfrey when it hasn't in 5 years just isn't rational...

 

Go back and read some of the expert and other coaches comments over the past few years.  Godfrey is actually thought of and spoken about like a very solid safety.

 

I think the Huddle has a much lower opinion of him than most in the league.

[jarhead]

The right to side of our line was graded as one of the worse.No way you can make that pig pretty

[C47]

Go back and read some of the expert and other coaches comments over the past few years.  Godfrey is actually thought of and spoken about like a very solid safety.

 

I think the Huddle has a much lower opinion of him than most in the league.

 

He's good in run support and pretty bad in coverage.  You can watch the games and see that clearly.  Playing FS that's a pretty big problem.  I'm not saying he's the worst safety in the league, but coverage wise he's not very good....

[chef17]

Division winners like Seattle went  to the playoffs with a 7-9 record a few years ago.  Did they benefit from who was in their division as opposed to who was the best teams or who won the most games that year?? Seattle ranked low in all those areas and made the playoffs despite being what you call a bad team. Then they beat a Saints team that was supposedly a better team.  So your whole better or worse criteria meant nothing.

 To say that you can determine who was best or worse solely based on wins is not even how the NFL works.  Division winners get in and host a playoff game as long as they have the best record in their division regardless of whether there are better record teams out there who don't even make the playoffs.  Why does the NFL do it this way?  Because teams in a particular division play similar competition but teams in different divisions do not.  So keeping things within the division accounts for differences in strength of  schedule and other factors.

 

No one said we were a good team last year but to assume the 7-9 record accounted for everything or that our rankings tell the whole story is naive at best.  We were an awful team the first half of the year and much better the second half.  The change in rankings and the change in wins and losses across the year both support that improvement.  That is fact as well.

 

And this of course wasn't even what we were debating.  I  simply stated by saying that rankings such at 7th or 11th are not very good descriptors and the difference between those could be small in absolute number or large.  Like usual it morphed into this discussion which you are still using too simplistic a logic to account for.

 

I had no better or worse criteria so your first paragraph has nothing to do with the discussion. I didn't say you can determine best or worse based solely on wins either.

 

A bad record, and having all 3 parts of the team ranked low in points means you're a bad team. Playing well the last 6 games doesn't change the bad first 10. Last season the team was bad, everything supports that.

 

Rankings compare teams to their competition. If you are worse than most of your competition, you're bad. You may be a little worse than the competition or you may be a lot, doesn't change that you're bad.

 

[rayzor]

I agree with you that the young guys have to step up.  I am only meaning that I don't think it is near as big an issue as some on here think it is.

 

But, only time will tell.....and soon we will know.

 

I hope I am right....but hey, I am wrong at least half of the time.

 

it shouldn't matter for most of the game, but i think that in those clutch situations that we were in so often last year where it's a matter of 6 points or less deciding the game...those will be the moments that it matters and unfortunately we get put in those situations too often.

 

my beef will continue to be that we will allow the other team to have the ball in those moments and just trust that our average at best secondary doesn't let us down yet again. i will never believe that to be a safe and secure way to manage a game.

 

[Frizzy350]

You also said Hangartner wasn't as bad as advertised, but the back up Center was the problem.

Am I missing something? Was he not the back up Center?

 

lol!

 

also piggy sucked real hard even when kalil was in there.

 

the big problem with our Oline is even though we have 2 pro bowlers at key spots, they play with finesse and technique and lose matchups to the athletically elite.  They need to be surrounded by guys who can make up that strength deficiency (and I think Silatolu and Kugbila could be those guys, assuming Silatolu progressed and isn't standing around not blocking).  Back in 08 we had 2 absolute maulers on the line in Wharton (in his prime) and that Utah guy who was a rookie.  Let Kalil do the thinking, and let the guys from Tonga and Ghana do the heavy lifting.

 

Seriously though how comfortable do we feel seeing Kalil go up one on one against like... vince wilfork.  We all saw what JPP did to Gross.  Just need some raw athletes to help them out.

[iamhubby1]

You realize you're assuming it will be the best case scenario (that they will play better) right?  Much more realistic and rational to assume we're going to see what we've seen for years now than the other way around....

So it is perfectly, realistic and rational, for you to see things in terms of worst case scenario. But I cannot looks at things from a best case scenario?

Well, now that I am learning all these interwebz rules, I don't think I like this game.

[panthers55]

They had an easier schedule. They just didn't hav to score much to win in their 11 wins.

 

That was my point.  A team could be 10-6 like Chicago and be better than Indy who finished 11-5 because they played in different conferences.  But if you only looked at wins or losses you would assume Indy was better.  Hence why i said wins and losses are not the only or best judge of who is a better or worse team unless you are talking about the extremes.

[panthers55]

I had no better or worse criteria so your first paragraph has nothing to do with the discussion. I didn't say you can determine best or worse based solely on wins either.

 

A bad record, and having all 3 parts of the team ranked low in points means you're a bad team. Playing well the last 6 games doesn't change the bad first 10. Last season the team was bad, everything supports that.

 

Rankings compare teams to their competition. If you are worse than most of your competition, you're bad. You may be a little worse than the competition or you may be a lot, doesn't change that you're bad.

 

You talk in circles.  You say winning determines if you are good or bad.  So using your logic a 7-9 team is bad yet a 9-7 team by extension must be good.  Then you said earlier that rankings aren't important but just said if your ranking are in the bottom of the league then you are bad suggesting they are important.  Which one is it? You ignored the whole point of the discussion which was that using rankings without knowing the range of the data set or how much separates teams from one another results in perceived differences that aren't there.  We assume the first ranked team and the second ranked team are both very good while the 10th ranked team is not nearly as good as either of the other two. But if the difference between the 1st ranked team and the second ranked team was 10 points a game and the difference between the 2nd ranked team and the 10th ranked team was 2 points, then the perceived difference between the 10th ranked team and the second ranked team would be small but the difference between the top two would be huge.

By using an all or nothing criteria like winning or losing, the fact that you don't have a better or worse criteria is a flaw.  You don't differentiate between a 0-16 team and a 7-9 team instead calling them both bad because they had losing seasons and that is ridiculous.  Of course there is a big difference between the 2 .  Then you say that we ranked low in all categories and I already pointed out that rankings for points between 10th and 20th for example had a small range of 2 points one way or the other essentially making your ranking distinction useless.  By your notion, being 14th which is in the top half of the league is okay but ranking 18th is bad because it is in the lower half of the league yet the difference is a point a game or perhaps 2 touchdowns over the course of a season.

Finally rankings aren't comparing you to every team on an absolute basis because you don't play every other team and different divisions can make a huge difference in how hard or easy your schedule is compared to other teams and how you rank to each other.  So again your whole logic is serious flawed and very simplistic in nature.  Saying it over and over doesn't make it any better it simply reinforces the notion that you don't have a clue or you are too concrete to understand the obvious differences.

 

I am not saying I don't like the way things are done simply that in order to make sense of stats and rankings you have to understand how they are derived and their limitations rather to assume a concrete simplistic approach as you appear to do.  Winning is the main thing that counts and points for and points against are  the way that happens but to use terms like bad and good when describing rankings and records really is inaccurate unless you are talking about the extremes.

[DaveThePanther2008]

your posting speaks for itself. it's obvious you've invested a lot of time and energy rationalizing in your head that this team is better than it actually is, while given no indication that things are actually going to change. no you don't need pro bowlers at every position but for the ones you don't you at least need competent, reliable players in general (ex. minter) and godfrey's never proven in 5 seasons to even be competent or shown consistency. mike mitchell was overdrafted like 5 rounds because the raiders scouting staff is retarded. i feel good about a lot of positions on the team. safety is definitely not one of them and unlike you i'm not afraid to admit it

Reading your posts are ALWAYS negative so I take your negativity with a grain of salt.

 

I am done arguing with someone that only sees thing in a negative light.

 

Have a nice day.

[DaveThePanther2008]

 

Can you clarify if A.H stands for A$$hole or A$$hat? I like A$$hat better. If you want, I can play this game all day. I have time to Google "DaveThePanther2008 prediction" and the results are fantabulous.

 

Oh look!......

 

DaveThePanther2008

DaveThePanther2008

Superior Member

• 
• HUDDLER
• 
• 1,915 posts

• LocationMelfa

Posted 28 April 2011 - 10:09 PM

I am of the belief that Newton will NOT start at all in 2011. However, I replied to a post on FB and it blew up. So I thought I would get the Huddles opinion.

 

And so defiant, so angry:

 

DaveThePanther2008

DaveThePanther2008

Superior Member

• 
• HUDDLER
• 
• 1,915 posts

• LocationMelfa

Posted 28 April 2011 - 11:59 PM

caddieman said

He will start but not in 2011 and if by chance he starts in 2011 it will be because he is ready and at minimum 1/2 way into the season.

As far as Morons go you only have to look into the mirror. Your hapless knowledge about Newton or what he has to learn before becoming the starting QB is very clear.

So do me a big favor...and take a long walk off a short pier. and as the Great Buford T. Justice Said ""F__K OFF""

 

 Really searching hard you.

 

You pick what 3 of 4 days after the NFL Draft?  No OTAs or Minicamps in sight.  Based on the future, I would say that was a pretty good assessment.  While I was wrong it was a valid point.  And I also believe that changed well before we actually started playing.  After Cam had time to work with IMG.

 

I am proud of you.  You are so intelligent that you can search.  Wow, may  I have your autograph.

 

FF

 

Once again,

 

You pick and choose three or four.  Cute

 

How many did you come across where I was right.  Once again.

 

3 or 4 doesn't make a majority.

 

I don't give a poo whether you search all day or not. 

 

I know my record on topics I discuss.  I try to be more optimistic and not so negative but I have also stood my ground when I know I am right.

[C47]

So it is perfectly, realistic and rational, for you to see things in terms of worst case scenario. But I cannot looks at things from a best case scenario?Well, now that I am learning all these interwebz rules, I don't think I like this game.

I'm seeing things from the way they've been consistently the past five seasons....

[iamhubby1]

I'm seeing things from the way they've been consistently the past five seasons....

Skirt the issue. Well played.

From your, somewhat skewed, point of view. You can't go wrong. You are like my dog, he thinks he is smarter than he really is too.

Kids. If you can think it, it must be true. Good to see some things never change.

[C47]

Skirt the issue. Well played.

From your, somewhat skewed, point of view. You can't go wrong. You are like my dog, he thinks he is smarter than he really is too.

Kids. If you can think it, it must be true. Good to see some things never change.

 

How is it skirting the issue when I'm making an observation based on what the actual results have been for five years now regarding our safety play?  Please enlighten me since I'm no smarter then your dog.  While you're right that we are both assuming opposite outcomes, you're missing one little important key piece that I have actual factual results over a lengthy period of time to support mine.  You have jack poo other than what you HOPE will happen.  Guess what, we hope the same things bud, I'm just not going to expect it till Godfrey, Naka or any other safety shows me things have changed from the last five seasons.  For fugs sake lets throw the intelligence insults out of this, I have no clue who you are, and you have no clue who I am.  So I doubt you really have any clue what I know, or don't know....