Top to Bottom

[frash.exe]

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.

 

lol go put your head in the sand.... admirable gesture

[chef17]

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.

 

Nowhere did I say rankings weren't important. This really serves no purpose to keep going back and forth so I'll just ask this and be done. If you can't use a bad record combined with an offense scoring less points than the competition, a defense giving up more than the competition, and a bad special teams unit, then how would you determine what makes a team bad?

 

[panthers55]

Nowhere did I say rankings weren't important. This really serves no purpose to keep going back and forth so I'll just ask this and be done. If you can't use a bad record combined with an offense scoring less points than the competition, a defense giving up more than the competition, and a bad special teams unit, then how would you determine what makes a team bad?

You are right there is no point in going back and forth. Your question shows that nothing I have said made any impact on you. You are still using the same simplistic logic to ask your question. As my sig says I can explain it to you as I have but I can't understand it for you as well. Perhaps we can discuss something less abstract or complex like how you liked what Smitty said tonight in the interview. That doesn't require much thought or understanding of multidimentional concepts.

[C47]

 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.

 

Let's see your scoreboard then since you're obviously so obsessed with stroking your ego that you keep track of your hits and misses....

[chef17]

You are right there is no point in going back and forth. Your question shows that nothing I have said made any impact on you. You are still using the same simplistic logic to ask your question. As my sig says I can explain it to you as I have but I can't understand it for you as well. Perhaps we can discuss something less abstract or complex like how you liked what Smitty said tonight in the interview. That doesn't require much thought or understanding of multidimentional concepts.

 

Most of what you said isn't relevant. Half of it is talking about determining who is better or worse which has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. I understand everything you said, but when you are arguing that being bad at the entire point of your job, ya know scoring points and not allowing points to win games, then it begs the question how would you determine who is bad. You can't answer that's fine. I'll agree to disagree and we can move on

[panthers55]

Most of what you said isn't relevant. Half of it is talking about determining who is better or worse which has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. I understand everything you said, but when you are arguing that being bad at the entire point of your job, ya know scoring points and not allowing points to win games, then it begs the question how would you determine who is bad. You can't answer that's fine. I'll agree to disagree and we can move on

As I said before in order to agree to disagree we need to be on the level of understanding regarding what we are even discussing.  Obviously you discount everything I said which is all I need to know.  It is  throwing pearls before swine. You obviously have no appreciation or understanding of what I am saying so I won't waste my time. Can I answer that question and a million more?  Of course. Ask an intelligent question and I will respond in kind.  Until then, get in the last word and smuggly believe you have won some kind of debate.

[frash.exe]

so dave if you're done PMSing about people having legitimate reservations about certain positions on the team and want to talk again let's discuss Armanti "Steal of the 2010 draft" Edwards and where he fits into the WR competition where I understand there are so many 4th string difference makers according to the OP