MNF

[topseed]

This survey was on the world wide web. It wasn't on a Chargers website or a Browns fan page. It was on SBNation which is a sports page that covers baseball to UFC. Saying that there's bias because people hate Ben is asinine.

https://www.similarweb.com/website/sbnation.com/#geography

Here you can break down the demographic in greater detail if you like. But as you can see the majority of the traffic is from American and spread throughout the country.

So SBnation gets 7.3m hits monthly or 243k daily. The sample size is 478. Proportion 50%. What is the margin of error with the standard 95% confidence level? I'll give you a hint. Less than 5%.

And I’m telling you that the margin of error cannot be accurately determined unless your sample is known to be representative of the population…

The generic way that you learn it in high school is based on ideal conditions… thats why national polls rarely accurately reflect real world turnout either in politics or marketing… and those actually try to use some representative sampling, at least far more than an online poll would…

If those MOE were correct, then for instance the end result of a vote would fall within the margin of error of the most recent poll more often than not.
This is famously not the case in national polls across the world…

Scientific polling is based on scientific sampling, but unless the first step of representative sampling is done then all the results are potentially biased and unrepeatable… pollsters typically ignore that… and here you are using a totally unscientific and relatively small poll to try to prove a national opinion

Let me give you a hint about what @madinsomniac is trying to explain to you, and break it down even more simply so even you can get it:

There's 243,000 daily hits on that site, yet less than 500 people took the time to vote in that poll. Think about that for a second. The poll was surely up for more than one day, but even if it wasn't, that's around .002 of responses/hits. So basically, YOU ARE BY NATURE GETTING A BIASED RESPONSE by a tiny relative number of fans that actually gave a shlt enough to bother. Many of those may or may not have based their response on personal dislike for Ben, not his football acumen.

Understand?

 

[SteelerFan448]

This is the dumbest argument ever on this board.

 

[FordFairLane]

Well, just because you decided to compare them doesn't mean that there's any comparison.

Yeah. I’m nuts. Compare two QBs from the same draft class, who threw for 1% different yardages, tds, and ints. I mean who would make that comparison…

Oh. So, as usual, you want to qualify statitics when they don't support your argument.

How is comparing QBs from different eras or not even close to the same interceptions the same as qbs with similar stats within the same era. I’m comparing apples to apples. You are comparing apples to potatoes.

Rivers played on some pretty good Chargers teams, too. Like 2006, when they were 14-2 and went one and done in the playoffs with PR compiling a 55.5 rating. Or 2009, when they were 13-3, and went one and done in the playoffs with good buddy compiling a 76.9 rating.

How many pro bowlers or future hall of famers on Rivers vs Roethlisberger? The teams over the 16-17 years are no where close.

Ask most knowledgeable football fans about Philip Rivers, and they'll describe him as a pretty good regular season quarterback. Not in the same class as Ben.

I’m at a Wisconsin bar right now. They are all laughing about this. Most, like me, give Ben the slight nod. But there’s 4 out of 10 that say Rivers was better. I’m not mad. They have valid reasons. Rivers on worse teams without the offensive weapons has about the same stats. Hey, good for them. I can see their point. I can move on.

 

[slashsteel]

Go look at my last post. Every needed measurement is there. Except all the Ben haters who “obviously” skew any survey that deals with him.

Dude. You are wrong. I know you can’t admit it but I know you know. That’s why you keep digging deeper. There’s two types of humans. The ones who can admit they are wrong. And slashsteel. Don’t be slashsteel.

What's even worse don't be FordnoHairLine a twatwaffling know it all that knows a fraction of that.

I think that tree is blocking your forest view again.

 

[topseed]

Yeah. I’m nuts. Compare two QBs from the same draft class, who threw for 1% different yardages, tds, and ints. I mean who would make that comparison…

I wasn't speaking in literal terms, oh wise one.

How is comparing QBs from different eras or not even close to the same interceptions the same as qbs with similar stats within the same era. I’m comparing apples to apples. You are comparing apples to potatoes.

You made the asinine statement that Matt Stafford is as good as or better than Ben. And that's IF Stafford plays two more years, or IF he plays until he's 40. I guess only you can use statistics that don't even exist yet, for your apples to apples comparisons.

How many pro bowlers or future hall of famers on Rivers vs Roethlisberger? The teams over the 16-17 years are no where close.

Teams don't go 14-2 or 13-3 by accident, pal. How does a 14-2 team go 0-1 in the playoffs? I'll tell you: Their overrated quarterback goes 14-32 with no touchdowns and two turnovers, and they lose by 3. But keep making excuses for the guy.

I’m at a Wisconsin bar right now. They are all laughing about this. Most, like me, give Ben the slight nod. But there’s 4 out of 10 that say Rivers was better. I’m not mad. They have valid reasons. Rivers on worse teams without the offensive weapons has about the same stats. Hey, good for them. I can see their point. I can move on.

Wow, 4 out of 10 random a-holes think Rivers was better than Ben. Amazing. Wait, what's the margin of error on a 10-person poll at a Wisconsin gay bar? I think your new buddies might be laughing at you, not with you. But I'm sure you had a nice time.

 

[FordFairLane]

I wasn't speaking in literal terms, oh wise one.

Then what terms were you speaking? Not literal or logical I see.

You made the asinine statement that Matt Stafford is as good as or better than Ben. And that's IF Stafford plays two more years, or IF he plays until he's 40. I guess only you can use statistics that don't even exist yet, for your apples to apples comparisons.

Ben Roethlisberger at 34.
200 games 198 starts. 4164/6493 64.1% 51,065 yards 329 Tds 174 ints
Matthew Stafford 34 years old.
199 games 199 starts. 4674/7406 63.1% 54,152 yards 341 Tds 176 ints

Yeah... don't understand this comparison, huh?

Teams don't go 14-2 or 13-3 by accident, pal. How does a 14-2 team go 0-1 in the playoffs? I'll tell you: Their overrated quarterback goes 14-32 with no touchdowns and two turnovers, and they lose by 3. But keep making excuses for the guy.

And you can't understand that Rivers has less wins and was on worse teams. Just because he had a few years on good teams doesn't change the fact he has 31 less wins. Wins are a TEAM stat not an INDIVIDUAL stat. How many pro bowlers or future hall of fame players did Rivers play with? It isn't even close.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/pit/all-pros.htm

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sdg/all-pros.htm

Wow, 4 out of 10 random a-holes think Rivers was better than Ben. Amazing. Wait, what's the margin of error on a 10-person poll at a Wisconsin gay bar? I think your new buddies might be laughing at you, not with you. But I'm sure you had a nice time.

Why are you so butt hurt? I mean the fact that people could actually believe Rivers is as good if not better than Roethlisberger isn't even that unthinkable. I mean it isn't like people are saying He's only as good as Vinny Testerverde.

Again, you know you are wrong but keep arguing and making an *** of yourself. Take off the homer vision glasses and try to be objective. I just don't understand why people can't look at another point of view and instead just argue and make themselves look stupid. I mean I was in a Wisconsin bar with no one who gave two about either QB. Just because you would go poll a Steelers bar in Downtown Pittsburgh and say, "look, everyone agrees with me" and take that as fact as it validates your opinion. I on the other hand, who again think Roethlisberger is better than Rivers, can respect the opposing view and in fact prefer to hear why they would disagree. Because I can learn more from a different viewpoint than someone who has the same. But of course, I like to expand my knowledge and grow. Not everyone wants to do that.

 

[slashsteel]

I wasn't speaking in literal terms, oh wise one.


You made the asinine statement that Matt Stafford is as good as or better than Ben. And that's IF Stafford plays two more years, or IF he plays until he's 40. I guess only you can use statistics that don't even exist yet, for your apples to apples comparisons.


Teams don't go 14-2 or 13-3 by accident, pal. How does a 14-2 team go 0-1 in the playoffs? I'll tell you: Their overrated quarterback goes 14-32 with no touchdowns and two turnovers, and they lose by 3. But keep making excuses for the guy.

Wow, 4 out of 10 random a-holes think Rivers was better than Ben. Amazing. Wait, what's the margin of error on a 10-person poll at a Wisconsin gay bar? I think your new buddies might be laughing at you, not with you. But I'm sure you had a nice time.

Good luck trying to get anything to sink in. You will just get how stupid you are responses.

 

[topseed]

Then what terms were you speaking? Not literal or logical I see.

I believe "there's no comparison" would be an idiom. Do I need to type slower for you?

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/(there%27s)+no+comparison

Ben Roethlisberger at 34.
200 games 198 starts. 4164/6493 64.1% 51,065 yards 329 Tds 174 ints
Matthew Stafford 34 years old.
199 games 199 starts. 4674/7406 63.1% 54,152 yards 341 Tds 176 ints

Yeah... don't understand this comparison, huh?

I can understand how your small mind can only relate to a single set of data, yes. Let's just ignore the fact that the Steelers used Ben as a game manager early in his career, and dismiss the fact that the Lions were usually playing from behind, with so many of Stafford's statistics coming in complete garbage time, and Stafford has had one single winning postseason on one stacked team, etc., etc, etc. All you see is yards and touchdowns. Hey Ma! 'Dese stats look pretty close! Must be same!

And you can't understand that Rivers has less wins and was on worse teams. Just because he had a few years on good teams doesn't change the fact he has 31 less wins. Wins are a TEAM stat not an INDIVIDUAL stat. How many pro bowlers or future hall of fame players did Rivers play with? It isn't even close.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/pit/all-pros.htm

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sdg/all-pros.htm

Rivers had less wins because he wasn't as clutch as Ben was, and wasn't as good a quarterback overall. Since you keep going on and on about future hall of famers that Ben played with, I guess I'll tell you. It's two. Faneca and Polamalu. Amazing. Let's see. Rivers played with LT during a 4-year stint where he was considered one of the top running backs in football. Antonio Gates was first-team all-pro for three years, and made the Pro Bowl eight years straight. The Chargers also had a two-time first team all-pro fullback for two years and a three-time Pro Bowler in Lorenzo Neal. All skill position players, all on the same offense as Rivers AT THE SAME TIME. In 2006, Rivers had THREE first-team all-pros out of the five other skill positions, which is almost unheard of. He played with Keenan Allen for EIGHT YEARS. Joey Bosa for five. Are those guys future HOFers? I don't know, but probably. Not even close? Whatever you say, man.

Why are you so butt hurt? I mean the fact that people could actually believe Rivers is as good if not better than Roethlisberger isn't even that unthinkable. I mean it isn't like people are saying He's only as good as Vinny Testerverde.

Again, you know you are wrong but keep arguing and making an *** of yourself. Take off the homer vision glasses and try to be objective. I just don't understand why people can't look at another point of view and instead just argue and make themselves look stupid. I mean I was in a Wisconsin bar with no one who gave two about either QB. Just because you would go poll a Steelers bar in Downtown Pittsburgh and say, "look, everyone agrees with me" and take that as fact as it validates your opinion. I on the other hand, who again think Roethlisberger is better than Rivers, can respect the opposing view and in fact prefer to hear why they would disagree. Because I can learn more from a different viewpoint than someone who has the same. But of course, I like to expand my knowledge and grow. Not everyone wants to do that.

People can and will believe whatever they want. You're living proof of that. I'm not "butt hurt" at all. Not wrong at all, either. And you, sir, are the one clearly making yourself look very, very stupid in this thread. Carry on.

 

[topseed]

Good luck trying to get anything to sink in. You will just get how stupid you are responses.

Can't wait for the Matt Ryan chapter.

 

[Drink IRON City]

Another brick in the wall


BACON




Salute the nation

 

[FordFairLane]

I believe "there's no comparison" would be an idiom. Do I need to type slower for you?

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/(there%27s)+no+comparison

No, you need to quit name calling and changing the subject.

Well, just because you decided to compare them doesn't mean that there's any comparison.

Yeah. I’m nuts. Compare two QBs from the same draft class, who threw for 1% different yardages, tds, and ints. I mean who would make that comparison…

So here it is. Your statement, my rebuttal, and we can skip all the juvenile name calling and you can skip to actually making a valid point. Which you obviously can't.

"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. ~ Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Rivers had less wins because he wasn't as clutch as Ben was, and wasn't as good a quarterback overall. Since you keep going on and on about future hall of famers that Ben played with, I guess I'll tell you. It's two. Faneca and Polamalu. Amazing. Let's see. Rivers played with LT during a 4-year stint where he was considered one of the top running backs in football. Antonio Gates was first-team all-pro for three years, and made the Pro Bowl eight years straight. The Chargers also had a two-time first team all-pro fullback for two years and a three-time Pro Bowler in Lorenzo Neal. All skill position players, all on the same offense as Rivers AT THE SAME TIME. In 2006, Rivers had THREE first-team all-pros out of the five other skill positions, which is almost unheard of. He played with Keenan Allen for EIGHT YEARS. Joey Bosa for five. Are those guys future HOFers? I don't know, but probably. Not even close? Whatever you say, man.

Since you either are incapable or just to puerile to do so I will show you the difference. Roethlisberger played with 84 pro bowlers and 28 first team all pros. Rivers played with 56 pro bowlers and 12 first team all pros.

Also, Rivers did NOT player with LT for 4 years. Rivers was the backup to Drew Brees in 2004 and 2005. So you are wrong, again.

Antionio Gates made first team all pro ONCE with Rivers. So, once again. WRONG.

Are you pimping the FB. Seriously? Yeah, man you got me. Well, Nix was a pro bowler with Ben so there take that!
Rivers also had an all pro kicker in Kaeding. Don't forget that.

So the Chargers had a good 2006 team. Doesn't change the fact that Ben had 28 first team all pros and 84 pro bowlers he played with vs 12 all pros and 56 pro bowlers.

But I am sure you will have an excuse. Well, Rivers was on the team in 2004! Well, if we count those teams he still 17 all pros and 63 pro bowlers. Ben again still has a lot more.

And for Hall of Famers. Bettis, TP and Fenaca are in. Pouncey, Heyward, Watt, Harrison, Fitzpatrick, and AB all have real shots at getting in. Again, Ben has the better team.

People can and will believe whatever they want. You're living proof of that. I'm not "butt hurt" at all. Not wrong at all, either. And you, sir, are the one clearly making yourself look very, very stupid in this thread. Carry on.

Dude, you gotta look in the mirror. You are making a huge *** of yourself. I am literally showing my friends your posts and we are all laughing as I own you again and again. My buddy Jack says you must me a masochist.

 

[Steeltime]

How do you figure? Its a non scientific poll, attached to an internet article.
There were 478 responses. ... Its the equivalent of randomly polling 500 people about how they feel about the president without knowing their political party or if they are from varied locations or not. Ask 500 democrats in Washington and your results would vary greatly from asking 500 republicans in texas, which is why surveys target diversified interests to accurately reflect the target market.

This ^^^

In my statics class in college it was said a sample size of 1000 would have a 3% margin of error. And that’s speaking about the entire country. So, yes. A was being liberal by saying 5%.

Holy cow, I looked at a few posts made while I was on vacation with Mrs. Steeltime (John's Island near Charleston, S. Carolina at a great camping spot with the horses and other horse owners, riding on beautiful trails) and I encounter FFL's claim that some random internet poll has a 5% margin of error because it had 450+ responses.

insomniac explained why that conclusion is laughably wrong. Some random internet poll is never going to be scientifically valid. Valid polling questions a relevant cross-section of the responding population with very specific parameters. insomniac explained that with a very easy-to-follow example. FFL should have admitted, "Yeah, my 5% claim was bullshit." Instead, he doubles down and claims that his estimate of a 5% margin of error was "liberal."

FFL, random internet polls about who is a more popular football player are not scientifically relevant, or accurate, or meaningful in any respect. At all.

 

[Drink IRON City]

This ^^^



Holy cow, I looked at a few posts made while I was on vacation with Mrs. Steeltime (John's Island near Charleston, S. Carolina at a great camping spot with the horses and other horse owners, riding on beautiful trails) and I encounter FFL's claim that some random internet poll has a 5% margin of error because it had 450+ responses.

insomniac explained why that conclusion is laughably wrong. Some random internet poll is never going to be scientifically valid. Valid polling questions a relevant cross-section of the responding population with very specific parameters. insomniac explained that with a very easy-to-follow example. FFL should have admitted, "Yeah, my 5% claim was bullshit." Instead, he doubles down and claims that his estimate of a 5% margin of error was "liberal."

FFL, random internet polls about who is a more popular football player are not scientifically relevant, or accurate, or meaningful in any respect. At all.

The ONLY relevant internet poll that was done, years ago. It asked of the “five proposed”, which would you least like to do”

the N UMBER 1 answer was

1) Open field tackle of Jerome Bettis

2) Face a Randy Johnson fast ball

3-4-5) don’t matter

Special Note:

These players were in their prime at the time of poll and Bettis’ vote out numbered Johnson’s near two to one.



Salute the nation

 

[topseed]

No, you need to quit name calling and changing the subject.

Explaining my use of idiom because you don't understand it is not changing the subject. I also could have changed one letter in the word to describe you, but I didn't. Funny how the guy who just told me that I was making an *** out of myself and making myself look stupid is whining about name-calling. Here's another name for you: hypoocrite.

So here it is. Your statement, my rebuttal, and we can skip all the juvenile name calling and you can skip to actually making a valid point. Which you obviously can't.

"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. ~ Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Um, where is the insult in my statement there? You're imagining things now? The point I made, once again, is that just because YOU like to compare Rivers or Ryan to Roethlisberger, or actually rate Stafford higher than Ben, doesn't necessarily make it a valid comparison to most observers.

Since you either are incapable or just to puerile to do so I will show you the difference. Roethlisberger played with 84 pro bowlers and 28 first team all pros. Rivers played with 56 pro bowlers and 12 first team all pros.

Also, Rivers did NOT player with LT for 4 years. Rivers was the backup to Drew Brees in 2004 and 2005. So you are wrong, again.

Antionio Gates made first team all pro ONCE with Rivers. So, once again. WRONG.

Are you pimping the FB. Seriously? Yeah, man you got me. Well, Nix was a pro bowler with Ben so there take that!
Rivers also had an all pro kicker in Kaeding. Don't forget that.

So the Chargers had a good 2006 team. Doesn't change the fact that Ben had 28 first team all pros and 84 pro bowlers he played with vs 12 all pros and 56 pro bowlers.

But I am sure you will have an excuse. Well, Rivers was on the team in 2004! Well, if we count those teams he still 17 all pros and 63 pro bowlers. Ben again still has a lot more.

And for Hall of Famers. Bettis, TP and Fenaca are in. Pouncey, Heyward, Watt, Harrison, Fitzpatrick, and AB all have real shots at getting in. Again, Ben has the better team.

Your first good points of the entire thread about Rivers being nothing but a bench-warmer for his first two years. My bad.

I hate to break this to you, chief, but Pro Bowls aren't the gospel -- they're often biased and/or anomalous. May I call you "chief"? Or does "chief" hurt your widdle feelwings? I guess your interpretation of Ben "playing with 84 pro bowlers" is taking each and every individual season into account. A more accurate statement would be: "Ben played with guys who made the Pro Bowl 84 times." So let's take a closer look at some of these wonderful players:

LaMarr Woodley (2009) once and done.
Mike Wallace (2011) once and done.
Lawrence Timmons (2014) once and done.
Marvel Smith (2004) once and done.
Juju Smith-Schuster (2018) once and done.
Aaron Smith (2004) once and done.
Brett Keisel (2010) once and done.
Najee Harris (2021) once and done.
Diontae Johnson (2021) once and done.
Joe Haden (2019) once and done with the Steelers.
James Conner (2018) once and done.
Ryan Clark (2011) once and done.
Chris Boswell (2017) once and done.
Alejandro Villaneuva (2017-18) twice and how did that even happen?

Some pretty good players on that list; some not so much. Bettis in 2004 is among your "pro bowlers," yet he only started 6 games and averaged 3.8 yards per carry that season. But of course you'll include him with your short list of Hall of Famers Ben played with, even though it was clearly at the twilight of his career. The last time Pouncey was first-team all-pro was 2014, yet he made 5 more Pro Bowls after that, purely on reputation. And AB has a "real shot" at the HoF? Sure he does, guy. Sure he does. May I call you "guy"? Does "guy" hurt your widdle feelwings?

Your problem is that you cannot comprehend that there is a great deal of subjectivity when evaluating long NFL careers. It's not all cut and dried based on yards, touchdowns, or a few more teammates making the Pro Bowl. Of course overall the Steelers had the better team compared to the Chargers, but while calling it "not even close" may be your opinion, IT IS NOT A FACT. You seem to confuse the two quite often.

Don't you think Ben made guys like JuJu and Mike Wallace and AB better players? How many Pro Bowl seasons did those guys have when Ben wasn't throwing them the football? Don't you think Ben had a hand in making the Steelers better overall than the Chargers? No, you've proven time and time again that you cannot think outside whatever box of numbers you put yourself in. It really is amusing, and I'm clearly not the only one here who has noticed it.

Dude, you got to look in the mirror. You are making a huge *** of yourself. I am literally showing my friends your posts and we are all laughing as I own you again and again. My buddy Jack says you must me a masochist.

There it is again, but I'm the guy calling names, right?

You own nothing. Nothing but stubborn conceit. Who's your imaginary friend Jack? Is his last name Mehoff, by chance?

 

[slashsteel]

Explaining my use of idiom because you don't understand it is not changing the subject. I also could have changed one letter in the word to describe you, but I didn't. Funny how the guy who just told me that I was making an *** out of myself and making myself look stupid is whining about name-calling. Here's another name for you: hypoocrite.


Um, where is the insult in my statement there? You're imagining things now? The point I made, once again, is that just because YOU like to compare Rivers or Ryan to Roethlisberger, or actually rate Stafford higher than Ben, doesn't necessarily make it a valid comparison to most observers.


Your first good points of the entire thread about Rivers being nothing but a bench-warmer for his first two years. My bad.

I hate to break this to you, chief, but Pro Bowls aren't the gospel -- they're often biased and/or anomalous. May I call you "chief"? Or does "chief" hurt your widdle feelwings? I guess your interpretation of Ben "playing with 84 pro bowlers" is taking each and every individual season into account. A more accurate statement would be: "Ben played with guys who made the Pro Bowl 84 times." So let's take a closer look at some of these wonderful players:

LaMarr Woodley (2009) once and done.
Mike Wallace (2011) once and done.
Lawrence Timmons (2014) once and done.
Marvel Smith (2004) once and done.
Juju Smith-Schuster (2018) once and done.
Aaron Smith (2004) once and done.
Brett Keisel (2010) once and done.
Najee Harris (2021) once and done.
Diontae Johnson (2021) once and done.
Joe Haden (2019) once and done with the Steelers.
James Conner (2018) once and done.
Ryan Clark (2011) once and done.
Chris Boswell (2017) once and done.
Alejandro Villaneuva (2017-18) twice and how did that even happen?

Some pretty good players on that list; some not so much. Bettis in 2004 is among your "pro bowlers," yet he only started 6 games and averaged 3.8 yards per carry that season. But of course you'll include him with your short list of Hall of Famers Ben played with, even though it was clearly at the twilight of his career. The last time Pouncey was first-team all-pro was 2014, yet he made 5 more Pro Bowls after that, purely on reputation. And AB has a "real shot" at the HoF? Sure he does, guy. Sure he does. May I call you "guy"? Does "guy" hurt your widdle feelwings?

Your problem is that you cannot comprehend that there is a great deal of subjectivity when evaluating long NFL careers. It's not all cut and dried based on yards, touchdowns, or a few more teammates making the Pro Bowl. Of course overall the Steelers had the better team compared to the Chargers, but while calling it "not even close" may be your opinion, IT IS NOT A FACT. You seem to confuse the two quite often.

Don't you think Ben made guys like JuJu and Mike Wallace and AB better players? How many Pro Bowl seasons did those guys have when Ben wasn't throwing them the football? Don't you think Ben had a hand in making the Steelers better overall than the Chargers? No, you've proven time and time again that you cannot think outside whatever box of numbers you put yourself in. It really is amusing, and I'm clearly not the only one here who has noticed it.

There it is again, but I'm the guy calling names, right?

You own nothing. Nothing but stubborn conceit. Who's your imaginary friend Jack? Is his last name Mehoff, by chance?

You have explained everything very well.

The guy will constantly take shots at people then when people come back at him he not only points it out but like cooch reports people

The whole Doxing thread was made from him getting upset at his last name used once. The same last name that is present with his first name in his mock drafts on this very site.

As you can see everyone is dumber in comparison to his opinions.Which I have said before are some of the most bizarre I have ever seen.

1 Stats are highly relevant when he uses them, not so much when others use them.

2 He thinks after he views any game tape that what he sees is better than Joe blow. That is including our own GM. If that sounds like cooch it is because he has many of cooch's traits. He will chest bump his good selections and conveniently forget his crappy ones. Like Pickens C grade based on his film study. And Heyward a F grade based off his film study. Ten people can view game tape and come off ten different opinions. People on this site who actually watch every college game is more of an expert than me and him. But how he acts you would never know it.

He floods the forum with his repetitive bizarre QB opinions Rudy is great, Pickett sucks, etc. Yet like cooch doesn't contribute.

3. I will say it until they ban me, the guy isn't a good person or poster. He challenged my friend passing, called me a loser, said I didn't comprehend football yet whines every time someone comes at him.Every time. He can't understand two post routes in the same area can bring three D players into the same vicinity. Bad route concepts or a player over extending a skinny or regular post route. Yeah it is me that is football ignorant.

Nevermind I served and have saved a life outside of that while he yanked his putz behind his desk having an overinflated view of who he is.

Then he acts like everyone agrees with him yet I don't have poster after poster after poster showing my flawed opinions. He does.

**** me and Omar have went at each other literally overnight. Yet I can't remember one second of our debate. Why? Because 99 percent of the time that is all I take it as a moment where two people disagree. I forget and move on and will complement them on whatever moving forward. I have not taken that approach with two posters because they don't deserve that approach. Because daily they show they are tools and will continue moving forward that they are tools. It isn't in the heat of moment reaction with them, they both are colossal twatwaffles and will reveal this in most of their discussions..

 

[FordFairLane]

Explaining my use of idiom because you don't understand it is not changing the subject. I also could have changed one letter in the word to describe you, but I didn't. Funny how the guy who just told me that I was making an *** out of myself and making myself look stupid is whining about name-calling. Here's another name for you: hypoocrite.


Um, where is the insult in my statement there? You're imagining things now? The point I made, once again, is that just because YOU like to compare Rivers or Ryan to Roethlisberger, or actually rate Stafford higher than Ben, doesn't necessarily make it a valid comparison to most observers.

I can understand how your small mind can only relate to a single set of data, yes.

I have shown you again and again and again there's a valid comparison from Rivers, Ryan and Stafford. The numbers don't lie. Ben had better teams and won more games. Rivers, Ryan and Stafford either have comparable individual numbers right now or at the same point in their careers.

Your first good points of the entire thread about Rivers being nothing but a bench-warmer for his first two years. My bad.

Bench warmer to the 2nd overall passing yards and touchdown leader. I mean you didn't just forget about that part did you?

I hate to break this to you, chief, but Pro Bowls aren't the gospel -- they're often biased and/or anomalous. May I call you "chief"? Or does "chief" hurt your widdle feelwings? I guess your interpretation of Ben "playing with 84 pro bowlers" is taking each and every individual season into account. A more accurate statement would be: "Ben played with guys who made the Pro Bowl 84 times." So let's take a closer look at some of these wonderful players:

LaMarr Woodley (2009) once and done.
Mike Wallace (2011) once and done.
Lawrence Timmons (2014) once and done.
Marvel Smith (2004) once and done.
Juju Smith-Schuster (2018) once and done.
Aaron Smith (2004) once and done.
Brett Keisel (2010) once and done.
Najee Harris (2021) once and done.
Diontae Johnson (2021) once and done.
Joe Haden (2019) once and done with the Steelers.
James Conner (2018) once and done.
Ryan Clark (2011) once and done.
Chris Boswell (2017) once and done.
Alejandro Villaneuva (2017-18) twice and how did that even happen?

Some pretty good players on that list; some not so much. Bettis in 2004 is among your "pro bowlers," yet he only started 6 games and averaged 3.8 yards per carry that season. But of course you'll include him with your short list of Hall of Famers Ben played with, even though it was clearly at the twilight of his career. The last time Pouncey was first-team all-pro was 2014, yet he made 5 more Pro Bowls after that, purely on reputation. And AB has a "real shot" at the HoF? Sure he does, guy. Sure he does. May I call you "guy"? Does "guy" hurt your widdle feelwings?

Hey, out of your list how many of those guys were pro bowlers? Yeah, I am still right. You are still wrong.

Your problem is that you cannot comprehend that there is a great deal of subjectivity when evaluating long NFL careers. It's not all cut and dried based on yards, touchdowns, or a few more teammates making the Pro Bowl. Of course overall the Steelers had the better team compared to the Chargers, but while calling it "not even close" may be your opinion, IT IS NOT A FACT. You seem to confuse the two quite often.

Roethlisberger played with 50% more pro bowlers and 133% more first team all pros. That is cut and dry non-disputable facts. Your problem is you want to debate with the unknown and try to skew it into facts. Those are opinions. Those are not facts. Facts are what people use to validate an opinion. You have no facts. You only have opinions.

Don't you think Ben made guys like JuJu and Mike Wallace and AB better players? How many Pro Bowl seasons did those guys have when Ben wasn't throwing them the football? Don't you think Ben had a hand in making the Steelers better overall than the Chargers? No, you've proven time and time again that you cannot think outside whatever box of numbers you put yourself in. It really is amusing, and I'm clearly not the only one here who has noticed it.

There it is again, but I'm the guy calling names, right?

You own nothing. Nothing but stubborn conceit. Who's your imaginary friend Jack? Is his last name Mehoff, by chance?

So your argument is that Ben made his receivers better. Do you think Rivers maybe did the same thing? Stafford, Favre, Rodgers, Ryan, Brees, Brady, etc all were great QB's and as such made the players around them better.

I am not stubborn. I stated my opinion, I have provided facts to support my opinion, and you have done nothing to prove your opinion. You try to marginalize the facts and deflect with name calling. You do that because you know I have proven my opinion to be valid and you have not done anything to support yours.

 

[FordFairLane]

This ^^^



Holy cow, I looked at a few posts made while I was on vacation with Mrs. Steeltime (John's Island near Charleston, S. Carolina at a great camping spot with the horses and other horse owners, riding on beautiful trails) and I encounter FFL's claim that some random internet poll has a 5% margin of error because it had 450+ responses.

insomniac explained why that conclusion is laughably wrong. Some random internet poll is never going to be scientifically valid. Valid polling questions a relevant cross-section of the responding population with very specific parameters. insomniac explained that with a very easy-to-follow example. FFL should have admitted, "Yeah, my 5% claim was bullshit." Instead, he doubles down and claims that his estimate of a 5% margin of error was "liberal."

FFL, random internet polls about who is a more popular football player are not scientifically relevant, or accurate, or meaningful in any respect. At all.

You probably should read the entire thread. The whole argument is I can see the opinion that some might have to say Rivers, Stafford, or Ryan are in the same category as Roethlisberger. I have also stated many times I think Roethlisberger is better. BUT I can also see an opposing viewpoint. The homers think no one could think that. The poll which I have also proven has a 4.5% margin of error was me showing people do in fact believe that. And the can. That is their opinion. There's a valid argument to be made. But some can't fathom a differing of opinions on here. Because lord knows the Steelers can do no wrong.

 

[Steeltime]

The poll which I have also proven has a 4.5% margin of error ...

Ho-lee ****, you actually believe that??

My God, you are plummeting from frivolity to absurdity at this point. You actually reason that (1) since scientifically based polling (with a representative cross-sample of the polling pool and numerous factors put in place to avoid polling prejudice) has an "x" percent "margin of error" with "y" number of participants, and (2) since "y" number of people participated in a random internet poll, (3) the random internet sampling thereby has "x" percent "margin of error."

Good heavens, just admit you are wrong. Embarrassingly inaccurate. Demonstrably mistaken. Irrevocably erroneous.

Or do you believe that a random internet poll is a valid representation of anything other than the opinions of those who encountered the poll on the internet and cared enough to respond?

 

[FordFairLane]

Ho-lee ****, you actually believe that??

My God, you are plummeting from frivolity to absurdity at this point. You actually reason that (1) since scientifically based polling (with a representative cross-sample of the polling pool and numerous factors put in place to avoid polling prejudice) has an "x" percent "margin of error" with "y" number of participants, and (2) since "y" number of people participated in a random internet poll, (3) the random internet sampling thereby has "x" percent "margin of error."

Good heavens, just admit you are wrong. Embarrassingly inaccurate. Demonstrably mistaken. Irrevocably erroneous.

Or do you believe that a random internet poll is a valid representation of anything other than the opinions of those who encountered the poll on the internet and cared enough to respond?

The entire argument is based on BS. By your logic no survey's would work because there might be a preconceived prejudice towards someone. With no factual backing to give it merit. So yes, the margin of error IS 4.5%. That is a fact and if you can't understand it I am sorry but that is on you.

How about this. If you did a survey of 1000 random registered voters to determine the new president of the united states the margin of error would be 3%. That is a sample size of 1000 vs a registered voter population size of 170,000,000. So a much larger population size with a marginally larger sample size. Now what the homers are arguing is that the people who took the SBnation are biased. Like if the survey I spoke of on the US Election would be taken on the campus of Cal-Berkley only or if the poll was only conducted at truck stops for truckers only. That would be a survey based on a biased demographic. Where is your proof that SBNation is biased? I showed the demographic of people who view the site and it was spread throughout the country and even the world. So show me how that website is slanted towards a group of people who hate Roethlisberger? You can't because it isn't. I would say more than anything the fact the survey was done in 2018 and is dated would be a bigger issue. But the fact remains that is it not a cut and dry win for Roethlisberger. There's many people on the Rivers side of the coin who would have valid points. The problem is the homers that can't see the other side of things. That if you challenge their opinion they make absurd claims with no factual support.

 

[Steeltime]

The entire argument is based on BS. By your logic no survey's would work because there might be a preconceived prejudice towards someone. With no factual backing to give it merit. So yes, the margin of error IS 4.5%. That is a fact and if you can't understand it I am sorry but that is on you.

No, it's "on" the moron too stupid to understand basic concepts.

Sorry, you are a moron so I guess I need to specify - the moron is you.

How about this. If you did a survey of 1000 random registered voters to determine the new president of the united states the margin of error would be 3%.

No, it wouldn't. You would need to poll a representative number of women and men, and R vs. D vs. I, and weigh the polling based on the age of the voters so that you don't overpoll voters under 40 when the most likely voters are over age 40.

Get it? Probably not. Have a 2nd grader explain it to you.

Where is your proof that SBNation is biased?

You are the idiot claiming the internet poll is sCyUnTiFfiC. You need to show it is a representative sampling, not some random ******* internet poll.

Oh, right - we already know it was some random ******* internet poll.

So show me how that website is slanted towards a group of people who hate Roethlisberger? You can't because it isn't.

Again, for the 3rd time - you are the ******* imbecile claiming the random internet poll has a "5% margin of error." YOU show the internet poll has any ******* basis in scientific polling.

My God, it's like arguing with a 2-year old in the checkout line.

 

[FordFairLane]

No, it's "on" the moron too stupid to understand basic concepts.

Sorry, you are a moron so I guess I need to specify - the moron is you.

"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. ~ Jean-Jacques Rousseau

No, it wouldn't. You would need to poll a representative number of women and men, and R vs. D vs. I, and weigh the polling based on the age of the voters so that you don't overpoll voters under 40 when the most likely voters are over age 40.

Get it? Probably not. Have a 2nd grader explain it to you.

My company spends millions on surveys and they don’t get specific on age, gender, race, religion, shoe size, sexual orientation, height, weight, blood type. It’s randomized. The laws of averages work its way out. The gallup poll calls a household and asks to speak to the person over 18 that had the last birthday. But i guess the people at gallup don’t know what they’re doing.

What do you think the margin of error is then? 10, 20, 30 or maybe 61 so you would get your desired results.

You are the idiot claiming the internet poll is sCyUnTiFfiC. You need to show it is a representative sampling, not some random ******* internet poll.

Where did I say the poll was scientific? Please. Show me. You know because I’M the idiot.

Oh, right - we already know it was some random ******* internet poll.



Again, for the 3rd time - you are the ******* imbecile claiming the random internet poll has a "5% margin of error." YOU show the internet poll has any ******* basis in scientific polling.

My God, it's like arguing with a 2-year old in the checkout line.

So once again what is the margin of error?

This is what I get. But I’M the imbecile…

z = 1.96, p = 0.5, N = 243000, n = 478

MOE = 1.96 * √0.5 * (1 - 0.5) / √(243000 - 1) * 478 / (243000 - 478)

MOE = 0.98 / 21.885 * 100 = 4.478%

 

[Drink IRON City]

I'd hope I'd eaten my previous BACON.

No BACON should go un-eaten.

Un-eaten BACON should be eaten later.


Salute the nation

 

[slashsteel]

I'd hope I'd eaten my previous BACON.

No BACON should go un-eaten.

Un-eaten BACON should be eaten later.


Salute the nation

Great value smoked bacon. A brand some might not expect to be excellent. But it is. I take the seeds out of the , get some fresh lettuce.Toast the bread.

A delicious BLT one of the pleasures in life.

 

[Hypocycloids]

I'm not sure I buy into the "people hate Ben" thing as having much of an effect on polling. Maybe 10 yrs. ago it would have

Tom Brady was the most hated player in the NFL, yet he'd still come out on top as the GOAT in any poll.

https://foxsportsradio.iheart.com/content/2021-09-27-the-real-reason-why-tom-brady-is-the-most-hated-player-in-the-nfl/

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

Jets keeping it close. And Brandon Staley has yet to make his colossal coaching blunder based on what a spreadsheet tells him to do.