MNF

[tapeANaspirin2it]

Back in 2015, the Chargers drafter Melvin Gordon in the 1st round. He averaged under 4 per carry for 3 years. Then they found an undrafted guy named Austin Ekeler in 2017. They continued force feeding carries to the 1st rounder Gordon until 2019 even though it was obvious that the undrafted Ekeler was far more explosive and productive.

There may be another team in a similar situation right now,

 

[Steeltime]

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

"FordFairLane is a sniveling weasel, and I wish he would stop quoting me." - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

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

NOW we can agree on something.

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%

That is not even how the margin of error works. The term "margin of error" is a term of art, meaning to specify a result within a certain range with a confidence interval. In this instance, where you take a population size of 243,000 and derive 478 answers, and with a claim that 61% believe Rivers was a better QB than Ben, with a margin of error of 5%, your actual outcome is:

• Margin of Error = z*(√p(1-p) / n)
• Margin of Error = 1.96*(√.61(1-.61) / 100) = 1.96*(√0.2379/100) = 1.96*(√0.002379) = 1.96*(0.04877) = 0.0956
• Margin of Error = .0956 or 9.56%

Therefore, the 95th percentile confidence interval for "Rivers is better than Ben" would be 51.4% to 70.6%.

But that means only that you can say within the 95th confidence interval that those who answered the poll favor Rivers over Ben between 51% to 71%. However, again your fundamental error is your presumption that the respondents to the poll are somehow representative of football fans in general or for an opinion poll - which this is - one taking responses from a proportionate share of football fans to generate an accurate model.

What we can accurately say about the poll you cited is, "Within the 95th percent confidence interval, I can say that between 51% and 71% of the fans who answered the poll believe Rivers is better than Ben." That's all you can say. That's it. And that statement has absolutely no relevance, at all, to anything on earth.

 

[FordFairLane]

"FordFairLane is a sniveling weasel, and I wish he would stop quoting me." - Jean-Jacques Rousseau



NOW we can agree on something.



That is not even how the margin of error works. The term "margin of error" is a term of art, meaning to specify a result within a certain range with a confidence interval. In this instance, where you take a population size of 243,000 and derive 478 answers, and with a claim that 61% believe Rivers was a better QB than Ben, with a margin of error of 5%, your actual outcome is:

• Margin of Error = z*(√p(1-p) / n)
• Margin of Error = 1.96*(√.61(1-.61) / 100) = 1.96*(√0.2379/100) = 1.96*(√0.002379) = 1.96*(0.04877) = 0.0956
• Margin of Error = .0956 or 9.56%

Therefore, the 95th percentile confidence interval for "Rivers is better than Ben" would be 51.4% to 70.6%.

But that means only that you can say within the 95th confidence interval that those who answered the poll favor Rivers over Ben between 51% to 71%. However, again your fundamental error is your presumption that the respondents to the poll are somehow representative of football fans in general or for an opinion poll - which this is - one taking responses from a proportionate share of football fans to generate an accurate model.

What we can accurately say about the poll you cited is, "Within the 95th percent confidence interval, I can say that between 51% and 71% of the fans who answered the poll believe Rivers is better than Ben." That's all you can say. That's it. And that statement has absolutely no relevance, at all, to anything on earth.

Once again where is your proof that SBnation is disproportionately hate Ben Roethlisberger.

Here’s the demographic.

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

Find it. But you won’t. You’ll just throw another tantrum because I am owning you and you’re getting angry because you know it.

 

[FordFairLane]

Good Lord, Ford, stop embarrassing yourself and bow out of this thread before its too late!!

I’m embarrassing all you homers. I have people watching this thread thinking that you people are messing around. It’s good entertainment. When I literally have said a half dozen times on this thread that my opinion is Roethlisberger is better than Philips BUT because I’m not a blind homer I can see the argument someone could make for Philips. People are arguing because perhaps only 51% of that poll thought that Rivers was better. That made me laugh so hard I had tears. And everyone is still ignoring even after I brought up the fact the poll is 6 years old . I mean I couldn’t get more laughs watching Shane Gillis. You homers are comedy gold.

 

[topseed]

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..

Well said, especially point #1.

 

[topseed]

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.

This is literally like talking to a retarded wall. The only thing you've shown again and again is that you can copy and paste statistics from profootballreference and completely ignore any and all other variables that constitute a great quarterback.

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

No, unlike you, I can admit when I'm wrong about something.

And, actually Rivers is not second overall in passing yards and the "touchdown leader." In fact, he's sixth in both categories. Let's see if you can admit when YOU'RE wrong. I won't hold my breath.

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

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.

Retarded wall, version 2. Too bad Ben never played with Kordell Stewart -- he would have made your list! I mean, if anyone embodies how important and relevant Pro Bowl appearances are, it's Kordy.

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.

No, Ben making his receivers better is just a part of my argument. Because I have more than simply yards and touchdowns and teammate Pro Bowls to contruct a well-rounded opinion about a quarterback's career. Nothing marginal about it.

And, um, no. No, Rivers did not make any of his receivers remarkably better. Name one. ONE.

Again you bring up name-calling. How can you possibly be this hypocritical and not even realize it? Nah, you're not stubborn. You're just a cretin. May I call you a "cretin"? Too harsh?

 

[topseed]

That is not even how the margin of error works. The term "margin of error" is a term of art, meaning to specify a result within a certain range with a confidence interval. In this instance, where you take a population size of 243,000 and derive 478 answers, and with a claim that 61% believe Rivers was a better QB than Ben, with a margin of error of 5%, your actual outcome is:

• Margin of Error = z*(√p(1-p) / n)
• Margin of Error = 1.96*(√.61(1-.61) / 100) = 1.96*(√0.2379/100) = 1.96*(√0.002379) = 1.96*(0.04877) = 0.0956
• Margin of Error = .0956 or 9.56%

Therefore, the 95th percentile confidence interval for "Rivers is better than Ben" would be 51.4% to 70.6%.

But that means only that you can say within the 95th confidence interval that those who answered the poll favor Rivers over Ben between 51% to 71%. However, again your fundamental error is your presumption that the respondents to the poll are somehow representative of football fans in general or for an opinion poll - which this is - one taking responses from a proportionate share of football fans to generate an accurate model.

What we can accurately say about the poll you cited is, "Within the 95th percent confidence interval, I can say that between 51% and 71% of the fans who answered the poll believe Rivers is better than Ben." That's all you can say. That's it. And that statement has absolutely no relevance, at all, to anything on earth.

But hold on, now. 6 out of 10 of random patrons (60%) at FFL's gay bar thought Ben was the better quarterback. So they must be about even, right?

 

[FordFairLane]

This is literally like talking to a retarded wall. The only thing you've shown again and again is that you can copy and paste statistics from profootballreference and completely ignore any and all other variables that constitute a great quarterback.

No, unlike you, I can admit when I'm wrong about something.

Do you just pull numbers out of your asshoIe, and pray that nobody double-checks? Purdy's career QB rating is NOT 120, it's 107.2

Sorry, I didn’t look. It was 120+ last week when I did check. It’s still far above the average and 2nd in the NFL.

I literally admitted I was wrong TO YOU ON THIS THREAD. I am wrong all the time. I admit it.

And, actually Rivers is not second overall in passing yards and the "touchdown leader." In fact, he's sixth in both categories. Let's see if you can admit when YOU'RE wrong. I won't hold my breath.

Ok, where did I say anything about Rivers being second? "Bench warmer to the 2nd overall passing yards and touchdown leader." To Drew Brees!

I had already stated on this thread Rivers is behind Roethlisberger in career passing yards. I had already listed that Stafford would be on pace to be third or 4th all time if he plays as long as Ben with 70k+ yards. So who is wrong?

Retarded wall, version 2. Too bad Ben never played with Kordell Stewart -- he would have made your list! I mean, if anyone embodies how important and relevant Pro Bowl appearances are, it's Kordy.

Kordell made one pro bowl in his best professional season. He also was 4th in MVP voting. But I guess pro bowls don't mean anything when they don't fit into your narrative.

cue childish insult and name calling.

No, Ben making his receivers better is just a part of my argument. Because I have more than simply yards and touchdowns and teammate Pro Bowls to contruct a well-rounded opinion about a quarterback's career. Nothing marginal about it.

I don't think you understand what a fact or an opinion is.
fact
/fak(t)/
https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...2ahUKEwj2qpLnjbKCAxX_IEQIHfs_AAkQ3eEDegQIGxAI
noun

1. a thing that is known or proved to be true.
   "he ignores some historical and economic facts"
   
   • information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
     "even the most inventive journalism peters out without facts, and in this case there were no facts"
     
     
     
     
   • LAW
     the truth about events as opposed to interpretation.
     
     "there was a question of fact as to whether they had received the letter"
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     o·pin·ion
     /əˈpiny(ə)n/
     https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...2ahUKEwiI5vq5jrKCAxXAIEQIHQGPCCsQ3eEDegQIGxAI
     noun​
     1. a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
        "I'm writing to voice my opinion on an issue of great importance"
     
     
     
     
     
     
     The stats I show are hard numbers. Your opinion that Ben made his receivers better is an opinion. Now I personally would agree with you. BUT I also can recognize that I would be biased and the claim is unsubstantiated. A counterpart could easily be made that the receivers made Ben look better.​

     And, um, no. No, Rivers did not make any of his receivers remarkably better. Name one. ONE.
     
     Again you bring up name-calling. How can you possibly be this hypocritical and not even realize it? Nah, you're not stubborn. You're just a cretin. May I call you a "cretin"? Too harsh?

     
     
     
     Oh, I have called you so many names then. Where? Did I call you guys imbeciles, morons, and cretins? If I did I am sorry...​

 

[slashsteel]

"I am wrong all the time. I admit it."

Knowledge is power.

 

[Steeltime]

Once again where is your proof that SBnation is disproportionately hate Ben Roethlisberger.

Here’s the demographic.

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

Find it. But you won’t. You’ll just throw another tantrum because I am owning you and you’re getting angry because you know it.

What the freak are you talking about? I explained in great detail, including showing my work on the math, why your entire argument is wrong. Every part of it inaccurate. 100% wrong. I said literally nothing about those involved in the poll "hating Ben Roethlisberger."

Are you having a seizure?

 

[FordFairLane]

What the freak are you talking about? I explained in great detail, including showing my work on the math, why your entire argument is wrong. Every part of it inaccurate. 100% wrong. I said literally nothing about those involved in the poll "hating Ben Roethlisberger."

Are you having a seizure?

Maybe it was someone else that stated the survey was swayed by Ben Roethlisberger hatred. Sorry, I am on page 8 of BS and it is getting hard to keep track of who owns what BS.

I broke down the math as well and you just called it bs. I can't write the MOE formula on this forum. It won't allow for the mathematical equations.

Here's what I came up with.

https://yourimageshare.com/ib/1H0PXBOSQQ.webp

 

[slashsteel]

M ore
O bnoxious
E gotistical

Crap

 

[Steeltime]

Maybe it was someone else that stated the survey was swayed by Ben Roethlisberger hatred. Sorry, I am on page 8 of BS and it is getting hard to keep track of who owns what BS.

Easy. You own all the BS. All of it. Every ounce. You would argue with a mirror.

 

[ZonaBurgh]

I find it funny, or maybe just sad, that there are those on the internet who are offended if everyone doesn't implicitly agree with everything they have to say.
Even more humorous when the subject matter is A) something we have absolutely no control over, and B) doesn't affect our lives one way or the other.

Carry on.

 

[SteelerFan448]

This continues to be the dumbest thread in the history of this board.

 

[madinsomniac]

Lol I replied then deleted this because a football forum is probably not the place to discuss high brow mathematics

 

[topseed]

I literally admitted I was wrong TO YOU ON THIS THREAD. I am wrong all the time. I admit it.

Finally! We can agree!

Ok, where did I say anything about Rivers being second? "Bench warmer to the 2nd overall passing yards and touchdown leader." To Drew Brees!

I had already stated on this thread Rivers is behind Roethlisberger in career passing yards. I had already listed that Stafford would be on pace to be third or 4th all time if he plays as long as Ben with 70k+ yards. So who is wrong?

Another issue with you is that the language you use is often obfuscated. What you should have said was: "Rivers was the bench-warmer to Drew Brees, who eventually became the NFL's all-time leader in passing touchowns, and ranks second in yards." That would have been a much clearer statement.

And what I would say in rebuttal to that clarified statement is: Brees obviously didn't have the "best of all-time" stature at that point. The only reason he even retained his starting job in 2004 was because Rivers held out. Then in 2006, San Diego gave up on Brees and decided to go with Rivers. Some people call it the worst mistake in franchise history. Gee, I wonder if the Chargers (with that weak surrounding cast which you keep insisting is a FACT) might have won a few more games had they kept Brees at the QB position instead of your buddy there. Hmmm, I wonder if Brees could have made some of those guys better than Rivers did.

Kordell made one pro bowl in his best professional season. He also was 4th in MVP voting. But I guess pro bowls don't mean anything when they don't fit into your narrative.

cue childish insult and name calling.

Yes, Kordell made one Pro Bowl, one year. Wow. Amazing. In your book, I guess that's all it takes for a guy to be forever exhaulted.

cue more whiny complaining about name-calling here

I don't think you understand what a fact or an opinion is.

Another laughable statement from the king of hypocrisy. Read those definitions again. You've shown time and time again that you clearly don't understand the difference.

The stats I show are hard numbers. Your opinion that Ben made his receivers better is an opinion. Now I personally would agree with you. BUT I also can recognize that I would be biased and the claim is unsubstantiated. A counterpart could easily be made that the receivers made Ben look better.

I know it's my opinion, Einstein. May I call you "Einstein"? That's why I specifically said that I use more than just black-and-white stats to form an OPINION.

A counter argument stating that Ben's receivers made him look better would be a stupid OPINION, because the receivers who looked outstanding while in Pittsburgh didn't do nearly as well when they played elsewhere.

Oh, I have called you so many names then. Where? Did I call you guys imbeciles, morons, and cretins? If I did I am sorry...

You've said that I've been making an @ss out of myself and making myself look stupid. Several different times. I've already pointed it out.

And I did ask politely if I could call you a "cretin," didn't I?

 

[FordFairLane]

Finally! We can agree!

But I can admit it. You can’t. That’s why you will never grow out of juvenility.

Another issue with you is that the language you use is often obfuscated. What you should have said was: "Rivers was the bench-warmer to Drew Brees, who eventually became the NFL's all-time leader in passing touchowns, and ranks second in yards." That would have been a much clearer statement.

I had already clearly stated stats on Rivers, Roethlisberger, Stafford etc which had Rivers behind Roethlisberger and Stafford having the potential to be 3rd or 4th all time at 70k yards. You just made an asinine assumption because your blind hatred. Just admit YOU WERE WRONG. Oh, yeah. You are incapable.

And what I would say in rebuttal to that clarified statement is: Brees obviously didn't have the "best of all-time" stature at that point. The only reason he even retained his starting job in 2004 was because Rivers held out. Then in 2006, San Diego gave up on Brees and decided to go with Rivers. Some people call it the worst mistake in franchise history. Gee, I wonder if the Chargers (with that weak surrounding cast which you keep insisting is a FACT) might have won a few more games had they kept Brees at the QB position instead of your buddy there. Hmmm, I wonder if Brees could have made some of those guys better than Rivers did.

Why didn’t Rivers start in 2005? Just admit you were wrong. Oh, yeah. YOU CAN’T!

Yes, Kordell made one Pro Bowl, one year. Wow. Amazing. In your book, I guess that's all it takes for a guy to be forever exhaulted.

Yes, Kordell had a pro bowl season and was 4th in MVP voting. Pro Bowls are based on a single season not a career. The hall of fame is based on careers. Just ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG!! Oh, yeah. You can’t.

cue more whiny complaining about name-calling here


Another laughable statement from the king of hypocrisy. You've shown time and time again that you clearly don't.

Have I called you a moron, stupid, imbecile who’s the king of hypocrisy?


JUST ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG. Ohhhh, yeah. You are incapable.

I know it's my opinion, Einstein. May I call you "Einstein"? That's why I specifically said that I use more than just black-and-white stats to form an OPINION.

Wow, an insult. I. Am. So. Surprised.

Your opinion doesn’t change facts.

A counter argument stating that Ben's receivers made him look better would be a stupid OPINION, because the receivers who looked outstanding while in Pittsburgh didn't do nearly as well when they played elsewhere.

Because only your opinion matters. You are a classic narcissist. And that isn’t an insult. Here’s the behavior of one.
Need of admiration.
Lack of empathy.
Sense of entitlement.
Arrogant.
Reacting negatively towards criticism.
Demanding or bullying treatment of others.

Narcissist Accountability

Accepting blame and responsibility is difficult for most people, but for narcissists, it's almost impossible. Narcissists live in a fantasy world in which they are perfect and superior to others; therefore, admitting to any wrongdoing would call into question their very sense of self.

It’s an opinion but I would probably talk to a therapist if I were you.

You've said that I've been making an @ss out of myself and making myself look stupid. Several different times. I've already pointed it out.

And I did ask politely if I could call you a "cretin," didn't I?

Stating you are making an *** of yourself and calling someone an imbecile are very different. But now that I realize you are a narcissist I understand why you don’t.

 

[Drink IRON City]

BACON,............................ with very light driveled raw honey.


Salute the nation

 

[slashsteel]

BACON,............................ with very light driveled raw honey.


Salute the nation

I just got some cinnamon honey I put it in my K cups , delicious!

 

[Steeltime]

Thread update:

 

[slashsteel]

Thread update:

The one particular poster has plenty of threads that end in similar fashion.

 

[topseed]

But I can admit it. You can’t. That’s why you will never grow out of juvenility.

Um, I said in my first response that you made good points about Rivers in 2004 and 2005. The implication was that I was wrong about it. Sorry that was too hard for you to figure out.

I had already clearly stated stats on Rivers, Roethlisberger, Stafford etc which had Rivers behind Roethlisberger and Stafford having the potential to be 3rd or 4th all time at 70k yards. You just made an asinine assumption because your blind hatred. Just admit YOU WERE WRONG. Oh, yeah. You are incapable.

Nah, no asinine assumptions or blind hatred. How I read your disjointed verbiage was that Rivers WENT from a bench-warmer TO the all-time touchdowns leader. Did I interpret what you wrote incorrectly? I guess so. Is it impossible for you to admit that your sentence structure sucks? Of course it is.

Why didn’t Rivers start in 2005? Just admit you were wrong. Oh, yeah. YOU CAN’T!

Um, like I said, I admitted it on page 7. And I like how you simply ignore everything I said there about Brees to continue whining about something that's not even true.

Yes, Kordell had a pro bowl season and was 4th in MVP voting. Pro Bowls are based on a single season not a career. The hall of fame is based on careers. Just ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG!! Oh, yeah. You can’t.

You're right, man. Kordell was awesome in 1997, even though he is widely considered as one of the worst players to have ever made a Pro Bowl. Better?

Have I called you a moron, stupid, imbecile who’s the king of hypocrisy?
JUST ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG. Ohhhh, yeah. You are incapable.

Not all of those, no. But you just desribed yourself to perfection.

Wow, an insult. I. Am. So. Surprised.

Your opinion doesn’t change facts.

OK, so you don't like "Einstein." That makes sense.

No, my opinion surely does not change facts. It incorporates them, as I explained there.

Because only your opinion matters. You are a classic narcissist. And that isn’t an insult. Here’s the behavior of one.
Need of admiration.
Lack of empathy.
Sense of entitlement.
Arrogant.
Reacting negatively towards criticism.
Demanding or bullying treatment of others.

Narcissist Accountability

Accepting blame and responsibility is difficult for most people, but for narcissists, it's almost impossible. Narcissists live in a fantasy world in which they are perfect and superior to others; therefore, admitting to any wrongdoing would call into question their very sense of self.

It’s an opinion but I would probably talk to a therapist if I were you.

You can copy and paste with the best of them, but deflecting away from the salient points I made in my last couple of posts lends nothing to your argument. You've done it four or five times now. Ironically, 90% of what you pasted there about narcissism more aptly applies directly to you.

Going back to the actual football discussion: My "narcissictic" belief that Ben made his receivers better (and not vice-versa) is based on the fact that his receivers, the VAST majority of the time, performed better while playing with Ben than they did playing with other quarterbacks. You claim to be a "stat guy." Check it yourself. And while you're at it, show me the statistical evidence that Rivers made ONE of his receivers better, like I asked you to do a couple posts ago, but you conveniently ignored.

Stating you are making an *** of yourself and calling someone an imbecile are very different. But now that I realize you are a narcissist I understand why you don’t.

So it's OK when you say it, but not OK when people give it back to you. Got it.

And I never called you an imbecile (not yet, anyway, but you're working on it), so you're once again wrong.