He is smart, accurate, and makes few mistakes. I predict....and I will probably not see it cause I will be dead or drooling in a nursing home....that he will win a SB. He is a franchise QB. Saying all that, he is still a jerk and would not want him as QB.
So... I want Manziel in horns. Douchbag or not.
- Thread starter Username
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
He is smart, accurate, and makes few mistakes. I predict....and I will probably not see it cause I will be dead or drooling in a nursing home....that he will win a SB. He is a franchise QB. Saying all that, he is still a jerk and would not want him as QB.
duckhunter
Starter
The empirical data would support the generalization; however, empirical data doesn't always tell the whole story. Relativism would suggest factors both supporting and opposing the general supposition. I provided one anomaly, Reggie White, that inferred the supposition is in doubt based off a purely empirical data point-timed speed. Also, provided a factor concerning track surfaces and running times might suggest the measuring instruments as inaccurate or more correct inconsistent on a relative basis. The changing nature of the game from run first to predominantly a passing league would require the need for and supply growth of different types of athletes to meet the changes. Nutrition, training-particularly strength and more quick twitch needs as opposed to longer speed and immediate demand strength versus lessening endurance priorities as seen by the use of more rotational and specialist players. The list goes on and on.
After all is said and done, I think many times we are comparing apples to oranges in the final analysis. So much for a simple game.
Yes but you made a general statement and your anomaly was well, an anomaly.
All the other factors you've talked about that have lead to better performances are true. No denying that. The improvement in equipment, training techniques, playing surfaces and the other things you've mentioned like diet (and drugs) all have played their part. But, the biggest factor is the the human factor. We are getting bigger, stronger and faster. Sorry, but that sentence in your statement was wrong. That is not my opinion like almost everything else I say is, that is a fact that can easily be proven.
I liked your thoughts in general. Comparing athletes from different eras is impossible because it is, as you said, all relative. That doesn't mean what you said in that particular sentence is true though. Wrong is wrong and I'm very picky. No offense meant.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...erage-height-up-11cm-since-1870s-8794611.html
The only way is up: Men's average height 'up 11cm since 1870s'
duckhunter
Starter
Ok. I'll continue this only because you question validity.
The point of reference is vague. When one says bigger and faster in an fourteen word doctoral (not my words-Beans' words), I would not normally ask what is the measurement instruments? Are we discussing weight or height? Please define all your measurement indicators. When we say faster, are we discussing ten yard splits or 40 yard splits or three or seven cone drills. So again apples to oranges. Since you indicate height above, now show the relationship and transfer of your above reference to the football field. It's indicative and a macro study but you assume a direct projection across to an unusual subset and that is not definite. The methodology and transfer is lacking. But I will give you that it probably transfers to the subset.
I generously addressed my contradictions as an anomaly but believe there are few more. Ignore them if you will because it will indicate conflict with the fourteen word doctoral. This anomaly and question is name one DE that was both taller and better by sacks and balls batted down than the 6' 9" Too Tall Jones. I might add that no DE was 6' 9" at the combine and none in the whole of the NFL. Here's another, name one CB better (whatever measurement you want) and faster than the low 4.2s of prime time-Dion Sanders. I might add no CB was under 4.3 at the combine and none in the whole of the NFL. So how do we reconcile these as I generously labeled anomalies but are they indicative of something more?
I don't think there is anyone who has the specific empirical data and other subjective add-ons to scientifically prove this one way or another. So I would hesitate to use the word fact. As I have admitted previously, the empirical data suggests the supposition to be true. That is all I can surmise, but if you want to label it as fact, be my guest.
What more did you want to say to me besides I'm right or wrong?
The point of reference is vague. When one says bigger and faster in an fourteen word doctoral (not my words-Beans' words), I would not normally ask what is the measurement instruments? Are we discussing weight or height? Please define all your measurement indicators. When we say faster, are we discussing ten yard splits or 40 yard splits or three or seven cone drills. So again apples to oranges. Since you indicate height above, now show the relationship and transfer of your above reference to the football field. It's indicative and a macro study but you assume a direct projection across to an unusual subset and that is not definite. The methodology and transfer is lacking. But I will give you that it probably transfers to the subset.
I generously addressed my contradictions as an anomaly but believe there are few more. Ignore them if you will because it will indicate conflict with the fourteen word doctoral. This anomaly and question is name one DE that was both taller and better by sacks and balls batted down than the 6' 9" Too Tall Jones. I might add that no DE was 6' 9" at the combine and none in the whole of the NFL. Here's another, name one CB better (whatever measurement you want) and faster than the low 4.2s of prime time-Dion Sanders. I might add no CB was under 4.3 at the combine and none in the whole of the NFL. So how do we reconcile these as I generously labeled anomalies but are they indicative of something more?
I don't think there is anyone who has the specific empirical data and other subjective add-ons to scientifically prove this one way or another. So I would hesitate to use the word fact. As I have admitted previously, the empirical data suggests the supposition to be true. That is all I can surmise, but if you want to label it as fact, be my guest.
What more did you want to say to me besides I'm right or wrong?
Last edited by a moderator:
BonifayRam
Legend
BonifayRam
Legend
If I was trying to remove anomalies from the equation I'd approach it from a different direction. I'd look at the average height of all the DEs drafted in 2013 and compare it to the average height of the DEs drafted when Too Tall was drafted. Then I'd look at the average speed of all the DBs drafted in the 2013 draft and compare it to the average speed of all the DBs drafted when Neon Dion was drafted. That might tell a different story and eliminate outliers.
As for what else I'd like to tell you, there's this: I have more ROD money than you do. :razz:
Last edited by a moderator:
