Friday, July 11, 2008

He only lies when his lips move

...said Pokey Reese of Jim Bowden (ex Reds and current Nats GM). Now he's under investigation by the FBI for stealing money from poor Dominican kids. Yikes. It's distressing to see Jose Rijo involved in the scandal as well. I hated Bowden already for being a weasel, but it's sad to see a man who brought the Reds a World Series get wrapped up in such things.

I've been insanely busy this week, but here's a list of links that have come up:
FO explains in more detail about the switch from DPAR to DYAR. Personally, I'm all for anything that is more accurate. I think DPAR was misleading because as Schatz points out, 'points' weren't equivalent between positions. For instance, you couldn't add up the WR, QB, and RB points given out in a game and get the total points the team scored. I think DYAR will work out well in the long run.

CHFF lists the most overrated QBs. The list is crap. They kill Elway for having wins with no stats and Aikman for having too much talent around him and Fouts for playing in a system. I know they wouldn't put Brady on the list, but explain to me how he's any better than Elway or Aikman. He had less talent on offense (save one season), and his stats were crap, but he won. I thought that's all that mattered to those guys. But now, they kill Elway for not having stats and just winning. At least they got #1 right. It's Namath and it's not close.

This piece on HoFers in football is great. I found it through SI, but it made a great point that I've been banging on for months. A lot of 'names' retired recently. They aren't all going to the Hall at all, and maybe one of them will get in on a first ballot (the suddenly a-holish Favre if he stays out). And just who is mentioning Steve McNair for the Hall? Give me a break. He barely ever made the freaking Pro Bowl. He's the Fukudome of football (just kidding).

Great job Kravitz. I can't believe I'm not being sarcastic. I appreciate him defending Jermaine O'Neal. JO took a lot of heat for things he didn't do and has been called a whiner for enduring one of the worst collections of miscreants to grace the Indy sports scene ever. This was a nice piece by Bob and shows that maybe he does have a heart and not just a penchant for irritation.


zac said...

Saying he's the Fukodome of football is misleading because it implies he has at least ONE skill.


Deshawn Zombie said...

lol. Um, is intangibles a skill?

Anonymous said...

The charisma to make men wax poetically about him just by showing up to play.

I'd say getting injured a lot, but Donovan F. McFragile beat him out.

Anonymous said...

For once, Kravitz wrote a good article that was actually spot on. JO needed to go elsewhere.

However, Tinsley can eat a dick.

jc said...


Wins is all that matters to CHFF?


When I reference the Complete and Unabridged Guide to why Tom Brady is Better than Peyton Manning which is chock full of STATS, you weasel your way outta that one by saying it doesn't compensate for fumbles or some other way your team blew it.

You don't fool me pal.

Shake'n'bake said...

JC: The whole thing just lists Brady's team's accomplishments, says Manning is a chker who can't win in the playoffs (how'd that one hold up).

Their statistical "analysis" is misleading: They praise Brady for the 7th highest QB rating in NFL history but don't mention that Peyton is second. The compare Brady vs the awful Colts Ds of 2001-2004. The Pats Ds ranked, 1st, 2nd, 17th and 6th in those years, compared to 19th 20th, 7th, 31st for the Colts. The Colts D was better one year, every other year the Pats D ranked at least 18 spots higher. Not to mention they are evaluating careers by one game a year or less.

More team accomplishments but this time in college. If Brady was better college player than Manning why did Manning go first overall and Brady in the 6th round? No one passed on Manning, every team in the league passed on Brady several times.

They cite defense by yardage instead of points. Points is clearly and obviously more important to winning.

They compare the top ranked 2003 scoring D to the other SB winning Ds. When the D comes out mediocre compared to historical Ds they say that the D wasn't that good or important to them winning. IT WAS THE BEST D IN THE LEAGUE. They don't play the other SB champs, it only matters how good you are relative to who you play. The average level of points scored may have changed somewhat in the last 40 years.

They beat up on Trent Dilfer a bit. Brady is the second best QB in the league, of course he's better than Dilfer.

They call the league average (15th) 2000 D porous to further an attempt to make Manning look selfish in promoting Reggie Wayne as the Colts 1st round pick.

The only time Deion Branch is mentioned in the entire article is this: Deion Branch (a second-round draft pick from Louisville)
You mean SB MVP Deion Branch who the Seahawks traded a first round pick for. Oh, yeah he sucks gloss right over him.

They talk about the draft status of the Pats O-line but don't mention that the Colts line is similarly constructed. Tarik Glenn first rounder, Steve McKinney 4th round, Jeff Saturday undrafted, Ryan Diem 4th round, Jake Scott/Adam Meadows 5th/2nd round.

They again compare the Pats to past SB champs this time in run O.

They compare them through their first 5 years not mentioning that Manning was thrown onto a 3-13 team as the starter from day one where he struggled. While Brady learned on the bench.

They cite a journeyman who played only a partial season in NE (4 games) as an example of the talent Brady played with.

They say Manning was only 4.8 points higher than Brady so it's not a big difference when 2.2 points is the difference between Dan Marino and Mark Brunell (through 2006 since that's the list they linked). 4.8 is about the difference between Steve Young and Marc Bulger on the list they cite.

and finally and most damning. They refer to themselves in the 3rd person through the full article.

Shake'n'bake said...

I expanded on that rant here

Deshawn Zombie said...

"Wins" dominate that article. It's chock full of 'stats' which are taken widely out of context. The chief problem with the 'stats' that they quote is that 1. they treat Manning's first full year as equal to Brady's. As Shake pointed out, Manning played for a bad team while Brady sat the bench. It's not a fair comparison and they know it. The stats don't really favor Brady, but that's why they leaned so heavily on the lame 'wins' theory to define their point.

I just want to know why they kill Elway for the same thing they praise Brady for. I rebuffed the first part of the article on the site already, but it's clear they second 'statistical' part needs a more complete response as well. Shake's is a good start, but it's incomplete becuase it doesn't show how the stats really compare if more valid data sets were chosen (i.e. Manning's second to 8th years vs Brady's). Throwing in Manning's worst season (his rookie) slants the stats dramatically (though Manning STILL has better stats).

Bob M. said...

Awesome. Any way to cut&paste these to the FO thread that dare not be named? Just to keep it alive and well.... not that anything said there would convince anybody of anything.

It's really hard to tell if the CHFF guys are actually taking themselves seriously sometimes. I sometimes actually enjoy their stuff (sometimes the "humor" sometimes the "analysis"), and then find some gaping holes in the logic/hypocrisy category and walk away feeling as if I need a shower badly.

Regarding the HoF, the annual limits were put in place when there were about half as many teams. 6 guys is silly and the enshrinees are not representatively distributed across the positions--not even close--making it clear that the system is unfair.

Regarding McNair, playing through pain is a skill (avoiding breaking things is an even better skill, of course...), but being so media-genic that you are praised high and low, and win an MVP simply because you play with injuries is a truly miraculous, magical, impossible to duplicate skill. In truth, I feel he was a good-to-very good QB for about 7 seasons, and I was his biggest Heisman supporter way back when. But HoF great, he is not and never was.

Hey, in his most successful season when he came one yard shy of beating a legendary Rams team in the SB, would he have even had the chance if Eddie "Cannon Fodder" George did not rip off a 65 yard run late in the game vs the Colts?

Anonymous said...



lrn2maths please.

jc said...

Hey Bob:

Maybe if Hitler didn't move on Russia the Germans would have won the war.

Ifs are for dreamers.

What happened happened.

Deal with it.

And Shake:

The overlying point of the TCAUGTWTBIBTPM is to rebuke the LIE that Manning's team and defense were the primary reasons for the Colts' playoff tank jobs.

I don't have time to write a nine paragraph rebuttal but you know what I mean. Their D played above and beyond their season statistics in most, if not all their playoff losses while Peyton played below his season averages.

That's their point. Twist it how you will.....

Deshawn Zombie said...

Their point is wrong. They built their point by showing that Peyton's stats were lower in certain games. The assumed that lower stats by Peyton=Peyton played poorly.

That's horse crap. Peyton played poorly in one of those games, sure. He played pretty damn well in the other games. Other players around him failed by dropping passes, fumbling, and missing blocks.

It is as ignorant to blame Manning for some of those losses as it was to credit Brady with an MVP award in his first Super Bowl. Only a simpleton would say otherwise.

Deshawn Zombie said...

BTW: I'm finally watching John Adams, and it is amazing.

JC said...


They would tar and feather your punk ass for losing arguments at the rate you do.

Numbers don't lie.

The aforementioned "Volume 2" is more thoroughly researched than any uberbiased hackery you two clowns throw up on this site.

If you're so certain it's a flawed column....go through every game they list and post what REALLY happened here.

If you do that I'll conceded that you have some credibility. don't.

Consider your card pulled.

Deshawn Zombie said...

See point 2. I did this over a year ago

Anonymous said...

Not Found in giant letters.

Shake'n'bake said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shake'n'bake said...

The address works fine. You screwed up typing it in or copy-pasting.

jc said...

Well I'm no simpleton, and I just went back and read their column.

The words "worst game of the season/career" appear in five of six games.

The one game they don't appear in was Miami in 2000 when he completed 50% of his passes, a game in which Indy picked Fiedler 3 times.

Let me repeat it. In five of six games through the end of the 2004 season, Peyton played the worse statistical games of his season and/or career.

Idk his stat line from Pitt the next year but I remember him not doing much. Sure Vandy shanked a kick, but there's no way that Indy team should have lost at home.

No way.

Deshawn Zombie said...

They put in the words "worst game of season/career" because they had an agenda to prove. Manning had some low stats in some of those games, but as I pointed in the article, the reason was rarely that he played poorly. That Pittsburgh game should never have been a loss sure, but after that game (in which Manning in true badass fasion WAIVED OFF the punt team in the 3rd quarter and saved gave), I said, well we lost, but a least no one will blame Manning. He played amazing.

Sure enough after the game, morons were lining up to blame Peyton. It made zero sense. Same thing with the Jets game. I was in a remote camp for 2 two weeks and missed the game. When I came back, I saw the line score, and thought, geeze they got killed. At least they won't blame Manning for that...he never had a chance. Sure enough, they blamed him anyway, even though no QB in history has won a road playoff game down 17 points (which Manning was before they even had a chance to breathe).

There are many reasons for bad statistical games by a QB. In the AFC Championship of 04, Manning was horrible as were his stats. In the Pitt game, he played amazing, but the line was horrible. Ask Tommy Boy about having your worst statistical day becuase of bad line play. The Pitt game and the Giants game were carbon copies. Other than when we are busting chops, we freely admit that Brady didn't choke in the XLII, he just got the crap kicked out of him. Morons like CHFF like to turn any loss into a choke and point at 'stats' as the proof. Stats work over long stretches, but are pretty poor ways of judging play in any given game. Had Manning thrown for 350 yards and 2 scores against the Jets, the Colts still would have lost by 20 and people would kill him for 'empty stats'.

That article was born out of the misguided notion that Brady was some kind of wonderkid who never lost a clutch game (because he hadn't when they wrote it). Since then, he's thrown up several stinkers in the playoffs, QBd a team that blew an 18 point in the plyaoffs, lost the biggest upset in history, and got beat by Jake Plummer. His worst game of all those though? A game he won in San Diego.

Let's table this argument for a week. I'm going to write a full and comprehensive rebuttal to the CHFF piece using some of the stuff I wrote before, some of Shake's arguments and some new statistical comparisons. It'll take me a few days. We can fight over it then.