2 minutes ago, Mongo3451 said:

That's not odds.  It's merely a percentage based on flawed math.  I can guarantee that Caleb Williams has the best QB odds to win a Superbowl out of this class.

Perfect example of very poor grasp of mathematics and statistics, as Mongo points out.  Complete crap.  The ignore option is again becoming a great option.  Can we not try to be accurate?

Just now, Daventry said:

Perfect example of very poor grasp of mathematics and statistics, as Mongo points out.  Complete crap.  The ignore option is again becoming a great option.  Can we not try to be accurate?

To be fair stats are confusing and not just common sense sometimes. But when someone explains it, hopefully if you understand them, then you come off the argument instead of doubling down.

But in the end, you gotta ask yourself, why would teams not take the best (most likely to succeed) option at #1? They wouldnt. So the professionals make the best bets they can. And like any gambler, you lose and you win, but losing a bet doesnt mean it wasnt a good bet, and winning a bet doesnt mean it was a smart bet either. And all you know when you make the bet is the odds of winning, not what the singular outcome will be.

I wish that there was more accountability around spouting statistics which is so obviously inaccurate and manipulative that the only right description of same is “verbal diarrhoea “.  Let this forum be better than the social media norm.

4 minutes ago, Daventry said:

I wish that there was more accountability around spouting statistics which is so obviously inaccurate and manipulative that the only right description of same is “verbal diarrhoea “.  Let this forum be better than the social media norm.

I personally like a lot of the people on this board, but I am surprised at how some of the ones I think are good guys are so stuck on Justin, and keep making arguments that I feel like they must know arent factual/logical after we go around a few times and it gets explained.

Now I dont mean that for example everyone has to share my view on Caleb, but if the narrative is based on a statistical argument and the stats dont add up, then I would hope those people would shift to a different anti Caleb argument. Its OK to be anti Caleb, and it's OK to not have a reason other than a gut feel too, but if youre gonna put the reasons, and then the reasons get objectively logically disproved, especially stats that are just mathematically unsound, then doubling down on them turns everything into noise in a way.

And people sure do resent being proven wrong, as if id said they dont have a right to their gut instinct when I just said that 2+2 doesnt equal 5.

For example:

Person A "I think Tremaine Edmunds is going to play better this year because Ray Lewis won four superbowls."

Person B "Ray Lewis didnt win four superbowls, here a link to prove that"

Person A "You think you know everything, well youre wrong about Edmunds"

Person B "Im just saying that you cant use the Ray Lewis thing to predict Edmunds"

Person A "Dont disrespect my opinion"

Person B "I dont disrespect your opinion, I just think youre not making sense in your argument"

Person A "Youre being mean, youre a jerk"

Person B "no Im not"

Person C "hahahah Person B is a jerk!"

Person A "Despite your ego, Ray Lewis won four superbowls and Tremaine is awesome"

Person B "Hey C, I just challenged the math, not A as a person, look at the link..."

Person C "hahaha did he hurt your feelings B?"

Person B "no, it just doesnt make sense"

Person A "B is trolling, and Ray Lewis won 4 superbowls..."

and scene.

 

57 minutes ago, Mongo3451 said:

I can guarantee that Caleb Williams has the best QB odds to win a Superbowl out of this class.

Please do.  

1 hour ago, BearFan PHX said:

put them all together into a single frankenstein stat - that's what I'm saying.

Maybe Daniels or Maye will have a better NFL career than Caleb - but from right here the odds are better that Williams will have a better career - and thats why if given the choice a team would pick Williams #1 and not one of the others.

Ok then maybe you need to ‘dumb it down then’.  In the last 25 years how many #1 overall picks have won a Super Bowl versus those who have that weren’t and also did?  
 

And what are you basing your projection on that Williams will be better than the rest of his class overall?  When in fact you say you haven’t watched any film on or studied Nix?  Hypotheticals or ?!!

5 minutes ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

Please do.  

Grizz, you gotta understand, hes not saying he can guarantee what will happen, hes saying he has the best ODDS of succeeding.

like I said before, between a coin flip or rolling 6 on a dice, the coin flip is more likely. It has the best ODDS of winning. That doesnt mean you cant lose the coin flip and win the dice toss, you can, but if youre gonna bet $100 on one of them even up, youre a fool if you choose the dice over the coin flip. Im sure you can see that.

He's not guaranteeing you win the coin flip - hes guaranteeing it has the better ODDS and youre more LIKELY to win.

Just now, BearFan PHX said:

hes saying he has the best ODDS of succeeding.

And I ask again…based on? 

1 minute ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

Ok then maybe you need to ‘dumb it down then’.  In the last 25 years how many #1 overall picks have won a Super Bowl versus those who have that weren’t and also did?  
 

And what are you basing your projection on that Williams will be better than the rest of his class overall?  When in fact you say you haven’t watched any film on or studied Nix?  Hypotheticals or ?!!

I did continue on and dumb it down - its all there, I gave examples and everything. You are doing the math wrong. yopure proving the odds of winning a superbowl would be better if we could have ALL the QBs in the draft except Williams, but that isnt the question. The question is you can only have ONE.

And I didnt say Williams will be better than his class, I said that Williams is the best prospect Ive seen in quite a while, and has all the skills to succeed - he is a good bet.

I dont hear people burning up on Nix much, but I will go watch some film if you tell me its worth it.

1 minute ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

And I ask again…based on? 

Film Ive seen of the consensus top picks. And that Williams looks better than any top picks Ive seen in years.

2 minutes ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

And I ask again…based on? 

Based on Vegas thinks he's the best quarterback in this class.  That's a projection.  You claiming that empiric data suggests that it's likely untrue is flawed math.  Whatever 'what if' you can throw in there is hyperbole.

The only way you can use the past to predict the future is through scientific validation. 

 

Just now, Mongo3451 said:

Based on Vegas thinks he's the best quarterback in this class. 

You’re using Vegas odds to project QB success?

Not necessarily being a betting man what did Vegas say about Justin being traded a month (or so) ago versus now?  
 

And since you’re using fancy vernacular, if using ‘emprical data’ (or probability), where does it say (statistically I assume) Caleb measures up to previous #1 overall picks?  I’m genuinely fascinated to know how people like Mel Kiper get such high regard in this subject when he’s been wrong an awful lot of the time.  

OK, let's do it your way and put all the QBs together.

I read here 25 superbowls and only 2 were won by #1 pick QB. So youre saying a #1 pick QB has a 2/25 chance of winning a superbowl? thats 8%. Fine.

Now were talking about 25 drafts here. lets say an average of 7 non #1 pick QBs per draft. That's 7 x 25 = 175 QBs.
And we know there were 23 superbowl wins in that time for them.

So youre gonna say 23/175 = 13% chance to win.

And youre gonna say that 13% is 160% better than 8% and youre RIGHT!

But thats for ALL the QBs, remember, you gotta pick one of the 7 available that year, so the odss that the one you pick will win a superbowl is 13% / 7 = 1.8%

So theres your answer. The #1 pick guy has an 8% chance, any single non #1 pick is 1.8% MUCH worse.

And of course none of that takes into account that Williams is better than the average #1 pick or anything like that.

Youre measuring one guy vs the collective output of all the others COMBINED. Divide that among the others, and then youve got a stat thats apples to apples.

In other words the bet isnt "Is this the best QB or NOT" the bet is "WHO is the best QB"

1 minute ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

You’re using Vegas odds to project QB success?

Not necessarily being a betting man what did Vegas say about Justin being traded a month (or so) ago versus now?  
 

And since you’re using fancy vernacular, if using ‘emprical data’ (or probability), where does it say (statistically I assume) Caleb measures up to previous #1 overall picks?  I’m genuinely fascinated to know how people like Mel Kiper get such high regard in this subject when he’s been wrong an awful lot of the time.  

this isnt fancy vernacular, its just the words you have to use to describe who the argument youre making, which is a mathematical one is mistaken

23 minutes ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

You’re using Vegas odds to project QB success?

Not necessarily being a betting man what did Vegas say about Justin being traded a month (or so) ago versus now?  
 

And since you’re using fancy vernacular, if using ‘emprical data’ (or probability), where does it say (statistically I assume) Caleb measures up to previous #1 overall picks?  I’m genuinely fascinated to know how people like Mel Kiper get such high regard in this subject when he’s been wrong an awful lot of the time.  

Just stop.  This isn't fun anymore.  I warned PHX that he was looking up a dead goats ass by debating you.

12 minutes ago, Mongo3451 said:

Just stop.  This isn't fun anymore.  I warned PHX that he was looking up a dead goats ass by debating you.

Are you telling me Skip won this round of stubbornness?  I was hoping you’d be willing to explain…but ok.  I’ll stop.  ?

I have watched some tape on Williams and cannot see any strengths that are Fields weaknesses. Most people say the barrier to Fields being a success is him reading defences and making anticipatory throws. I haven’t seen Williams show this is a strength in his game.

If you want to use empirical analysis, you need to separate fact from opinion.

These are the facts that base my wish to keep Fields. 
 

1) Fields has been saddled with a poor oline, receivers and play callers.

2) The roster has been decimated around Fields and it has had an impact on his lack of success.

3) Fields had greater success in college than Williams.

4) Fields played against superior competition than Williams.

5) Trading the No. 1 pick will return greater draft capital than trading Fields. 
 

Finally my concern with trading Fields is the roster is starting to come together and we have addressed points 1 and 2. I want another year with Fields playing in an offense that should not hold him back and a defense that is competitive. If we get a great haul of draft picks from trading no.1 including a no. 1 in 2025, if Fields bums out, we can move on and the QB we bring in will be on a team that is built to not hinder a rookie QB.

5 minutes ago, 50england50 said:

I have watched some tape on Williams and cannot see any strengths that are Fields weaknesses. Most people say the barrier to Fields being a success is him reading defences and making anticipatory throws. I haven’t seen Williams show this is a strength in his game.

If you want to use empirical analysis, you need to separate fact from opinion.

These are the facts that base my wish to keep Fields. 
 

1) Fields has been saddled with a poor oline, receivers and play callers.

2) The roster has been decimated around Fields and it has had an impact on his lack of success.

3) Fields had greater success in college than Williams.

4) Fields played against superior competition than Williams.

5) Trading the No. 1 pick will return greater draft capital than trading Fields. 
 

Finally my concern with trading Fields is the roster is starting to come together and we have addressed points 1 and 2. I want another year with Fields playing in an offense that should not hold him back and a defense that is competitive. If we get a great haul of draft picks from trading no.1 including a no. 1 in 2025, if Fields bums out, we can move on and the QB we bring in will be on a team that is built to not hinder a rookie QB.

which game did you watch? Was it all 22 film?

Because I routinely see Williams reading defenses and getting the ball out fast to the right WRs with anticipation and location that gives the WRs opportunities for yards after the catch. I've seen many dozens of examples with my own eyes?

2 minutes ago, 50england50 said:

I have watched some tape on Williams and cannot see any strengths that are Fields weaknesses. Most people say the barrier to Fields being a success is him reading defences and making anticipatory throws. I haven’t seen Williams show this is a strength in his game.

If you want to use empirical analysis, you need to separate fact from opinion.

These are the facts that base my wish to keep Fields. 
 

1) Fields has been saddled with a poor oline, receivers and play callers.

2) The roster has been decimated around Fields and it has had an impact on his lack of success.

3) Fields had greater success in college than Williams.

4) Fields played against superior competition than Williams.

5) Trading the No. 1 pick will return greater draft capital than trading Fields. 
 

Finally my concern with trading Fields is the roster is starting to come together and we have addressed points 1 and 2. I want another year with Fields playing in an offense that should not hold him back and a defense that is competitive. If we get a great haul of draft picks from trading no.1 including a no. 1 in 2025, if Fields bums out, we can move on and the QB we bring in will be on a team that is built to not hinder a rookie QB.

Excellent work. I couldn’t have said it any better. (Seriously…I couldn’t).   
 

~ signed Antagonistical Goat’s Ass analytics. 

11 minutes ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

Are you telling me Skip won this round of stubbornness?  I was hoping you’d be willing to explain…but ok.  I’ll stop.  ?

No, Skip simply wore Shannon down with a baffling barrage of illogical rebuttals.  I'll live to fight another day...?

6 minutes ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

~ signed Antagonistical Goat’s Ass analytics. 

Can we make a site named this?  ?

7 minutes ago, 50england50 said:

1) Fields has been saddled with a poor oline, receivers and play callers.

2) The roster has been decimated around Fields and it has had an impact on his lack of success.

3) Fields had greater success in college than Williams.

4) Fields played against superior competition than Williams.

5) Trading the No. 1 pick will return greater draft capital than trading Fields.

1) true, and that doesnt mean Fields is good either. It's a good reason why the record has been what it is, but Fields hasnt show that he has grown in his weaknesses since college

2) same as #1

3) he did, with a team full of future NFL players against college defenses. Williams scored more points though. He had a bad defense and lost games, but he had no future 3rd round or better picks around him. Also, Caleb's college stats are pretty similar to Justins.

4) same as #3

5) thats not even an argument. If Williams is a future superbowl winner and Fields sucks (hypothetically) then you'd keep the bad player because the good one had a higher price?

Math's a MF. I see a lot of you MFs can't count. ?‍♂️

Wish I could "and 1" some of these posts.

Here's a good article

https://www.foxsports.com/stories/nfl/where-great-nfl-qbs-are-picked-analyzing-54-years-of-history-by-draft-position