Globe: Mankins graded top guard - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

townes · 07-19-2011, 08:48 PM

Kareem McKenzie > Tom Brady

TheSolderKing · 07-19-2011, 08:52 PM

Franchise tag will stick for Peyton Manning

The Boston Herald reports the NFLPA executive committee will not recommend any special considerations for the 10 plaintiffs in the Brady v. NFL antitrust settlement.
Realizing it would be too "cumbersome" to satisfy individual demands, the NFLPA's decision came with "far less wrangling and horse trading behind the scenes" than recent reports suggested. The upshot is that Peyton Manning and Drew Brees will not be exempt from the franchise tag going forward. Logan Mankins and Vincent Jackson will not be granted free agency, nor a $10 million payout.
Source: Boston Herald
Jul 19, 9:49 PM

Off The Grid · 07-20-2011, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmt57

That (hurts their credibility) is true for people like us, but let's face it: even though the vast majority of the people here at this site are in agreement regarding PFF, we're not really representative of all Pats fans, or sports fans that read the Globe. The majority of people that spend their time here are more fanatical, and because of the above average amount of time they spend following the team and the game they tend to be more knowledgeable.

However, we are probably a very tiny portion of the audience for a newspaper like the Globe. For every one of us whose first thought is 'why are they quoting PFF', there are probably hundreds of people who read those articles and took it at face value, having no reason to believe the numbers might not be accurate.

So in reality when reporters who are generally held in high esteem (e.g., Mike Reiss, Christopher Price, Karen Guregian, Shalise Manza-Young) quote PFF, the hit to their reputation is infinitesimal. Reiss and Price have previously used PFF stats on their blogs; I don't think anybody stopped reading them, or found them to be a questionable source of information afterwards.

Unfortunately, with each time one of these writers again quotes them and uses them as part of a column, PFF's credibility and reputation subtly does indeed grow in the minds the general public.

You're conflating "credibility" with "reputation", my good man.

Just because the majority might perceive a writer as credible, does not make it so.

Me, I'll take "credibility" ~ even if it only garners me the respect of the educated few ~ over "reputation" ~ the meaningless respect of the ignorant masses ~ every time.

***jmt57*** · 07-20-2011, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Off The Grid

You're conflating "credibility" with "reputation", my good man.

Just because the majority might perceive a writer as credible, does not make it so.

Me, I'll take "credibility" ~ even if it only garners me the respect of the educated few ~ over "reputation" ~ the meaningless respect of the ignorant masses ~ every time.

Yeah, true - good call OTG.

I guess what I was trying to say in a very long-winded way was that the four writers I mentioned are not professionally doomed because the quote PFF. Not only that, but their using PFF's stats helps raise awareness of PFF - which in turn enhances their reputation with the general public.

While people like you, me and Rob are acutely aware of the pitfalls of PFF's numbers, every time one of these writers refer to them in an article PFF sadly becomes more and more acceptable and reliable in the mind of the average sports fan - and that in turn will result in their being utilized more often by the mainstream sports media.

Lather, rinse repeat: a vicious circle of misinformation gets put into play.

Off The Grid · 07-20-2011, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmt57

Yeah, true - good call OTG.

I guess what I was trying to say in a very long-winded way was that the four writers I mentioned are not professionally doomed because the quote PFF. Not only that, but their using PFF's stats helps raise awareness of PFF - which in turn enhances their reputation with the general public.

While people like you, me and Rob are acutely aware of the pitfalls of PFF's numbers, every time one of these writers refer to them in an article PFF sadly becomes more and more acceptable and reliable in the mind of the average sports fan - and that in turn will result in their being utilized more often by the mainstream sports media.

Lather, rinse repeat: a vicious circle of misinformation gets put into play.

Ahhh...Ain't it the truth??

You're a class act, Brother J, and that was well said, sir.

And I hope you'll continue to trend towards effusiveness.

I'm a big Steven King fan, as my own meanderings no doubt suggest, and a long-winded reply, if eloquent, is not only acceptable, but highly encouraged and greatly appreciated!!

**Ian** · 07-20-2011, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

Yeah so?!? Every hear the phrase, two wrongs don't make a right? Do you really think that showing us that a lot of people in the media are either too ignorant of the fact that PFF's data is flawed or just don't give a crap because it gives them stuff to write about is going to "prove" to us that PFF is a legitimate site?

Sorry, Guregian and SMY quoting PFF does not make the site anymore legitimate. It just hurts their credibility.

I don't know why people are killing SMY and Guregian, as they weren't the only two quoting that article. Even the official site quoted it:

Link To their Post on Twitter

I'd bash PFF if you disagree with it, but I saw about 10 different mentions from other prominent writers who quoted it in our market. They were just pointing it out, and as I mentioned even the official site mentioned it.

***Rob0729*** · 07-20-2011, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian

I don't know why people are killing SMY and Guregian, as they weren't the only two quoting that article. Even the official site quoted it:

Link To their Post on Twitter

I'd bash PFF if you disagree with it, but I saw about 10 different mentions from other prominent writers who quoted it in our market. They were just pointing it out, and as I mentioned even the official site mentioned it.

I'm not bashing anyone in particular. I mentioned Mike Reiss uses PFF as a source too. I am just saying anyone in the media who uses a source like PFF that has stats that are easily discredited take a hit to their credibility. It just happens that SMY and Guregian as guilty of it in this particular case. If Reiss, Ian Rapport, Ron Borges, or any any other Boston writer used PFF as a source (and many of them do), I would say the same thing. I am certainly not singling out anyone.

crowell tends to be a shill for PFF and he/she seems to be using local reports quoting it as a validation of the accuracy of their site. That was my only point.

BTW, as for the official Patriots Twitter account quoting it, it is a different thing. Although they break Patriots related news on it, that Twitter account is more of a PR devise than a news source. They aren't held to the same journalistic standards and their goal is to promote the team.

captain stone · 07-21-2011, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSolderKing

Mankins needs a 5 year deal... We need him protecting Brady's blind side for the remainder of TFB's contract. Are G's not worth the $$$?

They are if they're one of the top 4 OGs in football;
if the offense suddenly becomes wonderfully efficient upon his return
with barely one week of full-contact practice (which still blows my mind);
and if there is absolutely nobody currently signed/drafted who can even seriously
be considered a possible replacement, due in no small part to all the useless crap
besides Vollmer whom Bill has drafted/signed/traded for from 2006-2010 (2 exceptions:
Connelly, who will replace Neal; and Ted Larsen, who was lost on waivers -
instead of OBurger/Wendell??? - to Tampa).