Troy Brown's surprise cut pick: Laurence Maroney

[BradyFTW!]

I'll also direct you to the scouts at Pro Football Focus, who grade Maroney as by far the worst RB on the Patriots ( yes that includes BJGE as well ).

And in turn, I'll direct you to the fact that PFF is worse than useless. Its statistics are a joke that have no business being taken seriously. PFF also says that last year David Garrard was better than Tom Brady, Stylez G. White was better than Mario Williams and Jared Allen, Lamarr Woodley was better than DeMarcus Ware, Mike Vrabel and Tamba Hali were better than Elvis Dumervil, Jonathan Babineaux was the best DT/NT in the NFL, Sione Pouha was better than Vince Wilfork, Gary Guyton was better than Jerod Mayo, Ray Rice was the best RB in the NFL, etc. etc. Seriously, this list could go on forever, and those are the kind of results that should send you back to the drawing board.

And clearly, Brown, Breer and Felger are all speculating. Maroney's a controversial player, and predicting him as a TC cut is an easy way to play to their base. None of these guys has any idea whether or not he'll be cut, and considering how much noise to that effect was made last year (didn't happen then) and the year before (didn't happen then, either), the only conclusion left is that this is just a dumb exercise that they go through year after year to pull one over on people like you. Maroney isn't going to get cut, and that's that. He may not be a great, or even meaningfully above-average RB, but he's on a rookie contract and is the only RB below 30 that we have with any real talent.

 

[BionicPatriot]

Hate to say whats been said a million times but,

If anyone thinks BB is going to cut Maroney and DEPEND on Taylor, Maroney, and Lawfirm you're really smoking that good ****.

 

[crowell33]

And in turn, I'll direct you to the fact that PFF is worse than useless. Its statistics are a joke that have no business being taken seriously. PFF also says that last year David Garrard was better than Tom Brady, Stylez G. White was better than Mario Williams and Jared Allen, Lamarr Woodley was better than DeMarcus Ware, Mike Vrabel and Tamba Hali were better than Elvis Dumervil, Jonathan Babineaux was the best DT/NT in the NFL, Sione Pouha was better than Vince Wilfork, Gary Guyton was better than Jerod Mayo, Ray Rice was the best RB in the NFL, etc. etc. Seriously, this list could go on forever, and those are the kind of results that should send you back to the drawing board.

And clearly, Brown, Breer and Felger are all speculating. Maroney's a controversial player, and predicting him as a TC cut is an easy way to play to their base. None of these guys has any idea whether or not he'll be cut, and considering how much noise to that effect was made last year (didn't happen then) and the year before (didn't happen then, either), the only conclusion left is that this is just a dumb exercise that they go through year after year to pull one over on people like you. Maroney isn't going to get cut, and that's that. He may not be a great, or even meaningfully above-average RB, but he's on a rookie contract and is the only RB below 30 that we have with any real talent.

Pro Football Focus is the without question the best scouting service available to the public bar none. FYI, Brady is rated as a significantly better passer than Garrard, it is Garrard's running yards ranking that you need to add in the PFF ranking that you quoted.

Pro Football Focus grades every play, by every player, at every position, every season, and makes a cumulative analysis of the data. I compare that to the opinion of message board posters, and I find PFF superior.

 

[JackBauer]

Pro Football Focus is the without question the best scouting service available to the public bar none. FYI, Brady is rated as a significantly better passer than Garrard, it is Garrard's running yards ranking that you need to add in the PFF ranking that you quoted.

Pro Football Focus grades every play, by every player, at every position, every season, and makes a cumulative analysis of the data. I compare that to the opinion of message board posters, and I find PFF superior.

PFF's rankings are self-evidently flawed. I don't care if Garrard ran for 5,000 yards last year; calling him a better QB than Brady is absurd. And other examples of their erroneous rankings are legion.

I suspect the only reason you find PFF superior is because you chose to hang your argument hat on their (shoddy) work.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Pro Football Focus is the without question the best scouting service available to the public bar none. FYI, Brady is rated as a significantly better passer than Garrard, it is Garrard's running yards ranking that you need to add in the PFF ranking that you quoted.

Pro Football Focus grades every play, by every player, at every position, every season, and makes a cumulative analysis of the data. I compare that to the opinion of message board posters, and I find PFF superior.

Oh, okay, it's Garrard's rushing yards that make him better than Tom Brady. It's good that we cleared up, that argument makes total sense now. Just to make sure that we're on the same page, you are agreeing that David Garrard's 2009 season was better than Tom Brady's? And while we're at it, PFF also says that Joe Flacco was better than Brady, so... yeah. Pretty much what I'd expect from a site that thinks that Roethlisberger had a better regular season than Peyton Manning.

And without question, bar none, PFF is the best? Really? Because I can think of at least 2 publicly available options that are better by huge margins. All you need is to look at the results to realize that PFF is garbage. FFS, it ranks Adrian Peterson as the 17th best running back in the NFL, behind Jamaal Charles (#3), Jonathan Stewart (#6), Justin Forsett (#7), Jason Snelling (#10), Ladell Betts (#14), and Brian Leonard (#15). If you still think that PFF's RB rankings are in any way credible, then I dunno what to tell you.

And, just to be clear, since you ignored all the other examples that I gave, you agree that:

Stylez G. White > Mario Williams, Jared Allen
Jonathan Babineaux > Sione Pouha > Vince Wilfork
Gary Guyton > Jerod Mayo

Look, just chalk this one up to a simple mistake. We've all tried to use PFF at some point, been rightly blasted for it, then gone back and realized, on closer inspection, how bad it really is. There are some legit statistical analysis sites out there--Football Outsiders is the best--which can be used to support points that pass basic logic tests. Even then, you have to account for a variety of factors that don't show up in the statistics, such as system, strength of schedule, surrounding talent, etc. Part of why Football Outsiders is so good is because it does correct for a lot of that stuff, but even then it still has to be taken into account. With PFF, you can't even really do that- it's just a crappy analytical tool, and if you actually look at the results you'll realize that there's no debate to be had. It just sucks. Even Cold Hard Football Facts, which also sucks, is better.

 

[crowell33]

PFF's rankings are self-evidently flawed. I don't care if Garrard ran for 5,000 yards last year; calling him a better QB than Brady is absurd. And other examples of their erroneous rankings are legion.

I suspect the only reason you find PFF superior is because you chose to hang your argument hat on their (shoddy) work.

Do you have any friends who are actuaries? They could explain this to you better than I could.

During every statistical analysis there are always "anomalies". These anomalies are abnormalities within the data, that if taken individually, erroneously seem to disprove the overall data. For Example: Smoking shortens lifespan, and drunk driving causes accidents. However, you undoubtedly know of people who have lived long lives, who smoked and many of us know people who have driven drunk but have not gotten into accidents. These are called anomalies.

If you took '"Statistics", one of the first rules you learn is that you cannot point to specific and incorrect examples within any data (anomalies) as a way to disprove the overall data base. When you point to Brady vs. Garrard at Pro Football Focus, you are attempting to discredit all of the data based on a clear anomaly. Does this help at all?

 

[crowell33]

Oh, okay, it's Garrard's rushing yards that make him better than Tom Brady. It's good that we cleared up, that argument makes total sense now. Just to make sure that we're on the same page, you are agreeing that David Garrard's 2009 season was better than Tom Brady's?

And without question, PFF is the best? Really? Because I can think of at least 2 publicly available options that are better by huge margins. All you need is to look at the results to realize that PFF is garbage. FFS, it ranks Adrian Peterson as the 17th best running back in the NFL, behind Jamaal Charles (#3), Jonathan Stewart (#6), Justin Forsett (#7), Jason Snelling (#10), Ladell Betts (#14), and Brian Leonard (#15). If you still think that PFF's RB rankings are in any way credible, then I dunno what to tell you.

And, just to be clear, you agree that:

Stylez G. White > Mario Williams, Jared Allen
Jonathan Babineaux > Sione Pouha > Vince Wilfork
Gary Guyton > Jerod Mayo

There are some reasonably good statistical analysis sites out there--Football Outsiders is the best--which can be used to support points that pass basic logic tests. Even then, you have to account for a variety of factors that don't show up in the statistics, such as system, strength of schedule, surrounding talent, etc. With PFF, you can't even really do that- it's just a crappy analytical tool, as the results that it produces clearly indicate.

Mayo had a serious knee injury and played hurt all year. That is reflected in the PFF analysis.

 

[JackBauer]

Do you have any friends who are actuaries? They could explain this to you better than I could.

During every statistical analysis there are always "anomalies". These anomalies are abnormalities within the data, that if taken individually, erroneously seem to disprove the overall data. For Example: Smoking shortens lifespan, and drunk driving causes accidents. However, you undoubtedly know of people who have lived long lives, who smoked and many of us know people who have driven drunk but have not gotten into accidents. These are called anomalies.

If you took '"Statistics", one of the first rules you learn is that you cannot point to specific and incorrect examples within any data (anomalies) as a way to disprove the overall data base. When you point to Brady vs. Garrard at Pro Football Focus, you are attempting to discredit all of the data based on a clear anomaly. Does this help at all?

Thank you for the condescending lecture, but no, these are not anomalies. Pretty much every list at every position is irredeemably flawed. If there were a couple of outliers, you'd have a point. But it's much more than that, so calling these examples an anomaly is simply wrong.

 

[crowell33]

Thank you for the condescending lecture, but no, these are not anomalies. Pretty much every list at every position is irredeemably flawed. If there were a couple of outliers, you'd have a point. But it's much more than that, so calling these examples an anomaly is simply wrong.

Sorry, was really trying to help you. Nevermind.

 

[JackBauer]

Stylez G. White

At first I thought you had made that name up. Shows how reliable PFF's formulas are

 

[JackBauer]

Sorry, was really trying to help you. Nevermind.

There is not a single ranking by position on PFF's site that doesn't have glaring anomalies.

You really think, given that fact, that their interpretation of whatever data they're using is reliable?

 

[Deus Irae]

Pro Football Focus is the without question the best scouting service available to the public bar none.

Now that is comedy gold right there.

 

[crowell33]

There is not a single ranking by position on PFF's site that doesn't have glaring anomalies.

You really think, given that fact, that their interpretation of whatever data they're using is reliable?

Yes. You are pointing to the still alive, old smokers. I've suscribed to the Mel Kiper guides for 20 years now ( yes I'm an old timer, 43. ) I used to subscribe to Joel Buschbaum's ( close Belichick friend ), for years, before he died. I can remember when you used to order the Kiper guides by phone and Mel would answer the phone at his house and take your order. And of course I have every ProFootball Weekly and Patriots football weekly, just to name a few.

I have been through the Pro Football Focus data, and it is my opinion, that as a whole, it is the best I have ever seen.

 

[JackBauer]

Yes. You are pointing to the still alive, old smokers. I've suscribed to the Mel Kiper guides for 20 years now ( yes I'm an old timer, 43. ) I used to subscribe to Joel Buschbaum's ( close Belichick friend ), for years, before he died. I can remember when you used to order the Kiper guides by phone and Mel would answer the phone at his house and take your order. And of course I have every ProFootball Weekly and Patriots football weekly, just to name a few.

I have been through the Pro Football Focus data, and it is my opinion, that as a whole, it is the best I have ever seen.

So you agree with their assessment that, say, Asomugha was the 17th best CB in the league last season?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Mayo had a serious knee injury and played hurt all year. That is reflected in the PFF analysis.

Nice try, but that's not the reason at all. In 2008, it had him ranked as the #39 ILB out of 46, with an awful -5.7 rating. He was rated behind Takeo Spikes (1), Channing Crowder (3), Bradie James (5), Gerald Hayes (6), Paul Posluszny (9), Barrett Ruud (11), Zach Thomas (12), Larry Foote (14, and Pitt thought so much of him that they cut him immediately following the season), Curtis Lofton, Stehen Tulloch, Tedy Bruschi, Nate Webster, Dhani Jones, Stephen Cooper, and Daryl Smith.

In short, PFF thinks that Jerod Mayo is a crappy football player.

 

[crowell33]

Nice try, but that's not the reason at all. In 2008, it had him ranked as the #39 ILB out of 46, with an awful -5.7 rating. He was rated behind Takeo Spikes (1), Channing Crowder (3), Bradie James (5), Gerald Hayes (6), Paul Posluszny (9), Barrett Ruud (11), Zach Thomas (12), Larry Foote (14, and Pitt thought so much of him that they cut him immediately following the season), Curtis Lofton, Stehen Tulloch, Tedy Bruschi, Nate Webster, Dhani Jones, Stephen Cooper, and Daryl Smith.

In short, PFF thinks that Jerod Mayo is a crappy football player.

Lets hope they are wrong.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Yes. You are pointing to the still alive, old smokers. I've suscribed to the Mel Kiper guides for 20 years now ( yes I'm an old timer, 43. ) I used to subscribe to Joel Buschbaum's ( close Belichick friend ), for years, before he died. I can remember when you used to order the Kiper guides by phone and Mel would answer the phone at his house and take your order. And of course I have every ProFootball Weekly and Patriots football weekly, just to name a few.

I have been through the Pro Football Focus data, and it is my opinion, that as a whole, it is the best I have ever seen.

Then either you haven't seen much or you have no idea what to look for. Probably both.

 

[crowell33]

So you agree with their assessment that, say, Asomugha was the 17th best CB in the league last season?

Goodbye. 10char.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Lets hope they are wrong.

Let's hope that PFF was wrong in asserting that Mayo was one of the worst ILBs in 2008? We know that it was wrong: Mayo's a damn good football player, and even when healthy he was being ranked behind players who aren't fit to carry his pads. I'll keep digging up examples though, and you keep defending them- this is fun. How about what JackBauer just pointed out: Asomugha as the #17 CB. How would you go about even pretending to justify that?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Do you have any friends who are actuaries? They could explain this to you better than I could.

During every statistical analysis there are always "anomalies". These anomalies are abnormalities within the data, that if taken individually, erroneously seem to disprove the overall data. For Example: Smoking shortens lifespan, and drunk driving causes accidents. However, you undoubtedly know of people who have lived long lives, who smoked and many of us know people who have driven drunk but have not gotten into accidents. These are called anomalies.

If you took '"Statistics", one of the first rules you learn is that you cannot point to specific and incorrect examples within any data (anomalies) as a way to disprove the overall data base. When you point to Brady vs. Garrard at Pro Football Focus, you are attempting to discredit all of the data based on a clear anomaly. Does this help at all?

I studied advanced statistics, forecast modeling, and regression analysis pretty intensively in college, so the condescension really isn't necessary.

See, the thing about anomalies of the order that you're talking about is, by definition, they occur rarely. When over half of data points are clearly flawed, the anomaly explanation no longer holds water: at that point, it's clearly a case of enormously FUBAR models. If I had tried to submit a model that generated results that are so clearly divorced from reality, I would have received a failing grade.

I didn't discredit PFF based on one single data point: as you can clearly see, I listed a series of them, for exactly that reason. At every page you turn to, in a listing of 50 data points at least 20 of them are obvious BS.