Ryan Wendell re-signed

[Ring 6]

Andy, your statement implies that you have more knowledge about the contract details than does Field Yates. Please share.

The only information I have is that he appears to be jumping to conclusions.
As you always are quick to point out, early comments about contracts are dubious at best, and we shouldn't judge them until the actual confirmed numbers are in.

By the way, he already has basically admitted he was wrong about the first reports.

 

[Ring 6]

See 'reasoning, circular'.

An internet poster cannot be correct on an issue, we know this because NFL teams don't seek them out, they don't seek them out because they cannot be correct.

See, it makes perfect sense

No, an internet poster has less information and is not as good at interpretting it as a professional who has been doing so for over 30 years.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Just having more much more information doesn't necessarily make someone's decisions better if they're not doing a better job of interpreting the information they have.

BTW, I know plenty professional fund managers that I've beaten with my index fund

Right on the money, and the proof is there for all to see, Belichick doesn't know what he is doing and all they ever do is lose as a result. Now if they had someone as football savvy and smart as you running this team they would be winning the Lombardi every year, instead of us watching them fail over and over and over again.

 

[Miguel]

The only information I have is that he appears to be jumping to conclusions.

Field Yates provided rather credible reasons for his conclusions.

By the way, he already has basically admitted he was wrong about the first reports.

No, he has not. He has said the opposite - he is even more convinced that the NFLPA made a clerical error - he tweeted this morning - "I'm also more and more convinced that Wendell's roster bonus will be $200k, not $2M".

 

[kennyb]

This guy should have been signed straight vet min. No signing bonus no workout bonus.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Right on the money, and the proof is there for all to see, Belichick doesn't know what he is doing and all they ever do is lose as a result. Now if they had someone as football savvy and smart as you running this team they would be winning the Lombardi every year, instead of us watching them fail over and over and over again.

How many Lombardis has BB won lately?

How often did Mike Shanahan win when he had John Elway as opposed to when he didn't? Having a franchise QB, especially one that's in the GOAT discussion, makes up for a lot.

Also, look up 'False equivalence', it's a logical fallacy that you just employed. Just because I wouldn't be a better GM that BB doesn't mean that someone else on the internet might make better decisions.

 

[Snake Eyes]

No, an internet poster has less information and is not as good at interpretting it as a professional who has been doing so for over 30 years.

They don't have nearly the depth of information but they also might not need quite as much in order to make an excellent decision. I don't have advanced degrees in economics nor have I ever been in public office but I knew that Federal loan policies during the mortgage boom would create a subsequent burst. I knew this because I understand basic economics, which is seems to very of 'professionals' forget.

Also, do teams all make identical conclusions regarding personnel? Every team has tons of information and have people on staff who have been interpreting it for 30 years, so are all of them making better decisions than anyone not in the NFL?

 

[Ring 6]

They don't have nearly the depth of information but they also might not need quite as much in order to make an excellent decision.

So you are telling me that with less data on a player you can make a better decision than Bill Belichick? That is what you are implying here.

I don't have advanced degrees in economics nor have I ever been in public office but I knew that Federal loan policies during the mortgage boom would create a subsequent burst. I knew this because I understand basic economics, which is seems to very of 'professionals' forget.

Oh God, you are one of those.
OK, since I have been in the mortgage industry for 25 years, I sit here in anticipation of what you think the issue was, how you think you saw the problem coming and what you would have done differently. And remember what you do differently has be done from the perspective and goals of the person making the decisions.

Also, do teams all make identical conclusions regarding personnel? Every team has tons of information and have people on staff who have been interpreting it for 30 years, so are all of them making better decisions than anyone not in the NFL?

Yes, they are. Because they all have more information, knowledge, experience and intelligence about the subject than you do.

 

[Ring 6]

How many Lombardis has BB won lately?

How often did Mike Shanahan win when he had John Elway as opposed to when he didn't? Having a franchise QB, especially one that's in the GOAT discussion, makes up for a lot.

Also, look up 'False equivalence', it's a logical fallacy that you just employed. Just because I wouldn't be a better GM that BB doesn't mean that someone else on the internet might make better decisions.

So you are judging the success of decision making by saying that you fail if you are not the best of 32 all having a singular goal more often than 3 times in 13 years?

 

[Ring 6]

Field Yates provided rather credible reasons for his conclusions.



No, he has not. He has said the opposite - he is even more convinced that the NFLPA made a clerical error - he tweeted this morning - "I'm also more and more convinced that Wendell's roster bonus will be $200k, not $2M".

Wait, he originally said it was a 2 year 8+ mill deal, then he changes it to what you posted and not its 2 years 4+ mill. That exactly is admitting his initial report was wrong, which is what I am saying.
He used a source that he later said was wrong, so how could he have been right?

 

[Miguel]

Wait, he originally said it was a 2 year 8+ mill deal, then he changes it to what you posted and not its 2 years 4+ mill. That exactly is admitting his initial report was wrong, which is what I am saying.
He used a source that he later said was wrong, so how could he have been right?

You quoted the second report and said "Of course he is wrong about the contract. He is guessing wildly."

 

[Snake Eyes]

So you are judging the success of decision making by saying that you fail if you are not the best of 32 all having a singular goal more often than 3 times in 13 years?

Think about this statement for a moment:

"Now if they had someone as football savvy and smart as you running this team they would be winning the Lombardi every year, instead of us watching them fail over and over and over again"

BB himself comes no where close to the standard he's setting for me, I'm thinking that means his standard is pretty stupid.

 

[Ring 6]

You quoted the second report and said "Of course he is wrong about the contract. He is guessing wildly."

No I responded to a post that said he 'is now speculating that he may be wrong'.

 

[Ring 6]

Think about this statement for a moment:

"Now if they had someone as football savvy and smart as you running this team they would be winning the Lombardi every year, instead of us watching them fail over and over and over again"

BB himself comes no where close to the standard he's setting for me, I'm thinking that means his standard is pretty stupid.

He wasn't setting a standard for you, he was responding to your implication that you could do better.

 

[Snake Eyes]

So you are telling me that with less data on a player you can make a better decision than Bill Belichick? That is what you are implying here

No, I'm saying that just having more data doesn't guarantee your decision is better than someone who has less. The person with less data might have more than sufficient data but simply does a better job of working with the data they have.

Oh God, you are one of those.
OK, since I have been in the mortgage industry for 25 years, I sit here in anticipation of what you think the issue was, how you think you saw the problem coming and what you would have done differently. And remember what you do differently has be done from the perspective and goals of the person making the decisions

It's pretty simple, you don't artificially inflate the market.

Yes, they are. Because they all have more information, knowledge, experience and intelligence about the subject than you do.

Ok, so how is it that some teams make consistently bad decisions as opposed to others? Someone can have all of the attributes you're taking about and still have a flawed paradigm.

I'm sure you'd say that I couldn't make a better decision than Bill Parcells, is that the case?

Your argument is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

 

[Snake Eyes]

He wasn't setting a standard for you, he was responding to your implication that you could do better.

I never implied that I could do better than BB, just that it's exceptionally poor logic to conclude that since an NFL team hasn't selected you that you're incapable of making a better decision then them.

 

[Ring 6]

No, I'm saying that just having more data doesn't guarantee your decision is better than someone who has less. The person with less data might have more than sufficient data but simply does a better job of working with the data they have.

What are you talking about? I said BB has more date with which to make a decision and a better ability to analyze it. You are implying you are so much more skilled than him you can do better with one hand tied behind you back (ie less info)

It's pretty simple, you don't artificially inflate the market.

If it were simple it wouldn't have happened.
Artificially inflated? How?
Please explain who is to blame for inflating the market, how they did it, and what could have or should have been done, since you are talking like you saw it coming and could have stopped it.

Ok, so how is it that some teams make consistently bad decisions as opposed to others? Someone can have all of the attributes you're taking about and still have a flawed paradigm.

And they all do a better job than you would. They are competing against each other. Someone will be the worst of 32, and that one will be far better at it than you.
Its like you are saying Mark Sanchez did a bad job as an NFL QB so you could do better.

I'm sure you'd say that I couldn't make a better decision than Bill Parcells, is that the case?

Any idiot can get lucky with a decision, but, no there is absolutely no way in the world you would do a better job making football decisions than Bill Parcells.

Your argument is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

Not at all.
I am saying that the professionals making those decisions have better data and better ability and judgment than you.
An appeal to authority would be to say that you are wrong on an individual decision because an authority made a different one. I am saying you would not be as good as them at making decisions about football, which is pretty obvious.

 

[Ring 6]

I never implied that I could do better than BB, just that it's exceptionally poor logic to conclude that since an NFL team hasn't selected you that you're incapable of making a better decision then them.

That's because you are taking one facet of the topic and pretending it is the only one.
Yes, the fact that someone has the experience and skills that an NFL team would deem worthy of making its personel decisions indicated capability. You have no indication of capability.
However, even if you did possess the skillset, you lack experience, knowledge, insight, a clear understanding of the expectations and strengths and weaknesses the system in place values, the fit with the rest of your roster, among many other things, on top of having about 1% of the information necessary to use the skillset.
So yes, you are incapable of making football decisions better than them.

 

[Snake Eyes]

What are you talking about? I said BB has more date with which to make a decision and a better ability to analyze it. You are implying you are so much more skilled than him you can do better with one hand tied behind you back (ie less info)

I wasn't talking about BB, good grief, it's not going to become so simply because you say so.

If it were simple it wouldn't have happened.
Artificially inflated? How?
Please explain who is to blame for inflating the market, how they did it, and what could have or should have been done, since you are talking like you saw it coming and could have stopped it.

Are you serious? Joe Biden publicly said "we need to keep spending (record) money so we don't go broke", just because someone is in a high position doesn't mean they're correct.

The market was inflated by the Feds demanding that lenders expand their credit portfolios and backing those loans.

And they all do a better job than you would. They are competing against each other. Someone will be the worst of 32, and that one will be far better at it than you.

Oh yes, you;re correct because you say you're correct, I get it.

Its like you are saying Mark Sanchez did a bad job as an NFL QB so you could do better.

I can't throw a football more than 30yds, so I wouldnt be a better QB than him but I wouldnt have drafted him either, I was giddy when the Jets took, I beat Mike Tannenbaum there.

Any idiot can get lucky with a decision, but, no there is absolutely no way in the world you would do a better job making football decisions than Bill Parcells.

Bill Parcells? four rules for drafting a quarterback | Smart Football

I think his criteria are pretty stupid, I also think it's worth noting that he would have passed on Joe Montana, TFB, Ben Roethlisburger, Kurt Warner, and Aaron Rodgers, and probably many other excellent players. There are also plenty of garbage QBs that have fit that criteria just fine.

 

[supafly]

I don't mind the Wendell signing at all.

If he ends up being a starter who plays a lot of reps, he has incentives that will allow him to be paid as such. If he's a 6th or 7th OL, then he'll get paid as a backup. He knows our system here and can step in if/when needed. Win/win.

Even though we'd all like to see improvement at the interior line position, we now have a bit of a luxury at the OL position--as opposed to a definite "need" that warrants addressing in the top 2-3 rounds.

Solder/Mankins/Wendell/Connelly/Vollmer/Cannon all make up a nice 6. Add in a guy like Svitek for the 7th position on a cheap deal, and we're set to be able to address our needs with DT, TE in the top 2-3 rounds.

A mid round draft pick for a rookie C/G would be just fine, and allow a nice competition for the rookie, Wendell, Connelly, Cannon, and even Cave for the top 2 interior starting positions.