The Flaw in the Shanahan Offensive Scheme

Ax said:
http://www.basic-mathematics.com/basic-math-formulas.html

Here endeth the lesson.
Click to expand...

This is sad, AX.

Think of a formula as a procedure intended to accomplish a task.

l x w x h is a formula we could use to find the volume of a room or a box

l + w + h is not a formula because it results in a useless number

Further related and interesting information:

The so-called "NFL Quarterback Rating" is most often called a "statistic." It isn't one. It's a formula intended to grade QBs. However, since it doesn't isolate the QB from his support system, it should be called the "Team Passing Game Rating."

Whoever produces the stats on the NFL site must realize this since the QBR is listed in reference to QBs, where it is deceptive, and again among the TEAM offense and defense passing stats as "Rate," where it has some real value.
 
Last edited:
ughh...I avoided this cuz it's really a technical discussion that moves beyond the Skins...be that as it may:

- a formula (used in the sense of this thread) is an expression of a relationship among variables. they are used to calculate values which...in this instance...are being used as metrics. in this instance also...the metrics aren't absolute but reference a range.

- but where does the formula come from? L x W x H is drawn from the definition of volume. that is not an analogue for some QB rating system. ultimately......the utility of a formula depends upon the validity of the model, hypothesis, theory that the formula expresses in mathematical terms. QB rating is not a purely mathematical concept in the sense of being axiomatically true.

- It's obvious.....but you all are arguing over the wrong thing....what you need to debate is the validity of the model being used to determine what is relevant (possibly weighted) to judging a QB. which brings everyone back to square one. disagree on the variables that go into the formula all you like! I'll still favor drafting RGIII!

how's that for pointless over-kill on a series of exchanges that exceeded the statute of limitations?
 
Guys, it's not that complicated. Oldfan puts more value on coaching than most people do. He thinks with the proper scheme players are fairly interchangeable. Things like chemistry and leadership are not worth discussing because they are not measurable, in his opinion. Therefore the players with the most 'measureables' are the ones a team should go after.

I happen to generally disagree with him about the chemistry and leadership part, as do some of you. As is his way, he calls people who disagree with him on this issue ignorant bandwagoners while pretending to be above the fray, which is why we have these super-long OF-centric threads. This exact discussion has played itself out on ES several times and it's getting a little old. Just let him think what he wants and move on.

And yes, I would be fine with Griffin as well.
 
Last edited:
fansince62 said:
ughh...I avoided this cuz it's really a technical discussion that moves beyond the Skins...be that as it may:

- a formula (used in the sense of this thread) is an expression of a relationship among variables. they are used to calculate values which...in this instance...are being used as metrics. in this instance also...the metrics aren't absolute but reference a range.

- but where does the formula come from? L x W x H is drawn from the definition of volume. that is not an analogue for some QB rating system. ultimately......the utility of a formula depends upon the validity of the model, hypothesis, theory that the formula expresses in mathematical terms. QB rating is not a purely mathematical concept in the sense of being axiomatically true.

- It's obvious.....but you all are arguing over the wrong thing....what you need to debate is the validity of the model being used to determine what is relevant (possibly weighted) to judging a QB. which brings everyone back to square one. disagree on the variables that go into the formula all you like! I'll still favor drafting RGIII!

how's that for pointless over-kill on a series of exchanges that exceeded the statute of limitations?
Click to expand...
l + h + w produces a useless number. Is that a "formula" as you define the word?

That's the only question here. What's your answer?
 
Thanks Henry. Sorry boys and girls.:anonymous:

I don't care who we pick up at QB, or where he comes from, or how we get him. I just want a winner.

And, they come in a bunch of different sizes and flavors.
 
Henry said:
Guys, it's not that complicated. Oldfan puts more value on coaching than most people do. He thinks with the proper scheme players are fairly interchangeable. Things like chemistry and leadership are not worth discussing because they are not measurable, in his opinion. Therefore the players with the most 'measureables' are the ones a team should go after.

I happen to generally disagree with him about the chemistry and leadership part, as do some of you. As is his way, he calls people who disagree with him on this issue ignorant bandwagoners while pretending to be above the fray, which is why we have these super-long OF-centric threads. This exact discussion has played itself out on ES several times and it's getting a little old. Just let him think what he wants and move on.
Click to expand...
Your post tells me that you don't understand my position at all. How can you presume to criticize what you don't understand?

Have you heard the saying, "Quarterbacks get far more credit than they deserve when winning and far more blame than they deserve when losing (or words to that effect)?" Well, that's my position in a nutshell.

The QB is the most important on the field, but the position's importance to winning is greatly overrated. Football is a team sport, not a quarterback competition.

It isn't likely that fans individually analyzed the value of the QB position and made the same error. The only plausible explanation for this widespread phenomenon is the Bandwagon Fallacy.

"Quarterbacks get far more credit than they deserve when winning and far more blame than they deserve when losing." If you can prove that statement false, then you can prove me wrong and feel free to criticize.
 
Last edited:
That reads like a horoscope, OF. Vague and broad and ambiguous enough to where it commits you to nothing. Why the need to keep churning?
 
No thanks. I understand you perfectly.

By the way, when you make a claim the burden is on you to prove it, not the rest of the world to disprove it.
 
Om said:
That reads like a horoscope, OF. Vague and broad and ambiguous enough to where it commits you to nothing. Why the need to keep churning?
Click to expand...
Your comment is vague. In the sentence... "That reads like a horoscope..." what exactly is "that?"
 
Henry said:
No thanks. I understand you perfectly.

By the way, when you make a claim the burden is on you to prove it, not the rest of the world to disprove it.
Click to expand...
You claim to understand me, but you show no evidence of it.

On the ES board, I did prove my claim to several intelligent posters who kept an open mind.

Proving it to the Bandwagon isn't possible.
 
Some day, Oldfan, you may just learn the difference between a provable fact and an opinion. It would be a great thing for this board if you ever did.
 
Henry said:
Some day, Oldfan, you may just learn the difference between a provable fact and an opinion. It would be a great thing for this board if you ever did.
Click to expand...
Henry, you're full of it. Great advice, that is.:)
 
Oldfan said:
l + h + w produces a useless number. Is that a "formula" as you define the word?

That's the only question here. What's your answer?
Click to expand...


you're missing the point. L x W x H is a definition for volume expressed mathematically.

utility is driven by context. it's an inherently "human" concept that connotes value of some sort...if you will.

stepping back from the bar...you're attacking the abstract expression (the symbols) of a relationship. the relationship only has meaning in terms of the system it is couched in. it is beholden upon you to explain the variables in evaluating a QB, why you think they are important, what their dependencies/constraints might be - all EXPLAINED in the context of the concrete reference system you are using (which one assumes is an NFL football game). others are free to argue the relative weights, dependencies, constraints, point out gaps....etc. Don't get me wrong...I like the structure you bring to the problem. but....at the end of the day.......the numbers are meaningless until everyone agrees on the scale and the underlying hypotheses. Henry's post clearly indicates that sort of "scientific" consensus isn't there.
 
I'm pretty sure what Oldfan is saying is that he watches the QB, and decides how well they have performed based on his observations. Just like all of us. Only, we're all stupid and ignorant because we also pay attention to a QBs stats, which clearly have nothing to do with his skill level.
 
As you all know, we don't moderate in public here. We do need to let you know, however, that Oldfan has advised us he is moving on.

BGO isn't for everybody.
 
Om said:
As you all know, we don't moderate in public here. We do need to let you know, however, that Oldfan has advised us he is moving on.

BGO isn't for everybody.
Click to expand...

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReYfu5E-hOE[/media]


:)
 
The flaw in the offense is a lack of talent.

Put Drew Brees on this team and a franchise back like Chris Johnson and the Redskins would look like the late 1990's Broncos.

Shanahan with Elway and Terrell Davis had a team much like the Patriots.

When these players retired or declined due to injury they were not replaced with adequate talents.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top