Califan007 The Constipated

Yep, still holds true today...and still funny lol.

The "piss 'em off" trifecta lol...

Translation: "Yes...yes it is indeed meant to cancel out the previously obtuse comment I made."

Is the even-more-obtuse comment meant to cancel out the previous obtuse comment?...Is that how it works?

Can't help but think that bck in the 70s, a bunch of conservatives were watching this at home with their kids and laughing...

Schrodinger's protest...

Does THIS look like an idiot to you, sir?!

I feel like the people she's describing all became diehard Trump supporters...

There's beer on ES?....

So it wasn't just me lol... Seriously, though, appreciate your attempt to put what they wrote in English lol. A few comments: I lumped all these first comments together... "But that doesn't actually REALLY take into context the game. So, if they highest probability assigned by the model is a slant (again, for example), but in the actual game, the DB shaded inside and covered it like a blanket, and the QB went to another read, the QB still gets dinged in that situation because he didn't hit the highest probability completion....Or, it's possible the slant, which might be the highest probable completion on a given play, the CB comes up and jams the receiver and takes the inside away on a given play, the route is dead. But there's no way the model knows this....I just thought of another flaw: this also doesn't take into account (because it can't) any pre-snap reads which are also QB decisions. " - Did they not use any of their personal observations in the equation? I thought (or assumed) they did...because if so, they would have seen things like the above before entering the data into their program (guess they could also do it afterwards but that would be a **** and a half to do) "Another example is the slant could actually be used as a decoy in the given play, and the actual play could be to try and leak the TE behind the slant, but there is no way for the model to know that." - Or for them to know that lol (one of my criticisms of PFF's normal grading system) "But the whole concept of the study is flawed right from the jump when you try and put a probability on a route depending on down/distance and game situation. You just CAN'T do that. I also don't know if they took into account things like weather, home/away, indoor/outdoor, and offensive skill position strength, what routes the QB throws best, what the receivers run best, etc." - I seem to recall them mentioning they took into consideration offensive skill position strength (or at least the skill level of individual offensive players)

A conditional 5th round pick two years from now?...Why not just hold the door open and pat Mayfield on the back as he leaves instead? lol...I once traded in a used 12-year-old 1982 Honda Civic hatchback and got more in return than the Browns did.

Well, he didn't say our Carolina game lol...

It's fine that you hate PFF...but what about the methodology behind their analysis? I have no idea what XGboost is, for example lol... They explain what they're meaning in their methodology.

Pointing out the flaws in their methodology would probably be a better route...I'm guessing very few of us could intern at PFF, nonetheless come up with a different way of measuring QB performance. Message boards tend to be full of "eye tests" and passing off what others have said as their own thoughts lol.

I just now read this lol... Heinicke saw him but was pressured almost immediately, which is why he didn't throw it right away. But to your point (and the tweeter's point lol), this really does sum up Terry's career here with the cascade of mediocre QBs we've saddled him with. He's sooooo much better than a lot of people realize. Crossing my fingers that Wentz will be the QB who (finally) shows Mclaurin's skills to their fullest.

It's not September 2020, though. A whole ****load has happened in the two years since he said that.