Emotions and the Preseason (A Letter of Thanks to Om, bobzmuda, and those like them)

[autographcollector]

An observation is a fact as long as it is a repeatable observation, the observer is qualified, and, in the case of numerative data, it can be shown to be statistically valid. Philosophers and scientists have been using the process of documented observation as fact since time immemorial. Read Darwin or the notes of any field biologist or any psychology journal. Heck, litmus paper in chemistry is a good example. No one preserves litmus paper as factual evidence, they write down what color it turned and the associated pH range. The observations of a trained individual are used as fact in any way that counts. You can argue with some success that observations are the only kinds of facts we can possibly have since we are not metaphysical beings.

Uh no what you are trying to infer is a Cause and Effect relationship. While losing preseason records in the past has had the effect of us having a winning record....it does not imply losing preseason games is a causal event.

Care for a new scientific thread mods? This could be the nail in the coffin :laugh:

[autographcollector]

But what are his opinions based on? His feelings? No, but rather what he saw on the field. Given enough information, or a lack of it, even opinions can be shown to be more right or more wrong. Only the regular season will let us know for sure.

I'm not necessarily in line for the sweet stuff yet, either. But I'm inching towards the queue.

You're right though, by at least six years.

If his opinions are based on what he saw and my opinions are based on what I saw then we have what????? OPINIONS. You made my point for me but somehow slanted it like what his opinion of what he saw = fact.

Nice try

[Jimbo]

Both my heart and my head are on the same page when it comes to this one thing: It's extremely risky to wait until the opener to give this new offense it's first FULL field test.

They are not even close when it comes to predicting the outcome. Go figure. :doh:

[Beauty is Only]

If his opinions are based on what he saw and my opinions are based on what I saw then we have what????? OPINIONS. You made my point for me but somehow slanted it like what his opinion of what he saw = fact.

Nice try

But, can't you agree that an INFORMED opinion is much more valuable than one that's not? If you're both watching the same game from the same angles, it's kind of hard to dispute what you're seeing (Mike Alstott's "breaking the plane" notwithstanding). The opinion comes when you process what you're seeing and form a theory. Some people are giving opinions based solely on the fact that the 'Skins "lost" all their preseason games and looked bad doing it. Others, like bobzmuda, are looking at the game and combining those observations with what they know about the coaches' preseason philosophy and other related factors to reach a conclusion. I propose that the latter opinions carry much more weight.

[SkinsGuy]

If his opinions are based on what he saw and my opinions are based on what I saw then we have what????? OPINIONS. You made my point for me but somehow slanted it like what his opinion of what he saw = fact.

Nice try

Opinions from observations can be more fact when someone in the know corraborates those opinions given.

In bobzmuda's case, his words can be, on thier own, seen as just a fan's opinion.

However, when coupled with Coach Saunders' words in the WP and other interviews, lends a lot more credence to his observations, cause Saunders is someone 'in the know'.

Corraborating evidence, you might say.

Saunders words echo bobz's that evaluating players, looking at certain senarios, and getting a read on things by setting up certain situations was the main goal.

That's not to say they were looking to go 41-0, but putting together a COMPLEX game plan to score a lot points in a meaningless preseason game was not the top priority.

Opinions based on emotional reaction, however, is less reliable b/c it is spur of the moment, not thought out, and yes from the heart. While we liked to think every Redskin heart is pure, emotional outbursts show that even Redskins hearts can have "impure" reasoning (impure here meaning biases, agendas, or unreasonable prejudices). Or it's someone who wears thier heart on thier sleeve too much instead of thinking with thier head.

A good example is say like in a game (let's say in the preseason) Brunell throws what looks to be a wildly errant pass. It lands near nobody and seems to go way over everybody's head.

Immeadiately here you'll have TEN pages fill up with emotional reaction like "What the hell is Brunell doing?!?"/ "He looks like he did in '04!"/ "Brunell is old and washed-up!"/ "He's a has-been...start the Campbell era now!".

Then, in the midst of that storm, you'll have someone come along and say they were at the game and it looked like the WR ran the wrong route. This is followed by 4 more pages of emotional reactions and dismissing this persons thoughts.

Yet, Gibbs will come out in his PC the next day and, knowing that play stood out, will inform folks that the WR ran the wrong route and it wasn't on Brunell.

This turns that person's opinion and observations into fact. Yet, you'll still have the EMOTIONAL opinion givers saying afterward things like "Ah, Gibbs just likes Brunell, he's covering for him, Brunell helped him once in a diabetic attack that's all... Brunell sucks!"

Now, who do you believe?.... The observational opinion backed by folks 'in the know'? Or the emotional one that isn't thought out?

I, too give props to bobzmuda and OM's superior, reasonably thought out posts that slice through the emotional waves that swamp this board sometimes.

[fansince62]

meatsnack...nice post.

"An observation is a fact as long as it is a repeatable observation, the observer is qualified, and, in the case of numerative data, it can be shown to be statistically valid. Philosophers and scientists have been using the process of documented observation as fact since time immemorial. Read Darwin or the notes of any field biologist or any psychology journal. Heck, litmus paper in chemistry is a good example. No one preserves litmus paper as factual evidence, they write down what color it turned and the associated pH range. The observations of a trained individual are used as fact in any way that counts. You can argue with some success that observations are the only kinds of facts we can possibly have since we are not metaphysical beings."

and repeatable observation of unique events during a football game is done how? your sense seems to be that if an individual who is trained to read a thermometer (and the equipment is properly calibrated, etc., and the theory behind its construction is accepted) makes repeated readings of 90 degrees - then it is a fact that it is 90 degrees. we could get into the whole idea that the process of observation itself alters what the "facts" might be, but I still retain the idea that facts

don't equate to explanations....just ask Tom Kuhn! there are any number of approaches - epistemology is probably what drove Steve Martin to quit philosophy for more lucrative pursuits!!! even within the scientific disciplines there has been repeated friction over whether explanantion ultimately issues from a priori foundations glued together with coherent logic systems resulting in viable, consistent conclusions...or simply that recurring, validated predictive value is the measuring stick. either way, for football.......I still think you get driven to acclamation (otherwise known as appealing to the masses!) - were I and bobz to observe the same activity differently, repeatedly, what criteria establishes whose observations are "fact". training? experience? what if I happen to have better eyes but he is more experienced?

but the idea of a trained football observer is attractive. I can see a whole cottage industry growing out of this idea! Danny......there's another opportunity out there for ya to make some cash!

again...nice post meatsnack....hats off.....now on to just some *ss kicking next week.

[autographcollector]

But, can't you agree that an INFORMED opinion is much more valuable than one that's not? If you're both watching the same game from the same angles, it's kind of hard to dispute what you're seeing (Mike Alstott's "breaking the plane" notwithstanding). The opinion comes when you process what you're seeing and form a theory. Some people are giving opinions based solely on the fact that the 'Skins "lost" all their preseason games and looked bad doing it. Others, like bobzmuda, are looking at the game and combining those observations with what they know about the coaches' preseason philosophy and other related factors to reach a conclusion. I propose that the latter opinions carry much more weight.

:doh:

You are saying he is informed and I am not because?

I understand losing in preseason doesn't matter. I understand that. I could care less about the score. 100-0 wouldn't bother me. I observed what he observed. I understand Gibbs preseason philosophy. I AM INFORMED.

You can hide behind this preseason all you want. But you can't hide from bad play.

What I saw was 4 man rushes sacking our quarterback. I don't care how vanilla your offense is. In any game situation, a 4 man rush *should* not sack your qb. It can happen but it shouldn't.

Your offensive line in any vanilla offense *should* be able to drive the pile forward so your back can get more than 2 yards.

Look at our horrible preseason where we won the superbowl. Mark Rypiens numbers were not that bad.

Our starting quarterback in a vanilla offense *should* have a decent qb rating.

Now if you want to watch the games and not be concerned over poor play that is your perogative. But don't attribute it all to how Gibbs plays preseason. That my friend is UNINFORMED.

[autographcollector]

Opinions from observations can be more fact when someone in the know corraborates those opinions given.

Oh boy here we go

In bobzmuda's case, his words can be, on thier own, seen as just a fan's opinion.

However, when coupled with Coach Saunders' words in the WP and other interviews, lends a lot more credence to his observations, cause Saunders is someone 'in the know'.

Let see Saunders says and company put 2% of the playbook out there. OK.

Gibbs/Saunders puts people in a position to see how they perform under certain circumstances. OK

We didn't show motion anything. OK

I am not a preseason win lose advocate. I could care less. What I care about is personal matchups. So far in EVERY game in EVERY series the starters have lost the personal matchups.

That is an honest observation. If you put a 4 man rush against our o-line and the defense tiptoes through your o-line like your not there...well how can I attribute that to "Saunders"?

That's not to say they were looking to go 41-0, but putting together a COMPLEX game plan to score a lot points in a meaningless preseason game was not the top priority.

Agreed. But losing EVERY one on one battle and EVERY situation where they were being "tested is to me a concern.

Opinions based on emotional reaction, however, is less reliable b/c it is spur

Emotional reaction is posting during or immediately after the game. I saw poor play. There is no emotion in that analysis. I am not talking about score, or overall production. I am talking one on one battles.

A good example is say like in a game (let's say in the preseason) Brunell throws what looks to be a wildly errant pass. It lands near nobody and seems to go way over everybody's head.

Immeadiately here you'll have TEN pages fill up with emotional reaction like "What the hell is Brunell doing?!?"/ "He looks like he did in '04!"/ "Brunell is old and washed-up!"/ "He's a has-been...start the Campbell era now!".

Then, in the midst of that storm, you'll have someone come along and say they were at the game and it looked like the WR ran the wrong route. This is followed by 4 more pages of emotional reactions and dismissing this persons thoughts.

So what your implying is what happened in the games was wrong routes. I am emotional and don't get it? You are saying every play should be attributed to something LOGICAL. What I witnessed I missed the logic because I am emotional. That wounded duck to moss really was a strike, but moss messed up his route :laugh: Sorry I will try and hold back my emotions

Now, who do you believe?.... The observational opinion backed by folks 'in the know'? Or the emotional one that isn't thought out?

I, too give props to bobzmuda and OM's superior, reasonably thought out posts that slice through the emotional waves that swamp this board sometimes.

Uh I believe what I witnessed...not to be swayed by the kool aid you were drinking this whole week. This post you made was emotionally biased