Playing the Percentages in the NFL

[Oldfan]

Why do you think Moss won't be productive in two years?

TO was still productive last year. Hines Ward was still productive. Randy Moss - well - he should have still been productive. I do think that when Santana stops being productive' date=' it will occur overnight. But he could be the leading receiver on this team in three years.[/quote']Notice the phrase “not likely” in my post. That does not mean it’s not possible. So, you haven’t proved the statement wrong by proving it possible.

"Playing percentages" means it's not a good bet that Santana will be much help in 2013/

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Notice the phrase “not likely” in my post. That does not mean it’s not possible. So, you haven’t proved the statement wrong by proving it possible.

Why do you think it's not likely?

[Oldfan]

Why do you think it's not likely?

= Santana was never as good as TO, so his performance doesn't have to slide that much to be below average.

= He hasn't had to be routinely double-teamed since 2007.

= He won't be able to use HGH this season or next.

= Because of his basket catching technique, he drops passes on crossing patterns; that flaw will probably means more drops as his coordination declines.

= His great strength was his ability to adjust in the air on deep throws, with his coordination in decline that ability will decline with it.

[skinfan2k]

Santana Moss only had 90+ catches at age 32? lol

[Oldfan]

Santana Moss only had 90+ catches at age 32? lol

That's by far the most he's had since 2005. So, how do you explain that? Do you think he's is improving as a receiver?

I think that the scheme and how he was used in it is a better explanation.

[skinfan2k]

That's by far the most he's had since 2005. So, how do you explain that? Do you think he's is improving as a receiver?

I think that the scheme and how he was used in it is a better explanation.

so the scheme allowed a old receiver to have one of his best years ever. gotcha!

[Oldfan]

so the scheme allowed a old receiver to have one of his best years ever. gotcha!

If that's sarcasm, tell me why that doesn't make sense to you. Santana is a nice fit in the slot.

[JoeSkins]

It shows that our decision has a 75% chance of success. That means that, if we made this same decision a thousand times, it would help us achieve our objective three out of every four times.

OT: Why even bring in the 1000 figure if you're just going to say 3/4? I thought that was kind of funny, because typically that sentence ends with "750," not "three out of every four." No matter how many times you make the decision it will still be 3/4 so you don't really need that 1000 figure for a frame of reference (especially when you fail to finish the framing).

[Annonymous Source]

25 is just too earlier. there is an occasional star but most guys hit it big once their first contract ends

Earlier in this thread you said that you felt that most players prime's were 25-28. I can look up the quote, but I don't really feel like it. Also, nice strawman...

[Oldfan]

OT: Why even bring in the 1000 figure if you're just going to say 3/4? I thought that was kind of funny, because typically that sentence ends with "750," not "three out of every four." No matter how many times you make the decision it will still be 3/4 so you don't really need that 1000 figure for a frame of reference (especially when you fail to finish the framing).

The line I underlined is not true. If you made 12 decisions, you can't count on being right 9 times because the sample is to small to nullify chance. The larger sample, like 1,000, is necessary. The point is key in understanding how to "play the percentages."

[Hitman21ST]

If that's sarcasm, tell me why that doesn't make sense to you. Santana is a nice fit in the slot.

Not following your line of thinking. You say Moss won't likely be productive two years from now, yet you attribute one of his most productive years to the system that will most likely be in place two years from now. How do you draw that conclusion?

= Santana was never as good as TO, so his performance doesn't have to slide that much to be below average.

He was near the top of the league in almost very receiving category. He was better than T.O. this year, and arguably last year. He's much further from "below average" than T.O. is.

= He hasn't had to be routinely double-teamed since 2007.

Which will allow him to play longer.

= He won't be able to use HGH this season or next.

Not a problem, unless you're insinuating he used HGH before. The only evidence that even links Moss and HGH is that he was seen by the doc, but that doesn't prove he used it.

= Because of his basket catching technique, he drops passes on crossing patterns; that flaw will probably means more drops as his coordination declines.

Every receiver uses the basket catch every now and then. There's nothing to show he does it more than anyone else.

= His great strength was his ability to adjust in the air on deep throws, with his coordination in decline that ability will decline with it.

Your coordination doesn't decline that greatly in two years.

[s0crates]

RE: Moss.

The guy has not missed a game in two seasons. He has only missed 4 games during his tenure here. He consistently produces. Judging by last year, he is a good fit for this offense. I think there is enough reason to bet Moss will continue to produce for the entire 3 years of his contract. It is more than just a possibility. There is no sure bet when it comes to these type of things, but history is some indication, and Moss's history here has been exceptional.

RE: The premise that we will not be competitive until 2013.

I find this assumption suspect. It is not unheard of for a team to ascend quickly in the modern NFL. Considering the number of close losses in 2010, and the improvement from 2009, this team is trending up. If we continue improving at a steady pace, we should see 8-8 this year (2011), and 10-6 next year (2012). Now projections are not predictions, but I see no reason to assume we will not be ready to compete until 2013.

Also we have seen the departure of many older players, the injection of young talent, and several other system-specific players brought in this offseason. Allen, Shanny, and Haslett have assembled the roster they want. It will take a while to get everybody on the same page, but when they do, this team may get good sooner than expected.

[Gibbstastic]

I haven't been able to read all of this thread due to work. So I hope I do not restate any previous points.

1.) A 30+ member of a squad under the rebuilding phase of a team's roster may have a multi-year contract. This would allow for him to be in a situation that, if still producing, could contribute to the win-now scenario in 3-4 years. If kept with a reasonable salary, this player would have multiple years under the system and chemistry with the QB (assuming the QB was there as well). The potential for these members to still contribute to the future is still there. I'm not necessarily applying this to the current Redskins team, just attempting to discuss a scenario where these players may be good for a rebuilding team.

2.) It has become a more common practice to provide a veteran QB to be used in place of a young QB, to provide this young QB with the opportunity to adapt to the new surroundings of NFL life. Even if in a rebuilding phase, placing the QB immediately into the starting position has seen it's fair share of downfalls. But this veteran can provide a temporary fix on a position while the young QB gets up to speed. Once again this veteran QB should have a reasonable contract, assuming you don't want to pay a bunch of money to a player who won't contribute in the long run, which could result in this player being above the age of 30. This could also apply to certain scenarios in other positions. If a young WR is given a scenario with less pressure to perform where they could possibly lose confidence, because a veteran is able to come in and play as well, it could be more benificial to this young WR long term when he is asked to step up in the win-now stage.

EDIT:

3.) Another possible reason to retain/bring in a 30+ year old player would be to serve as depth behind the young players.

[Oldfan]

Not following your line of thinking. You say Moss won't likely be productive two years from now, yet you attribute one of his most productive years to the system that will most likely be in place two years from now. How do you draw that conclusion?

You are confusing two deductions. 1) the scheme + slot position logically explains the good stats; 2) nature will take its course in a decline from his 2010 production.

He was near the top of the league in almost very receiving category. He was better than T.O. this year, and arguably last year. He's much further from "below average" than T.O. is.

Owens is 37.

Which will allow him to play longer.

Illogical.

Not a problem, unless you're insinuating he used HGH before. The only evidence that even links Moss and HGH is that he was seen by the doc, but that doesn't prove he used it.

This forum isn't a courtroom, so we don't need the same high standard of proof to judge.

Why do you think he was in contact with that particular doctor?

Every receiver uses the basket catch every now and then. There's nothing to show he does it more than anyone else.

I’ve watched him play. I look for things like that. LKB asked my opinion. I gave it to him based in part on my observations.

Your coordination doesn't decline that greatly in two years.

I think the decline stated three or four years ago. Its effect is cumulative.

---------- Post added August-7th-2011 at 07:29 AM ----------

sOcrates ~ RE: Moss.

The guy has not missed a game in two seasons. He has only missed 4 games during his tenure here. He consistently produces. Judging by last year, he is a good fit for this offense. I think there is enough reason to bet Moss will continue to produce for the entire 3 years of his contract. It is more than just a possibility. There is no sure bet when it comes to these type of things, but history is some indication, and Moss's history here has been exceptional.

We’ll just have to disagree on this.

K. McCardell had a long career because his game was fundamentally sound: precise routes and sound techniques. Santana’s game has been built upon extraordinary athleticism. I would not bet on a long career.

RE: The premise that we will not be competitive until 2013.

I find this assumption suspect. It is not unheard of for a team to ascend quickly in the modern NFL.

Anything is possible; but decisions should be based on Probability.

Considering the number of close losses in 2010, and the improvement from 2009, this team is trending up. If we continue improving at a steady pace, we should see 8-8 this year (2011), and 10-6 next year (2012). Now projections are not predictions, but I see no reason to assume we will not be ready to compete until 2013.

Your analysis is more optimistic than realistic, IMO. In any case, I’m not making an assumption. I’m offering 2013 as the earliest I can foresee this team being competitive for the division title, and that only if we were in a full rebuild this season and next. Since we’re only at about 80% it’s likely to take longer.

[Oldfan]

Gibbstastic ~ I haven't been able to read all of this thread due to work. So I hope I do not restate any previous points.

1.) A 30+ member of a squad under the rebuilding phase of a team's roster may have a multi-year contract. This would allow for him to be in a situation that, if still producing, could contribute to the win-now scenario in 3-4 years. If kept with a reasonable salary, this player would have multiple years under the system and chemistry with the QB (assuming the QB was there as well). The potential for these members to still contribute to the future is still there. I'm not necessarily applying this to the current Redskins team, just attempting to discuss a scenario where these players may be good for a rebuilding team.

Anything is possible, and there are exceptions to general rules. However, we make good decisions based on what is likely to happen and not on what is possible.

We need to find more good, young football players. The roster slots are limited. the practice snaps are limited, and the game snaps are limited. So, for every 30+ player on the roster, there’s one less young player who can be auditioned.

2.) It has become a more common practice to provide a veteran QB to be used in place of a young QB, to provide this young QB with the opportunity to adapt to the new surroundings of NFL life. Even if in a rebuilding phase, placing the QB immediately into the starting position has seen it's fair share of downfalls. But this veteran can provide a temporary fix on a position while the young QB gets up to speed. Once again this veteran QB should have a reasonable contract, assuming you don't want to pay a bunch of money to a player who won't contribute in the long run, which could result in this player being above the age of 30. This could also apply to certain scenarios in other positions. If a young WR is given a scenario with less pressure to perform where they could possibly lose confidence, because a veteran is able to come in and play as well, it could be more benificial to this young WR long term when he is asked to step up in the win-now stage.

I wrote earlier that my 30 rule wasn’t an absolute. There can be exceptions made because of the player or position. However, I would make fewer exceptions than most fans.

EDIT:

3.) Another possible reason to retain/bring in a 30+ year old player would be to serve as depth behind the young players.

I regard that as a win-now move inappropriate for a rebuilding team. We need that roster slot for a young player with the potential to develop into a starter.

[TheRookie]

After ridicule, the strawman argument is the favorite trick of the dumb, argumentative dicks who wouldn't recognize a logical argument if it jumped up and bit them in the ass. Internet forums are infested with them. This one is not an exception.

In all fairness, so are ad hominem attacks and name-calling...doesn't make since to attack one fallacy by employing another.

[JoeSkins]

The line I underlined is not true. If you made 12 decisions, you can't count on being right 9 times because the sample is to small to nullify chance. The larger sample, like 1,000, is necessary. The point is key in understanding how to "play the percentages."

I think you missed the point of what I was saying.

---------- Post added August-7th-2011 at 09:25 AM ----------

In all fairness, so are ad hominem attacks and name-calling...doesn't make since to attack one fallacy by employing another.

It does when you're making the rules up as you go and ignoring the inconvenient ones.

[Oldfan]

In all fairness, so are ad hominem attacks and name-calling...doesn't make since to attack one fallacy by employing another.

How can "argumentative dicks" be an ad hominem attack, and a logical fallacy, when not used against an opponent in the context of a debate? I used the term to state my opinion about certain debating tactics in general.

---------- Post added August-7th-2011 at 09:47 AM ----------

...It does when you're making the rules up as you go and ignoring the inconvenient ones.

I didn't make up the rules of logical reasoning. If they're giving you a problem, blame your parents.

[TheRookie]

How can "argumentative dicks" be an ad hominem attack, and a logical fallacy, when not used against an opponent in the context of a debate? I used the term to make a general observation.

Given the way this thread has progressed, the fact you pointed out that this "internet forum...is no exception," that you were responding to someone who was commenting on you bringing up the straw man issue a number of times, and the inflammatory use of language in your post, I inferred it was a defensive reaction to the critcism directed at you regarding the straw man issue and an attempt to dismiss those who have disagreed with you as "dumb," "argumentative dicks" vis-a-vis your contention that arguments opposing you have been made based on "straw man" logic.

If, in fact, you were politely giving us a deeper understanding of the straw-man argument, I'll concede that my inference was wrong.

...now back to football

[Oldfan]

Given the way this thread has progressed, the fact you pointed out that this "internet forum...is no exception," that you were responding to someone who was commenting on you bringing up the straw man issue a number of times, and the inflammatory use of language in your post, I inferred it was a defensive reaction to the critcism directed at you regarding the straw man issue and an attempt to dismiss those who have disagreed with you as "dumb," "argumentative dicks" vis-a-vis your contention that arguments opposing you have been made based on "straw man" logic.

If, in fact, you were politely giving us a deeper understanding of the straw-man argument, I'll concede that my inference was wrong.

...now back to football

I wasn't concerned about being polite. My comments were a response to the ridicule aimed at me for my frequent use of the term "strawman." The comment was not directed to anyone in particular. It had nothing to do with the argument on the table.

[Hitman21ST]

You are confusing two deductions. 1) the scheme + slot position logically explains the good stats; 2) nature will take its course in a decline from his 2010 production.

But his production is a direct result of the scheme. You keep the scheme and give the defense other players that they need to defend, and it's a distinct possibility that the production will still be there.

Owens is 37.

Has nothing to do with the argument. You said that "Moss was never as good as T.O." Last year, he was better. Year before that, he was arguably better. That means that you were incorrect in saying he was "never as good as T.O."

Illogical.

How so? Moss isn't doubled nearly as often, which means there are fewer direct defenders of him, which means that he will have an easier time catching the ball, which generally translates to a longer career. Not illogical at all.

This forum isn't a courtroom, so we don't need the same high standard of proof to judge.

Why do you think he was in contact with that particular doctor?

I don't know, but you're making a sweeping generalization about why he saw him. That doctor didn't give HGH to everyone he treated, nor did Moss give off any signs of using HGH.

I’ve watched him play. I look for things like that. LKB asked my opinion. I gave it to him based in part on my observations.

I've watched him play too, and he doesn't do the basket catch any more than any other receiver.

I think the decline stated three or four years ago. Its effect is cumulative.

Yet he still had an incredibly productive season, with his "declining" abilities. There's no evidence to suggest he won't have as good a year this year.

[Oldfan]

But his production is a direct result of the scheme. You keep the scheme and give the defense other players that they need to defend, and it's a distinct possibility that the production will still be there.

Santana’s individual performance is likely to decline. Whether his stats reflect that or not is irrelevant since those stats are driven by scheme and team factors as well as Santana’s performance.

How so? Moss isn't doubled nearly as often, which means there are fewer direct defenders of him, which means that he will have an easier time catching the ball, which generally translates to a longer career. Not illogical at all.

If you want to stretch logic that way, then let’s do it right. When he was being doubled in 2006, he had only 55 catches. In 2007, he had just 61. Last season, single-covered he was punished by defenders after catching 93...evidence that his career will likely decline at a faster rate playing in the slot.

I don't know, but you're making a sweeping generalization about why he saw him. That doctor didn't give HGH to everyone he treated, nor did Moss give off any signs of using HGH.

You believe that? Huh. I never figured you for being gullible.

I've watched him play too, and he doesn't do the basket catch any more than any other receiver.

Okay, we disagree on that. No biggie.

Yet he still had an incredibly productive season, with his "declining" abilities. There's no evidence to suggest he won't have as good a year this year.

There’s the evidence that the athletic skills of all players his age decline. You have to be downright obstinate to deny that fact.

Has nothing to do with the argument. You said that "Moss was never as good as T.O." Last year, he was better. Year before that, he was arguably better. That means that you were incorrect in saying he was "never as good as T.O."

A reader might interpret “Moss was never as good as TO” to mean that he was never as good when both were in their prime. That interpretation would give me credit for making an intelligent statement. The other interpretation would be that Moss never had a single year when he was better than TO. That interpretation would have me making a stupid, absolute statement , one easy to attack.

When there are two possible interpretations of a poster’s remarks, one intelligent, the other stupid, most readers will assume the poster meant the former as a common courtesy. Only you argumentative types will assume the latter in order to create the strawman arguments you love so much.

[clarkskin]

OF, maybe none of young guys that might have been "diamonds in the rough" have shown anything that would suggest they have what it takes to succeed at the NFL level, so the coaches bring in vets to fill those holes?

---------- Post added August-4th-2011 at 01:24 PM ----------

Nope, he's making **** up and claiming that anyone over the age of 30 should be banned from the Redskins locker room.

He's not saying that at all. He's saying that the claim that the skins are in "rebuilding" mode is a false one given the amount of 30 year old vets are still on the team. Most of you are looking silly in attempts to formulate arguments against OF's premise.

[Oldfan]

He's not saying that at all. He's saying that the claim that the skins are in "rebuilding" mode is a false one given the amount of 30 year old vets are still on the team. Most of you are looking silly in attempts to formulate arguments against OF's premise.

While I appreciate the support, you are correct that some posters completely distort my claim, however your version isn't quite on the money either.

I would call the current plan an 80% rebuild, but I claim that a full 100% rebuild would get us to our goal of having a solid core to build on much sooner. I wasn't happy with the 50% "reload" last season. I'm pleased that Mike has done much better this offseason, but we still have too many win-now moves being made (Sean Locklear, 30, was just added to bring the count to 11 30+ players on the current roster).

[Rpredskins]

moss and atogwe, even fletcher are young enough to be valuable to this team by the time it is good. If we draft a good QB that could be as soon as 2 years from now. Theres nothing wrong with keeping older players as long as they will be capable of playing well when the time comes. Also, given salary cap space and the fact that we at least want a semi-competitive team this year, the downside of signing those players is pretty small. There isnt exactly a wealth of young talent to choose from after the draft. Don't tell me that we should have let Moss walk in order to make roster space for an UDFA.