Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Official Roster Thread or similar ;)


KDawg

Recommended Posts

Apparently Ravens looking at Murray as well, with Bell getting into shape on their PS.

 

They have no cap space though so if we’re willing to go higher than Vet Min we can probably get him. 
 

 

lol this screams “if anyone will pay me more than BAL can bc of their cap situation I’ll go there, otherwise yeah BAL sounds good”.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

I think 538 got their name because their blood alcohol content was .538 when they put together those rankings.  But I like the idea that Fitz is better than Wilson, so let's roll with it.  Too bad the rams gave up all that draft capital to improve by only 1 point.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, The Rook said:

 

Looking at the 6.25% is extremely mis-leading.  For example, if you run 16 miles and then have to run another mile at the end of it, it doesn't feel like 6.25%. When it goes to 18 games a year, the statistic would be 5.88%, are you saying it would be less significant?

 

I feel the significant value to look at is additive quantity.

WFT ran about 66 offensive plays per game last year (1051 / 16 = 65.7) https://www.nfl.com/teams/washington-football-team/stats

This number of 66 plays (one game) becomes more significant in the context of:

It is at the end of the season when everyone is playing hurt.

Injuries may have already depleted the roster, so lesser players and shifted line-ups create chances of problems. (i.e. Mahomes in SB)

66 more "explosions" along the line increases the chance of head trauma, which can lead to CTE. 

One more week of the body under stress.  (Why they didn't add a second bye week is beyond me.)

 

I know any play, any game may bring injury, but added one game has more effect than the 6.25% value.

 

Yes, 5.88% is less significant than 6.25%, surely you're not trying to debate this? To prove the point, an extreme example would be if MLB went from 162 games to 163, a totally insignificant increase of 0.61%, and the additive quantity is equal to the added percentage.

 

Obviously, players could still get injured in the added game, I even alluded to that possibility in my post. I was just highlighting the chance of it happening as a percentage. I will concede that maybe I should have said "relatively insignificant" or even "small", rather than just "insignificant" to describe the change. 

 

Anyway, I don't want to derail any further because I think there's about a 90% chance that everyone else will be bored and a 99.99% chance that KBs head will explode.

  • Haha 1
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

I’m guessing Fitz and Thomas bring this average way up on offense:

 

 

I guess when looking at where TB is its not always about youth, you have to say that its getting the right combination of experience and talent (well managed roster). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, London Kev said:

 

Yes, 5.88% is less significant than 6.25%, surely you're not trying to debate this? To prove the point, an extreme example would be if MLB went from 162 games to 163, a totally insignificant increase of 0.61%, and the additive quantity is equal to the added percentage.

 

Obviously, players could still get injured in the added game, I even alluded to that possibility in my post. I was just highlighting the chance of it happening as a percentage. I will concede that maybe I should have said "relatively insignificant" or even "small", rather than just "insignificant" to describe the change. 

 

Anyway, I don't want to derail any further because I think there's about a 90% chance that everyone else will be bored and a 99.99% chance that KBs head will explode.

 

Well, allow me to retort before you close the door.  My point is that statistic has no qualitative value to it and is expressed in a vacuum.  We do not know what is a "significant" or "small" value as to player health when adding games.  They do know that it is the cumulative actions that lead to CTE.  We do know that the players have one less week to recuperate in the year.

I equate this to a dangerous job being expanded.  For example: You work 8 hours as a coal miner and the boss increases your work by 1/2 hour each day.  

Well, I've had my say and we can walk away now.:)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:229:The Rook

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I'd love Latavius Murray.

 

I'd keep 4 backs and get rid of Seals Jones (did we decide if he IS or ISN'T on the roster? :ols:

 

Gibson, Murray, McKissick, Patterson

You were right about Curl at FS, but I definitely feel better with McCain and Fuller in the building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

You were right about Curl at FS, but I definitely feel better with McCain and Fuller in the building.

 

I'm right once or twice a year.

 

40 minutes ago, ZarG3 said:

Murray's 31, pass.

 

So you'd rather have Seals Jones over Murray? A bonafide downhill power back vs. a JAG type?

 

Makes sense.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...