DMN: Football Outsiders - Adam Jones Has Been Dallas' Best CB

[TNCowboy]

Explain to me how numbers are 'someone's opinion'. I'd be interested in that rationale.

How is it not someone's opinion? Do they have game film and the ability to sit down with coaches and discuss what each player was supposed to do on a given play? Nope. They don't have any more ability than we do to chart games. Somebody watches a game, sees Ken Hamlin closest to the ball at the reception, and says, "Hey, that one's on Hamlin. Sweet." It's not like Dave Campo sat down and told them where Scandrick or Jenkins was out of position.

Riiiiggggghhhhttttt.....

I don't even know how to respond to that.

You don't know how to respond because you've accepted their garbage as having some basis in fact. Their "ranking" is idiotic, just as it would be stupid to rank Matt Cassel ahead of Tom Brady, because Cassel has better #s.

Are Cassel's numbers - in fact - better than Brady's? Yep. And yet what value does that provide to anyone? What does it prove? Not a thing.

On top of that, there is no validity to their #s. They can't be proved or disproved. Their stats and their ranking is just a guess.

Maybe you should take a closer look at reality and put less stock in which players are your favorites or more likeable guys?

Maybe you should exercise a little common sense. You want Pacman back on the team, and grab hold of a pointless article by guys who probably have the football acumen of Crazy Cowboy. Fact is, Pacman wasn't awful, but wasn't great either, and has done nothing to justify the circus he brings with him otherwise.

 

[Stash]

If that's how the number were generated, then I really don't like their rankings.

Newman's injury makes his play incomplete. He's been injured all season. I just can't see how he should even be included.

Granted, his injury certainly gives him an excuse, but he wasn't the Newman we had all come to expect when he was out there. From the looks of it, he shouldn't have been.

Henry's injury history shows that when he wasn't injured, he was fairly solid. Age has caught up to him and with yet another injury, his contributions become even more suspect. But he's still played every game this season, that's why I have no problem including him in the rankings...with an asterisk of sorts.

I think he was better than solid last year. This year, not so much. And that was before any talk of injury either. He looks to have slowed considerably and he wasn't blazing fast to begin with.

And if Newman is out, Henry gets an asterisk, and the others have played sparingly, who would make your list?

 

[khiladi]

I love the spin from the Adam Jones haters...So much effort into saying we are better off without Jones, and he has clearly played the best ball.. Now, they are resorting to denial...Excuses for Newman and the rest of the crew, but when it comes to AJ, let's forget that he took a year off... He was forced into a starting role and still performed... Wasn't he the only CB to actually force a TO and recover it... Why yes, he was...
BTW, Mike Jenkins and Sacndrick never really started until the last few games and they also played limited snaps. So the only 'real' numbers are Henry and when his sorry butt was out of the game after the injury, our defense performed better....

 

[Stash]

How is it not someone's opinion? Do they have game film and the ability to sit down with coaches and discuss what each player was supposed to do on a given play? Nope. They don't have any more ability than we do to chart games. Somebody watches a game, sees Ken Hamlin closest to the ball at the reception, and says, "Hey, that one's on Hamlin. Sweet." It's not like Dave Campo sat down and told them where Scandrick or Jenkins was out of position.

They're numbers. Numbers aren't abstract, they're factual. Opinions are abstract because they're just that - opinions. You can try to infuse your opinion into how they got the numbers or question their validity. And that's your opinion. I would put more credence into those doing the job for a living over a fan's on the internet.

You don't know how to respond because you've accepted their garbage as having some basis in fact. Their "ranking" is idiotic, just as it would be stupid to rank Matt Cassel ahead of Tom Brady, because Cassel has better #s.

Are Cassel's numbers - in fact - better than Brady's? Yep. And yet what value does that provide to anyone? What does it prove? Not a thing.

I don't know how to respond because it's drivel. Unsubstantiated drivel. And your Brady/Cassell comparison is beyond assinine.

On top of that, there is no validity to their #s. They can't be proved or disproved. Their stats and their ranking is just a guess.
Maybe you should exercise a little common sense. You want Pacman back on the team, and grab hold of a pointless article by guys who probably have the football acumen of Crazy Cowboy. Fact is, Pacman wasn't awful, but wasn't great either, and has done nothing to justify the circus he brings with him otherwise.

Your opinion is that the numbers have no validity. To make a case you'd have to do some homework to refute them. When you do that, then get back to me.

I'm not campaigning for Pacman to return, I'm indifferent at this point. If he played better than others, so be it. He did.

But I'm also not so invested one way or the other to try to dispute research and numbers to try to make my case.

 

[AdamJT13]

Did Newman return for the third game ? I thought he was already playing in the second week ?! Not alot but he played.

Newman played in Weeks 2, 3 and 4.

As long as they don't do that on purpose for example to fake one players numbers just to give a little more help to their arguments these not so accurate stats still can be used to prove the point. Statistically the wrong accuracy will be on every players stats so this will give you all in all a good foundation to compare players

With a large sample size, you'd hope everything evens out enough to make any inaccuracies insignficant. But the sample size of the numbers in this thread is small enough (and the inaccuracy is large enough) to make that not the case.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Suspensions:


Anthony Henry

0

Mike Jenkins

0


Terence Newman

0


Orlando Scandrick

0


Alan Ball

0

Adam "Pacman" Jones

1 still ongoing


Way to go Pacman keep up your great work! :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2:

Wouldn't suspensions be two?
You forgot, 1 man in wheelchair

 

[TNCowboy]

They're numbers. Numbers aren't abstract, they're factual. Opinions are abstract because they're just that - opinions. You can try to infuse your opinion into how they got the numbers or question their validity. And that's your opinion. I would put more credence into those doing the job for a living over a fan's on the internet.

You obviously don't understand that there is nothing factual about this. Someone watches a game, and guesses as to who allowed a completion. They have no absolute way of determining who was at fault on a given play.

I don't know how to respond because it's drivel. Unsubstantiated drivel. And your Brady/Cassell comparison is beyond assinine.

You can't respond because you lack the ability to discern what you're looking at. If these numbers have any real relevance, the league must have them on their website. Please list the URL of where the league keeps these #s on NFL.com.

Thanks.

Your opinion is that the numbers have no validity. To make a case you'd have to do some homework to refute them. When you do that, then get back to me.

I'm not campaigning for Pacman to return, I'm indifferent at this point. If he played better than others, so be it. He did.

But I'm also not so invested one way or the other to try to dispute research and numbers to try to make my case.

I don't have to do any homework to know that anything like this that someone posts is merely their opinion, and not really statistics.

You're the one who's claiming that these are hard #s that prove something. That you don't even really comprehend what these #s are is laughable.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Granted, his injury certainly gives him an excuse, but he wasn't the Newman we had all come to expect when he was out there. From the looks of it, he shouldn't have been.

That's kinda my point re: Newman, at least.

I think he was better than solid last year. This year, not so much. And that was before any talk of injury either. He looks to have slowed considerably and he wasn't blazing fast to begin with.

Pretty much my thoughts on Henry, as well.

And if Newman is out, Henry gets an asterisk, and the others have played sparingly, who would make your list?

Just those who played in every game, no matter their role. That's simply Henry, Scandrick, and Jenkins...in no particular order

If Pac and Newman are included, then I'd think there would have to be some stat projections for Newman and Pac or limitations placed on the other guys. I just think they used a flawed metric to get their numbers.

I don't dispute Pac played ok, but him being out garners him an incomplete, as much as Newman. Especially since we don't know if/when he'll be reinstated.

 

[Stash]

You obviously don't understand that there is nothing factual about this. Someone watches a game, and guesses as to who allowed a completion. They have no absolute way of determining who was at fault on a given play.

Obviously.

I guess it's all just opinion then, no matter what anyone's numbers say - even the guys who get paid for it.

And my opinion is that these numbers trump anything your opinion tells me.

You can't respond because you lack the ability to discern what you're looking at. If these numbers have any real relevance, the league must have them on their website. Please list the URL of where the league keeps these #s on NFL.com.

What I'm 'looking at' is someone whose hatred for Pacman Jones' off-field antics blinds them to what he does on-field.

Thanks.
I don't have to do any homework to know that anything like this that someone posts is merely their opinion, and not really statistics.

As expected. You'll try to poke holes in someone else's numbers while doing nothing of your own.

You're the one who's claiming that these are hard #s that prove something. That you don't even really comprehend what these #s are is laughable.

They're numbers provided by people who know the subject better than you do.

People not so blinded by their hatred of a player that they would attempt to throw reality out the window to make their case.

 

[TwentyOne]

I've never claimed to be a numbers person, that's why I'm asking for clarification. Is it really fair to base his numbers on the number of games he played and to the number of actual games played? I don't think so. If he'd played, then I think it would be a fair comparison.

Ok, so I was off one game. Same principle applies, IMO.

Because at the same time Romo went down, he was suspended. He never had to play during the really rough stretch, where the defense was put under the duress of an offensive collapse. It's all speculation to try to project his performance. I applaud your effort, tho.


This is NOT simply a pro/anti Pacman thread. This is an evaluation of the overall cornerback play for the Cowboys. Pac is ranked #1, but I find the evaluation to be a bit questionable.

Ok i must admit i was a bit harsh with my comments. Sorry for that. My point was to prove that it will be no difference in judgeing Pacmans performance with projecting his stats or those of the other CBs. I didn't want to offend you with that "one more game" thing.

But i must disagree again. To me as i said it doesn't matter if you project his stats or those of his teammates. Even if you take those last 3 games away i will promise you there wont be much of a difference. of course the total yds the players gave up will come down but those have not been taken into evaluation by myself anyway.

Average numbers are average. They show you what you can expect from a player when he plays in an average game. The law of probaility says the more events you take into consideration the better your statistics is. It can never show reality of course because that would be fortunetelling but experience shows that it is a good image of reality.

6 games for pacman are of course not enough to show you his abilities as a CB not even those 9 of the other players. But it is a good approach.
There are alot of things to consider but if you do you will always go away from your stats because with taking those things into consideration you have choosen another way of comparison then through stats. To go the way and consider to take things out of the giuven stats just to "make them more fair" is the wrong way. This way you just fake your stats and they are wortheless in the end.
After all imo you will come to the conclusion that those things are not really important to consider. Because they will even out over a given period of time. for example:

- as you said it's not fair to take into considaration those last 3 games because it were tough games for the defense because the offense "was missing"
- but then maybe because pacman is a good player in these games the other team would have avoided throwing to him and his personal stats would have climbed way up. Remeber we are talking about personal stats not team stats!
- But also maybe Pacmans sucks and he would have been exposed ? Who knows. To me the ansers lies in those average stats. if he was a bad player he would have been exposed before. Because he is what he is (stats wise - i don't say he is good or bad) he would have been the same player stats wise in those last three games.
- Pacman did not play football for 1 year. If you want a fair comparision how do you put that into equation compared to those others who did play last year ?
- Not all players play the same amount of snaps. Do you count only the plays and take those also into consideration ?
- And then they are not at the field the same time. That means they don't play with the same defesne setup and against the same offensive play/unit. How do you take this into consideration ?

You could go on and on and on with those let's call them "soft facts". As i said those things will even out over a period of time. You don't have to consider them. You just consider finding an average for a player over a given time. After that you postulate that this average will be constant over all time.

I think the way they compared the players is pretty fair. Maybe not enough games to compare them but then again a season is only 16 games.

 

[khiladi]

Wouldn't suspensions be two?
You forgot, 1 man in wheelchair

Take your issues of the one man in a wheelchair to the judge and jury that found Adam Jones not guilty. That is what the court system is for... Maybe we shouldn't let Pac-man Jones work at Mcdonald's either... Or is it because the NFL pays player's lots of money, we should ban Pac-man from only working there....

 

[khiladi]

What I'm 'looking at' is someone whose hatred for Pacman Jones' off-field antics blinds them to what he does on-field.

Didn't you hear?Roy Williams plays well on the field because he goes to church and helps out single mothers...

 

[TwentyOne]

With a large sample size, you'd hope everything evens out enough to make any inaccuracies insignficant. But the sample size of the numbers in this thread is small enough (and the inaccuracy is large enough) to make that not the case.

That's right. But then all those NFL stats are pretty worthless because they are not based on enough examples. Not the actual numbers like total yards etc.. but all those averages because they are all based on to few samples.

Be we all pretty much agree unwittingly to use those averages to compare players. And to me there is nothing to say against it. But then you have to aply those rules to all your comparisons not only the one you like to see (with you i mean the general public not you as a person).

One last thing: With a large sample size you don't hope that everything evens out. Mathmaticlly it' a proven fact that it does and in which you can trust. of course it ican't look into the future but thats not it's business anyway.

 

[TwentyOne]

Jerry, shouldn't you be hard at your GM duties?

:laugh2: You got me.

 

[McCordsville Cowboy]

Pacman will be the best corner on this team in late December if he gets back the field soon...

Most talented, most aggressive and most hood.....

 

[Section446]

I've been for allowing Adam Jones back the entire time.

 

[Rack]

Confirmation that Scandrick is the shiznit. The naked eye would have had me believe that he would be the best statistically of our group -- I didn't realize Pacman's would be that good. Perhaps it was his rocky start that threw me off.

Imagine if he caught those 5 or 6 INTs that hit him in the hands.


I thought he played good before his moronicness took over (again), but I didn't realize he played that good.

 

[Rack]

I don't dispute that, but like I said, what's that really saying? He was better than two rookies, Henry, and an injured guy?

I admit I never wanted Pacman, but that's because of his off-field stupidity. On the field, I expected a far better player than what we got.

If you expected a far better player from a guy that hadn't played football in over a year then your ignorance must have gotten in the way of your expectations.

 

[superpunk]

I'm going to go ahead and assume that we're arguing over this.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Take your issues of the one man in a wheelchair to the judge and jury that found Adam Jones not guilty. That is what the court system is for... Maybe we shouldn't let Pac-man Jones work at Mcdonald's either... Or is it because the NFL pays player's lots of money, we should ban Pac-man from only working there....

And that system always works. Make the idiot your hero, that's up to you.
None of it matters any way, he won't be back. Sooner or later it will all catch up to him.