Scout's Eye: 12 Thoughts On The Younger Players To Close Out Minicamp

[xwalker]

Your pattern extends to numbers as a whole, not limited to Sturm's work on sacks. His credibility is selective with you based on whether or not he presents numbers you want to see.

If he's criticizing Doug Free - "he's the man!"

If he's doing the same for McFadden "he doesn't know what he's doing"

Your math is your math. It's valid if it supports your opinion.



In an exercise where you already knew the answer. Which is what led you to care about it at all. If it was something that would cast Parnell in a negative light, it would have been disregarded. When everything is slanted, it's meaningless.



Yeah, it's quite clear exactly where you're coming from. You have been weighed and you have been measured.

What you have missed in the whole thing is that McFadden is not my pet cat or something like Parnell. My issue is specific to the article and primarily how he used the stats incorrectly.

I've had other debates here in regards to how stats were used incorrectly and it has nothing to do with a specific player.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

I was going to post how great it is that La’el Collins is showing such great signs at Guard, but after reading these posts all I want to do is aggressively hate Free, Parnell and Bob Sturm for inefficiency, getting paid for being too perfect, failing Statistics and animosity towards kittens and America.

 

[xwalker]

YPC is a far better statistic as you can attribute that directly to a player. The RB has the ball in his hand for the entirety of the yards and attribution to yards is clear.

The sack per game piece is impossible to measure unless you know exactly the call and assignment. Attribution of sacks by outsiders like Sturm is highly subjective. Yet you feel OK taking those highly subjective values and using them to extrapolate. If you are comfortable with that, fine. But as an actual #s guy, I realize that you've taken a statistics that has a ton of error and magnified that error by projection.

Using averages is a simple statistical method that provided limited information. I don't think people want to get into Standard Deviations and more advanced statistical analysis here so I'll stay with simple averages.

YPC is far from the complete picture of a RBs ability. His OLine and the quality of passing threat posed by his offense is not ascertained in YPC. You can't determine if RB had two 1 yard TD runs while another always had TD runs from longer distances by just looking at YPC.

Batting average by itself does not indicate which pitchers were faced or where the player was in the lineup or how often he was required to hit sacrifice flys.

PFF had slightly different numbers than Strum, but either way Free has the most most while playing less games than the other 4 full time starters. Sturm provides the video and details about how he came to his conclusion so I prefer that to PFF which is widely believed to be inaccurate. The amount of manpower required to really get accurate grades on all NFL players for all games would be staggering. Sturm probably spent several minutes reviewing each play. If PFF spent several minutes on each play for all players the hours would be impossible for a small company.

Some sacks are subjective but the majority are not. If a player gets beat around the outside or is bull-rushed into the QB it's obvious who was at fault. Sturm gets into the possible options for each sack in the article.

The thing that I find the oddest is that most people who debate with me on the Free/Parnell issue have not even tried to analyze it themselves.

 

[coogrfan]

8. I really like what I have seen from (Harwell) , Lucky Whitehead and Deontay Greenberry.

Go DG!

 

[Stash]

What you have missed in the whole thing is that McFadden is not my pet cat or something like Parnell. My issue is specific to the article and primarily how he used the stats incorrectly.

I've had other debates here in regards to how stats were used incorrectly and it has nothing to do with a specific player.

If you say so, appearances indicate otherwise.

 

[Stash]

The thing that I find the oddest is that most people who debate with me on the Free/Parnell issue have not even tried to analyze it themselves.

The thing I find most odd is your continued obsession with Doug Free vs Jermey Parnell.

One player is still with the Cowboys, while the other is not, and all of your hand-wringing and number crunching won't change that fact one bit.

Based on your posts and track record, I firmly believe - and I know I'm not alone - that you're rooting for Doug Free to struggle this year simply so you can tell this board "I told ya so!". Your being right is more important than this team's overall success.

No matter how much math you provide, Parnell is not coming back.

 

[Alexander]

I'm excited about Byron Jones!

I have to say he's gotten my attention. He has been more of an after thought for me considering I was more interested in hearing how Gregory and Collins do.

That said, it seems he is catching on quickly and most of what has been written about him is how he is carrying himself and catching on mentally versus the physical part which is often the case.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/2...2-thoughts-younger-players-close-out-minicamp

Bryan Broaddus posts his latest thought in the young players at mini-camp.

I found this encouraging about Weems:

10. Just my opinion, but Darrion Weems has a chance to be a much better player than what the Cowboys got from Jermey Parnell as that backup tackle. Weems is a better athlete and his football intelligence is improving with every snap that he is receiving. I also believe that he is a more consistent performer than Parnell, who could be too up and down. He’s stable.

I like what I read so far. I am happy to hear Weems is doing good. that gives our OL a lot of flexibility and if we are forced to go with 9 OL and be able to keep an extra WR or DB.

I like everything I am reading so far about Jones. he may have been the steal of the draft for us and not the other often mentioned players

 

[Stash]

I like what I read so far. I am happy to hear Weems is doing good. that gives our OL a lot of flexibility and if we are forced to go with 9 OL and be able to keep an extra WR or DB.

It is great news, especially in light of the injuries suffered by Green and Gibson. We were due for some good news there.

I like everything I am reading so far about Jones. he may have been the steal of the draft for us and not the other often mentioned players

Me too, measurables, intelligence, humility, and work ethic. Jones looks like the real deal so far. I'm optimistic that his intelligence, experience, and position flexibility will allow the Cowboys to get him on the field early and have a lot of options in what they do defensively.

 

[AsthmaField]

I was going to post how great it is that La’el Collins is showing such great signs at Guard, but after reading these posts all I want to do is aggressively hate Free, Parnell and Bob Sturm for inefficiency, getting paid for being too perfect, failing Statistics and animosity towards kittens and America.

Well... now you're catching on!

 

[AbeBeta]

Using averages is a simple statistical method that provided limited information. I don't think people want to get into Standard Deviations and more advanced statistical analysis here so I'll stay with simple averages.

YPC is far from the complete picture of a RBs ability. His OLine and the quality of passing threat posed by his offense is not ascertained in YPC. You can't determine if RB had two 1 yard TD runs while another always had TD runs from longer distances by just looking at YPC.

Batting average by itself does not indicate which pitchers were faced or where the player was in the lineup or how often he was required to hit sacrifice flys.

PFF had slightly different numbers than Strum, but either way Free has the most most while playing less games than the other 4 full time starters. Sturm provides the video and details about how he came to his conclusion so I prefer that to PFF which is widely believed to be inaccurate. The amount of manpower required to really get accurate grades on all NFL players for all games would be staggering. Sturm probably spent several minutes reviewing each play. If PFF spent several minutes on each play for all players the hours would be impossible for a small company.

Some sacks are subjective but the majority are not. If a player gets beat around the outside or is bull-rushed into the QB it's obvious who was at fault. Sturm gets into the possible options for each sack in the article.

The thing that I find the oddest is that most people who debate with me on the Free/Parnell issue have not even tried to analyze it themselves.

1. Please don't explain statistics to me. I have a pretty damn deep background in that area.

2. How on earth do you plan to bring standard deviation into this argument.

3. Two raters. Wildly differing stats. You can ignore that if you like but it makes clear the statistics here are fundamentally unreliable.

4. Your YPC argument ignores the fact that when judging carries, multiple raters will achieve very similar results. That's one necessary condition for a meaningful metric.

5. No, I don't analyze film. I fully understand that I'm not a scout or coach and that without knowing the play call and assignment, I can't make a judgement.

 

[xwalker]

The thing I find most odd is your continued obsession with Doug Free vs Jermey Parnell.

One player is still with the Cowboys, while the other is not, and all of your hand-wringing and number crunching won't change that fact one bit.

Based on your posts and track record, I firmly believe - and I know I'm not alone - that you're rooting for Doug Free to struggle this year simply so you can tell this board "I told ya so!". Your being right is more important than this team's overall success.

No matter how much math you provide, Parnell is not coming back.

I've posted this before, but I'll say it again. It really was not about the specific players per se. They just happened to fit as an example of something I wanted to pursue. Generally, my contention is that fans and a lot of media don't or can't analyze players for themselves, especially at positions like OLine. Most people need someone telling them that a player is good before they can recognize it.

Also, fans/media have some rules of thumb that they often use as absolutes without really analyzing the situation. For example, many people assume a player is crap if he has not become a starter or gotten the media seal of approval after a certain amount of time. Obviously, the time frame for Parnell needed to be different, but people don't really think in those terms. After he had been around a certain period of time, they assume he must be crap if he has not become a starter. It's similar with a guy like Escobar right now. He has been good when given opportunities, but people assume he is crap because is not starting or getting a high number of targets.

The Free/Parnell debate also showed me which posters will actually study the players and not just go by the media's opinions. I have found it fascinating how many people have super strong opinions on the Free/Parnell topic but have not studied the game footage. There were a couple that did. Primarily Fuzzy. He reviewed Parnell and gave his input and he has no bias in favor of the player from what I can tell.

The other aspect is that it was an interesting story of how the Cowboys took a college basketball player that was about 280 when they signed him and developed him into a huge OLineman capable of being a decent starter. The media missed that story because there was nobody to tell them he had developed into a good player. Callahan said in an interview last season that it was a great story and should get more media attention.

I had some of the same debates about Ron Leary when the Cowboys first got him. There was one particular poster that I debated with that said Leary was complete crap. Even after Leary started in 2013 many people said that Bernadeau would likely be the other starting OG with Martin. Even now many fans/media don't give Leary much respect. primarily because he was not a 1st round pick and does not get much hype. They assume that Collins will automatically replace him even though most of them have never seen Collins play a single snap.

I will likely develop another pet cat or two this year. Maybe Weems or maybe a DLineman. Maybe Wilcox. I said before OTAs to not count out Weems despite the addition of Green and Collins. Now that Broaddus has given him one positive paragraph, people are starting to post about him and how he is probably in the lead for the backup OT job.

The bottom line is that many of the most vocal message board posters with the strongest opinions are the people that do the least work to backup their opinions. I like to counter those people with my opinions which are based on actually studying the topic.

 

[xwalker]

1. Please don't explain statistics to me. I have a pretty damn deep background in that area.

2. How on earth do you plan to bring standard deviation into this argument.

3. Two raters. Wildly differing stats. You can ignore that if you like but it makes clear the statistics here are fundamentally unreliable.

4. Your YPC argument ignores the fact that when judging carries, multiple raters will achieve very similar results. That's one necessary condition for a meaningful metric.

5. No, I don't analyze film. I fully understand that I'm not a scout or coach and that without knowing the play call and assignment, I can't make a judgement.

I like to throw in references like SD to see what kind of response I get and to give me information about who I'm dealing with.

The exact numeric difference between Sturm's results and the PFF stuff is not important when they both show Free to be the worst.

 

[Stash]

I've posted this before, but I'll say it again. It really was not about the specific players per se. They just happened to fit as an example of something I wanted to pursue. Generally, my contention is that fans and a lot of media don't or can't analyze players for themselves, especially at positions like OLine. Most people need someone telling them that a player is good before they can recognize it.

I think that's an arrogant position to take. It gives others the impression that you think you know better and therefore put yourself and your opinion above theirs. Not a good starting point in my opinion.

Also, fans/media have some rules of thumb that they often use as absolutes without really analyzing the situation. For example, many people assume a player is crap if he has not become a starter or gotten the media seal of approval after a certain amount of time. Obviously, the time frame for Parnell needed to be different, but people don't really think in those terms. After he had been around a certain period of time, they assume he must be crap if he has not become a starter. It's similar with a guy like Escobar right now. He has been good when given opportunities, but people assume he is crap because is not starting or getting a high number of targets.

The situations are also based on the nature of the NFL. Due to the structure of current contracts and free agency, teams - and by extension fans - don't have as much time to be quite as patient. In the case of Escobar, it's not 'hate' on the player, but the process of acquiring him. For the third time, the team used a 2nd round draft pick for what amounts to a backup TE. It's a terrible use of resources and the main criticism when it comes to Escobar.

The Free/Parnell debate also showed me which posters will actually study the players and not just go by the media's opinions. I have found it fascinating how many people have super strong opinions on the Free/Parnell topic but have not studied the game footage. There were a couple that did. Primarily Fuzzy. He reviewed Parnell and gave his input and he has no bias in favor of the player from what I can tell.

Again, your posts indicate an elitist mentality which alienates other posters and gives a negative spin to everything else you have to say. Something for you to consider.

The other aspect is that it was an interesting story of how the Cowboys took a college basketball player that was about 280 when they signed him and developed him into a huge OLineman capable of being a decent starter. The media missed that story because there was nobody to tell them he had developed into a good player. Callahan said in an interview last season that it was a great story and should get more media attention.

Absolutely no argument from me there. The guy worked hard, made himself into a very good player, and earned a big paycheck. One I feel was too big, but good on him nonetheless for working hard and performing well enough to get it.

I had some of the same debates about Ron Leary when the Cowboys first got him. There was one particular poster that I debated with that said Leary was complete crap. Even after Leary started in 2013 many people said that Bernadeau would likely be the other starting OG with Martin. Even now many fans/media don't give Leary much respect. primarily because he was not a 1st round pick and does not get much hype. They assume that Collins will automatically replace him even though most of them have never seen Collins play a single snap.

Nothing wrong with that, but just keep in mind to give others the respect you want for yourself. You can feel free to place whatever weight on a person's position or value to opinion, but keep it private. If you think my opinion has value, great, if not, that's cool too. I just think it's something best kept private if there's risk of offending someone else.

I will likely develop another pet cat or two this year. Maybe Weems or maybe a DLineman. Maybe Wilcox. I said before OTAs to not count out Weems despite the addition of Green and Collins. Now that Broaddus has given him one positive paragraph, people are starting to post about him and how he is probably in the lead for the backup OT job.

The bottom line is that many of the most vocal message board posters with the strongest opinions are the people that do the least work to backup their opinions. I like to counter those people with my opinions which are based on actually studying the topic.

Nothing wrong with opinions, we all have them. It's when people want to publicly qualify the value of others' opinions that issues usually crop up. In most areas, I put a great deal of stock in yours. I can appreciate anyone who 'brings' it' to a debate and you most certainly do.

 

[xwalker]

I think that's an arrogant position to take. It gives others the impression that you think you know better and therefore put yourself and your opinion above theirs. Not a good starting point in my opinion.



The situations are also based on the nature of the NFL. Due to the structure of current contracts and free agency, teams - and by extension fans - don't have as much time to be quite as patient. In the case of Escobar, it's not 'hate' on the player, but the process of acquiring him. For the third time, the team used a 2nd round draft pick for what amounts to a backup TE. It's a terrible use of resources and the main criticism when it comes to Escobar.



Again, your posts indicate an elitist mentality which alienates other posters and gives a negative spin to everything else you have to say. Something for you to consider.



Absolutely no argument from me there. The guy worked hard, made himself into a very good player, and earned a big paycheck. One I feel was too big, but good on him nonetheless for working hard and performing well enough to get it.



Nothing wrong with that, but just keep in mind to give others the respect you want for yourself. You can feel free to place whatever weight on a person's position or value to opinion, but keep it private. If you think my opinion has value, great, if not, that's cool too. I just think it's something best kept private if there's risk of offending someone else.



Nothing wrong with opinions, we all have them. It's when people want to publicly qualify the value of others' opinions that issues usually crop up. In most areas, I put a great deal of stock in yours. I can appreciate anyone who 'brings' it' to a debate and you most certainly do.

1. I like that we can "appear" to want to kill each other on this topic, but can discuss other topics as if there was a clean slate.

2. Tell me more about placing a weight on a person's position/opinion.

Certainly you can understand that it can be irritating to spend the time researching the subject with methods like studying game footage only to have a bunch of people spouting opinions that have not spent the time/effort to backup their opinions. I welcome it when someone Fuzzy reviews the same player that I've reviewed and gives his feedback. His review is rarely in complete agreement with mine, but I like them anyway.

3. My posts/opinions are normally something I've put a lot of thought and effort into.

I realize I may come across as arrogant when challenged; however, do you really perfer some of the other types of posters, like Risen's one liners making fun of Marinelli or certain players, the posters that constantly dog certain players with no basis like the T. Williams hater, posters that constantly proclaim a player sucks or is the greatest ever in one line posts, the posters that make a huge number of new threads, usually about nonsense, because they love to talk but hate to listen, the posters that only want to focus on dramatic issues like AP or the contract for Dez, the posters that claim secret inside info, the posters that go on and on and on when the Cowboys draft a player like Hitchens earlier than they think was appropriate despite the fact they never watched his college game footage, the posters that constantly hate on Jerry/Garrett???

Edit: I didn't mention the posters that start a new thread to say Romo looks fat.

 

[jobberone]

Coaches hate inconsistent. You can't coach around inconsistent.



Let's be a little more contextualized with the #s here. Sturm gave Free 5.5 sacks. That 1.5 more than the left tackle who most would say is pretty good. PFF had him with 3 - tied with several others. These aren't bad #s.

Yes, Parnell had zero. But clearly the coaches who look at actual assignments and how players carry those through care far less about outcomes over a small sample than whether the guy did what he was supposed to

He wasn't that bad. Just enough to be an 'enigma'.

 

[AbeBeta]

I like to throw in references like SD to see what kind of response I get and to give me information about who I'm dealing with.

The exact numeric difference between Sturm's results and the PFF stuff is not important when they both show Free to be the worst.

3 vs. 5.5 is a pretty substantial difference. Particularly when you consider that it is the largest discrepancy between any of the ratings.

Why on earth would SD be any indication of a person's level of knowledge? Geez man, that's like week 2 of any basic stats course. Kids get that stuff in high school now.

 

[jobberone]

1. I like that we can "appear" to want to kill each other on this topic, but can discuss other topics as if there was a clean slate.

2. Tell me more about placing a weight on a person's position/opinion.

Certainly you can understand that it can be irritating to spend the time researching the subject with methods like studying game footage only to have a bunch of people spouting opinions that have not spent the time/effort to backup their opinions. I welcome it when someone Fuzzy reviews the same player that I've reviewed and gives his feedback. His review is rarely in complete agreement with mine, but I like them anyway.

3. My posts/opinions are normally something I've put a lot of thought and effort into.

I realize I may come across as arrogant when challenged; however, do you really perfer some of the other types of posters, like Risen's one liners making fun of Marinelli or certain players, the posters that constantly dog certain players with no basis like the T. Williams hater, posters that constantly proclaim a player sucks or is the greatest ever in one line posts, the posters that make a huge number of new threads, usually about nonsense, because they love to talk but hate to listen, the posters that only want to focus on dramatic issues like AP or the contract for Dez, the posters that claim secret inside info, the posters that go on and on and on when the Cowboys draft a player like Hitchens earlier than they think was appropriate despite the fact they never watched his college game footage, the posters that constantly hate on Jerry/Garrett???

Edit: I didn't mention the posters that start a new thread to say Romo looks fat.

This is fair. One can be feel strongly about their opinion while still understanding they can be wrong.

And it is more than annoying to take the time to post something critical and have it trashed by others who have not put any work into it. It's run off some very good posters.

@stasheroo makes some excellent points as well.

 

[AbeBeta]

He wasn't that bad. Just enough to be an 'enigma'.

He's likely inconsistent at things that the staff feels he should be better at this after being on the team for 5 seasons.

 

[Stash]

1. I like that we can "appear" to want to kill each other on this topic, but can discuss other topics as if there was a clean slate.

We absolutely can! We can disagree but still be civil and respectful otherwise. It's sometimes challenging, speaking for myself, because I am guilty if getting passionate about what I believe. And as I've said before, I very much respect what you bring, the effort you invest, and your zeal. I think a quality debate is every bit as good as simply learning new information.

2. Tell me more about placing a weight on a person's position/opinion.

Certainly you can understand that it can be irritating to spend the time researching the subject with methods like studying game footage only to have a bunch of people spouting opinions that have not spent the time/effort to backup their opinions. I welcome it when someone Fuzzy reviews the same player that I've reviewed and gives his feedback. His review is rarely in complete agreement with mine, but I like them anyway.

3. My posts/opinions are normally something I've put a lot of thought and effort into.

I realize I may come across as arrogant when challenged; however, do you really perfer some of the other types of posters, like Risen's one liners making fun of Marinelli or certain players, the posters that constantly dog certain players with no basis like the T. Williams hater, posters that constantly proclaim a player sucks or is the greatest ever in one line posts, the posters that make a huge number of new threads, usually about nonsense, because they love to talk but hate to listen, the posters that only want to focus on dramatic issues like AP or the contract for Dez, the posters that claim secret inside info, the posters that go on and on and on when the Cowboys draft a player like Hitchens earlier than they think was appropriate despite the fact they never watched his college game footage, the posters that constantly hate on Jerry/Garrett???

Edit: I didn't mention the posters that start a new thread to say Romo looks fat.

I think you can weigh others' opinions and value or dismiss them as you see fit, just do it internally and not publicly. Just because you don't value a certain opinion, doesn't mean that person doesn't have the right to express it. Judge them accordingly, just don't do it on the site. Nothing good comes of that and you end up doing damage to your own credibility.

You have a good reputation as an excellent contributor and great source of knowledge and I would hate to see that ruined by the perception of an elitist attitude.

Don't want to come off as preachy, but that's just my two cents.