Should we replace with Zeke with Marcel Reece?

[xwalker]

Man, not sure 500k per year is worth the brain damage risk...

I'll just take a knee after the handoff... rushing yards don't correlate to winning anyway.

 

[jobberone]

Howdy! Never posted but now is as good a time as any. I am a professor that teaches statistics. A couple of things from this and the previous thread have interested me.

First, correlations can range from -1 to 1. So a correlation or .45 is not an inverse relationship. That would be -.45. Correlation of .45 is simply moderately correlated.

Second, one of the basic precepts of statistics is that correlation is not causation. That means that just because two variables are highly correlated, does not mean that one causes the other. Correlation is useful in prediction. Therefore, Adam can certainly say that his passing stat can predict winners at a high rate, but he cannot say that having a high passing efficiency causes winning. To determine causation you have to use something like an autoregrssive or error correction model.

Don't know if this is useful, but thought I'd make the point.

Great first post! Welcome.

 

[waldoputty]

I'll just take a knee after the handoff... rushing yards don't correlate to winning anyway.

Even I would have to say that is unfair

 

[dmax]

I think everyone agrees with YPC is not a good stat.
The disagreement is Adam is saying that the lack of correlation means rushing well is not important for winning.
I disagree with Adam's use of a lack of correlation as the basis of his argument because the YPC (or similar stats) suffer from external factors not modeled by the regression such as the defense playing 8-in-the-box.
But I suppose you already have read this over and over again already.
So you are probably being diplomatic in the whole thing

Forgot this in my earlier one, but yes, the error term in a regression is all variables not in the model. So all of the factors you mentioned might be causing an effect and rushing might be important to winning. Identifying and measuring those error variables is essential to making a good argument.

Maybe I am being diplomatic, but that's what newbies are supposed to do!

Besides, I have enjoyed reading your material since you started posting and think you add to most discussions. And Adam is a font of information about the Cowboys and I respect what he brings to any thread. So why would I try to offend either of you? I like good discussions on CZ! And will try to be more a part of them.

 

[jobberone]

Mocking people, however subtle, is considered a personal attack. So is piling on. There is no need to mock another member repeatedly nor to repeatedly say the same thing over and over thread to thread.

 

[xwalker]

Howdy! Never posted but now is as good a time as any. I am a professor that teaches statistics. A couple of things from this and the previous thread have interested me.

First, correlations can range from -1 to 1. So a correlation or .45 is not an inverse relationship. That would be -.45. Correlation of .45 is simply moderately correlated.

Second, one of the basic precepts of statistics is that correlation is not causation. That means that just because two variables are highly correlated, does not mean that one causes the other. Correlation is useful in prediction. Therefore, Adam can certainly say that his passing stat can predict winners at a high rate, but he cannot say that having a high passing efficiency causes winning. To determine causation you have to use something like an autoregrssive or error correction model.

Don't know if this is useful, but thought I'd make the point.

Please post more often!

 

[waldoputty]

Forgot this in my earlier one, but yes, the error term in a regression is all variables not in the model. So all of the factors you mentioned might be causing an effect and rushing might be important to winning. Identifying and measuring those error variables is essential to making a good argument.

Maybe I am being diplomatic, but that's what newbies are supposed to do!

Besides, I have enjoyed reading your material since you started posting and think you add to most discussions. And Adam is a font of information about the Cowboys and I respect what he brings to any thread. So why would I try to offend either of you? I like good discussions on CZ! And will try to be more a part of them.

I guess I am not a total newbie any more so I must admit I get annoyed and react in frustration when arguments become circular...
Although my poor attempt at humor earlier has my e-friends laughing at me and calling me an pathetic incompetent jokester

But welcome to the board also, and I really appreciate when someone brings expertise in a discussion.

Adam is very knowledgeable about football stats and salary cap stuff.
I just don't understand why we are stuck on this topic.

Listening to you talk reminds me a bit of the good old days.
Sounds like you agree with the use "error in variables" model?
That is about all I remember from school decades ago.

The problem is that how does one strip from rushing performance all the extraneous external factors like defensive formation, offensive strategy, being ahead vs behind, ... etc that are not tracked by common statics.
I actually doubt that even teams would have some of these parameters in any type of database.

I would be curious in what you think!

 

[waldoputty]

I am the walrus.

actually i think resigning you to a reasonable contract is not a bad move, though others may shoot me for it.

 

[xwalker]

You love to set up straw men, don't you?

Do you believe that Marcel Reece a better football player than Ezekiel Elliott? If so, do you believe that YPC is the only thing that makes Elliott better than Reece?

Dozens of posters here believe that your passing efficiency theory justifies their idea that the Cowboys should not have drafted Zeke and that Morris/McFadden were just as likely to result in winning.

 

[Idgit]

Dozens of posters here believe that your passing efficiency theory justifies their idea that the Cowboys should not have drafted Zeke and that Morris/McFadden were just as likely to result in winning.

Actually, while Adam is the best supporter of the argument, it's not his argument. It's one that's been around the internet for a long while. You guys just get mad at Adam because he always (in my estimation) ruthlessly and efficiently destroys you with it when it seems so counterintuitive.

But people who are swayed by the passing efficiency correlation to winning aren't necessarily saying Morris/McFadden are just as likely to result in winning. We're saying that, if you start with the premise that teams that pass more efficiently are more likely to win, there are better ways to improve your team than spending premium resources on a position that as less of an impact on passing efficiency than other positions that had similarly great players available in the draft.

For my part, even if the passing efficiency is the effect, and not the cause, of winning, absent a better argument for causation, I'm happy to draft accordingly and see how it works out. Give me the pass rusher or the QB over the RB, every time. I'll take my chances on the mid-round David Johnson's or Jay Ajayi's of the world. And for everybody that points to Zeke as the difference maker *this* season, I'm pointing to Dak and saying 'give me a break.' I'd take Dak, Morris, and Bosa today, if I had the choice, over Dak, Zeke, and Lawrence. And if I had to choose with a gun to my head between Dak and Zeke for the next 10 years, I'm taking Dak before the question even gets finished. We've seen what running effectively and passing poorly looks like. We may or may not have proof of causation for what happened in 2015, but I'm pretty comfortable with my own suspicions on that one.

 

[HappyOnions]

I'm pretty sure that this was meant to be a satirical post...

 

[Idgit]

I'm pretty sure that this was meant to be a satirical post...

Satire. Bait. Who's to say?

I think waldo just liked the debate from the other thread and tried to find an angle to pick it back up again. Which is great, because I'm always fascinated by this discussion, anyway.

 

[waldoputty]

Actually, while Adam is the best supporter of the argument, it's not his argument. It's one that's been around the internet for a long while. You guys just get mad at Adam because he always (in my estimation) ruthlessly and efficiently destroys you with it when it seems so counterintuitive.

But people who are swayed by the passing efficiency correlation to winning aren't necessarily saying Morris/McFadden are just as likely to result in winning. We're saying that, if you start with the premise that teams that pass more efficiently are more likely to win, there are better ways to improve your team than spending premium resources on a position that as less of an impact on passing efficiency than other positions that had similarly great players available in the draft.

For my part, even if the passing efficiency is the effect, and not the cause, of winning, absent a better argument for causation, I'm happy to draft accordingly and see how it works out. Give me the pass rusher or the QB over the RB, every time. I'll take my chances on the mid-round David Johnson's or Jay Ajayi's of the world. And for everybody that points to Zeke as the difference maker *this* season, I'm pointing to Dak and saying 'give me a break.' I'd take Dak, Morris, and Bosa today, if I had the choice, over Dak, Zeke, and Lawrence. And if I had to choose with a gun to my head between Dak and Zeke for the next 10 years, I'm taking Dak before the question even gets finished. We've seen what running effectively and passing poorly looks like. We may or may not have proof of causation for what happened in 2015, but I'm pretty comfortable with my own suspicions on that one.

I think the frustration with Adam was more on the rushing argument, at least for me.
But let's drop that for now, because everyone is sick of the argument.

I think most of us agree passing is probably more important than rushing, though having the rushing attack will make the passing a whole lot more easy.

Here is where the argument is more fun.
We already invested 3 1st round OL, and getting the RB that can maximize the return on investment seemed very reasonable.
Do we make the running game absolutely dominant or invest in a DB that incrementally improves the defense.
We also understand a DB can cost a lot more than a RB so having a shutdown corner for cheap is important for salary cap planning.
But the other side of the argument is to create a rushing attack is very very difficult to stop, and this has become the Cowboys's calling card that all teams seem intent on stopping.
How many 8-in-a-box are we seeing?

Yes Dak is important and he has made things easier for Zeke, but Zeke has made things easier for Dak also.
If I had to make a choice between Zeke and Dak, I would pick Dak.
But that is not the point, as they say, BOTH.

 

[waldoputty]

Satire. Bait. Who's to say?

I think waldo just liked the debate from the other thread and tried to find an angle to pick it back up again. Which is great, because I'm always fascinated by this discussion, anyway.

Actually the truth is Adam showed up at the RB thread, so I created this thread so the other thread would not get detoured.
So it was a new angle because our argument headed towards Zeke, and I tried to find a Zeke comp (minus running ability)
I just got everyone upset because my attempt at humor did not go so well lol

Though Marcel Reece looks pretty good, does he not?
What do you think about picking him up as our FB instead ?

 

[T-RO]

Then they are going to fire you as Cheer captain for Team Adam

No matter what it doesn't sink into your head.

Zeke brings value with carries but even bigger bling in the passing game. He's maybe the best pass blocker in the sport and he's probably top 5 as a receiver.

 

[waldoputty]

No matter what it doesn't sink into your head.

Zeke brings value with carries but even bigger bling in the passing game. He's maybe the best pass blocker in the sport and he's probably top 5 as a receiver.

Zeke seems pretty good at receiving for a RB, though I recall announcers? saying his route running is not so hot.

 

[xwalker]

Actually, while Adam is the best supporter of the argument, it's not his argument. It's one that's been around the internet for a long while. You guys just get mad at Adam because he always (in my estimation) ruthlessly and efficiently destroys you with it when it seems so counterintuitive.

But people who are swayed by the passing efficiency correlation to winning aren't necessarily saying Morris/McFadden are just as likely to result in winning. We're saying that, if you start with the premise that teams that pass more efficiently are more likely to win, there are better ways to improve your team than spending premium resources on a position that as less of an impact on passing efficiency than other positions that had similarly great players available in the draft.

For my part, even if the passing efficiency is the effect, and not the cause, of winning, absent a better argument for causation, I'm happy to draft accordingly and see how it works out. Give me the pass rusher or the QB over the RB, every time. I'll take my chances on the mid-round David Johnson's or Jay Ajayi's of the world. And for everybody that points to Zeke as the difference maker *this* season, I'm pointing to Dak and saying 'give me a break.' I'd take Dak, Morris, and Bosa today, if I had the choice, over Dak, Zeke, and Lawrence. And if I had to choose with a gun to my head between Dak and Zeke for the next 10 years, I'm taking Dak before the question even gets finished. We've seen what running effectively and passing poorly looks like. We may or may not have proof of causation for what happened in 2015, but I'm pretty comfortable with my own suspicions on that one.

If you only knew how funny the concept is to people with actual training in statistics...

The argument by me, Waldo and a few others has nothing to do with being counter-intuitive. We're not promoting the old school line of "I believe what I see" or however that goes. We're coming from a perspective of the science of statistics.

Anybody that was against picking Zeke at draft time shouldn't really get into this discussion anyway. That group of people have built in bias to prove their point.

 

[cowboyschmps3]

me too

Idk if we brought Rod Smith back to PS but he reminds me a lot of Reece.

 

[waldoputty]

Idk if we brought Rod Smith back to PS but he reminds me a lot of Reece.

really?
i cannot say since I do not watch any other games since cowboys.

he is a 4 time probowler and various websites said he is a good receiver particularly for checking down.
he is also 250lb so a load for a blocker...
i dont recall our FB catching many passes, though I dont recall seeing that much of our FB...

 

[Idgit]

I think the frustration with Adam was more on the rushing argument, at least for me.
But let's drop that for now, because everyone is sick of the argument.

I think most of us agree passing is probably more important than rushing, though having the rushing attack will make the passing a whole lot more easy.

Here is where the argument is more fun.
We already invested 3 1st round OL, and getting the RB that can maximize the return on investment seemed very reasonable.
Do we make the running game absolutely dominant or invest in a DB that incrementally improves the defense.
We also understand a DB can cost a lot more than a RB so having a shutdown corner for cheap is important for salary cap planning.
But the other side of the argument is to create a rushing attack is very very difficult to stop, and this has become the Cowboys's calling card that all teams seem intent on stopping.
How many 8-in-a-box are we seeing?

Yes Dak is important and he has made things easier for Zeke, but Zeke has made things easier for Dak also.
If I had to make a choice between Zeke and Dak, I would pick Dak.
But that is not the point, as they say, BOTH.

I don't have the data on how this year's 8-in-the-boxes compare to last years. I know we were running into a wall most of last season, too, because we couldn't beat teams passing the ball. Honestly, I like watching a dominating running game. I'm happy to have one. I just have never wanted it at the expense of the pass rush, which is where I've wanted to spend my resources. After Bosa, I originally wanted Ramsey on draft day. That's because CBs are important, take time to acclimate, and we had two starters I thought would very possibly be gone next offseason and Scandrick coming back off of injury. It turns out, we're a lot deeper at CB than I had expected this year. Plus, we hit on Brown.

The real problem for me is that we don't have an edge rusher on the roster other than Gregory whose talent alone would qualify him as an upper-echelon starter. And I don't trust Gregory at all. So the idea of passing on that to take a player at a position that can often be filled in a middle round and that hasn't been proven to be all that essential to winning in today's game anyway....no, thank you. I still want the DL addressed, and at this point, even in a deep DL draft, we're going to be picking so late it makes finding that impact rusher difficult again.

Re: the QB v. RB thing, btw, just look at how the offense stalled v. PHI when Dak wasn't throwing the ball well. With Zeke in the game and running well by all accounts. I don't think there ought to be any doubt: the difference between last year and this is the quality of the QB play more than anything else. It'd look the same with Romo in there, given time. And both Romo and Dak would look better with Morris than Zeke would look with Matt Cassel or Brandon Weeden.