What creditials do you have to think that you are more accurate with your opinions than Sturm that has good connections with the team and players ? I read about your education and that you watch entire game films because you decided that is the way you like to spend your money. Many of us has very little emontional attachment to any of these players , so it is easy to form an unemotional opinion that can easily rival yours. In the past you have dismissed the media, but they know more about the team than any of us. That is their job. They have creditials . There is a couple mediots, but what are your creditials that make your views more correct than a guy like Sturm? In reality, you are just another fan with opinions that spends the money for the coaches game film. Guess what, guys like Sturm has access to film as well. Posters on this board have views that are just as accurate as yours. I supported Parnel over Free due to his upside and youth. We agree on that topic. The worst thing about the NFL's decision to sell game film is that several posters now think they are on the same level as people that work in the pro football business. There are weekly threads started by posters that bought film that now feel like they have the creditials to feed the board info and they get defensive when they are called out on it. You do a good job providing some stats and info for this board. I wouldn't really agree that it is your job to decide if the media is feeding the readers BS. Adults can usually make those decisumions themselves , even without game tape. Nothing personal , just an observation.
I have no problem with your opinion. My posts are intended to give people and alternative to the Media. It is up to the reader to decide if my posts have any value to them.
I do most likely have better credentials in regards to stats than most media people. I have a college degree in Mathematics. That seems like a better credential than a Journalism degree on the topic of statistics.
Sturm tied to use stats in a method that is invalid. I'm certain that you know that the majority of the time when people try to use stats to prove their point, they most often gerrymander the stats to their advantage in a way that would not be done by a real statistical analyst. The phrase "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." was coined for this exact reason over 100 years ago.
As I said previously, Sturm's contention that the backups were better based on small sample size stats is
exactly the same as if I said that Randle is better than Murray because he had a 6.7 ypc compared to a 4.7 ypc for Murray. It is common knowledge that small sample sizes for stats for a player are not valid information. Sturm tired to add together multiple Non-Valid pieces of information to come up with once piece of Valid information. I'm sure you can see that is not really reasonable.
Sturm uses the same method to access the All-22 that I use. He does not have a football background. He does not work for the Cowboys Flagship station. Broaddus is the only media guy that has access to the same coaches film that is available to the coaches. He does allow some of the guys from the Flagship station to come over to VR and view it with him, but Sturm is not in that crew. He is their competition.
In terms of NFL players, I have access to all of the coaches film going back to about 2011. The difference in what the coaches have is in terms of cut-ups. They can pull up all plays a specific type for a specific player and watch them in sequence. The All-22 in which I have access does allow some sorting but it is limited. I can do a search for all runs by McFadden in 2014 and watch them in sequence. I can't search for something like all pass blocks by McFadden.
One of my general points has been that if somebody has an adamant opinion that they are going to continually repeat on a message board, that they should at least have an informed opinion. I'm not referring to someone just saying "I think ...". I'm referring to someone that will continue to argue a point back and forth but have never actually done the work to be informed on the point.
If I both review Sturm's article AND I watch McFadden's game footage then I am more informed than someone that has only reviewed the article. I'm not saying that makes me correct, but it gives me a much higher probability of being correct than someone that is not informed.
