Sturm's McFadden breakdown

[Stash]

Again, your posts are all emotion without logic and you don't do the work to be informed.

I don't have to. Strum did. And he did a great job of it. It's your problem that you can't handle that fact.

The bottom line is that for his article to be valid, then the same logic has to be true in regards to Randle being much much better than Murray because of his far superior ypc. His logic would also indicate that the Raider's running game without McFadden in the game was better than the best rushing team in the league.

Not at all, you're trying to say that 50 carries is in any way comparable to 300 plus. For a self-proclaimed math genius, I expected better.

 

[Stash]

https://vine.co/v/eiuQvbjBYxQ

I hope he didn't hurt himself!

 

[xwalker]

I don't have to. Strum did. And he did a great job of it. It's your problem that you can't handle that fact.



Not at all, you're trying to say that 50 carries is in any way comparable to 300 plus. For a self-proclaimed math genius, I expected better.

It is not a fact and Strum did a terrible job from a statistical perspective.

According to his method, the "other" Raider's RBs averaged 5.5 ypc in the past 3 years. That would be better than the best NFL team rushing average in any of those 3 seasons. You would have to believe that the Raider's rushing attack the past 3 years when McFadden is not on the field was better than all other NFL teams by a significant margin.

You can't just add up a bunch of non-relevant data from small sample sizes to make one big sample size relevant. The fact that you don't have the ability to understand it, does not make it right.

 

[JoeBoBBY]

I really don't understand that comment. He had over 2600 yards in 482 carries his last 2 years at OK St. as the lead dog. There is no reason he can't handle 15-17 carries a game at this level.

Lots of lead dogs in College cant hang in the NFL.

But to be honest, I dont have any data or anything else, but my gut feeling. I dont think he holds up. And even if he does, someone is going to pop him a few times, and he wont be that same jitterbug out there. Were not going to see Randle ripping off 20-30 yard runs every other touch he gets. He is going to get stuck in the muck, and the big boys will lay all that weight on him when he does...

But, 15-17 carries might be ideal for him though. But I am thinking that is pushing it...

Were going to find out; And I do expect him to have some big games. I think Randle is a good change of pace, RBBC, backup to starter, option at RB.

 

[Stash]

It is not a fact and Strum did a terrible job from a statistical perspective.

According to his method, the "other" Raider's RBs averaged 5.5 ypc in the past 3 years. That would be better than the best NFL team rushing average in any of those 3 seasons. You would have to believe that the Raider's rushing attack the past 3 years when McFadden is not on the field was better than all other NFL teams by a significant margin.

You can't just add up a bunch of non-relevant data from small sample sizes to make one big sample size relevant. The fact that you don't have the ability to understand it, does not make it right.

And the fact that you and the rest who continue to make excuses for McFadden's failed NFL career shows that you can't handle the truth.

 

[speedkilz88]

It is not a fact and Strum did a terrible job from a statistical perspective.

According to his method, the "other" Raider's RBs averaged 5.5 ypc in the past 3 years. That would be better than the best NFL team rushing average in any of those 3 seasons. You would have to believe that the Raider's rushing attack the past 3 years when McFadden is not on the field was better than all other NFL teams by a significant margin.

You can't just add up a bunch of non-relevant data from small sample sizes to make one big sample size relevant. The fact that you don't have the ability to understand it, does not make it right.

You've explained it really well. Only the clueless could continue to argue.

 

[xwalker]

You've explained it really well. Only the clueless could continue to argue.

Thanks. Sometimes I don't know if I'm just not explaining things correctly or if people just can't/won't understand regardless of how much I try.

 

[xwalker]

And the fact that you and the rest who continue to make excuses for McFadden's failed NFL career shows that you can't handle the truth.

I have not made excuses for McFadden. I've said over and over that it is undetermined. Maybe it was his fault or maybe it was the team's fault. It is undermined at this point.

My primary point was that the article was flawed. It was flawed regardless of which player was being reviewed.

Sturm's attempt to manipulate stats was flawed. He is still the best media guy in DFW by a wide margin, IMO. None of the local media would even attempt this type of analysis. I'm sure that there are some stats professors at SMU, UT-Arlington or UT-Dallas that are fans of his show and/or blogs and would help him out the next time he wants to attempt to analyze stats.

 

[Stash]

I have not made excuses for McFadden. I've said over and over that it is undetermined. Maybe it was his fault or maybe it was the team's fault. It is undermined at this point.

My primary point was that the article was flawed. It was flawed regardless of which player was being reviewed.

Sturm's attempt to manipulate stats was flawed. He is still the best media guy in DFW by a wide margin, IMO. None of the local media would even attempt this type of analysis. I'm sure that there are some stats professors at SMU, UT-Arlington or UT-Dallas that are fans of his show and/or blogs and would help him out the next time he wants to attempt to analyze stats.

You should step up. You've got all the answers. You've clearly showed all of us that.

Look, for the record, I really appreciate the vast majority of your contributions around here, but you seriously need to get over yourself lately.

Let's agree to disagree on this one and I'll hope to be wrong on this one. Because, if I am, the team will benefit.

 

[jnday]

McFadden is less than 2 years older than McClain.

I know you are trying to sneak a point in to fit your agenda, but you know as well as I do that those two years make a difference with a RB. It may have been you that provided the stats that proved a RB starts a major decline at DMac's age tide points were hashed and rehashed during the Murray debates. Those two years make a difference when a player is in his prime years. You made snd supported those stats to fit the Murray situation , but now you are saying that The stats should not be considered with DMac. There is also a difference in positions to be considered .

 

[jnday]

I have not made excuses for McFadden. I've said over and over that it is undetermined. Maybe it was his fault or maybe it was the team's fault. It is undermined at this point.

My primary point was that the article was flawed. It was flawed regardless of which player was being reviewed.

Sturm's attempt to manipulate stats was flawed. He is still the best media guy in DFW by a wide margin, IMO. None of the local media would even attempt this type of analysis. I'm sure that there are some stats professors at SMU, UT-Arlington or UT-Dallas that are fans of his show and/or blogs and would help him out the next time he wants to attempt to analyze stats.

What kinda of credentials do you have to say he twisted the facts? I think he wrote the article and give good examples to support his view. Do you have access to information that he doesn't or have contacts on the team that is leaking you info.

 

[xwalker]

I know you are trying to sneak a point in to fit your agenda, but you know as well as I do that those two years make a difference with a RB. It may have been you that provided the stats that proved a RB starts a major decline at DMac's age tide points were hashed and rehashed during the Murray debates. Those two years make a difference when a player is in his prime years. You made snd supported those stats to fit the Murray situation , but now you are saying that The stats should not be considered with DMac. There is also a difference in positions to be considered .

No, I was just pointing out that if you are making comparisons between RoMc and McFadden, that age was not a big differentiation.

Yes, McFadden and Murray are about the same age. What applies to one applies to the other. I wouldn't give either one a big long term contract.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't have to. Strum did. And he did a great job of it. It's your problem that you can't handle that fact.



Not at all, you're trying to say that 50 carries is in any way comparable to 300 plus. For a self-proclaimed math genius, I expected better.

He never seems to talk about the blocking. He doesn't address the specifics of the performances of said blockers at any point.

The runs he did show seemed more of an exercise of "I can find plays that are similar" moreso than demonstrating anything about what DMC can or cannot do.

On a final note the statistical analysis without the slightest attempt to control for the inflated numbers of backup RB posits absolutely nothing. His position justifies the notion that Troy Hambrick was the better runner in 2002 and Randle was better than Murray last year.

 

[jnday]

And the fact that you and the rest who continue to make excuses for McFadden's failed NFL career shows that you can't handle the truth.
They don't won't to accept the truth. DMac should be given no benefit of the doubt. Nothing in his career has shown that he deserves it. Any respect or admiration that he gets is going to have to be earned, but many posters want to give it to him.

 

[jjktkk]

I have never avoided posting after being wrong. In this case, I am not worried at all about being wrong. You call me negative. I say I am a realist . Yes, your emontions play s big part in your opinions. You blindly support any player that the team signs. I could give you a long list of players that I expressed the reality of their lack of talent. I have been wrong on very, very few of those players. Overall , the team does not have many bad players that will see the field. At the Arab position, the underwear thief is the only hope u less you put your hope on the two cripples or Dunbar, who is hyped up every offseason, but never plays dnough to produce much. I hope you have enough football knowledge to know that comparing DMac and Rolando is not possible. Rolando is young with upside, when/if he finally decides to become a great player and commits himself, he could be a heck of a player. Anyone that knows that situation is aware of his lack of commmitment. That is the reason teams were not lined up to sign him to s big contract. His love for the game is questionable. DMAc is an injury prone, bust that has shown that he struggles behind a zone blocking scheme . He is not hard to bring down and he is a limited straight line runner, or at least he was. Again, stop with the excuses for the guy. At some point he has to be accountable for his poor play. I have little doubt that he is wasting a roster position. I hope at at Dallas can find a young RB that can run with power and have some upside when cuts start during preseason. You mentioned your dislike for Mo. I was blasted on this board the day that he was drafted for being negative and not agreeing with the team. Most of the posters that gave me a hard time now agrees with me. I hope that the RB position is fixed, but it won't be because of DMac. I will not change my mind until he proves me wrong. I sure don't make excuses for him and I never will. The entire NFL could have went after him during free agency, but those teams seem to share my opinion. Are you going to create a thread saying that you was wrong about DMac and that your judgement is impaired by your emotions? I don't think you will.

Love it when posters such as yourself, call themselves a "realist". As if fans that try to be optimistic about new players on the team need to be giving the low down about players such as McFadden and his under achieving career with Oakland. Jerry and company are not putting all their eggs in one basket with McFadden. McFadden is a low risk signing. Maybe the Cowboys believe in their Oline, and want to give Randle a shot, and want to see more of Dunbar and possibly McFadden, or someone else. this season. Maybe McFadden will shine in a backup role. Who knows, maybe this rb situation will blow up in Jerry's face, but until the real games are played, I personally will take your negative Nancy posting as glass half empty predictions.

 

[xwalker]

What kinda of credentials do you have to say he twisted the facts? I think he wrote the article and give good examples to support his view. Do you have access to information that he doesn't or have contacts on the team that is leaking you info.

I don't know where the disconnect is occurring in communication.

I explained that I have some credentials in Mathematics. Statistics are a subset of Mathematics. You don't need any inside information to know that the way he used the stats was not a good method.

I gave you an example that shows how a small sample size is deceiving (Randle vs Murray).

I showed you that by extrapolating from small samples sizes, his results would show the Raiders team when any RB was on the field other than McFadden, would have been better than the best team in the NFL in YPC for all 3 years that he reviewed.

Do you believe that the Raider's team when McFadden was not on the field was the best rushing team in the league? You would have to believe that for his method of using statistics to be valid.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And the fact that you and the rest who continue to make excuses for McFadden's failed NFL career shows that you can't handle the truth.

Just because you put things in terms of excuses, blame and the like does not make it a valid worldview of reality beyond what goes on in your own head. Just say that his arguments are not compelling to you and move on. This grandstanding is counterproductive and in my own private idaho, I think it detracts from your position.

I agree DMC has not played well the last couple years outside the passing game. Neither has Penn Wisniewski Bergstrom Watson Barnes, Olawale, Reese, or Rivera. He looked pretty good running behind Veldheer, Satele, Walker, and Miller a few years ago.

I'm not going to tell you that he will succeed but I am very comfortable saying that he had very little chance to succeed in the wake of Al Davis' demise in his last years in Oakland. He is going to be in a vastly different environment than went on In Oakland with demented Al and neophyte son. Oakland has done some decent things lately Carr, Mack, and Jackson last year and we'll see about this year.

OTOH, Oaklands drafting and thus rosters have been laughingstocks of the league for the decade prior. They traded away two firsts for aging vets and then Had some famous busts for the era. Gallery, McClain, M Watson, Pryor, Bergstrom, Wisniewski, Barksdale, and McClain. Making matters worse, good players like Veldheer and Houston left at the first chance n FA.

The talent at OL and TE positions is night and day. Jackson was a rookie last year but was clearly their best OL. He would compete with Leary and Collins to play LG and likely wouldn't win. Veldheer did play with DMC in 2013. He would start at RT over Free easily. Outside of that though it's not even close. Guys like Watson, Howard, Wisniewski, Nix and Brisiel would not make this roster. Penn and to a lesser extent Barnes could compete for swing tackle but that is because of pass blocking. They aren't going to make you forget JP or Collins' power at the poa. The TE position is comparing league worst to league best. Witten is that much better. Rivera was that bad blocking.

Our line gets push that he has never seen in Oakland. There is no reason not to believe that he will improve off of his 2014 performance because of that. The question is how much. I think he still has some giddyup and the effect could be profound.

 

[Stash]

He never seems to talk about the blocking. He doesn't address the specifics of the performances of said blockers at any point.

The runs he did show seemed more of an exercise of "I can find plays that are similar" moreso than demonstrating anything about what DMC can or cannot do.

On a final note the statistical analysis without the slightest attempt to control for the inflated numbers of backup RB posits absolutely nothing. His position justifies the notion that Troy Hambrick was the better runner in 2002 and Randle was better than Murray last year.

It would be one thing if he was talking about Randle's 50 carries he's not. He's talking about a sample size of 300.

That's not an anomaly.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It would be one thing if he was talking about Randle's 50 carries he's not. He's talking about a sample size of 300.

That's not an anomaly.

He compared McFadden's stats to the aggregate of second RBs and the like. It is what it is. You are only considering half of his presentation.

 

[Stash]

Just because you put things in terms of excuses, blame and the like does not make it a valid worldview of reality beyond what goes on in your own head. Just say that his arguments are not compelling to you and move on. This grandstanding is counterproductive and in my own private idaho, I think it detracts from your position.

I give like I get. If someone is arrogant enough to try to tell all of us what is a valued opinion vs a valueless one, they deserve what they get.

I agree DMC has not played well the last couple years outside the passing game. Neither has Penn Wisniewski Bergstrom Watson Barnes, Olawale, Reese, or Rivera. He looked pretty good running behind Veldheer, Satele, Walker, and Miller a few years ago.

Is over 3 years a few? Or is it several? And what's 'pretty good' for you? 700 yards? Because that's about as 'pretty good' as this player has ever seen for the vast majority of his career.

I'm not going to tell you that he will succeed but I am very comfortable saying that he had very little chance to succeed in the wake of Al Davis' demise in his last years in Oakland. He is going to be in a vastly different environment than went on In Oakland with demented Al and neophyte son. Oakland has done some decent things lately Carr, Mack, and Jackson last year and we'll see about this year.

OTOH, Oaklands drafting and thus rosters have been laughingstocks of the league for the decade prior. They traded away two firsts for aging vets and then Had some famous busts for the era. Gallery, McClain, M Watson, Pryor, Bergstrom, Wisniewski, Barksdale, and McClain. Making matters worse, good players like Veldheer and Houston left at the first chance n FA.

The talent at OL and TE positions is night and day. Jackson was a rookie last year but was clearly their best OL. He would compete with Leary and Collins to play LG and likely wouldn't win. Veldheer did play with DMC in 2013. He would start at RT over Free easily. Outside of that though it's not even close. Guys like Watson, Howard, Wisniewski, Nix and Brisiel would not make this roster. Penn and to a lesser extent Barnes could compete for swing tackle but that is because of pass blocking. They aren't going to make you forget JP or Collins' power at the poa. The TE position is comparing league worst to league best. Witten is that much better. Rivera was that bad blocking.

Our line gets push that he has never seen in Oakland. There is no reason not to believe that he will improve off of his 2014 performance because of that. The question is how much. I think he still has some giddyup and the effect could be profound.

I don't argue much of what you're saying here, but my position is 'prove it', and then I'll believe it. His track record of failure buys him zero benefit of the doubt from me. And I don't think that is in any way an unfair position to take. Seven years of NFL disappointment support it.