WR In the First Round Is a Horrible Idea

[theogt]

and why was it that you NEVER were aboe to reproduce those two players? You couldnt so you didnt.

Right, because there weren't numerous examples that were easily criticized as was just pointed out to you. I didn't want to engage in that kind of debate becuase I thought you were smart enough to realize you were being intellectually dishonest in your analysis. Unfoturnately you weren't.

and again what was your 'real' argument? your list isnt wholistic enough to give a true representation argument or was it something else that you still are too obtuse to elaborate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_return

 

[Bob Sacamano]

so can this thread end now?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I really wouldn't. I don't have to.

And if I did, I would be embarassed if it could be challenged like this one is.



If anyone is chest thumping, it is you. You demanded "love" first, remember?

You have been thin-skinned and defensive this whole thread. And then act wounded when things don't go your way.

i posted it at 1am in a previous post where someone said that IRs sample size was too small. By the next day it quickly went to the wayside.

I posted this thread and now its generated 10+ pages of discussion. Maybe your idea of love is people agreeing with you but I am happy with the discussion in and of itself.

Im in my twenties and I really dont remember alot of those players from the eighties and i see that the lionsshare of the problems you have are from the eighties so it really doesnt bother me. it actually was expected.

there were about 200 people on that list and if it took an hour its not difficult to look as to how much time each player was afforded.


and actualyl it would help if you could go over the WRs because you tried to hammer me on the entire 1000 yard thing but didnt actually say which ones you disagreed with.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Right, because there weren't numerous examples that were easily criticized as was just pointed out to you. I didn't want to engage in that kind of debate becuase I thought you were smart enough to realize you were being intellectually dishonest in your analysis. Unfoturnately you weren't.

Oh how cavalier of you. You could VERY easily stated the two players and it wouldve been done. You can accuse me of trying to be deceptive but that was not intention at all. And it was so easy that it took about 36 hours for someone to say anything about it and when they did they were at least able to say womething consicely. you never were and still arent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_return

And i suppose you completely missed the part of me talking about how 'expected return' was so completely subjective as to make it pointless in discussion as well as being completely onerous to accomplish.

For example it is one thing to say that 'Mike Williams is a bust' but a completely another to say 'what was the expected return of Mike Williams as the second pick as compared to other possibilities at the position.'

Iaddressed that and you never acknowledged it and jsut parrotted it over and over again. Quite frankly Theo i just think your lazy.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the problem is when someone disagreed w/ your work, you invited them to pit their analysis up against your's, personally, I wouldn't have done that if I knew my list was incomplete, cuz like you've just witnessed, Alex just picked it apart, ate it and shart it out on your plate

no that was actually my desire is to do what alex just did. hes a jerk about it but at least he did it. i wanted to compare notes if you will but most of the sheep that posted in this thread for the last day and a half were unable to. You wonder why i have contempt for most people?

Im not one to say im infallible, in fact like i have stated repeatedly i knoew there had to be mistakes on the older guys because im not old enough to remember them.

 

[theogt]

Oh how cavalier of you. You could VERY easily stated the two players and it wouldve been done. You can accuse me of trying to be deceptive but that was not intention at all. And it was so easy that it took about 36 hours for someone to say anything about it and when they did they were at least able to say womething consicely. you never were and still arent.

If that helps you sleep at night.

And i suppose you completely missed the part of me talking about how 'expected return' was so completely subjective as to make it pointless in discussion as well as being completely onerous to accomplish.

For example it is one thing to say that 'Mike Williams is a bust' but a completely another to say 'what was the expected return of Mike Williams as the second pick as compared to other possibilities at the position.'

Iaddressed that and you never acknowledged it and jsut parrotted it over and over again. Quite frankly Theo i just think your lazy.

This is absolutely hilarious for two reasons.

One, you don't understand what expected return is, and two, you criticize it for having the same problem of subjectivity that others are criticizing your original analysis.

You're being mind-bogglingly stubborn, and I supposed it's because you got your feelings hurt.

 

[Alexander]

and actualyl it would help if you could go over the WRs because you tried to hammer me on the entire 1000 yard thing but didnt actually say which ones you disagreed with.

You invited the abuse, but it is clear you probably spent about 30 minutes of your exhaustive one hour on this and then just breezed over the other two so your averages looked better.

WR


Curtis Conway bust
Johnnie Morton boom
Derrick Alexander boom
Michael Westbrook bust
Ike Hilliard boom
Davis Boston bust
Donte Stallworth bust mediocre
Ashley Lelie boom
36 of 73 or 49% busts

I disagree with all of the above.

 

[Alexander]

no that was actually my desire is to do what alex just did. hes a jerk about it but at least he did it.

How else are you supposed to point out an obviously flawed analysis?

Say nice job, but I think it is terrible but I won't talk about it to spare your feelings?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I really wouldn't. I don't have to.

And if I did, I would be embarassed if it could be challenged like this one is.



If anyone is chest thumping, it is you. You demanded "love" first, remember?

You have been thin-skinned and defensive this whole thread. And then act wounded when things don't go your way.

And im not acting wounded im actually embracing the discussion. Be pompous all you want.

Youve come up with several good arguments and i havent cried about it. ive tried to explain as best what i was thinking and am reviewing what you posted. thats not wounded.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How else are you supposed to point out an obviously flawed analysis?

Say nice job, but I think it is terrible but I won't talk about it to spare your feelings?

no. im talking about how youre saying that im whining about it and such. im working on adjusting the op and trying to get more input and you say im whining. thats being a jerk.

and it really would help if you could look the receivers.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

no that was actually my desire is to do what alex just did. hes a jerk about it but at least he did it. i wanted to compare notes if you will but most of the sheep that posted in this thread for the last day and a half were unable to. You wonder why i have contempt for most people?

Im not one to say im infallible, in fact like i have stated repeatedly i knoew there had to be mistakes on the older guys because im not old enough to remember them.

idk, maybe you should have tried being less confrontational

it's like going to a bar, you issue a challenge that every man come and fight you, you beat some up, but then you get your arse handed to you, and you reply, "dude, you didn't have to bash my head on the ground", I don't know, you pretty much opened yourself up for this

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

but why did you make a list and by that list you made, dared people to challenge you? then get angry because you got what you asked for? that's what I don't get

no the only time i actually got mad was when theo kept on saying that the first two players he looked at were wrong and then wouldnt tell me who they were.

that and ignoring my responses to his more 'wholistic' analysis and then saying i never responded. i didnt get mad at hos either but for the most part the others didnt say anything worth a frick.

 

[theogt]

And im not acting wounded im actually embracing the discussion. Be pompous all you want.

Youve come up with several good arguments and i havent cried about it. ive tried to explain as best what i was thinking and am reviewing what you posted. thats not wounded.

Ok. Ending all the pompousness. I would strongly suggest, and this isn't mean in a condescending manner, studying the relationship of risk and expected returns when making financial investments. I think you'll see that the same principles apply in the NFL draft.

 

[Alexander]

And im not acting wounded im actually embracing the discussion. Be pompous all you want.

Youve come up with several good arguments and i havent cried about it. ive tried to explain as best what i was thinking and am reviewing what you posted. thats not wounded.

You haven't?

I am being a "jerk". That's crying.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

idk, maybe you should have tried being less confrontational

im always confrontational. im not changing how i am.

 

[Alexander]

idk, maybe you should have tried being less confrontational

The word is defensive, I believe.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You haven't?

I am being a "jerk". That's crying.

whatever we can go around and around. the point is im not bemoaning your refutation but rather you saying that im crying because frankly im not.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

The word is defensive, I believe.

it was confrontational, and then defensive

 

[Bob Sacamano]

im always confrontational. im not changing how i am.

that's good, just don't complain if you receive the same treatment that belies your attitude

 

[Alexander]

whatever we can go around and around. the point is im not bemoaning your refutation but rather you saying that im crying because frankly im not.

Fair enough.

I gave you the WRs I disagreed with, as you asked.

Any reply?