Peyton Manning or RGIII your choice

[biffle]

Originally Posted by 30gut

biffle, the percentage is the percentage.
You don't get to pick and choose (cherry pick).

Dude, c'mon.
You're inventing a point and making a comparison of your own choosing, then arguing against it.

And I'll repeat it here in case you forgot:
Notice again that my quote doesn't contain the comparisons you claim then argue against.

Statistics will only do you any good if you know how to use them.

Making decisions on what players to acquire based on 'odds' that are calculated by comparing them to completely dissimilar players is a textbook way to misuse them.

People who do things like that are the same people who come back years later and swear that stats are worthless and they can't believe anyone would be dumb enough to listen to them.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by biffle

Making decisions on what players to acquire based on 'odds' that are calculated by comparing them to completely dissimilar players is a textbook way to misuse them.

You know what would be great? If you could actually post/quote where I've compared Griffin to players that are dissimilar to him?
But, I'm sure you won't because I didn't make that comparison you did.

It would be nice to actually discuss the entire content of my post rather than your repeated false claims, especially since you completely gloss over the fact that I actually like Griffin as prospect.

Originally Posted by 30gut

I love Robert Griffin as a prospect.

The question for me is simple:
Do you think Peyton Manning will be back to 100% (or close) by training camp/Sept?

If yes then I don't see why/how anyone would be against singing PM.
You can always draft the next great QB prospect in a later draft, there will be other great QB prospects there always are.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by 30gut

You know what would be great? If you could actually post/quote where I've compared Griffin to players that are dissimilar to him?
But, I'm sure you won't because I didn't make that comparison you did.

It would be nice to actually discuss the entire content of my post rather than your repeated false claims, especially since you completely gloss over the fact that I actually like Griffin as prospect.

When you use the percentage of first round QBs who have worked out, you are using all of them, including Russell and Leaf, whom I used as examples of prospects who drag down that percentage.

Is that really so far beyond your ability to comprehend?

[biffle]

Originally Posted by 30gut

You know what would be great? If you could actually post/quote where I've compared Griffin to players that are dissimilar to him?
But, I'm sure you won't because I didn't make that comparison you did.

It would be nice to actually discuss the entire content of my post rather than your repeated false claims, especially since you completely gloss over the fact that I actually like Griffin as prospect.

When you use the percentage of first round QBs who have worked out, you are using all of them, including Russell and Leaf, whom I used as examples of prospects who drag down that percentage.

Is that really so far beyond your ability to comprehend?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by biffle

When you use the percentage of first round QBs who have worked out, you are using all of them, including Russell and Leaf, whom I used as examples of prospects who drag down that percentage.

Is that really so far beyond your ability to comprehend?

Irrelevant point because the fact that they are high first round picks supersedes any perceived differences between Griffin and some more notable busts from that group.

NFL types, despite concerns about character makeup, valued Russell and Leaf as top picks. If Griffin gets valued as a top pick, it is because NFL types feel similarly about him.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Irrelevant point because the fact that they are high first round picks supersedes any perceived differences between Griffin and some more notable busts from that group.

NFL types, despite concerns about character makeup, valued Russell and Leaf as top picks. If Griffin gets valued as a top pick, it is because NFL types feel similarly about him.

Actually, Griffin will be drafted so high precisely because NFL teams don't listen to anything as silly as these percentages. Because they don't think Griffin has anything in common with the likes of Russell and Leaf.

This is how statistical analysis changed baseball. Teams figured out how to compare players by production and body type, among other things. They used that to project how players would produce in the future. Teams won titles by understanding how to use stats in context like that. What they didn't do was use something as laughably simplistic as "x percentage of players at y position don't work out."

[30gut]

Originally Posted by biffle

What they didn't do was use something as laughably simplistic as "x percentage of players at y position don't work out."

Citing the hit rate is much different then saying prospect X will fail because of the hit rate.

You understand that right?

[biffle]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Citing the hit rate is much different then saying prospect X will fail because of the hit rate.

You understand that right?

LOL. Really not worth my time to continue with you. Have a good night.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by biffle

Actually, Griffin will be drafted so high precisely because NFL teams don't listen to anything as silly as these percentages. Because they don't think Griffin has anything in common with the likes of Russell and Leaf.

This is how statistical analysis changed baseball. Teams figured out how to compare players by production and body type, among other things. They used that to project how players would produce in the future. Teams won titles by understanding how to use stats in context like that. What they didn't do was use something as laughably simplistic as "x percentage of players at y position don't work out."

Well, sure, there are a hundred ways to project Robert Griffin to the NFL better than historical bust rates, but that doesn't make your prior point any less irrelevant.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, sure, there are a hundred ways to project Robert Griffin to the NFL better than historical bust rates, but that doesn't make your prior point any less irrelevant.

My point was simply you can't assign some percentage chance of success on any player because of what other, completely different, players did. Both history and common sense should tell us that. I'm not sure how that is "irrelevant".

[30gut]

Originally Posted by biffle

When you use the percentage of first round QBs who have worked out, you are using all of them, including Russell and Leaf, whom I used as examples of prospects who drag down that percentage.

Is that really so far beyond your ability to comprehend?

C'mon that's where you're gonna go with this?

For someone who suggests that others don't understand stats why is it hard for you to comprehend that when you look at a stat for an entire group you don't get to discard or exclude any subjects based on your whim?

By your logic the hit rate for all prospects at any position should be sorted to include only the prospects that 'biffle' thinks are similar.
Unfortunately that's not how it works and historically the success rate is right around 50/50 its even lower when using the 'franchise' QB or 'elite' QB label as the measure of success. or

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Numbers are what they are. Since 1998 (till 2009), there is a 41% success chance of landing a very good QB in the top 5 of the NFL draft.

Griffin or Luck chances at becoming a successful draft pick are still the same. They still have a 41% chance.

And the larger point, which is lost on you, is that Peyton Manning has already proven himself to be what we hope Griffin will become.