View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:57 am



Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 Too Many Green Bay "Free Plays" Are Gifts from the Officials 
Author Message
Franchise Player
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:48 pm
Posts: 430
Location: St. Paul
Post Re: Too Many Green Bay "Free Plays" Are Gifts from the Offic
Jordysghost wrote:
I wasn't asserting that the call was 'never' called correctly, only that it is inconsistent throughout the NFL....

Silly me—I thought the statements "around the league it is almost NEVER called that way" and "this has been going on throughout the league for years and hasn't been called the way the rulebook says" actually meant what those words mean. In fact they mean "only that it is inconsistent throughout the NFL"? That's rather strange, given that the latter claim appears to be communicating something entirely different.

Quote:
Cherry picking calls from a 2 week sample size means nothing.

Really? Because I think looking at two whole games played in the same week and finding the very thing that you claimed "almost NEVER" happens (again, silly me, presuming that the words you used mean what those words mean) actually happened in BOTH of them is in fact a rather cogent disproof of the propositions that (1) "around the league it is almost NEVER called that way" and (2) "this has been going on throughout the league for years and hasn't been called the way the rulebook says." If the mistake I pointed out in the OP is so ordinary and subject to happening all the time, how come it was so incredibly easy for me to find two games in which the rule was applied correctly?

"Sample size" and "cherry-picking" are notably weak rejoinders to (ISTM rather successful) attempts to refute the actual assertions you made, as opposed to the weak one you retreated to later.

Quote:
you are just a fan with an agenda...

As I believe I've already pointed out, so are you. Who's "cherry-picking" now?

Quote:
...trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill to discredit a rivals accomplishments.

And I think I've already noted (as did Pete Carroll before me) that 130 yards and a touchdown in three plays (that crucially contributed to two wins) is hardly a "mole hill" (sic).

Quote:
you need to both examine the calls and non calls over a larger sample size, prefferably something over two weeks, and also examine a larger number of franchises....

As I told Mothman—if I get time to do that, I'll give it a shot. With GamePass, I think I might even be able to go over all of the games played through Weeks 1-3.

I'd like to know, though, what I can expect from you if I do that. Presuming that I find, as I think is likely, that the three missed calls in Lambeau are the only times that this particular rule has been ignored in 2015, will you still claim "cherry-picking"? Or are you in fact capable of coming to the conclusion that the Packers have enjoyed unfairly favorable treatment, to their very substantial benefit, from the officials?


Thu Oct 01, 2015 10:09 am
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Too Many Green Bay "Free Plays" Are Gifts from the Offic
As I said 'Almost' never, which granted is a rather excessive exaggeration, still, nevsr stated that they point blank never are called.

You can call my comments about your cherry picked stats whatever you want, the fact is that 2 weeks is an absurdly small sample size to base your conspiracy theories, do you know how many silly conclusions throught out the league you could come to based off of 2 weeks, let alone two games?

Until you examine the number of both correct calls vs the number of incorrect non calls as well throughout the league your examples mean nothing, again I would love to see how many other teams benefit from these 'gifts from the officials', not just throughout your absurdly small sample size, but over, you know, a real, credible sample size to draw conclusions from. You have a point about me saying it is almost never called that way, that was an exaggeration I grant you that I should have said simply the fact of the matter, that it is an inconsistently called rule among many others.

But again, and I cant stress this enough, basing a pro Packer conspiracy around two weeks of football is absolutely, and quite obviously, ludicrous, let alone 3 ganes of football, that is a joke.

Even regarding the 2 weeks of Football that you oddly feel represents the MO of the NFL, id be really surprised if you didnt miss some non calls, but I cant say for certain unless i research for myself, how do you plan to examine this issue through gamepass btw? Are you you really going to sit through entire games looking for offsides penalties or is there an easier alternative then that? Seriously asking, cause im honestly interested in joining your research into this issue.

As to me being a fan with an agenda, while I am definitely a fan with a clear cut fan allegiance, like yourself, I did not betray my own objectivity by making some immature comment about how you guys hold everytime your QB scrambles.

Btw, that score probably wasnt 'crucial' in that Chiefs game, we most likely score regardless and even if we dont, the lost by 10 and that is including a garbage time TD in which we played prevent causing a 17 minute TD drive by the Chiefs.

Honestly dude, if you were to prove that the amount of non calls on the Packers was not porportionate to the amount of non calls/calls for or against other teams in the league over a sample size that could be reasonably believed to be adequate to prove referential bias, I would give you props. But that wont happen, because all we have here is an inconsistently called rule like many others, and sometimes it helps you, and sometimes it doesnt. I will grant the the Packers would have the most oppurtunities to benefit from the inconsistency of said issue, being that Rodgers is the best in the league at getting guys to jump, but that would still make it what it is, an inconsistently called rule, not some absurd Packers conspiracy. :lol:


Unfavorable treatment? Like the fail mary? Or like when the Vikings were let off the hook for tampering? See, told you you only want to talk about favorable treatment from the officials if it was to the benefit of the Packers. :wink:

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Thu Oct 01, 2015 10:56 am
Profile
Franchise Player
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:48 pm
Posts: 430
Location: St. Paul
Post Re: Too Many Green Bay "Free Plays" Are Gifts from the Offic
I notice you didn't answer my closing question. You can cast all the aspersions you'd like, but I'm interested to know what you are and are not willing to conclude based on the results of this research.

But fine—here we go. I'll go through all 48 regular-season games that have been played thus far this year.

I'm looking for all of the what one could call "hands on hips" penalties, whether declined or accepted: offsides, neutral zone infraction, and encroachment. There are some minor technical sillinesses with that. First, encroachment, by its nature, is irrelevant to this issue, because if and when it's called correctly, it's neither here nor there for the application of the rule we're talking about: encroachment means that the officials caught a defensive player offsides and stopped the play—but they did so because the offside defender made contact with an opponent, not because an offensive player false-started. So a properly called encroachment penalty is neither an example of the rule in question being applied correctly or being ignored. I'm still going to track encroachment, though, because it's just possible that a referee would incorrectly give that name to what he really should call offsides or NZI.

Second, for our current purposes neutral zone infraction is almost the exact opposite of encroachment: when it is called correctly, it is guaranteed to be the rule we're discussing being applied properly. NZI, in so many words, means that a defensive player entered the neutral zone, causing an offensive player to false-start. I suppose an official could call NZI without stopping play, but that strikes me as exceedingly unlikely. (That's because, ahem, the officials know this rule.)

Anyway. With that method, here are the first four games of Week 1:

--

Week 1
PIT at NE
No "hands on hips" penalties called.

GB at Chi
(...Oh, Jordy, you're not going to like this...)
2Q - 9:34 - GB #37 S. Shields called offside on FG attempt - no false start, free play given (properly)
2Q - 6:15 - Chi #97 W. Young called offside - no false start, free play given (properly)
4Q - 10:38 - Chi #69 J. Allen called offside - no false start, free play given (properly)
4Q - 3:02 - Chi #97 W. Young called offside - GB #75 B. Bulaga false starts, points at Young, play NOT stopped, free play given (improperly)

KC at Hou
1Q - 15:00 - Hou #75 V. Wilfork called offside - no false start, free play given (properly)
3Q - 9:51 - Hou #25 K. Jackson called offside - no false start, free play given (properly)

Cle at NYJ
2Q - 15:00 - Cle #99 P. Kruger called for NZI - RT false starts, play stopped (properly), referee J. Boger gives nice explanation of rule
4Q - 15:00 - NYJ #98 Q. Coples called for NZI - LT false starts, play stopped (properly)

--

Sooo... the sample size is now nine games (the four above, the Packer games against Seattle and Kansas City, the Vikings-Chargers and Browns-Raiders tilts, and I also looked through the Week 3 Cowboys-Falcons game and found no relevant penalties), and so far:

The rule has been applied incorrectly four times, and every single one has been for the Packers; and
The rule has been applied correctly four times, to the detriment of the Vikings once, the Jets once, and the Browns twice.

I watched the Packers-Bears Week 1 game live, and I hadn't remembered the Young/Bulaga miss; on review, that's pretty clearly because the Packers weren't able to capitalize on it. Given yet another wrongful free play (actually, this was the first in the burgeoning series this season, but never mind), Rodgers attempted a bomb to Cobb, but it fell incomplete.

Are you enjoying this so far? Next up are Week 1's Ind at Buf, Mia at Was, Car at Jax, and Sea at StL.


Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:40 am
Profile
Franchise Player
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:48 pm
Posts: 430
Location: St. Paul
Post Re: Too Many Green Bay "Free Plays" Are Gifts from the Offic
Not much action in the second four:

--

Week 1
Ind at Buf
(N.B. regarding Mothman's prior question about officiating staffs: this game was refereed by John Parry, who also officiated the Week 3 contest between Green Bay and Kansas City.)
2Q - 6:57 - Buf #55 J. Hughes called offside - no false start but play stopped for unabated to the quarterback

Mia at Was
1Q - 4:19 - Mia #91 C. Wake called offside - no false start, free play given (properly)

Car at Jax
No 'hands on hips" penalties called.

Sea at StL
1Q - 12:25 - StL #97 E. Sims called offside - no false start, free play given (properly)
2Q - 11:10 - Sea #72 M. Bennett called offside (lined up in NZ) - no false start, free play given (properly)

[Edited to add the note about the referee in the Colts-Bills game]


Last edited by Rieux on Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:03 pm
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Too Many Green Bay "Free Plays" Are Gifts from the Offic
You really, really have a hard time getting the whole a couple weeks is an inadequate sample size do you? :lol:

Ill have to look at the plays myself to see if you are being ticky tacky or not, aside from the fact that you can very easily be overlooking certain calls/non calls to fit your agenda, but if what you just posted is true then I will admit that in recent weeks the inconsistency has benefitted us more then it has benefited other teams, as I already have. Again, the sample size is still far to small to draw any silly conspiracy conclusions. I really dont understand why you arent grasping that.

Im going to have to look over the plays in question as well, as you are hardly the authority on what constitutes offensive presnap movement.

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:17 pm
Profile
Franchise Player
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:48 pm
Posts: 430
Location: St. Paul
Post Re: Too Many Green Bay "Free Plays" Are Gifts from the Offic
Jordysghost wrote:
You really, really have a hard time getting the whole a couple weeks is an inadequate sample size do you?

Goodness—could there possibly be such a thing as an adequate sample size in your eyes? I perform exactly he examination you taunted me to perform, and you still claim inadequate sample? Your position seems to be impenetrable to evidence.

Quote:
Ill have to look at the plays myself to see if you are being ticky tacky or not....

Be my guest.

Quote:
if what you just posted is true then I will admit that in recent weeks the inconsistency has benefitted us more then it has benefited other teams, as I already have.

Swell! I seem to be making progress.

The third four games are slightly more interesting than the second:

--

Week 1
NO at Ari
Q1 - 6:08 - Ari #57 A. Okafor called offside - no false start, free play given (properly)

Det at SD
Q2 - 5:37 - Det #93 T. Walker called for encroachment - play stopped
Q2 - 2:00 - Det #91 J. Jones called for NZI - LG false starts, play stopped (properly)

Ten at TB
Q1 - 8:50 - TB #51 D. Lansanah called for NZI - LT & RG false start, play stopped (properly)
Q4 - 11:01 - Ten #91 D. Morgan called for NZI - RT false starts, play stopped (properly)

Cin at Oak
Q2 - 2:47 - Cin #33 R. Burkhead called for offsides on a kickoff - not relevant to the issue we're discussing here, but it is a "hands on hips" penalty so I'm mentioning it

--

The running total is now four free plays wrongfully given to the Packers and seven free plays correctly denied the Browns (2), Vikings (1), Jets (1), Chargers (1), Titans (1), and Buccaneers (1).

(Time for a lunch break.)


Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:34 pm
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Too Many Green Bay "Free Plays" Are Gifts from the Offic
I certainly will, thank you.

Oh and, I said right off the bat a 2 weeks of Football is an inadequate sample size, it should be obvious that 3 weeks of football isnt much better, now extrapolate that over a season or two, then we might have something when it comes to your silly pro Packers conspiracy theorys. Till then, for the millionth time in this thread, a few weeks of football does not make a conspiracy, thats even assuming you arent nitpicking calls and are an accurate judge of offensive presnap movement.

BTW, I already said earlier that I agree that the Pack have benefited from the inconsistancy of the call in recent weeks, your not making the progress you keep telling yourself you are. :lol: I keep saying that your sample size is to small to give full context, and you keep giving me a similar sample size, you expanded by a week, when will the madness end?

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:51 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3225
Post Re: Too Many Green Bay "Free Plays" Are Gifts from the Offic
PurpleMustReign wrote:
Meh... this isn't winning games for GB. Charles Woodson definitely got some breaks in the past, but he was a very good CB at the same time.
The fact is, Aaron Rodgers is the best QB that has ever played. His numbers will eventually make every other QB look silly. If he wins a couple more Super Bowls, there will literally be no argument for any other player in the history of the league.


Really not possible to say with the rule changes. Most of the todays "greatest" QBs would have been physically beaten out of the game in preceding decades. Who knows which ones would have had the physical toughness and durability to combine with their otherwise great QB play.

Which QBs playing today have the toughness of even the 80s and 90s passers… an Aikman, an Elway, etc. These guys were hit hard, often, to the head, to the legs to the body…were thrown down after they released the ball, planted into the ground…defenders were given two steps after the ball was released to lay the most vicious hit they possibly could on the QB, and flags weren't being thrown to protect them.

We honestly have no idea how Rodgers, or Brady, or Brees, etc would have held up against this kind of punishment, but it was a prerequisite of being a great NFL QB. Its much easier to find guys with the arm and the brain, when you simply remove the toughness prerequisite. Its not coincidence we are living in the "era of the QB".


Last edited by fiestavike on Thu Oct 01, 2015 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Oct 01, 2015 2:01 pm
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Too Many Green Bay "Free Plays" Are Gifts from the Offic
fiestavike wrote:
PurpleMustReign wrote:
Meh... this isn't winning games for GB. Charles Woodson definitely got some breaks in the past, but he was a very good CB at the same time.
The fact is, Aaron Rodgers is the best QB that has ever played. His numbers will eventually make every other QB look silly. If he wins a couple more Super Bowls, there will literally be no argument for any other player in the history of the league.


Really not possible to say with the rule changes. Most of the todays "greatest" QBs would have been physically beaten out of the game in preceding decades. Who knows which ones would have had the physical toughness and durability to combine with their otherwise great QB play.

Which QBs playing today have the toughness of even the 80s and 90s passers… an Aikman, an Elway, etc. These guys were hit hard, often, to the head, to the legs to the body…were thrown down after they released the ball, planted into the ground…defenders were given two steps after the ball was released to lay the most vicious hit they possibly could on the QB, and flags weren't being thrown to protect them.

We honestly have no idea how Rodgers, or Brady, or Brees, etc would have held up against this kind of punishment, but it was a prerequisite of being a great NFL QB. Its much easier to find guys with the arm and the brain, when you simply remove the toughness prerequisite. Its not coincidence we are living in the "era of the QB".


Great point, but to be fair, Rodgers Offensive Lines let him take pretty much as hard of a beating as he could take in the modern era of football, that is up until about week 5 of last year when they finally stopped sucking and became a formidable unit.

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Thu Oct 01, 2015 2:06 pm
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Too Many Green Bay "Free Plays" Are Gifts from the Offic
Also, looking back at the first free play TD of the season for Rodgers and Jones against the Bears, the only example i have taken another look at so far, Bahktiari moved and pointed, but he did so either with the snap or shortly there after, it certainly wasnt before. As I suspected, close judgement calls are probably going to be chalked up as non calls either way by Rieux. :roll:

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Thu Oct 01, 2015 2:49 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:56 am
Posts: 5605
Post Re: Too Many Green Bay "Free Plays" Are Gifts from the Offic
fiestavike wrote:
PurpleMustReign wrote:
Meh... this isn't winning games for GB. Charles Woodson definitely got some breaks in the past, but he was a very good CB at the same time.
The fact is, Aaron Rodgers is the best QB that has ever played. His numbers will eventually make every other QB look silly. If he wins a couple more Super Bowls, there will literally be no argument for any other player in the history of the league.


Really not possible to say with the rule changes. Most of the todays "greatest" QBs would have been physically beaten out of the game in preceding decades. Who knows which ones would have had the physical toughness and durability to combine with their otherwise great QB play.

Which QBs playing today have the toughness of even the 80s and 90s passers… an Aikman, an Elway, etc. These guys were hit hard, often, to the head, to the legs to the body…were thrown down after they released the ball, planted into the ground…defenders were given two steps after the ball was released to lay the most vicious hit they possibly could on the QB, and flags weren't being thrown to protect them.

We honestly have no idea how Rodgers, or Brady, or Brees, etc would have held up against this kind of punishment, but it was a prerequisite of being a great NFL QB. Its much easier to find guys with the arm and the brain, when you simply remove the toughness prerequisite. Its not coincidence we are living in the "era of the QB".


Not to mention in my 2 decades or so of watching football, almost every rule change seems to be to the benefit of QBs, offensive linemen and the receiving corps and to the detriment of defenders. This reminds me of home run friendly expansion team stadiums and the wink-wink that baseball did on amphetamines, steroids and IGF-1/HGH to create the Homer Era.


Thu Oct 01, 2015 2:51 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:56 am
Posts: 5605
Post Re: Too Many Green Bay "Free Plays" Are Gifts from the Offic
I simply don't understand people's incredulity that teams that are big money makers with marketable players, especially players in a passing offense, would get preferential treatment from the league. The NFL ain't no charity. They made over 7 billion dollars last year. Is it any surprise that calls are made "properly" when it concerns small market teams with so-so passing games at best and no marketable mystiques like Cleveland and Minnesota but all the whoopsie daisies and unenforced rules seem to benefit people like Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers?


Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:02 pm
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Too Many Green Bay "Free Plays" Are Gifts from the Offic
Hunter Morrow wrote:
I simply don't understand people's incredulity that teams that are big money makers with marketable players, especially players in a passing offense, would get preferential treatment from the league. The NFL ain't no charity. They made over 7 billion dollars last year. Is it any surprise that calls are made "properly" when it concerns small market teams with so-so passing games at best and no marketable mystiques like Cleveland and Minnesota but all the whoopsie daisies and unenforced rules seem to benefit people like Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers?


The second half of your post is nothing other then your opinion, many dont see those unenforced rules and whoopsie daisies that you vehemently insist be there. I find it hard to believe that people dont notice how the top dog in the division is almost always without fail accused of rival fans of being some sort of favirote.

As to the whole big market team thing, yea man, when the league gave the Vikings a free pass at there indisputable tampering or allowed the fail mary to happen they were just wearing their Packers love on their sleeve. I could give you several example of calls going against Rodgers and the Packers, but you would most likely cover your ears and say lalalalala.

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:07 pm
Profile
Franchise Player
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:48 pm
Posts: 430
Location: St. Paul
Post Re: Too Many Green Bay "Free Plays" Are Gifts from the Offic
Finishing up Week 1:

--

Bal at Den
(N.B. especially for Mothman: The referee in this one was Gene Steratore, who also called the Packers-Seahawks game in Week 3.)
Q1 - 9:29 - Bal #98 B. Williams called for encroachment - play stopped
Q1 - 13:33 - Bal #58 E. Dumervil called for NZI - TE false starts, play stopped (properly)

NYG at Dal
Q4 - 2:00 - Dal #90 D. Lawrence called offside - no false start, free play given (properly)

Phi at Atl
Q4 - 4:37 - Atl #44 V. Beasley called offside - no false start, free play given (properly)

Min at SF
Q1 - 9:34 - Min #97 E. Griffen called for NZI - LT false starts, play stopped (properly)

--

So, with twenty-one games now in the books (16 Week 1 + 1 Week 2 + 4 Week 3), the totals are 4 missed NZI calls, all benefiting Green Bay, and nine proper NZI calls, to the detriment of Cleveland (x 2), Minnesota, the Jets, San Diego, Tennessee, Tampa Bay, Denver, and San Francisco. Week 1 also involved two encroachments and fourteen offsides calls (not counting Cincinnati's flag on a kickoff). Of the fourteen, only the Young-Bulaga incident in Chicago resulted in an improper free play. The trend is, shall we say, notable.

Jordysghost wrote:
Oh and, I said right off the bat a 2 weeks of Football is an inadequate sample size, it should be obvious that 3 weeks of football isnt much better, now extrapolate that over a season or two, then we might have something when it comes to your silly pro Packers conspiracy theorys.

"A season or two"?! So the Packers continually and consistently benefiting from missed NZI calls is "inadequate" unless they're compared to hundreds of games? Then you're not serious. You're just setting the bar at whatever place will make the hypothesis impossible to test. (Or—one hopes—the place at which League officiating staff will notice the problem and browbeat field officials into actually making the Packers play by the rules, at which point the trend will finally disappear.)

Then, I have said nothing about "conspiracy theorys" (sic). I see no need for an intentional conspiracy. There is merely a very consistent tendency to ignore the rule when a certain team (I thought it was only "in a certain stadium," but Young and Bulaga disproved that notion in Chicago) is in position to get a whizbang-wow-isn't-this-cool free play.

Quote:
BTW, I already said earlier that I agree that the Pack have benefited from the inconsistancy of the call in recent weeks[.]

That's cute. It must be nice to have your favorite team be the only one in the league that continually "benefits from" a particular convenient "inconsistancy" (sic).

--

Jordy has, I think, made it clear that no evidence will be sufficient to convince him that the Packers get any kind of consistent inappropriate treatment until the number of games examined is approximately ( x + 1 ), where x is the number of games that any person present is actually willing to examine. I'm wondering—is anyone else interested in seeing this research project reach week 3 (or 4), or should I just bag it?


Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:11 pm
Profile
Franchise Player
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:48 pm
Posts: 430
Location: St. Paul
Post Re: Too Many Green Bay "Free Plays" Are Gifts from the Offic
Hunter Morrow wrote:
Is it any surprise that calls are made "properly" when it concerns small market teams with so-so passing games at best and no marketable mystiques like Cleveland and Minnesota but all the whoopsie daisies and unenforced rules seem to benefit people like Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers?

I think this goes a little overboard with the implication of intentional rule-bending (which is not to say the implication is self-evidently wrong; Cam Newton's statement about what Ed Hochuli said to him has some ugly implications here). Still, it's a little hard to ignore (1) the "Ooh, wow, he got the defense to jump again—let's see what happens this time!" effect when the reigning MVP (as opposed to a schlub like Josh McCown) succeeds with a hard count, especially in his home stadium; and (2) the rather telling evidence I've been compiling from this season.

These things have happened; explanation is secondary.


Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:26 pm
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Too Many Green Bay "Free Plays" Are Gifts from the Offic
How could you not be expected to extrapolate the numbers over a season or two? if you wanted to make a point about the Packers being a receiptiant of some notable trend of calls, that would be the only way you could really gain full context, 3 weeks of football is just part context and happenstance at this point. The amount of wild conjecture and conclusions that could be drawn after 3 weeks of football are quite vast. But a 3 week sample size is going to give you a hard time convincing anyone that the Packers are on the winning end of your conspiracy theorys.

Also, if your judgement of presnap movement is consistent with that of the Bahktiari Jones free play, then as I suspected your numbers would be a bit off, again, any judgement call on the matter, you are likely to just chalk up as a non call to fit your agenda, just as I stated earlier in the thread, and just as your particularly bias assessment of that play would imply.


Lol so because i need to see more then your cherry picking and bias assessments from a tiny sample size, that means no evidence will be sufficient? :lol: I think the reason you are so resistant to basing your theories over a reasonable sample size, is because you know its likely not going to support your silly rationalizations.

As to your 'must be nice comment', well ill just say that it must be nice to have the NFL look the other way on admited tampering scandals. :wink:

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:29 pm
Profile
Franchise Player
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:48 pm
Posts: 430
Location: St. Paul
Post Re: Too Many Green Bay "Free Plays" Are Gifts from the Offic
Jordysghost wrote:
How could you not be expected to extrapolate the numbers over a season or two? if you wanted to make a point about the Packers being a receiptiant of some notable trend of calls, that would be the only way you could really gain full context 3 weeks of football is just part context and happenstance at this point.

That's ridiculous. Where are you getting this "season or two" bit other than from your ear? The convenient attempt to set a sufficient sample size at whatever amount of data your opponents can't possibly analyze is simply laughable.

Barring byes, there are sixteen games a week in the NFL. Three weeks is forty-eight games—thousands of snaps, on which defenders will be caught offsides well over a hundred times. Given a trend as stark as the one this season has yielded, the notion that that shows nothing is just nonsensical.

Quote:
The amount of wild conjecture and conclusions that could be drawn after 3 weeks of football are quite vast.

Three weeks multiplied by the entire league—every snap, every play, 48 games? No. That's ridiculous.

Quote:
But a 3 week sample size is going to give you a hard time convincing anyone that the Packers are on the winning end of your conspiracy theorys.

There you are pretending I'm pushing "conspiracy theorys" (still sic...) again. Really not sure where you're getting that from.

And as far as "convincing anyone," I'm not sure that the (ahem) sample size of a single partisan Packers fan is terribly good evidence there.


Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:47 pm
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Too Many Green Bay "Free Plays" Are Gifts from the Offic
Rieux wrote:
Jordysghost wrote:
How could you not be expected to extrapolate the numbers over a season or two? if you wanted to make a point about the Packers being a receiptiant of some notable trend of calls, that would be the only way you could really gain full context 3 weeks of football is just part context and happenstance at this point.

That's ridiculous. Where are you getting this "season or two" bit other than from your ear? The convenient attempt to set a sufficient sample size at whatever amount of data your opponents can't possibly analyze is simply laughable.

Barring byes, there are sixteen games a week in the NFL. Three weeks is forty-eight games—thousands of snaps, on which defenders will be caught offsides well over a hundred times. Given a trend as stark as the one this season has yielded, the notion that that shows nothing is just nonsensical.

Quote:
The amount of wild conjecture and conclusions that could be drawn after 3 weeks of football are quite vast.

Three weeks multiplied by the entire league—every snap, every play, 48 games? No. That's ridiculous.

Quote:
But a 3 week sample size is going to give you a hard time convincing anyone that the Packers are on the winning end of your conspiracy theorys.

There you are pretending I'm pushing "conspiracy theorys" (still sic...) again. Really not sure where you're getting that from.

And as far as "convincing anyone," I'm not sure that the (ahem) sample size of a single partisan Packers fan is terribly good evidence there.


Trends rise and fall on a week to week basis in the NFL, are you truly trying to claim otherwise? Many trend arise, many fall, but until you look back on it throughout the entirety of the season (an entire sample size), you dont know how long or how far a trend or pattern will go, if the Packers were to have a sharp decline in free plays that werent blown down, would that not change the current trend or pattern? Of course it would, and you know that, and that is a big reason why you are so adamant that such a small sample size be treated as undeniable evidence of favirotism, Because again, no matter how much you dislike it, you are not giving full context, just bias speculation and happenstance.

It doesn't matter what statistics you personally think to be difficult to attain, that is completely irrelevant, the problem is that you are drawing conclusions to howa book plays out based on a little less then a third of the pages. Again, patterns and trends rise and fall, and no matter how much you dislike that it doesnt fit your MO, none of it matters until full, or close to full context is given.

There are many things between now and week 16 that could change current trend or pattern, this is an undeniable fact, and yet, you seem to be denying it.

BTW, this is also assuming your assessments were measured objectively, and correctly, which, very in doubt.

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:54 pm
Profile
Franchise Player
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:48 pm
Posts: 430
Location: St. Paul
Post Re: Too Many Green Bay "Free Plays" Are Gifts from the Offic
Jordysghost wrote:
Trends rise and fall on a week to week basis in the NFL...

And on a season-to-season basis, too. Thus your demand that nothing means anything until your opponent can pile up somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 games' worth of analysis (oh, and even that's probably no good because "your assessments probably weren't measured objectively'—the pot-kettle-black factor here is overwhelming) is arbitrary nonsense you're concocting for purposes that have nothing to do with separating fact from fiction.

The point of collecting a sufficient quantity of data is to reduce the likelihood that the effect being observed is actually mere statistical noise. That has nothing to do with "trends" that "rise and fall"—which, as I just noted, is a truism about any phenomenon across any time span. Your "sample size too small!" argument has no actual connection to any particular quantity, so it works just as well to discount 500 games of data as it does 50. A partisan bound and determined to deny the reality staring him right in the face can always deny that it's real and claim it's necessary to wait for more data to come in—and that's what you're doing.

Quote:
until you look back on it throughout the entirety of the season (an entire sample size), you dont know how long or how far a trend or pattern will go

What is it about a season that has some kind of mystical sample-size value? Plenty of (be still my beating heart) trends only last for a season or two. Maybe officials will totally refuse to call any penalties on visiting teams to Lambeau during the 2016 season; who knows?

In the real world, calling something a "trend" doesn't actually demonstrate that (1) it's not real or (2) it's just statistical noise.

Quote:
if the Packers were to have a sharp decline in free plays that werent blown down, would that not change the current trend or pattern?

Uh, sure. But by that logic, it is flatly impossible to prove that any "trend" whatsoever is real. Everything is subject to a "sharp decline." Your argument is absurd sophistry.


Thu Oct 01, 2015 5:11 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:23 pm
Posts: 3037
Location: Sebastian, FL
Post Re: Too Many Green Bay "Free Plays" Are Gifts from the Offic
Rieux wrote:
Jordy has, I think, made it clear that no evidence will be sufficient to convince him that the Packers get any kind of consistent inappropriate treatment until the number of games examined is approximately ( x + 1 ), where x is the number of games that any person present is actually willing to examine. I'm wondering—is anyone else interested in seeing this research project reach week 3 (or 4), or should I just bag it?

I was actually thinking of doing this myself until I saw you start it. This is a trend I have seen for several years. And for some reason mostly with Rodgers. Sometime with Manning and Brady.

_________________
This space for rent.


Thu Oct 01, 2015 6:25 pm
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Too Many Green Bay "Free Plays" Are Gifts from the Offic
Rieux wrote:
Jordysghost wrote:
Trends rise and fall on a week to week basis in the NFL...

And on a season-to-season basis, too. Thus your demand that nothing means anything until your opponent can pile up somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 games' worth of analysis (oh, and even that's probably no good because "your assessments probably weren't measured objectively'—the pot-kettle-black factor here is overwhelming) is arbitrary nonsense you're concocting for purposes that have nothing to do with separating fact from fiction.

The point of collecting a sufficient quantity of data is to reduce the likelihood that the effect being observed is actually mere statistical noise. That has nothing to do with "trends" that "rise and fall"—which, as I just noted, is a truism about any phenomenon across any time span. Your "sample size too small!" argument has no actual connection to any particular quantity, so it works just as well to discount 500 games of data as it does 50. A partisan bound and determined to deny the reality staring him right in the face can always deny that it's real and claim it's necessary to wait for more data to come in—and that's what you're doing.

Quote:
until you look back on it throughout the entirety of the season (an entire sample size), you dont know how long or how far a trend or pattern will go

What is it about a season that has some kind of mystical sample-size value? Plenty of (be still my beating heart) trends only last for a season or two. Maybe officials will totally refuse to call any penalties on visiting teams to Lambeau during the 2016 season; who knows?

In the real world, calling something a "trend" doesn't actually demonstrate that (1) it's not real or (2) it's just statistical noise.

Quote:
if the Packers were to have a sharp decline in free plays that werent blown down, would that not change the current trend or pattern?

Uh, sure. But by that logic, it is flatly impossible to prove that any "trend" whatsoever is real. Everything is subject to a "sharp decline." Your argument is absurd sophistry.


I had initially typed up another post disputing the points you made, and I respectfully but vehemently disagree with you for a variety of reasons, but honestly dude, I think this debate has topped out. I can see that this really isnt going anywhere, so unless your really dying to hear my counter argument to your above post, im dropping out of this conversation. I guess this is one of those situations where we will agree to disagree.

With all that said, I appreciate the discussion. :thumbsup:

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Sat Oct 03, 2015 6:18 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.