|
What competent football writer could see 2.9 OPIs per game and say "yep, that's reasonable"? Even without compiling any stats that number should look way off.
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:48 |
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:What competent football writer could see 2.9 OPIs per game and say "yep, that's reasonable"? Even without compiling any stats that number should look way off. Pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:What competent football writer could see 2.9 OPIs per game and say "yep, that's reasonable"? Even without compiling any stats that number should look way off. He's a guy who's part of ESPN's divisional blogs, which includes such greats as noted dumbass Paul Kuharsky
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:What competent football writer could see 2.9 OPIs per game and say "yep, that's reasonable"? Even without compiling any stats that number should look way off. On top of that, he quotes a player as having the most OPIs as having only 3 OPIs total. That would mean, for 2.9 OPIs a game to be accurate you'd need at least 300~ players with 2 OPIs each, so Kenny Britt could be the champion of shoving off. Let's say each team has on average about 8 eligible receiving targets. 4-5 WRs, 1-2 TEs, 1-2 RBs/FBs. That's 256 total receiving targets that could possibly commit OPI. I guess ol' Kevin was in a rush to get that article out or something because  The weird thing is that Seifert usually is okay - not great or even really all that insightful, but not bad. I read his blog since it's an useful aggregrator of NFC North news.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
Seifert has since edited the post to read: "Offensive pass interference calls aren't as rare as you might think. Through Week 14, officials had called a total of 72. Still, that's an avearge of about one for every three games this season."
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
He's sticking to his guns that that's not rare huh. Admirable
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
Ham is having a freakout over the horrendous reporting in this article. Just look at the sourcing, especially compared to the bald assertion in the headline.quote:Still not starting, Tebow feels Jets misled him http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/mike-freeman/21420270/still-not-starting-tebow-feels-jets-misled-him Im told mike Freeman is a fucktard shitlord terrorist who is the worst. He may deny it but I can tell you it's true. I am told
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
Rap posted:Im told mike Freeman is a fucktard shitlord terrorist who is the worst. He may deny it but I can tell you it's true. I am told You can use me as a second source to confirm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 00:00
|
|
|
I can guarantee you anonymity to the point that I won't identify you as a 9ers poster, a TFF poster, a SAS poster, an SA poster, a user of the internet, an adult, or even a human.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
FWIW it was widely believed at the time of the Tebow trade that he was going to be given a fair shot at the job. I would have been stunned to disbelief if you'd told me that not only would Sanchez play this bad and Tebow would never see the field, but that Sanchez would have ultimately ended up ceding the job to McElroy and not Tebow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
For the sake of my own sanity, I always replace the word 'source' with 'horse in sports reporting. It makes things more entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 01:16
|
|
|
The Incredible Ed posted:For the sake of my own sanity, I always replace the word 'source' with 'horse in sports reporting. It makes things more entertaining. Please find a way to cover the Kentucky Derby.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 01:29
|
|
|
Mike Freeman said on Twitter that pundits doubted Cam Newton out of college due to racism. I told him that Newtown was consensus number one pick and that it's crazy to randomly call a bunch of your colleagues racist. He blocked me.  Maybe he's right, but I don't think you can just glibly say something like that on Twitter. If you think it's true, you build a case and write a piece about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the doubts about Cam were more based on the offense he ran in Auburn and the fact that he only had one big year in college, but what the gently caress do I know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 21:49
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:FWIW it was widely believed at the time of the Tebow trade that he was going to be given a fair shot at the job. I would have been stunned to disbelief if you'd told me that not only would Sanchez play this bad and Tebow would never see the field, but that Sanchez would have ultimately ended up ceding the job to McElroy and not Tebow. I don't know why you'd be surprised, Tebow is quite awful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
Nobody click this link for any reason http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/media-awards-2012/?xid=cnnbin ("SI.com 2012 Media Awards")
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
Rap posted:Nobody click this link for any reason Whew. Thanks for the warning- dodged a bullet there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
Rap posted:Nobody click this link for any reason http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/media-awards-2012/?xid=cnnbin ("SI.com 2012 Media Awards") Yeah, I was poisoned with the link earlier, but there's a few things that are worthwhile: quote:...Gonzalo Le Batard, the father of Miami Herald writer Dan Le Batard and the main reason to turn into ESPN2's Dan Le Batard Is Highly Questionable. The elder Le Batard has become more comfortable in front of the camera over the course of the year and is fantastically entertaining on a show that isn't for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
Opening with announcer of the year Joe Buck made me squeal in shock/horror and I got fired from my job and am living on the street so I couldn't get to those parts
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
I don't blame you man, I had to soldier on, like scrolling through a TMQ article to get to the parts where he creeps on cheerleaders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
Two Tone Shoes posted:I don't know why you'd be surprised, Tebow is quite awful. It's just mindboggling that you'd trade for Tim Tebow and use him neither as a short yardage runner nor as media cover to usurp your increasingly unpopular starter. I'd ask what the point was but I don't think they ever knew either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
They didn't quite realize just how bad Tebow was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 23:41
|
|
|
Two Tone Shoes posted:They didn't quite realize just how bad Tebow was. Did they not own a television?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
midwat posted:Did they not own a television? A short memory, and combined with 316 yds against the Steelers is enough to fool anybody.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 00:43
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Yeah, I was poisoned with the link earlier, but there's a few things that are worthwhile: quote:ESPN2's Numbers Never Lie had a chance to be something unique, an interesting sports analytics-based show with a panel of nontraditional, smart television people delivering interesting content for the Nate Silver-loving crowd. Instead, it quickly morphed into another unwatchable debate program between ex-jocks. Sad. I blame QBR.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 03:37
|
|
|
I can't believe Rob Parker only got suspended for a month. What if someone on ESPN said Dirk wasn't really white because he had a black wife and basically called him a race traitor.* *I stole this point from someone on twitter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 15:44
|
|
|
NC-17 posted:I blame QBR. The fact that the show has Hugh Douglas on it is a testament to how bad the show destroyed its potential. That man is maybe the most aggressively dumb commentator I have ever watched
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
FeedingHam2Cats posted:The fact that the show has Hugh Douglas on it is a testament to how bad the show destroyed its potential. That man is maybe the most aggressively dumb commentator I have ever watched Yup, when it started it was an interesting experiment at least, mixing the c-list jock personalities with guys like Aaron Schatz and various baseball/basketball advanced stat guys, but I knew it was in trouble after the 10th time they had Schatz explain what DVOA was and everyone else on the panel act like he started talking in farsi. Then after a few months they killed that and retooled it as Michael Smith (who at least tries) moderating between Hugh Douglas and Jalen Rose, who both loving love to talk about winning. Considering how they debuted, I'm pretty shocked that Dan Lebetard's Highly Questionable is so much better then it has any right to be, while NNL is just so loving terrible. This is probably the episode where I totally changed my opinion of Highly Questionable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nct34hSkIPQ A laid back show just treating sports like the fun it should be is actually a nice niche. Kalli fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Dec 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 17:15
|
|
|
Kalli posted:This is probably the episode where I totally changed my opinion of Highly Questionable: This is extremely entertaining and now I want to watch more of this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
I really want to see a drunk Pat Sajak on "Wheel of Fortune".
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 17:50
|
|
|
quote:ESPN Yes. Thank you for that stunning piece of information.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
Noah posted:Yes. Thank you for that stunning piece of information. I don't know if you're aware of this, but the Bengals could be Superbowl champs if they can beat the other team playing in the game!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
I'd almost argue that's supposed to be ironic but given how much ESPN loves storylines and wrapping poo poo [their reporting] up with bows I think it's sincere and NOTHING IS WORSE THAN SINCERITY
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
The Bengals also used to give the Ravens absolute fits until Palmer, Joseph, and Ochocinco all left and the curse was broken. And since then the Ravens haven't had as many problems with them. But in Palmer's career, man the Bengals would beat our asses every time. So that's incorrect to say we've dominated them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 03:25
|
|
|
Kawalimus posted:The Bengals also used to give the Ravens absolute fits until Palmer, Joseph, and Ochocinco all left and the curse was broken. And since then the Ravens haven't had as many problems with them. But in Palmer's career, man the Bengals would beat our asses every time. So that's incorrect to say we've dominated them. I think the bigger issue is the rise of Ray Rice and the continued decline of the Bengals LBs causing huge mismatches, more so than the loss of Palmer (Who admittedly played great against Baltimore for some unknown reason). But I really do think that situation will change now, as bad as the MNF game week 1 was, I have faith that the Bengals can win this upcoming home game, and in Baltimore if need be in the playoffs. Of course with all the Ravens' injuries and the Bengals getting healthier through the year (Seriously week 1 we were screwed with the starters we'd lost in the 3 weeks prior), excluding Sanu, they're hardly the same teams any more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 07:02
|
|
|
I am kinda rooting for the Bengals this week only because the Steelers will be screwed post-season anyways and I am tired of watching them lose to the Broncos who would be the week 1 match-up. Either let the Steelers win the division or just skip the whole shitshow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 07:13
|
|
|
KettleWL posted:I think the bigger issue is the rise of Ray Rice and the continued decline of the Bengals LBs causing huge mismatches, more so than the loss of Palmer (Who admittedly played great against Baltimore for some unknown reason). But I really do think that situation will change now, as bad as the MNF game week 1 was, I have faith that the Bengals can win this upcoming home game, and in Baltimore if need be in the playoffs. Of course with all the Ravens' injuries and the Bengals getting healthier through the year (Seriously week 1 we were screwed with the starters we'd lost in the 3 weeks prior), excluding Sanu, they're hardly the same teams any more. Oh yeah I'm aware of all that, sorry for the confusion. I was just referring to what I always considered some kind of voodoo curse on the Ravens with those players because even when other teams were putting up tons of points on the Bengals, our offense would soil itself and do nothing. And ever since they left we haven't had as much trouble scoring. Joseph always did kill us for real, though. It's just that the story that the Ravens have somehow dominated over the Bengals over the last decade is wrong, and that aside from the last couple games in the series the Bengals have given us a lot of trouble since 2004 in that comeback game in Baltimore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
I don't even know how to reply to this:Peter King posted:Quote of the Week II
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
I'd like to see Peter King walk 2000 yards in his entire life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:48 |
|
|
Brannock posted:I don't even know how to reply to this: Wasn't this still when Detroit had a small shot at closing a 2-score gap had the free kick returner not been dumb? Maybe he means that all yards are meaningless because we will all die one day. Nihilist-commentator John Gruden could be entertaining. Peter King will still suck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 01:43
|
|
