quote:

ORIGINAL: Pager

Am I in Bizarro world????

How can I explain it? The original number is 50 for 600. The revised is 63 for 625. It added 13 catches for 25 yards. Math does not allow you to assume those 13 catches add 10 per when the they actually added only 25 yards.


Seriously to protect my sanity, I either need to log out or someone other than KG tell me if my math skills are gone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pager

Am I in Bizarro world????

How can I explain it? The original number is 50 for 600. The revised is 63 for 625. It added 13 catches for 25 yards. Math does not allow you to assume those 13 catches add 10 per when the they actually added only 25 yards.


Seriously to protect my sanity, I either need to log out or someone other than KG tell me if my math skills are gone.

Coming very late to this but concerned about your sanity: You are dealing with a master community college logician----ya, he got a good grade and everything. When he says, "To me 63-625 is more impressive than 50-600" you are in no position to understand it any more than I am positioned to understand my dog's extreme concern about a squirrel incursion. It just is and we bow down to such sagacity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pager

Am I in Bizarro world????

How can I explain it? The original number is 50 for 600. The revised is 63 for 625. It added 13 catches for 25 yards. Math does not allow you to assume those 13 catches add 10 per when the they actually added only 25 yards.


Seriously to protect my sanity, I either need to log out or someone other than KG tell me if my math skills are gone.

Coming very late to this but concerned about your sanity: You are dealing with a master community college logician----ya, he got a good grade and everything. When he says, "To me 63-625 is more impressive than 50-600" you are in no position to understand it any more than I am positioned to understand my dog's extreme concern about a squirrel incursion. It just is and we bow down to such sagacity.

I think and am not certain that 63-625 is more beneficial because it would move the chains more keeping drives alive and most likely leading to more points. This isn't so much a logical question as it is a mathematical question/equation. I'm reasonably good at math, but there are far too many variables for me to even try doing a proof.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

It would be cool if Sloter were another Kurt Warner story, but pretty unlikely.

Sloter doesn't show much mobility, he's shown a few things, but absolutely nothing against a full slate of NFL starters in a regular season game, which still doesn't rise to the level of a playoff game.

I was just having a little fun with it. I am hoping the more likely scenario of Cousins being the ticket, but if not, would be happy if Sloter then became the next Kurt Warner. I am not so sure either is really a possibility.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

It would be cool if Sloter were another Kurt Warner story, but pretty unlikely.

Sloter doesn't show much mobility, he's shown a few things, but absolutely nothing against a full slate of NFL starters in a regular season game, which still doesn't rise to the level of a playoff game.

I was just having a little fun with it. I am hoping the more likely scenario of Cousins being the ticket, but if not, would be happy if Sloter then became the next Kurt Warner. I am not so sure either is really a possibility.

You need to rewatch the tapes. Or are you kidding again?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pager

Am I in Bizarro world????

How can I explain it? The original number is 50 for 600. The revised is 63 for 625. It added 13 catches for 25 yards. Math does not allow you to assume those 13 catches add 10 per when the they actually added only 25 yards.


Seriously to protect my sanity, I either need to log out or someone other than KG tell me if my math skills are gone.

Coming very late to this but concerned about your sanity: You are dealing with a master community college logician----ya, he got a good grade and everything. When he says, "To me 63-625 is more impressive than 50-600" you are in no position to understand it any more than I am positioned to understand my dog's extreme concern about a squirrel incursion. It just is and we bow down to such sagacity.

I think and am not certain that 63-625 is more beneficial because it would move the chains more keeping drives alive and most likely leading to more points. This isn't so much a logical question as it is a mathematical question/equation. I'm reasonably good at math, but there are far too many variables for me to even try doing a proof.

Those 13 plays can well go to a guy who is getting maybe 15-20 ypc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Looking at our two rookie wide receivers.

https://youtu.be/w6E85GHHpcI

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pager

Am I in Bizarro world????

How can I explain it? The original number is 50 for 600. The revised is 63 for 625. It added 13 catches for 25 yards. Math does not allow you to assume those 13 catches add 10 per when the they actually added only 25 yards.


Seriously to protect my sanity, I either need to log out or someone other than KG tell me if my math skills are gone.

Coming very late to this but concerned about your sanity: You are dealing with a master community college logician----ya, he got a good grade and everything. When he says, "To me 63-625 is more impressive than 50-600" you are in no position to understand it any more than I am positioned to understand my dog's extreme concern about a squirrel incursion. It just is and we bow down to such sagacity.

I think and am not certain that 63-625 is more beneficial because it would move the chains more keeping drives alive and most likely leading to more points. This isn't so much a logical question as it is a mathematical question/equation. I'm reasonably good at math, but there are far too many variables for me to even try doing a proof.

Those 13 plays can well go to a guy who is getting maybe 15-20 ypc.

A teams average yards per play is almost never 15-20 yards. That would be assuming a ridiculously high yards per play for those extra 13 plays and there probably wouldn't even be those extra plays if not for the first downs produced by them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pager

Am I in Bizarro world????

How can I explain it? The original number is 50 for 600. The revised is 63 for 625. It added 13 catches for 25 yards. Math does not allow you to assume those 13 catches add 10 per when the they actually added only 25 yards.


Seriously to protect my sanity, I either need to log out or someone other than KG tell me if my math skills are gone.

Coming very late to this but concerned about your sanity: You are dealing with a master community college logician----ya, he got a good grade and everything. When he says, "To me 63-625 is more impressive than 50-600" you are in no position to understand it any more than I am positioned to understand my dog's extreme concern about a squirrel incursion. It just is and we bow down to such sagacity.

I think and am not certain that 63-625 is more beneficial because it would move the chains more keeping drives alive and most likely leading to more points. This isn't so much a logical question as it is a mathematical question/equation. I'm reasonably good at math, but there are far too many variables for me to even try doing a proof.

Those 13 plays can well go to a guy who is getting maybe 15-20 ypc.

A teams average yards per play is almost never 15-20 yards. That would be assuming a ridiculously high yards per play for those extra 13 plays and there probably wouldn't even be those extra plays if not for the first downs produced by them.

If the TE is averaging 12 ypc it's reasonable that the WRs might average 15+ ypc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pager

Am I in Bizarro world????

How can I explain it? The original number is 50 for 600. The revised is 63 for 625. It added 13 catches for 25 yards. Math does not allow you to assume those 13 catches add 10 per when the they actually added only 25 yards.


Seriously to protect my sanity, I either need to log out or someone other than KG tell me if my math skills are gone.

Coming very late to this but concerned about your sanity: You are dealing with a master community college logician----ya, he got a good grade and everything. When he says, "To me 63-625 is more impressive than 50-600" you are in no position to understand it any more than I am positioned to understand my dog's extreme concern about a squirrel incursion. It just is and we bow down to such sagacity.

I think and am not certain that 63-625 is more beneficial because it would move the chains more keeping drives alive and most likely leading to more points. This isn't so much a logical question as it is a mathematical question/equation. I'm reasonably good at math, but there are far too many variables for me to even try doing a proof.

Those 13 plays can well go to a guy who is getting maybe 15-20 ypc.

A teams average yards per play is almost never 15-20 yards. That would be assuming a ridiculously high yards per play for those extra 13 plays and there probably wouldn't even be those extra plays if not for the first downs produced by them.

If the TE is averaging 12 ypc it's reasonable that the WRs might average 15+ ypc.

We are talking 13 additional taken away from Rudolph in this scenario. Those receptions could have come from a better receptions per target ratio and more first downs from those catches resulting in more catches. In that case there might be zero other plays to replace them if they are taken away. If we assume we get those plays back then it would be average plays maybe 5 rushes 7 complete passes and 3 incomplete passes. Those 7 receptions would be divided amongst WRs, TEs, and RBs. So if we get those 13 plays back to divvy up they aren't going to average 15-20 yards per play. We might not even get those plays back at all because of a lower completion percent and less first downs produced.
EDIT: The more I think about it if you take away those 13 receptions and the approximately 7 first downs produced we will lose 21 offensive plays resulting not only in the loss of the 25 yards but another 105 yards that we can expect to gain from those 21 additional downs.
In conclusion to me at least it's obvious that 63-625 is superior to 50-600.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pager

Am I in Bizarro world????

How can I explain it? The original number is 50 for 600. The revised is 63 for 625. It added 13 catches for 25 yards. Math does not allow you to assume those 13 catches add 10 per when the they actually added only 25 yards.


Seriously to protect my sanity, I either need to log out or someone other than KG tell me if my math skills are gone.

Coming very late to this but concerned about your sanity: You are dealing with a master community college logician----ya, he got a good grade and everything. When he says, "To me 63-625 is more impressive than 50-600" you are in no position to understand it any more than I am positioned to understand my dog's extreme concern about a squirrel incursion. It just is and we bow down to such sagacity.

I think and am not certain that 63-625 is more beneficial because it would move the chains more keeping drives alive and most likely leading to more points. This isn't so much a logical question as it is a mathematical question/equation. I'm reasonably good at math, but there are far too many variables for me to even try doing a proof.

Those 13 plays can well go to a guy who is getting maybe 15-20 ypc.

A teams average yards per play is almost never 15-20 yards. That would be assuming a ridiculously high yards per play for those extra 13 plays and there probably wouldn't even be those extra plays if not for the first downs produced by them.

If the TE is averaging 12 ypc it's reasonable that the WRs might average 15+ ypc.

We are talking 13 additional taken away from Rudolph in this scenario. Those receptions could have come from a better receptions per target ratio and more first downs from those catches resulting in more catches. In that case there might be zero other plays to replace them if they are taken away. If we assume we get those plays back then it would be average plays maybe 5 rushes 7 complete passes and 3 incomplete passes. Those 7 receptions would be divided amongst WRs, TEs, and RBs. So if we get those 13 plays back to divvy up they aren't going to average 15-20 yards per play. We might not even get those plays back at all because of a lower completion percent and less first downs produced.
EDIT: The more I think about it if you take away those 13 receptions and the approximately 7 first downs produced we will lose 21 offensive plays resulting not only in the loss of the 25 yards but another 105 yards that we can expect to gain from those 21 additional downs.
In conclusion to me at least it's obvious that 63-625 is superior to 50-600.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pager

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pager

Am I in Bizarro world????

How can I explain it? The original number is 50 for 600. The revised is 63 for 625. It added 13 catches for 25 yards. Math does not allow you to assume those 13 catches add 10 per when the they actually added only 25 yards.


Seriously to protect my sanity, I either need to log out or someone other than KG tell me if my math skills are gone.

Coming very late to this but concerned about your sanity: You are dealing with a master community college logician----ya, he got a good grade and everything. When he says, "To me 63-625 is more impressive than 50-600" you are in no position to understand it any more than I am positioned to understand my dog's extreme concern about a squirrel incursion. It just is and we bow down to such sagacity.

I think and am not certain that 63-625 is more beneficial because it would move the chains more keeping drives alive and most likely leading to more points. This isn't so much a logical question as it is a mathematical question/equation. I'm reasonably good at math, but there are far too many variables for me to even try doing a proof.

Those 13 plays can well go to a guy who is getting maybe 15-20 ypc.

A teams average yards per play is almost never 15-20 yards. That would be assuming a ridiculously high yards per play for those extra 13 plays and there probably wouldn't even be those extra plays if not for the first downs produced by them.

If the TE is averaging 12 ypc it's reasonable that the WRs might average 15+ ypc.

We are talking 13 additional taken away from Rudolph in this scenario. Those receptions could have come from a better receptions per target ratio and more first downs from those catches resulting in more catches. In that case there might be zero other plays to replace them if they are taken away. If we assume we get those plays back then it would be average plays maybe 5 rushes 7 complete passes and 3 incomplete passes. Those 7 receptions would be divided amongst WRs, TEs, and RBs. So if we get those 13 plays back to divvy up they aren't going to average 15-20 yards per play. We might not even get those plays back at all because of a lower completion percent and less first downs produced.
EDIT: The more I think about it if you take away those 13 receptions and the approximately 7 first downs produced we will lose 21 offensive plays resulting not only in the loss of the 25 yards but another 105 yards that we can expect to gain from those 21 additional downs.
In conclusion to me at least it's obvious that 63-625 is superior to 50-600.

Vikings averaged 5.5 per play in 2018. So 50-600 + 13-72 > 63-625.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pager

Am I in Bizarro world????

How can I explain it? The original number is 50 for 600. The revised is 63 for 625. It added 13 catches for 25 yards. Math does not allow you to assume those 13 catches add 10 per when the they actually added only 25 yards.


Seriously to protect my sanity, I either need to log out or someone other than KG tell me if my math skills are gone.

Coming very late to this but concerned about your sanity: You are dealing with a master community college logician----ya, he got a good grade and everything. When he says, "To me 63-625 is more impressive than 50-600" you are in no position to understand it any more than I am positioned to understand my dog's extreme concern about a squirrel incursion. It just is and we bow down to such sagacity.

I think and am not certain that 63-625 is more beneficial because it would move the chains more keeping drives alive and most likely leading to more points. This isn't so much a logical question as it is a mathematical question/equation. I'm reasonably good at math, but there are far too many variables for me to even try doing a proof.

Those 13 plays can well go to a guy who is getting maybe 15-20 ypc.

A teams average yards per play is almost never 15-20 yards. That would be assuming a ridiculously high yards per play for those extra 13 plays and there probably wouldn't even be those extra plays if not for the first downs produced by them.

If the TE is averaging 12 ypc it's reasonable that the WRs might average 15+ ypc.

We are talking 13 additional taken away from Rudolph in this scenario. Those receptions could have come from a better receptions per target ratio and more first downs from those catches resulting in more catches. In that case there might be zero other plays to replace them if they are taken away. If we assume we get those plays back then it would be average plays maybe 5 rushes 7 complete passes and 3 incomplete passes. Those 7 receptions would be divided amongst WRs, TEs, and RBs. So if we get those 13 plays back to divvy up they aren't going to average 15-20 yards per play. We might not even get those plays back at all because of a lower completion percent and less first downs produced.
EDIT: The more I think about it if you take away those 13 receptions and the approximately 7 first downs produced we will lose 21 offensive plays resulting not only in the loss of the 25 yards but another 105 yards that we can expect to gain from those 21 additional downs.
In conclusion to me at least it's obvious that 63-625 is superior to 50-600.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Dorn

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pager

Am I in Bizarro world????

How can I explain it? The original number is 50 for 600. The revised is 63 for 625. It added 13 catches for 25 yards. Math does not allow you to assume those 13 catches add 10 per when the they actually added only 25 yards.


Seriously to protect my sanity, I either need to log out or someone other than KG tell me if my math skills are gone.

Coming very late to this but concerned about your sanity: You are dealing with a master community college logician----ya, he got a good grade and everything. When he says, "To me 63-625 is more impressive than 50-600" you are in no position to understand it any more than I am positioned to understand my dog's extreme concern about a squirrel incursion. It just is and we bow down to such sagacity.

I think and am not certain that 63-625 is more beneficial because it would move the chains more keeping drives alive and most likely leading to more points. This isn't so much a logical question as it is a mathematical question/equation. I'm reasonably good at math, but there are far too many variables for me to even try doing a proof.

Those 13 plays can well go to a guy who is getting maybe 15-20 ypc.

A teams average yards per play is almost never 15-20 yards. That would be assuming a ridiculously high yards per play for those extra 13 plays and there probably wouldn't even be those extra plays if not for the first downs produced by them.

If the TE is averaging 12 ypc it's reasonable that the WRs might average 15+ ypc.

We are talking 13 additional taken away from Rudolph in this scenario. Those receptions could have come from a better receptions per target ratio and more first downs from those catches resulting in more catches. In that case there might be zero other plays to replace them if they are taken away. If we assume we get those plays back then it would be average plays maybe 5 rushes 7 complete passes and 3 incomplete passes. Those 7 receptions would be divided amongst WRs, TEs, and RBs. So if we get those 13 plays back to divvy up they aren't going to average 15-20 yards per play. We might not even get those plays back at all because of a lower completion percent and less first downs produced.
EDIT: The more I think about it if you take away those 13 receptions and the approximately 7 first downs produced we will lose 21 offensive plays resulting not only in the loss of the 25 yards but another 105 yards that we can expect to gain from those 21 additional downs.
In conclusion to me at least it's obvious that 63-625 is superior to 50-600.

So how do you state that those 13 receptions net 7 first downs when they equate to 2 yds per catch? That's not an argument or proof that is an opinion or a speculative argument. This argument is in reality about nothing without statistical data to back up any claim when the original premise was a arbitrary number. 50 - 600 vs 63 - 625 is the same without stats other than the average. If sample A produces the same amount of first downs as sample B they are equal. If they produce the same amount of TDs they are equal. If they produce the same amount of explosive plays leading to points they are equal.

If you move the goal posts and make assumptions cannot the other argue the same without data in a hypothetical situation?

63-625 with 35 first downs and 8 TDs is superior to 50 -600 with 30 first downs and 6 TDs conversely 50-600 with 35 FDs and 8 TDs is greater than 63-625 with 30 FDs and 6 TDs.

In other words making arguments about this, is, as a stated before, not going to change the minds of those who are not on the Rudy bandwagon and see him as a liability more than an asset.

Elite production from a TE is over 1000 yds. Rudy has yet to produce elite numbers so no one can reasonably expect Rudy to be elite. He is good and Smith is a rookie who has potential but has proven nil.

Dumping Rudy because he does not fit the mold of the perfect TE is fine as long as there is someone who improves upon his production. How that is determined can be different depending on what value there is on blocking. Rudy is a poor blocking TE for as long as he has been in the league. He is a good route runner with good hands and good height. A large catch radius without wheels.

Rudy in my opinion with Smith is better than Smith and Morgan unless you believe Morgan can duplicate what Rudy does as a receiver while improving blocking. I do not but am just a fan with an opinion.

quote:

Never heard of sagacity. sa·gac·i·ty
[səˈɡasədē]

NOUN
the quality of being sagacious.
"a man of great political sagacity"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Any news from the OTA?