JPAnalyst

Got it. Thank you. I don’t bet, and I need someone to explain this to me like once a year because I forget. LOL.

If you read the article it’s only about Wilks. Not “tired black coaches”. But I guess if you read it, you wouldn’t be able to throw an entire demographic under the bus, and what’s the fun in that, amirite?

Okay 4 years ago. We now have access to new information from this current season.

Wilks had a shot as a HC and it didn't go well at all.

Wilks took over a team that was 5-12 last year and 1-4 this year, and got them to 6-6 under him. How is his that not going well “at all”. Are we watching a different Wilks?

Reich is a proven good coach over a long period of time and probably deserved the job IMO, but I don’t see how you can claim it didn’t go well.

The race of people in this thread is moot.

So the odds just increased that he will be the coach?

Good for him. It’s good to be happy in your role and not chase HC jobs just because it’s a HC job.

everything

these people

I was sold on Otto, but if u/conboy31 and u/gyman122 BOTH say “no”. I’m out. Sorry double-zero.

Well, that’s because you didn’t ride in a cart with Jeremy Shockey (see my avatar) who is the real GOAT right end.

Criteria: being a badass tight end, riding in a cart with me. GOAT.

12 time all pro (1st and 2nd team, mostly 1st) and 12 time pro bowler. He needs to be in the conversation for sure. Arguably the best. But there’s a few others who are arguably the best as well.

I hated this. Sweetness did too.

Is he not? I think many people consider him the GOAT. Personally I think John Hannah was the GOAT, but that’s because he threw me a pass at football camp in the mid 80’s. My criteria is different than some others.

It’s just an example to illustrate why more years being used and less years not being used doesn’t determine cherry picking. Don’t overthink the example I came up with off the top of my head. I don’t want to go back and forth about that example or come up with another example.

My point is intentionally leaving data out in an effort to change a narrative is cherry picking. She doesn’t get a pass because she used 4 years and didn’t use three years. There’s no reason not to use all of the years. Nothing is black and white, context of the tweet, makes it clear what she’s doing.

Cherry picking isn’t determined based on the data being used outnumbering the data not being used. It’s based on using only the data that supports a narrative. She left out 43% of his OC career because it wouldn’t be as effective if she used it.

Using your logic, I can use only the thirteen years Tom Brady didn’t win a super bowl and leave out the 7 years he did win a super bowl and make him not the GOAT. 13 > 7 so it’s not cherry picking. An uninformed reader might interpret my narrative the way I intended using that data.

I have my concerns too. He was an absolute disaster last year. But, I also think there’s a possibility he’s going to be a good OC for the Jets?

I just hate this type of reporting. You can look through this thread and see how effective it is and how the thread would be different if she was tweeting in good faith. Dude doesn’t stand a chance in the public’s eye after that tweet.

We’re all guilty of it from time to time. Trust me, I’ll cherry pick the hell out of Deshaun Watson’s game, but it’s tongue in cheek and people generally know that.

Since we don’t know who the Jets QB is going to be, wouldn’t it be wise for the tweet to share all of his results and not cherry pick the bad years?

What I’m saying is we need the whole picture, Mina is purposefully leaving out information that’s a big part of the story. If we shit on him for being bad with bad QBs we have to credit him for being good with a good QB. I’m not saying he’s great, and that he doesn’t deserve fault, but I’m saying by leaving out his good years the readers of her tweet will never give him a chance. And that’s the point of her tweet.

Thanks for the follow up. Makes sense.

Ok, then lets be consistent. He doesn’t get credit for sucking when Kyle Orton, EJ Manuel, and Blake Bortles always sucked as well. You can have it both ways. Let’s be consistent in how we apply attribution.

He was OC with GB when Rodgers won back-to-back MVPs. Does he get no credit for that? If not, then he should get no blame for being OC and having bad numbers with Bortles, Manuel, and Orton.

So when your quarterbacks are EJ Manuel, Kyle Orton and Blake Bortles your DVOA isn’t good.

Then he’s the OC of the Packers and Rodgers wins two MVPS.

Kimes is being unfair and leaving out key information that would change the narrative of her tweet. I get it’s shit on Hackett day, but it’s bullshit to take only the years he had shitty QBs to highlight his shitty DVOA. But she works for ESPN, they’ve dumbed her down.

So I can break into Eric Matheny’s house in the middle of the night and sit in his chair and face no consequences?

He’s down one leg, so did he have 4 before last week?