Packers Huddle

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:12

bud fox wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:05

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 14:55

WTF even is this reply? First, I didn't say old data is more accurate than present data. I said use ALL the data. Second, we aren't talking about science here...

It is regression analysis - statistics - math - science. What are you talking about?

Pretty weird to use "science" and Statistical terms when you are basing your conclusion on two data points that has a lot of variable messiness to have any reliability of correlation fit.

It is analysis with a dependent variable and independent variables - it is exactly what we are doing lol Rodgers could be the dependent variable, the packers could be the dependent variable etc.

It is what it is - I don't know what else to say.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:16

bud fox wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:05

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 14:55

WTF even is this reply? First, I didn't say old data is more accurate than present data. I said use ALL the data. Second, we aren't talking about science here...

It is regression analysis - statistics - math - science. What are you talking about?

No, not even close. To be a regression analysis you have to know all the variables. We don't and never will as it is too subjective and the variables are too great. There are statistics involved, but not the only thing involved as again, it's all very subjective. You aren't giving us any math or science, you are just spouting your biased opinion, nothing more, nothing else. Unless you want to show us the regression analysis you did. I would love to see that!

What are you talking about - collection of a statistic could be subjective - look at PFF's pressure stats.

You are just wrong - us discussing Rodgers (Dependent variable) and his play without receivers (independent variable), coaching (independent variable), Rules (independent variable) etc. You literally test the dependent variable by changing the independent variable. I don't need to write it down on paper for the process to be what it is.

lol you guys will argue with the Earth being round if I am on the other side.

I really want to see this regression analysis that bud did!

bud fox wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:17

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:12

bud fox wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:05

It is regression analysis - statistics - math - science. What are you talking about?

Pretty weird to use "science" and Statistical terms when you are basing your conclusion on two data points that has a lot of variable messiness to have any reliability of correlation fit.

It is analysis with a dependent variable and independent variables - it is exactly what we are doing lol Rodgers could be the dependent variable, the packers could be the dependent variable etc.

It is what it is - I don't know what else to say.

Bud I wish your regression was science.

Because per your model, the Packers win 100% of games when Rodgers makes the start.

Let's for sure hope your model is scientific law this January and February.

bud fox wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:03

Our Oline is nobodies, our receivers outside of Adams are random picks and an old vet, our TE is an old vet and a 3rd round FB, our RBs are quality.

Our DT quality, pass rushers have been good, Corners a rookie first rounder and then street guys, our LBs are a low asset value group, our safeties have been playing bad according to several players.

We have won this year without Bahk, Adams (1 game), Jenkins, Jaire, Zdarius, MVS (not sure when he has played), Tonyan, Turner. That is a large portion of the high quality players you talk about.

Seems like you love names on paper instead of actual quality of play. In that case, you should love the trade AR -option. We could have a chance at soooo many players with recognizable names, instead of the no-names who are playing real well for us this year, and to whom you give zero credit to.

That's SO disrespectful.

I think I'll ignore you from now on.

bud fox wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:20

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:16

bud fox wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:05

It is regression analysis - statistics - math - science. What are you talking about?

]No, not even close. To be a regression analysis you have to know all the variables. We don't and never will as it is too subjective and the variables are too great. There are statistics involved, but not the only thing involved as again, it's all very subjective. You aren't giving us any math or science, you are just spouting your biased opinion, nothing more, nothing else. Unless you want to show us the regression analysis you did. I would love to see that!

What are you talking about - collection of a statistic could be subjective - look at PFF's pressure stats.

Uh, that's what I said.

You are just wrong - us discussing Rodgers (Dependent variable) and his play without receivers (independent variable), coaching (independent variable), Rules (independent variable) etc. You literally test the dependent variable by changing the independent variable. I don't need to write it down on paper for the process to be what it is.

So have you accounted for all the independent variables? If you haven't even written them down, I doubt it. Can we see your data/analysis?

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:26

bud fox wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:20

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:16

]No, not even close. To be a regression analysis you have to know all the variables. We don't and never will as it is too subjective and the variables are too great. There are statistics involved, but not the only thing involved as again, it's all very subjective. You aren't giving us any math or science, you are just spouting your biased opinion, nothing more, nothing else. Unless you want to show us the regression analysis you did. I would love to see that!

What are you talking about - collection of a statistic could be subjective - look at PFF's pressure stats.

Uh, that's what I said.

You are just wrong - us discussing Rodgers (Dependent variable) and his play without receivers (independent variable), coaching (independent variable), Rules (independent variable) etc. You literally test the dependent variable by changing the independent variable. I don't need to write it down on paper for the process to be what it is.

So have you accounted for all the independent variables? If you haven't even written them down, I doubt it. Can we see your data/analysis?

You don't need all variables to undertake an analysis - you can do it with 1,2, 10, all of them - it is still a regression analysis when measuring a dependent variable against independent variables.

salmar80 wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:26

bud fox wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:03

Our Oline is nobodies, our receivers outside of Adams are random picks and an old vet, our TE is an old vet and a 3rd round FB, our RBs are quality.

Our DT quality, pass rushers have been good, Corners a rookie first rounder and then street guys, our LBs are a low asset value group, our safeties have been playing bad according to several players.

We have won this year without Bahk, Adams (1 game), Jenkins, Jaire, Zdarius, MVS (not sure when he has played), Tonyan, Turner. That is a large portion of the high quality players you talk about.

Seems like you love names on paper instead of actual quality of play. In that case, you should love the trade AR -option. We could have a chance at soooo many players with recognizable names, instead of the no-names who are playing real well for us this year, and to whom you give zero credit to.

That's SO disrespectful.

I think I'll ignore you from now on.

Why was our Oline bad when Love played? Why were our receivers bad when Love played?

Thinking we can just move on from Rodgers is SOO disrespectful to a Packers Legend.

bud fox wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:30

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:26

bud fox wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:20

What are you talking about - collection of a statistic could be subjective - look at PFF's pressure stats.

Uh, that's what I said.

You are just wrong - us discussing Rodgers (Dependent variable) and his play without receivers (independent variable), coaching (independent variable), Rules (independent variable) etc. You literally test the dependent variable by changing the independent variable. I don't need to write it down on paper for the process to be what it is.

So have you accounted for all the independent variables? If you haven't even written them down, I doubt it. Can we see your data/analysis?

You don't need all variables to undertake an analysis - you can do it with 1,2, 10, all of them - it is still a regression analysis when measuring a dependent variable against independent variables.

Obviously, but that is depend on what you are trying to analyze. If you are trying to analyze whether the Packers will succeed with or without Rodgers, which is what we are doing here, you definitely will need to account for a hell of a lot of variables to make it even remotely valid. Can I see your work?

bud fox wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:33

salmar80 wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:26

bud fox wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:03

Our Oline is nobodies, our receivers outside of Adams are random picks and an old vet, our TE is an old vet and a 3rd round FB, our RBs are quality.

Our DT quality, pass rushers have been good, Corners a rookie first rounder and then street guys, our LBs are a low asset value group, our safeties have been playing bad according to several players.

We have won this year without Bahk, Adams (1 game), Jenkins, Jaire, Zdarius, MVS (not sure when he has played), Tonyan, Turner. That is a large portion of the high quality players you talk about.

Seems like you love names on paper instead of actual quality of play. In that case, you should love the trade AR -option. We could have a chance at soooo many players with recognizable names, instead of the no-names who are playing real well for us this year, and to whom you give zero credit to.

That's SO disrespectful.

I think I'll ignore you from now on.

Why was our Oline bad when Love played? Why were our receivers bad when Love played?

Thinking we can just move on from Rodgers is SOO disrespectful to a Packers Legend.

Why is that disrespectful to a Packers Legend? It WILL happen at some point in the future regardless of anything anyone does.

salmar80 wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:26

bud fox wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:03

Our Oline is nobodies, our receivers outside of Adams are random picks and an old vet, our TE is an old vet and a 3rd round FB, our RBs are quality.

Our DT quality, pass rushers have been good, Corners a rookie first rounder and then street guys, our LBs are a low asset value group, our safeties have been playing bad according to several players.

We have won this year without Bahk, Adams (1 game), Jenkins, Jaire, Zdarius, MVS (not sure when he has played), Tonyan, Turner. That is a large portion of the high quality players you talk about.

Seems like you love names on paper instead of actual quality of play. In that case, you should love the trade AR -option. We could have a chance at soooo many players with recognizable names, instead of the no-names who are playing real well for us this year, and to whom you give zero credit to.

That's SO disrespectful.

I think I'll ignore you from now on.

Also my point was not that the current roster has played bad but that we have played well without our big name talent. We have won with top street pick ups - Rasul, Campbell. Oline had stepped in and kept winning without Jenkins and Bahk.

These street guys have been better than ever expected - great pick ups. But they aren't high dollar guys and causing us cap issues.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:40

bud fox wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:33

salmar80 wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:26

Seems like you love names on paper instead of actual quality of play. In that case, you should love the trade AR -option. We could have a chance at soooo many players with recognizable names, instead of the no-names who are playing real well for us this year, and to whom you give zero credit to.

That's SO disrespectful.

I think I'll ignore you from now on.

Why was our Oline bad when Love played? Why were our receivers bad when Love played?

Thinking we can just move on from Rodgers is SOO disrespectful to a Packers Legend.

Why is that disrespectful to a Packers Legend? It WILL happen at some point in the future regardless of anything anyone does.

Okay so it is disrespectful for me to point out that we won without our big name talent but it is not disrespectful for people to say we can win without Rodgers? Even with the Chiefs game on display.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:39

bud fox wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:30

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:26

Uh, that's what I said.


So have you accounted for all the independent variables? If you haven't even written them down, I doubt it. Can we see your data/analysis?

You don't need all variables to undertake an analysis - you can do it with 1,2, 10, all of them - it is still a regression analysis when measuring a dependent variable against independent variables.

Obviously, but that is depend on what you are trying to analyze. If you are trying to analyze whether the Packers will succeed with or without Rodgers, which is what we are doing here, you definitely will need to account for a hell of a lot of variables to make it even remotely valid. Can I see your work?

Yeah go back and read all my arguments - you will find the dependent variable measured against certain independent variables in the posts. Different independent variables over different posts.

bud fox wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:42

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:40

bud fox wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:33

Why was our Oline bad when Love played? Why were our receivers bad when Love played?

Thinking we can just move on from Rodgers is SOO disrespectful to a Packers Legend.

Why is that disrespectful to a Packers Legend? It WILL happen at some point in the future regardless of anything anyone does.

Okay so it is disrespectful for me to point out that we won without our big name talent but it is not disrespectful for people to say we can win without Rodgers? Even with the Chiefs game on display.

Interesting, that is not what you "pointed out." You tried to prove Rodgers is winning despite a cast of poor players. You got called on it and changed your argument.
Again, here is where you LOVE to cherry pick and aren't using the full data. 2017 Bears, Buccaneers, Browns.

bud fox wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:45

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:39

bud fox wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:30

You don't need all variables to undertake an analysis - you can do it with 1,2, 10, all of them - it is still a regression analysis when measuring a dependent variable against independent variables.

Obviously, but that is depend on what you are trying to analyze. If you are trying to analyze whether the Packers will succeed with or without Rodgers, which is what we are doing here, you definitely will need to account for a hell of a lot of variables to make it even remotely valid. Can I see your work?

Yeah go back and read all my arguments - you will find the dependent variable measured against certain independent variables in the posts. Different independent variables over different posts.

That's not work. That's simply naming a handful of variables. Nice try though. Can we see the culmination of your work?!

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 14:50

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 14:32

when ya look at the situation like this, the the choice seems clear, Keep Rodgers, the cap level will go up, so that should take care of Rodgers contract increases, and after that it's back to keeping others we can afford, with Rodgers anything is possible, often the best team is not the one who wins the SB.

I could get on board with this if the rest of the players' contracts didn't also increase. But the fact of the matter is all contracts are designed now to increase to take advantage of the COL structure of the Cap.

So you can't really have one player take up the entire increase or you will be in trouble quickly.

ahhh geees, there goes that fantasy, I'am sure if you try hard enough you could figure out some way to make us competitive and still retain Rodgers, the best teams have expensive QB's.

I keep saying the team is built to compete without Rodgers, but I still don't have the faith that Love is ready, and we'll find out shortly just how much this team still needs a QB of Rodgers ability in the PO's.

If we win it all, how do you not do everything possible to go for it again? keep everyone possible, keep extending players and kick dead cap down the road again, it could be years of trial and error before where ever able to put a squad together this good again, or........

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 16:03

the best teams have expensive QB's.

That's actually not true. No Super Bow winning QB has ever taken up more than 13.1% of a team's cap.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:51

bud fox wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:42

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:40

Why is that disrespectful to a Packers Legend? It WILL happen at some point in the future regardless of anything anyone does.

Okay so it is disrespectful for me to point out that we won without our big name talent but it is not disrespectful for people to say we can win without Rodgers? Even with the Chiefs game on display.

Interesting, that is not what you "pointed out." You tried to prove Rodgers is winning despite a cast of poor players. You got called on it and changed your argument.
Again, here is where you LOVE to cherry pick and aren't using the full data. 2017 Bears, Buccaneers, Browns.

Yes he did - for the cardinals game he had winfree, cobb and amari rodgers. That is a low talent receiving group.

I guess we will see the contracts Lazard, Tonyan, ESB and MVS get in free agency this offseason.

bud fox wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 16:08

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:51

bud fox wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 15:42

Okay so it is disrespectful for me to point out that we won without our big name talent but it is not disrespectful for people to say we can win without Rodgers? Even with the Chiefs game on display.

Interesting, that is not what you "pointed out." You tried to prove Rodgers is winning despite a cast of poor players. You got called on it and changed your argument.
Again, here is where you LOVE to cherry pick and aren't using the full data. 2017 Bears, Buccaneers, Browns.

Yes he did - for the cardinals game he had winfree, cobb and amari rodgers. That is a low talent receiving group.

I guess we will see the contracts Lazard, Tonyan, ESB and MVS get in free agency this offseason.

You really don't understand the concept of small sample size limitations do you.

Only large contract players are good now?

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 16:06

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 16:03

the best teams have expensive QB's.

That's actually not true. No Super Bow winning QB has ever taken up more than 13.1% of a team's cap.

OK, still, most teams with QB's on 2nd contracts are expensive, and if I check the PO teams this season I'd expect 2/3 rds are 2nd contract QB's, as has been reported here only 2 or 3 SB winners the last decade or so where rookie contract QB's, my point is Rodgers cost are in line with most of the 2nd contract QB'd teams, sometimes the slogan of ya get what ya pay for has merit.