brotherbock

I'm not disagreeing with everything you wrote. But this here just doesn't follow. That a guy gets a break one time doesn't mean the padding didn't protect him ten other times. It just means the padding isn't perfect.

My take on it is that winning and losing is as much in your control as whether you arrive safely at home or die in a fiery car wreck. I.E. it's not perfectly in your control, but significant parts of it are. You have no control over whether the guy in the oncoming lane suddenly swerves right into the front of your car at 70mph. If it happens too late, you can't even react. That's a coin toss. The driver who gets hit, as he's dying on the side of the road, says "I would have gotten home safely on any other road but this one", or "I would have gotten home safely if any other driver but that one was in the oncoming lane." But that doesn't mean your arriving home safely is pure luck, or 'entirely out of your control'. There are many factors at play, and many of those factors are in your control. Even if, sometimes, one big factor outside of your control is the ruling factor. Look, here's where it comes to--the way you're using 'control' and 'skill' and 'luck' here will make every single thing we do in the world 'just luck'. Why? Because I can only do anything given the pure luck that the world isn't destroyed by an asteroid or massive solar flares--things out of my control entirely. So the game of chess I just played and won? 'Out of my control' that I won it, because, had I been playing when the world blew up, or when a terrorist shot me, or when I had a massive stroke...I wouldn't have won. So chess, a game of pure skill, becomes 'the illusion of skill'. But that's just not true. Winning that game of chess is partially, and a significant part, in my control. As is driving home safely. As is winning my FF match. Not entirely. And sometimes something can make all my skill void in that one instance. But that doesn't mean the game overall and my performance is pure luck.

Maybe we won't. I just don't see the research into trends and stats as an illusion. It's something I actually do, where some others in my leagues don't, and I end up with higher winning percentages year after year. Yes, there's a lot of info out there for the relatively easy grabbing (compared to even a decade ago, or 20 or 30 years ago). So the level of skill needed to reach a minimal competency has been diluted. But there's so much info to search through that things are evening out again. 'Air Yards' is a good example of a stat that some guys I play against don't do much with, but seems to have predictive value. To do some research and learn about that, then to do weekly research into the stats--well, it seems to work. The folks I know who pay attention to those things win more than those who don't. It takes time and effort and reasoning ability. I don't see the illusion in that at all. I place a bet on this hand because the odds are good for me--skill tells me that. I am not guaranteed to win. But that skill will put me on top over others without it more often than not. I used to play a lot of Risk as a kid. That game involves heavy dice usage. But there's still a lot of strategy and skill, even if it all blows up in your face sometimes with a die roll. There are 'better' players, and they win more often, and it isn't 'all' luck, or illusion. Anyway, I gotta get to freaking work for once today Later.

Yup. I think the 'ebay fallacy' is at work as well--"I've already missed three game paychecks, that fourth one isn't as bad now", when it's the same amount of money. "I know I said I'd only bid to $100, but really...what's $105 when I'm already at $100?" That said--I'm the kid back in high school who would do something I knew would result in detention just to prove a point. So part of me would understand the motivation and the feeling of it if Bell got traded and then played right away.

I think we just disagree if you really mean that there's 'no' telling when. There are indications that will lead to better accuracy, right? A breakout is more likely against a worse defense, for just one example. I mean, that's what gambling relies on, from both sides--the ability to accurately predict over multiple events when you can't predict with 100% certainty over any one event. Jordy's breakout was 'more' predictable yesterday than if Carr had gotten hurt in practice this week, 'less' predictable than if he'd had four or five 'near miss' almost TDs the week before. There's a lot we can do to improve the accuracy of our FF play--we're doing it right now on these forums. There are no guarantees, But there's significant skill all the same.

That's it. I'm putting in a waiver claim for Marvin Harrison.

I'd just be worried that this is exactly what people were saying about Watson last year. Jinx!

I don't bet either--did only very rarely in the past. But those sort of odds can actually alter the outcome itself. You know the Bills players know what the vegas line is. They feel disrespected that much, they come out swinging, poof.

I'd agree with that. If he gets traded for the same money and then plays, there's a lot of foolishness in that. But man...I've done foolish things in my life out of spite. Quit a job over pay when a jacka$$ boss wouldn't pay me what I thought I was worth, and then took another job for the same money That sort of thing. Which, when you think about it, is exactly Bell's position. Just a loooooot less money. It's foolish to 'cut off your nose to spite your face', but people do it all the time. We even sometimes see it as 'winning', because we 'beat' the other guy, even if we didn't get what we wanted in the end. People are funny

Funny, cause you don't seem aware of what I wrote if you're saying that. Here's what I said just a page ago about Jordy: "And, in fact, it may not be certain he won't start producing at some point. He didn't spring from the womb with a rapport with Rodgers, he might be able to build one with Carr." That's a pretty soft sell--may not be certain, might be able to. The position that makes sense to hold is that Jordy has been a good player for a long time, and therefore there is more reason to think he'll come around than some other players...say an Allen Hurns. There's less reason to think he'll outperform Tyreek Hill. These things, as anything, are not perfectly predictable, but there are probabilities that can be compared. Hence, not 'all' luck. The problem is that you are treating 'predictable' as if it's a binary thing--something is either 'predictable' or it isn't. That's not how predicting works. If I play poker and I count cards (and don't get caught and kicked out of the casino), I can't 'predict', if you mean 'with 100% certainty', that a certain card will come up at any given time. But I can make better predictions, more accurate more of the time, than I can if I don't count cards. That's why something like poker isn't 'all' luck, even though you have this big part of the game--the card order--that isn't perfectly predictable.

Wisconsin Badgers. Trade him straight up for that Taylor kid.

I didn't say we should have seen it coming. If that's how you read what I just wrote, I respectfully say you should read it again. I in fact said that it was "no question" that Jordy's day was a surprise.

Wasn't that the one in Afghanistan? Where he gets shot in the side and cauterizes the wound with gunpowder?

Seafoam and I are just continuing to poke fun at the 'it's all luck' argument. No question Jordy's day was a surprise. But it shouldn't have been the biggest surprise in the world. Previously very talented player takes a couple of weeks into the season to adjust to a new team? Or for Ridley, really talented kid they've been talking up all summer has a big game? Not really 'stunners'. Eyebrown raisers, but not the level of Mike Gillislee putting up 4 TDs in a game next week.

Maybe they just did the math after he retired and thought "Sh!t, at this rate we only have two years of football left before we can't even field a full team anymore."

You're underestimating the power of spite. Guy gets traded to a team with a future, he might just decide to play as a middle finger to the Steelers. Not saying Bell would, I don't know him. But I could see more than a few people doing that.

Pretty lucky in college too, that guy. I ever tell you I was dreaming of the NFL years ago? I mean, I never played in high school. Or college. I kept thinking the college coach would randomly dial my number and be all like "Hey Brother, you're on the team!" But never happened. And then the lucky call from an NFL team never materialized. I guess I could still play now. I'm around Brady's age. Still never played competitively. But some NFL team is out there right now, emailing random people and hoping someone will randomly say yes. I could be a...hold on, rolling a die...weak side linebacker!

This x1000. Touchdown! Commercial break. Extra point! Commercial break. Guys drinking water! Commercial break. Kickoff! Commercial break. Flag on the kickoff they are still sorting out! Commercial break. Here you go--in 3-3.5 hours of a 'football game', according to 2013 stats, there were over 100 commercials. And eleven minutes of time when the ball was in play. So if the cameras are rolling (not at commercial) for the whole time the game clock is running, then we're looking at 49 minutes of booth announcer/sideline announcer garble. And 2-2.5 hours of commercial watching. (a bit of slush time when the game clock isn't running but we're not at commercial--add that to the booth/sideline garble time) What surprises me is that I put up with it for that long. I watch a game a week, maybe. This week I won't be able to catch any of it (travel/work). Not really caring. So when people get irritated (say by players kneeling, or in my case being irritated by owners and other fans being irritated by the kneeling), it's not hard for people to walk away. Gee, what else will I do with 3 hours in order to get those exciting 11 minutes of time back?

He did it on purpose. Another one of these over-coddled privileged guys, has everything handed to him on a platter, and as soon as he cashes in the big money--he's done. Watch the tape from the last two weeks--you can see him purposefully stomping on the ground really hard whenever he ran--he was just trying to pop that ACL. Finally did it.

LOL. Nicely played.

Or the people running the TV and Cable channels. They make millions and millions, and all they do is agree to show what the other people are doing. They aren't even operating the cameras or interviewing anyone. No one is complaining about those CEO salaries. It's entertainment to us, it's a job for them. The two aren't mutually exclusive. I can shrug off a FF loss because FF is only entertainment for me. If that was the way I was making my living, it should be expected to be more important to me. So no, for the players, football is not 'just entertainment'. It's how they pay mortgages, eat food, pay for kids' college, etc. Earning money for those things is not 'entertainment'. It's 'work'. You're acting like human beings have no emotions. What type of people get insulted by a job offer? People who get offered bad jobs for low pay simply because the employer knows he can take advantage of them. The person doesn't have to take that job, but the offer being insulting isn't about that. Consider a company that pays $20/hr to new employees. An ex-convict, recently released from prison, is qualified for work and applies for a job there. The employer knows they are the only ones in town who hire ex-cons, and so for that reason only they offer him minimum wage. That's insulting. It's super easy to say to anyone 'don't be insulted, just move on'. But then when someone insults you on the street, actually just shrugging and walking on is another matter entirely. (And, frankly, some of the posts you and I both have directed at each other from time to time, we should know something about it being hard to not get insulted, right? )

Indeed. He lucked his way into all those team meetings and film sessions, lucked his way through the playbook and workouts and practices. And none of us ever heard of him or saw any data on him at all about how lucky he was. So many games, so many luck.

If it was at a girlfriend, he should be traded to the Dolphins <ninja>

The fact that women have been and still are the subject of massive amounts of discrimination is not the same thing as the belief that they are weaklings who must be protected. That's a strawman argument. "protected classes cannot possibly be equal--they are underclasses by definition. " This makes no sense. Women have been relegated to a second class--that's an undeniable fact. It's not the attempts to fix the biases that have put women in that situation. They are not being treated equally, including by the rules of most establishments, governmental and corporate. To claim for example that we should try to be 'fair' by 'not seeing gender' is to ignore the fact that the system is biased against women. In order to achieve fair treatment later, we must treat different groups differently now--because the system is unfair now. Consider--following the Civil War, blacks were no longer subject to slavery. So what if schools at the time, right after the war, said "Great, now that we treat everyone equally, we'll make our admission standards fair--everyone gets admitted based on GPA, regardless of race." You think there would be a lot of blacks admitted to those schools, with their 'fair' and 'colorblind' admissions policies? The people who hadn't been educated, didn't have money to afford education? Their situation was in no way reflective of their capabilities--just of their realities. Former slaves would have stood no chance of getting into schools based on 'equal' admission standards. Yet the whites could pat themselves on the backs and say "See? No racial requirements! We're doing the right thing!" There's simply a difference between equality and equity. Women are perfectly capable. But when the same resume that gets accepted at 100 companies with a male name gets rejected at 100 other companies when you put a female name on it, the competence of women is suddenly facing the monolith of a biased society. To say we should be working to fix that problem is not to demean women at all. Simply put: to say that we should be 'working to fix the system for women' is very different from saying that we should be working with women to fix the system.

John Madden used to say (and it was a regular sound bite in his video game) "You Can't. Coach. Speed." Hmmm. Why do I look at track teams and professional sprinters and see so many coaches working with them to get faster? Yeah, John knew every aspect of something. <eyeroll>