I would bet your left nut that Thomposon has a quantified grading scale. First and foremost, he has to quantify the scouting reports of all the different scouts and compare them to get a relative rating. That alone is enough for me to consider Thompson a genius.
Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister
And you don't think that "eye tests" are used for the basis of the quantification? It's easy to quantify anything. I can assign a number rating to a player's performance without looking at any statistics. It's easy. It's not uniform or unbiased across the league, and that's why some scouts are better than others. This is very obvious to me.
I posted all of the passing stats I could find for last year. I am not going to keep re-posting them.
Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister
The only passing stats I remember seeing directly comparing Bishop and Hawk was the passing rating scale by Raashan that I have addressed several times and then eventually the plays of 20+ yards. Neither of which is enough for me to make a definitive assessment of a player, but perhaps it is for you. Or maybe I missed further analysis.
In my opinion, salary is the worst argument ever. Do we want to save money or win games. Put the best guy on the field. So what if he isn't the best value. If the whole team is under the cap, it has no bearing what so ever.
Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister
This is clearly your opinion because salary does factor in player equations all the time. It's easy for you to have that opinion as a fan, but it's a lot different for someone actually managing the budget. If a GM thinks they can get almost equal or equal play from someone making 3-4 million dollars less a year, it's silly to think the potential savings doesn't cross their mind. I'm sure Ted wanted to keep Cullen Jenkins but unfortunately his perceived salary didn't fit into the books, for whatever reason. Normal general manager business. It's not as simple as just putting the best players on the field because the money has to be there to resign the likes of Rodger's, CM3, Raji, etc. etc. I think Thompson has repeatedly shown he's willing to go with a younger (and yes cheaper) talent over more expensive proven vets, much to the bewilderment of many talking heads. This is part of the reason the Packer's are usually in pretty good shape with the salary cap and retaining their players. They don't overpay, even if it means losing people sometimes. They're confident in replacing them with someone younger and cheaper, if need be.
Either does draft position. He is not battling the entire draft for a starting spot, just whoever is on the roster.
Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister
OK? Hawk is viewed by many to be a disappointment for where he was drafted. I haven't been discussing that in anyway, though.
I have disputed the sack issue with Hawk. Because of the obvious assignments on the cross dog blitz.
Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister
I understand that they use this blitz a lot, but it's certainly not the only blitz used. I think we all get your point on that particular blitz, but it's become overstated. I think the general consensus among the majority is that Bishop is the better pass rusher, regardless of the circumstances. Do you have numbers displaying the frequency of cross dog blitzes vs. other blitzes?
Until the eye test has a scale that is built into it so different observers can compare different player, it is crap. Unless it can't be biased, regardless if it actually is or not, it is not trustworthy.
Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister
Once again, everything about judging players is biased and that's why some other excel why others falter. It may be crap to you, but it happens and isn't going to stop anytime soon. Numbers will never tell the whole story and someone's evaluation (opinions) attempt to fill in the gaps. This is like saying a professor grading a presentation or a piece of writing is always crap simply because it likely won't be consistent across all graders. Different people see things differently, but hopefully an organization has put people in those places that they trust and value their opinions. Evaluation rubrics are routinely used in an attempt to standardize and quantify evaluations across several different people and, when done right, work pretty well.
As far as hanging Bishop out to dry, if you trade Hawk and Bishops assignments, you put Hawk on a TE who is probably slower than the RB he would normally be covering. Putting Bishop on an even faster player than he was covering before. Trading assignments for Hawk and Bishop would have been even more disastrous. The only option I saw was to either live with it or pull Bishop on passing downs. So Bishop could sit during nickel downs and we could put someone faster in for him.
Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister
I would want my best cover guy on the likes of a Jimmy Graham, Gronkoski, Finley, Gates, etc. every time. Sure, running backs like Sprole's and Forte are a threat, but great tight ends are clearly a higher priority as they more commonly have huge impacts on the passing game. It's not all about speed at all. If that's the case, Sam Shields would almost never get beat.
To look at the difference in passing stats, look at it like that was a whole game by a QB. If they had a game like Bishop gave up, they would have been as good as Rodgers. If a QB had a game like Hawk gave up, he would be like Matt Hasselbeck. 77% completions and more than 25% over 20 yards. That says a lot.
Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister
Is this based off the subjective passing stats by Raashan again? Or the fact that Bishop gave up 9 / 16 = 0.56 plays of 20+ yards per game vs. Hawks 5 / 16 = 0.31? Again, the information I've seen just isn't concrete enough for me to be as confident as you, that's all, especially in a season where several player's regressed. There's no reason to believe the likes of Williams, Bishop, Shields, Raji, etc. won't play better this season. If not, well, perhaps they need to be replaced. I applaud you for being so strong in your convictions, but I just haven't been convinced . . . yet. I think a recurring theme in my head as I go through this thread is that Bishop likely isn't quite as bad as you seem to think over his career and Hawk isn't quite as bad as other seem to think. I can live with that.