Who has ESPN insider?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from freediro. Show freediro's posts

    Who has ESPN insider?

    There is an article on ESPN boston, about how the Pats could go from first to worst. I just want to read it, can anyone post it on this thread for me or anyone else interested. Honestly, after all these years of success I can't understand how someone would have the balls to write such a stupid sounding article,

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

    The guy who wrote that article is named Aaron Schartz... that is all.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

    Here you go

    Aaron Schatz

    The Houston Texans and Washington Redskins both won their respective divisions in 2012. Last year, they combined to go 5-27. Teams turn over fast in the NFL, and last year's juggernaut could be this year's bottom-feeder getting flexed out of "Sunday Night Football" by Week 10.

    In the Football Outsiders Almanac 2014, we forecast the upcoming season with a formula that accounts for everything from performance the past two years to personnel changes to injury history. Then we simulate the season 1 million times, accounting for all the randomness and unknown variables that also will affect the coming season.

    Our simulation doesn't spit out results for how often a team specifically finishes fourth, so instead, here are the eight 2013 first-place teams ranked in order of how often they went 6-10 or worse in our 2014 simulations. We should point out that these numbers are fairly low because, more than in most seasons, our projections forecast that the same teams that were playoff contenders in 2013 will also be playoff contenders in 2014. However, one team stands out with a hefty chance of collapse.

    On Monday, we ranked division cellar-dwellers from 2013 most likely to win their divisions in 2014. Here are last year's eight first-place teams in their order of likelihood to make the transition from first in 2013 to worst in 2014:

     

    1. Carolina Panthers, 30.0 percent

    Carolina's likelihood of collapse starts with one of the strongest elements of forecasting in the NFL: Offense is more consistent from year to year than defense. That means a defense-first team such as Carolina is going to have a harder time repeating as division champion than an offense-first team such as Denver. Inconsistency is a bigger issue for the Carolina defense because three-fourths of its starting secondary from 2013 is gone in free agency.


    There's even more turnover on offense, and it's not exactly a good thing. Left tackle Jordan Gross retired with no clear replacement on the roster. The team turned over almost its entire wide receiver corps and is now depending on a 32-year-old vet coming off a fluke year (Jerricho Cotchery), a rookie who was widely regarded as a talented longer-term project (Kelvin Benjamin) and a serviceable slot receiver who would never scare anyone on the outside (Jason Avant). To top it all off, we rank the Panthers eighth in projected schedule strength, the toughest schedule of any of last year's division champions.

     

    2. Indianapolis Colts, 17.9 percent

    The problem here is pretty clear. As my colleague Rivers McCown pointed out last week, the Colts have done a terrible job of putting other good young players around Andrew Luck and an even worse job of putting good young players on the defense that is supposed to keep opponents from outscoring Luck. This is a big part of why Luck has to keep coming back from such large deficits. But although Luck might truly be better than other quarterbacks when it comes to performing when down in the fourth quarter, there's no way he can maintain his current phenomenal numbers in late and close situations.

    Meanwhile, the team is heavily counting on two aging veterans: Reggie Wayne, who is coming off an ACL tear, and Robert Mathis, whose 2013 numbers stand out like a sore thumb when you look at his career progression. Oh, and he'll miss the first four games of the season with a suspension.

    On the other hand ... Andrew Luck, you know? Plus, in the AFC South more than any other division, the chances of a team going 6-10 or worse aren't really the same as its chances of finishing in last place. The last-place team in this division will almost assuredly be 4-12 or worse, and it's hard to imagine the Colts being that team if Luck is healthy.

     

    3. Cincinnati Bengals, 17.0 percent

    The Bengals have been a good-but-not-great team for three years, and they are probably going to be a good-but-not-great team again in 2014. What might knock them down to last place in the AFC North would be a major regression in team health. The Bengals finished third in our adjusted games lost metric last year, as they not only suffered few injuries that cost players games but also suffered few injuries that had guys on the injury report as "probable" or "questionable" and then playing at less than 100 percent.

    On the other hand, the injuries the Bengals did have were to hugely important players, particularly Geno Atkins and Leon Hall. Our AGL metric does not account for importance of players lost to injury. The Bengals could suffer an average number of injuries this year, and -- as long as the injured players don't include Atkins, Hall, A.J. Green, Andrew Whitworth or Andy Dalton -- they'll be no worse off than they were in 2013. Actually, they could even afford to lose Dalton for a bit if Jason Campbell could somehow find the magic he had back with new offensive coordinator Hue Jackson in Oakland.

     

    4. Philadelphia Eagles, 12.4 percent

    Here's another team in which the opportunity for collapse is primarily based on the idea of regression toward the mean in team health. The Eagles led the league in AGL last year. The odds of them being as healthy as they were in 2013 are very small. But how many players would have to get injured before Chip Kelly's plug-and-play offense would be unable to overcome the losses? This roster has much more depth than its division rivals in Dallas and Washington.

    Plus, the fact that defense and special teams tend to be less consistent than offense is a huge plus for the Eagles, who ranked third in offense but 23rd in defense and 25th in special teams last year in Football Outsiders' DVOA (defense-adjusted value over average) ratings. Even if the offense declines, the other two units are likely to improve.

     

    5. Green Bay Packers, 8.7 percent

    In effect, "What are the odds that Aaron Rodgers has a second straight huge injury, only this time he suffers it before the end of September?" The Packers managed to claw their way into the playoffs last year despite half a season of having to depend on their messy quarterback situation. They probably could claw their way into the playoffs again even if they had Rodgers for only half of 2014, especially because their defense is likely to be better than last year. The 2013 Packers were a dismal 31st in our defensive DVOA ratings, worse than even Dallas and ahead of only San Diego.

     

    6. New England Patriots, 8.2 percent

    The Patriots play in a division in which no other team is clearly a playoff contender, although we do think Buffalo could surprise. Although the Pats' offense struggled in the first half of last season, it was one of the best in the league for years and, in the final three months of last season, returned to that same level of excellence. (Football Oustiders' DVOA ratings ranked the Patriots' offense 18th in the league in the first five games of the season. Then they had the best offensive DVOA in the league from Week 6 through the end of the regular season -- even slightly better than Denver in that stretch.)

    The defense gets three up-the-middle veterans (Jerod Mayo, Vince Wilfork and Tommy Kelly) back from injury and added one of the three best cornerbacks in the league in Darrelle Revis. This team has won 10 or more games for 11 straight seasons, and the odds that won't become a dozen are really low.

     

    7. Seattle Seahawks, 8.1 percent

    The chances of the Seahawks suddenly becoming a losing team are based almost entirely on two issues. First, defense is less consistent than offense, so the odds of their defense suddenly becoming subpar are much stronger than the odds for a similarly strong offense would be. (Of course, the Seattle offense ranked seventh in our ratings last year, so it's not exactly a weakness.)

    Second, the NFC West is the strongest division in the game right now, and these teams also play the AFC West this year. That means some very difficult schedules, and the NFC West could end up with four above-average teams. One of those teams would have to finish last, and, with a couple of unfortunate bounces of the football, it could be Seattle.

     

    8. Denver Broncos, 2.3 percent

    Remember a couple of sentences ago when I mentioned that a "similarly strong offense" would be almost 100 percent guaranteed not to suddenly become subpar in 2014? Ladies and gentlemen, the Denver Broncos!

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

     

     Of the eight first place teams last year, he ranked the Pats sixth most likely to go from first to worst.  The only two he thought had lower chances of going from first to worst were the Seahawks and Broncos.  Every other first place team last year he though had a higher chance of going from first to worst.  I think this is probably a fair assessment. 


    Shatz and his Football Outsiders website are actually pretty good.  

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

    Note the Seahawks and Pats are separated by only .1 %, 8.2 v 8.1.  It is also within a division.  It appears the Broncos have less competition in their division, hence their low percentage.

    Much ado about nothing. Let's not get our panties in a bunch!

    AGCSBill, just a fan havin' fun!!

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:


    It looks like he scharted himself.


    I gotta tell ya, these geeks who concoct these nerdball formulas just to have a column to write, not only never played sports, but come off as morons.


    What a pointless set of metrics and premise from this guy.


    Pats will go now worse than 12-4, more likely 14-2 and be in numerous close games like that are every year.


    1 or 2 seed.


    That is all.





    [object HTMLDivElement]


    Please learn how to read.


    He is saying there is (only) a very slight chance of that happening, 8%.


    He is only mentioning them because they are first in the division.


    That is what he is rating.  The probability of the division champs, falling.


    Is he still a moron?  MORON

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from m. a. pat. Show m. a. pat's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It looks like he scharted himself.

    I gotta tell ya, these geeks who concoct these nerdball formulas just to have a column to write, not only never played sports, but come off as morons.

    What a pointless set of metrics and premise from this guy.

    Pats will go now worse than 12-4, more likely 14-2 and be in numerous close games like that are every year.

    1 or 2 seed.

    That is all.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's quite enough. You're making a mockery of the English language.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It looks like he scharted himself.

    I gotta tell ya, these geeks who concoct these nerdball formulas just to have a column to write, not only never played sports, but come off as morons.

    What a pointless set of metrics and premise from this guy.

    Pats will go now worse than 12-4, more likely 14-2 and be in numerous close games like that are every year.

    1 or 2 seed.

    That is all.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Please learn how to read.

    He is saying there is (only) a very slight chance of that happening, 8%.

    He is only mentioning them because they are first in the division.

    Is he still a moron?  MORON

    [/QUOTE]

    I know right. Does anyone understand the writer is looking at last years division winners and pointing out the chance they stumble? The Pats in the writers option on are a virtual lock to win the division, yet Pats fan criticize the article?

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:



     




    In response to pezz4pats' comment:




    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]




    It looks like he scharted himself.




    I gotta tell ya, these geeks who concoct these nerdball formulas just to have a column to write, not only never played sports, but come off as morons.




    What a pointless set of metrics and premise from this guy.




    Pats will go now worse than 12-4, more likely 14-2 and be in numerous close games like that are every year.




    1 or 2 seed.




    That is all.




     






    [object HTMLDivElement]


     


     


    Please learn how to read.


     


    He is saying there is (only) a very slight chance of that happening, 8%.


     


    He is only mentioning them because they are first in the division.


     


    Is he still a moron?  MORON


     





    I don't care.  The title of the column is even stupid.


     


    I don't care if it is a "2% chance".  It's dumb.  Like you. VERY, VERY DUMB and GEEKY.


     


    Completely pointless read and a waste of time like yourself. No wonder you enjoyed the piece. 


     


    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]


     


    Learn how to read and comprehend what you do read.  You do it all the freaken time!


    Have to be the stupidist troll on the planet.


    It's dumb that they are virtually a lock to win the division?


    The title?  What title?  You see a title?


    Bwahahaha


    LMAO@U

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:


    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    It looks like he scharted himself.


    I gotta tell ya, these geeks who concoct these nerdball formulas just to have a column to write, not only never played sports, but come off as morons.


    What a pointless set of metrics and premise from this guy.


    Pats will go now worse than 12-4, more likely 14-2 and be in numerous close games like that are every year.


    1 or 2 seed.


    That is all.





    [object HTMLDivElement]


    Please learn how to read.


    He is saying there is (only) a very slight chance of that happening, 8%.


    He is only mentioning them because they are first in the division.


    Is he still a moron?  MORON


    [/QUOTE]


    I don't care.  The title of the column is even stupid.


    I don't care if it is a "2% chance".  It's dumb.  Like you. VERY, VERY DUMB and GEEKY.


    Completely pointless read and a waste of time like yourself. No wonder you enjoyed the piece. 


    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]


    Learn how to read and comprehend what you do read.


    Have to be the stupidist troll on the planet.


    It's dumb that they are virtually a lock to win the division?


    The title?


    Bwahahaha


    LMAO@U


    [/QUOTE]


    It's beyond moronic to say "first to worst" and then he actually contradicts himself in the part about the Pats.


    Are you seriously this stupid?  The Pats are going from "first to worst", but will win the division? You're as dumb as Schartz.


    Not only will NE win the division again, the odds favor them being healthier than last year and MORE LIKELY to be better than 12-4.  Don't expect last play of the game bagjobs either. Each of those games created such a negative media backlash towards Goodell and the officiating, it's VERY UNLIKELY the Pats are victim to any shenanigans like that again.  Then again, Goodell is de$perate to see Manning win another SB.


    Here is a list of people who they get back that they lost for large portions or early in 2013:


    Wilfork


    Mayo


    Gronk


    Kelly


    Vereen


    Vollmer


    Jamie Collins (now will be a 3 down player)


    Additions as veterans:


    Revis, Will Smith, Browner, LaFell


    Explain to the board how the Patriots would be on a list of teams possibly to go from "first to worst", but not really (just kidding!)....The writer himself is a moron for creating such a contradictory set of metrics, he doesn't even know that his premise contradicts the substance in the portion about the Pats.


    Did the writer entitle his piece as "first to worst" to get clicks on his piece knowing Pats fans would tell others and get them to read it?


    See, this is why I question anyone who pays for ESPN Insider. They're idiots for playing into what ESPN does.


    Schartz easily confused a moron like you too, which is pee your pants funny to watch. lol


    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]


    Try to understand, nut job.


    He is rating the probability of the division leaders to lose that distinction. Therefore first to worst.  He is rating all division leaders.  There is NO TITLE!  It's only the OP's description.


    Get it?


    He put the Pats at the near bottom of that list because there is very little chance of that happening.


    Get it?


    Again, learn to read and comprehend and quit making excuses for your inability to do so.


    You are accomplishing NOTHING, except exposing yourself as the dumbazz, that you are.


    Not that we don't already know.


    We don't need reinforcing evidence.


    Thanks

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheRealBustchise. Show TheRealBustchise's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It looks like he scharted himself.

    I gotta tell ya, these geeks who concoct these nerdball formulas just to have a column to write, not only never played sports, but come off as morons.

    What a pointless set of metrics and premise from this guy.

    Pats will go now worse than 12-4, more likely 14-2 and be in numerous close games like that are every year.

    1 or 2 seed.

    That is all.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Please learn how to read.

    He is saying there is (only) a very slight chance of that happening, 8%.

    He is only mentioning them because they are first in the division.

    Is he still a moron?  MORON

    [/QUOTE]


    I don't care.  The title of the column is even stupid.

    I don't care if it is a "2% chance".  It's dumb.  Like you. VERY, VERY DUMB and GEEKY.

    Completely pointless read and a waste of time like yourself. No wonder you enjoyed the piece. 

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Learn how to read and comprehend what you do read.

    Have to be the stupidist troll on the planet.

    It's dumb that they are virtually a lock to win the division?

    The title?

    Bwahahaha

    LMAO@U

    [/QUOTE]


    It's beyond moronic to say "first to worst" and then he actually contradicts himself in the part about the Pats.

    Are you seriously this stupid?  The Pats are going from "first to worst", but will win the division? You're as dumb as Schartz.

    Not only will NE win the division again, the odds favor them being healthier than last year and MORE LIKELY to be better than 12-4.  Don't expect last play of the game bagjobs either. Each of those games created such a negative media backlash towards Goodell and the officiating, it's VERY UNLIKELY the Pats are victim to any shenanigans like that again.  Then again, Goodell is de$perate to see Manning win another SB.

    Here is a list of people who they get back that they lost for large portions or early in 2013:

    Wilfork

    Mayo

    Gronk

    Kelly

    Vereen

    Vollmer

    Jamie Collins (now will be a 3 down player)

    Additions as veterans:

    Revis, Will Smith, Browner, LaFell

    Explain to the board how the Patriots would be on a list of teams possibly to go from "first to worst", but not really (just kidding!)....The writer himself is a moron for creating such a contradictory set of metrics, he doesn't even know that his premise contradicts the substance in the portion about the Pats.

    Did the writer entitle his piece as "first to worst" to get clicks on his piece knowing Pats fans would tell others and get them to read it?

    See, this is why I question anyone who pays for ESPN Insider. They're idiots for playing into what ESPN does.

    Schartz easily confused a moron like you too, which is pee your pants funny to watch. lol

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Try to understand, nut job.

    He is rating the probability of the division leaders to lose that distinction. Therefore first to worst.  He is rating all division leaders.

    Get it?

    He put the Pats at the near bottom of that list because there is very little chance of that happening.

    Get it?

    Again, learn to read and comprehend and quit making excuses for your inability to do so.

    You are accomplishing NOTHING, except exposing yourself as the dumbazz, that you are.

    Not that we don't already know.

    We don't need reinforcing evidence.

    Thanks

    [/QUOTE]


    Are you seriously this stupid?  The PREMISE IS RETAHDED.  RETAHDED. LIKE YOU.

    Do I need to repeat that part so it can settle into your thick head?  How many times were you dropped as a baby?  Apparently one too many.

    That is MY POINT originally. I don't care about his percentages, his odds, nothing.  The premise is a wast of my time and I feel dumb for even reading it.  The millisecond he realized how dumb it would be to include NE in a list such as that, it should have dawned on him that his premise was compromised. Buffalo has a 0% chance of winning the division with Miami and NY being ahead of the Pats.

    Get it? 8%?  Are you seriously this stupid???  Everyday you come in here with your horrendous reading comprehension, comically claiming that the other person has the bad reading comprehension. When, in fact, the other person is light years beyond your intelligence level with far superior critical thinking skills. You're so insecure that you lash out instead.

    It's just comical to watch. This is another example. You don't get my original points, because you're dumb, so you feel inadequate. lol

    Leave it to you to find it worthwhile, engaging and valid. Priceless.  Every rational person here sees this piece as completely stupid and a wast of time as an ESPN trash piece, but you and RKrap  apparently enjoyed it. LOL

    Again, pee your pants funny!  bawwhahaha

    [/QUOTE]

    "Stop using my words" !  Bwhahahaahahahahahaha!  What a loser.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It looks like he scharted himself.

    I gotta tell ya, these geeks who concoct these nerdball formulas just to have a column to write, not only never played sports, but come off as morons.

    What a pointless set of metrics and premise from this guy.

    Pats will go now worse than 12-4, more likely 14-2 and be in numerous close games like that are every year.

    1 or 2 seed.

    That is all.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Please learn how to read.

    He is saying there is (only) a very slight chance of that happening, 8%.

    He is only mentioning them because they are first in the division.

    Is he still a moron?  MORON

    [/QUOTE]


    I don't care.  The title of the column is even stupid.

    I don't care if it is a "2% chance".  It's dumb.  Like you. VERY, VERY DUMB and GEEKY.

    Completely pointless read and a waste of time like yourself. No wonder you enjoyed the piece. 

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Learn how to read and comprehend what you do read.

    Have to be the stupidist troll on the planet.

    It's dumb that they are virtually a lock to win the division?

    The title?

    Bwahahaha

    LMAO@U

    [/QUOTE]


    It's beyond moronic to say "first to worst" and then he actually contradicts himself in the part about the Pats.

    Are you seriously this stupid?  The Pats are going from "first to worst", but will win the division? You're as dumb as Schartz.

    Not only will NE win the division again, the odds favor them being healthier than last year and MORE LIKELY to be better than 12-4.  Don't expect last play of the game bagjobs either. Each of those games created such a negative media backlash towards Goodell and the officiating, it's VERY UNLIKELY the Pats are victim to any shenanigans like that again.  Then again, Goodell is de$perate to see Manning win another SB.

    Here is a list of people who they get back that they lost for large portions or early in 2013:

    Wilfork

    Mayo

    Gronk

    Kelly

    Vereen

    Vollmer

    Jamie Collins (now will be a 3 down player)

    Additions as veterans:

    Revis, Will Smith, Browner, LaFell

    Explain to the board how the Patriots would be on a list of teams possibly to go from "first to worst", but not really (just kidding!)....The writer himself is a moron for creating such a contradictory set of metrics, he doesn't even know that his premise contradicts the substance in the portion about the Pats.

    Did the writer entitle his piece as "first to worst" to get clicks on his piece knowing Pats fans would tell others and get them to read it?

    See, this is why I question anyone who pays for ESPN Insider. They're idiots for playing into what ESPN does.

    Schartz easily confused a moron like you too, which is pee your pants funny to watch. lol

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Try to understand, nut job.

    He is rating the probability of the division leaders to lose that distinction. Therefore first to worst.  He is rating all division leaders.

    Get it?

    He put the Pats at the near bottom of that list because there is very little chance of that happening.

    Get it?

    Again, learn to read and comprehend and quit making excuses for your inability to do so.

    You are accomplishing NOTHING, except exposing yourself as the dumbazz, that you are.

    Not that we don't already know.

    We don't need reinforcing evidence.

    Thanks

    [/QUOTE]


    Are you seriously this stupid?  The PREMISE IS RETAHDED.  RETAHDED. LIKE YOU.

    Do I need to repeat that part so it can settle into your thick head?  How many times were you dropped as a baby?  Apparently one too many.

    That is MY POINT originally. I don't care about his percentages, his odds, nothing.  The premise is a wast of my time and I feel dumb for even reading it.  The millisecond he realized how dumb it would be to include NE in a list such as that, it should have dawned on him that his premise was compromised. Buffalo has a 0% chance of winning the division with Miami and NY being ahead of the Pats.

    Get it? 8%?  Are you seriously this stupid???  Everyday you come in here with your horrendous reading comprehension, comically claiming that the other person has the bad reading comprehension. When, in fact, the other person is light years beyond your intelligence level with far superior critical thinking skills. You're so insecure that you lash out instead.

    It's just comical to watch. This is another example. You don't get my original points, because you're dumb, so you feel inadequate. lol

    Leave it to you to find it worthwhile, engaging and valid. Priceless.  Every rational person here sees this piece as completely stupid and a wast of time as an ESPN trash piece, but you and RKrap  apparently enjoyed it. LOL

    Again, pee your pants funny!  bawwhahaha

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     ^^^^Psycho nutjob!^^^^

    All the proof anyone needs.

    Guilty as charged.

    I rest my case.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from DougIrwin. Show DougIrwin's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

    ^Clear backpedal.

    Summary:  RKrap and Pezzy are the only 2 people here who felt the Schartz column was good.

    LOL!

    What a shocker!

    1. They're both idiots beyond belief.

    2.  RKrap works for ESPN.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    ^Clear backpedal.

    Summary:  RKrap and Pezzy are the only 2 people here who felt the Schartz column was good.

    LOL!

    What a shocker!

    1. They're both idiots beyond belief.

    2.  RKrap works for ESPN.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    NO FOOL

    You are the only one to think it's bad.

    That's because you are a pathetic loser who can't read.

    Admit it!  You cried foul because you thought some how this is an insult to your beebee's nap sack.

    Instead of admitting you're wrong, you lash out like a 4 year old child.  Worse

    You pathetic little nut job.

    Hey, let's make a poll and see who's right.

    You want to lose another?

    You're not very good at this, though I suspect, you're not very good at anything.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

    Aaron Shatz (it's Shatz, not Schartz, which I guess is even funnier) has done some pretty interesting stuff on his "Football Outsiders" blog.  He's pretty good as far as statistical analysis goes, and if anyone read the article with their brains engaged they would have realized that he was saying that of all of last year's first place teams the Pats were one of the three least likely to go from first to worst.  That seems pretty positive about the Pats to me and also pretty realistic.  I know Rusty will argue that the Pats are way better than Seattle and Denver, but objectively this isn't quite so clear.  

     

     

    EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
    Compared to Bill James by The New York Times Magazine, AARON SCHATZ is the creator of Football Outsiders and most of the original statistical methods used in NFL analysis on this website, as well as lead writer, editor, and statistician on the book series Football Outsiders Almanac. He also writes for ESPN.com and ESPN The Magazine, and during the 2011 season was a regular panelist on the ESPN2 show Numbers Never* Lie. Before Football Outsiders, Aaron spent five years on the radio at WBRU Providence and WKRO Daytona Beach, and three years as the writer and producer of the Lycos 50, the Internet's foremost authority on the people, places, and things that are searched online. He has written for a number of publications including The New Republic, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, Slate, The American Prospect, and the Boston Phoenix. He lives in Framingham, Massachusetts.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share