To all the McGinn Detractors

[pbmax]

Overall I think McGinn does a pretty good job. Not perfect, but better than most. I'm glad to read him, find I can sort through most of the bullshit, and typically glean quality information from his stuff.

Exactly, though I don't miss Cliff as much as RG seems to.

[retailguy]

Overall I think McGinn does a pretty good job. Not perfect, but better than most. I'm glad to read him, find I can sort through most of the bullshit, and typically glean quality information from his stuff.

Exactly, though I don't miss Cliff as much as RG seems to.

Not pining away for him exactly, but fair to say I'd rather read Cliffy than McGinn and I'd rather read McGinn than Bedard, and I haven't even read a Lori Nickel article in so long I don't even know if she still works there....

[pbmax]

Notice 2-3 years after Cliff ends his "keep Art Monk out of the Hall" crusade, he gets in. For years he had been #1 on the "guys that deserve to be in Canton but aren't" lists, his biggest roadblock of course was Cliff Cristl, who was the most anti-Monk voter/selector.

I thought Cliff was keeping his vote for a couple of years, even after retirement? Who got the vote?

[bobblehead]

Predicting a team's record correctly two years ago doesn't translate into deep knowledge of the game.

2 years in a ROW....and he went wildly against the grain both years. I guess in the minds of many though, the only thing that proves unequivocally that someone knows what they are talking about is if you (not specifically you, but whomever is listening) agree with them.

Look, if I can't point out that history has proven a guy accurate in his assessments as proof of knowledge, then what can I use??

[bobblehead]

He is a fucking journalist, he isn't supposed to filter out what you consider the best and worst waldo. If he did that he would be doing exactly what you accuse him of...writing an article first and then building the facts around it....

...As far as the "falsehoods" I'd have to see the article and the facts to dispute him as I don't recall him saying anything about 3rd and short. I have seen about 80% of this forum saying that though.

As a journalist, if you don't filter what sources are telling you then you will be writing and echoing a poor understanding or pure spin. If Waldo is right about the Pickett quote, then it gives the reader a false impression. Pickett is not Grady Jackson immovable, but he can handle a double-team. If McGinn needs to use this source to get at a different nugget of truth, then he needs to clarify with context or a differing viewpoint.

And McGinn directly blamed the ZBS emphasis on small lineman for the short yardage problems in 2006 and 2007. He rarely noted that the same ZBS lineman were much better at short yardage in 2008. The worst offense is not acknowledging Colledge (the first ZBS body type added by T2) having developed into a force as a run blocker. I still almost fall out of my chair remembering him planting Fat Pat Williams a yard deep in the endzone with a one on one block for a TD at Lambeau last year.

The sources grading an individual are giving their OPINIONS...of course you are not supposed to filter them. If you do that you are writing an article with an agenda.

edit: and further more he doesn't just pick one thing to show an agenda. When you read that pickett can't handle a double team there is often a comment by another scout right behind it saying pickett is an immovable wall and the heart of the defense. He is simply shotgunning what the scouts say to him and allowing us to have access to the minds of a scout.

[Zool]

Predicting a team's record correctly two years ago doesn't translate into deep knowledge of the game.

2 years in a ROW....and he went wildly against the grain both years. I guess in the minds of many though, the only thing that proves unequivocally that someone knows what they are talking about is if you (not specifically you, but whomever is listening) agree with them.

Look, if I can't point out that history has proven a guy accurate in his assessments as proof of knowledge, then what can I use??

How close were his predictions the previous 10 years?

[bobblehead]

Partial calling someone out for not admitting they are wrong.

Ty agreeing with Rand and Bobble on assesment of McGinn.

Might be time to head back to the js online..things are getting a bit to weird here.

Scary as it is ty, you and I are almost always in agreement on football matters....the world of politics, well, we couldn't be further apart.

[bobblehead]

Predicting a team's record correctly two years ago doesn't translate into deep knowledge of the game.

2 years in a ROW....and he went wildly against the grain both years. I guess in the minds of many though, the only thing that proves unequivocally that someone knows what they are talking about is if you (not specifically you, but whomever is listening) agree with them.

Look, if I can't point out that history has proven a guy accurate in his assessments as proof of knowledge, then what can I use??

How close were his predictions the previous 10 years?

I don't know, but you are more than capable and have every right to look them up and prove me wrong, but simply implying that they weren't good won't cut it. Either put up or don't speculate. Or if you are going to speculate do it in a much better way.

for instance:

You may be right bobblehead, but 2 years doesn't make a genius. I don't know what the prior 8 years to that were, but they MIGHT show a different story.

[sharpe1027]

Predicting a team's record correctly two years ago doesn't translate into deep knowledge of the game.

2 years in a ROW....and he went wildly against the grain both years. I guess in the minds of many though, the only thing that proves unequivocally that someone knows what they are talking about is if you (not specifically you, but whomever is listening) agree with them.

Look, if I can't point out that history has proven a guy accurate in his assessments as proof of knowledge, then what can I use??

Point out all you like. I would like to see his reasoning for those predictions, otherwise I could care less. If he correctly predicted the Packers record by reading his horoscope, does that prove his football knowledge?

[Freak Out]

Is he the Press Gazette guy? I see the big countdown is underway for the Oracle to speak. You have to pay to read his stuff correct?

[Fritz]

First, RG, I'm curious about the people-get-made-fun-of-thing. Did you get ripped last year for saying the team would or wouldn't do well? I don't remember. I've written some fairly extensive posts as to why I think it's fun but foolish to predict teams' records, and I've written even more regarding the foolishness of saying "If the team goes ___ and ___, I'll be happy."

My basic point as to predicting records is that so much depends on injuries anc other context (like schedule) that predicting records is fun and fine for fans, but to take any of it as a serious estimation of how good a team will be isn't really a good idea. A team can be poised and loaded and lose one guy and the whole thing will change in that instant. So I'm not quite sure how I'm trying to have it both ways.

Bobble, I wonder if we are thinking of different definitions of knowledge. For me, knowledge means understanding how a defensive or offensive system actually works or is supposed to work (what the roles of various players are in their given positions), understanding when a guy is doing his job in his position and when he isn't, understanding the salary cap and how it works, and having more than a passing knowledge of other teams and players. (For example, I am aggravated by television announcers who don't know the players as well as I, a casual fan, do). Not sure that's a complete list, but it covers some of the essentials.

Knowing all of the above and then some probably isn't going to ensure that you can predict someone's record - there are just too many variables. Besides injuries, for one example, there might be a team on the schedule that looks like an automatic "W" for your team - say Atlanta last year - that turns out to be a much better team than anyone thought (sometimes even coaches are surprised - I think MM was a little surprised by 07).

For you, however, it sounds like knowledge is linked to the idea that one can as a result of having knowledge be more accurate in predicting outcomes.

I don't think that is so, which is why I stopped studying The Racing Form a few years ago and began to bet on the ponies' names.

[sharpe1027]

I read a 2008 prediction by McgGinn where he predicted between 5-11 and 9-7. I could predict two years in a row with that much leeway.

The substance of the article was on in many respects. He cited as a concern: injuries; the running game seeing 8-man frunts; run-stopping ability; lack of pass rush; lack of depth; TT's style of management; lack of defensive imagination; aging players.

So, yeah he ended up being mostly correct on the reasons and the Packers fell within his huge prediction range. The problem was he basically wrote the article as a list of every possible reason that the team would not be as good as 2007.

But again, it doesn't change the other points of frustration.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Is he the Press Gazette guy? I see the big countdown is underway for the Oracle to speak. You have to pay to read his stuff correct?

Nope, you can read my stuff for free.

[Zool]

Predicting a team's record correctly two years ago doesn't translate into deep knowledge of the game.

2 years in a ROW....and he went wildly against the grain both years. I guess in the minds of many though, the only thing that proves unequivocally that someone knows what they are talking about is if you (not specifically you, but whomever is listening) agree with them.

Look, if I can't point out that history has proven a guy accurate in his assessments as proof of knowledge, then what can I use??

How close were his predictions the previous 10 years?

I don't know, but you are more than capable and have every right to look them up and prove me wrong, but simply implying that they weren't good won't cut it. Either put up or don't speculate. Or if you are going to speculate do it in a much better way.

for instance:

You may be right bobblehead, but 2 years doesn't make a genius. I don't know what the prior 8 years to that were, but they MIGHT show a different story.

Or I was just asking a simple fucking question without weighing in either way and was wondering if you had looked it up. You're the one who said he knows what he's talking about because he fucking guessed right for 2 years.

[bobblehead]

I read a 2008 prediction by McgGinn where he predicted between 5-11 and 9-7. I could predict two years in a row with that much leeway.

The substance of the article was on in many respects. He cited as a concern: injuries; the running game seeing 8-man frunts; run-stopping ability; lack of pass rush; lack of depth; TT's style of management; lack of defensive imagination; aging players.

So, yeah he ended up being mostly correct on the reasons and the Packers fell within his huge prediction range. The problem was he basically wrote the article as a list of every possible reason that the team would not be as good as 2007.

But again, it doesn't change the other points of frustration.

could you provide a link? JSO has on the front page his predictions the last 2 seasons which is exactly as I remember them.

2007: between 12-4 and 14-2
2008: 6-10

In '07 most thought we were .500 at best
In '08 many figured we were 10-6 at worst if rodgers played well.