[RD] Colin Kaepernick

[metalhead]

You can say whatever you want, but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences for what you say. If you publicly call someone a murderer or a rapist and they have never been convicted of those crimes, then you are slandering/defaming that person. Free speech laws, even in the US, do not protect slanderous speech.

That isn't what you said, originally. You said it was "irrational" to think or say someone is guilty of something if it hasn't been proven in a court of law, beyond reasonable doubt. Which is of course absurd - a court of law doesn't reflect reality, it only reflects what can be proven in a relatively narrow window of permissible evidence. Applying a courtroom standard outside of a courtroom makes no sense whatsoever.

Technically this would mean it's irrational to believe that the vast majority of people convicted of crimes actually committed them, because most plea out before guilt is actually proven.

 

[Lexicus]

Which is of course absurd - a court of law doesn't reflect reality, it only reflects what can be proven in a relatively narrow window of permissible evidence.

It's funny, because I was just the other day reading an article (about some NFL player who didn't get charged with domestic abuse, even though everyone agreed it probably happened) where a prosecutor essentially said "it's one thing to say that something almost certainly happened, but it's quite another to actually have enough evidence to charge someone criminally", and I think that logic applies double to having enough evidence to actually convict someone criminally.

 

[Commodore]

You said it was "irrational" to think or say someone is guilty of something if it hasn't been proven in a court of law,

Because it is irrational. Thinking someone is guilty of something without any proof is mere speculation. To accept speculation as fact flies in the face of rationality. That's why court rulings matter in situations like this. Courts only deal in facts that can be verified or proven, which is the only rational way to look at a given situation or accusation. So for someone to reject a court's ruling in a criminal trial, is to reject rationality.

Technically this would mean it's irrational to believe that the vast majority of people convicted of crimes actually committed them, because most plea out before guilt is actually proven.

Not really because an admission of guilt serves as proof of guilt unless there is evidence the confession was coerced.

 

[metalhead]

Because it is irrational. Thinking someone is guilty of something without any proof is mere speculation. To accept speculation as fact flies in the face of rationality. That's why court rulings matter in situations like this. Courts only deal in facts that can be verified or proven, which is the only rational way to look at a given situation or accusation. So for someone to reject a court's ruling in a criminal trial, is to reject rationality.

If I witness someone murder someone else, and that person is found not guilty at trial, am I to believe that person innocent despite having seen him commit the crime?

The problem with your thesis is that you assume that evidence at trial is the only acceptable "proof" that one can use. There can be ample proof of one's guilt that doesn't necessarily extinguish all reasonable doubt. There can be ample proof of guilt that isn't admissible at trial; that doesn't mean it isn't useful, or that it isn't conclusive. Trials aren't meant to find truth, or reflect reality; your mistake is assuming otherwise.

Not really because an admission of guilt serves as proof of guilt unless there is evidence the confession was coerced.

But it hasn't been verified. There is no proof. People take plea deals for reasons that don't necessarily mean they are guilty, and the crime being pled often doesn't accurately reflect what crime was actually committed. It's an artificial construction, and the person pleading guilty in a plea deal might not actually be guilty of the crime they are admitting to, or guilty of any crime at all. Plea deals are an artificial construct intended to ensure the justice system can function without becoming unwieldy. They are even less representative of truth and reality as an actual court of law.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

At some point, particularly when you talk about the NFL, you have to take your head out of the stat book and look at what a guy has actually accomplished on the field. That isn't meaningless no matter how many arguments one wants to make to the contrary, particularly for the QB position. Look at how many statistically proficient QBs struggle to win even 1 playoff game.

That's a dangerous stance to take though. It's a team sport, and advanced metrics are the best method we have to assign contribution by player. Broncos carried Manning's football playing husk over the finish line. Even in past years you have Dilfer getting carried or Brad Johnson catching fire for one season...or even streak hounds like Eli Manning who bounces between below average and viable all while the occasional great defensive playoff run has carried them to two improbable championships.

Statistically proficient QBs that "struggle" to win in the playoffs is a misnomer. There are very few players who have any sort of better performance "in the clutch" than their standard performance...even among QBs who gained a reputation for not winning the big game. In reality, you have sampling variance and the obvious fact that playoff teams are better.

Free speech laws, even in the US, do not protect slanderous speech.

False accusations/slander/etc do carry some burden in reverse though. Also wrt the rationality of courts: juries do not consistently apply sound rationale to form decisions. Bias or just flat out flawed reasoning can change verdicts. If we had something better it would make sense to use it.

 

[metalhead]

That's a dangerous stance to take though. It's a team sport, and advanced metrics are the best method we have to assign contribution by player. Broncos carried Manning's football playing husk over the finish line. Even in past years you have Dilfer getting carried or Brad Johnson catching fire for one season...or even streak hounds like Eli Manning who bounces between below average and viable all while the occasional great defensive playoff run has carried them to two improbable championships.

Statistically proficient QBs that "struggle" to win in the playoffs is a misnomer. There are very few players who have any sort of better performance "in the clutch" than their standard performance...even among QBs who gained a reputation for not winning the big game. In reality, you have sampling variance and the obvious fact that playoff teams are better.

But even advanced metric creators admit that they haven't really figured out how to separate a player's individual play from the performance of the team they play for, so if you're using advanced metrics that way, you're using them improperly.

Also, there actually is often a large variance for QBs between performance in "important" situations, and performance in "garbage time." 538 just did a whole article on it. In fact, QBR attempts to capture this very idea, by weighting their play metrics based on high-leverage and low-leverage situations. You're making a baseball argument here and trying to apply it to football, but the analogy doesn't hold well because there are way too few playoff games that the vast majority of players will ever play in, to either set a mean, or observe a reversion to it.

Now granted, 538 uses QB rating in their article, but you still see observable variances in situational play by QBs. The fact that it is modeled by at least one advanced metric (QBR) tells me that this is a real thing that happens. It also is an observed phenomenon in baseball, too, for relief pitchers - ones used to high-leverage usage tend to perform worse in low-leverage situations. It's baseball hitters for whom "clutch" performance is largely a myth. It's not a myth altogether.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

I'm a Broncos fan. I can tell you right off that if they didn't sign him it has nothing to do with his protest. They have a player already taking up CK's protest this year and Elway's come right out and said it doesn't concern him and he supports players' free speech http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...sed-by-john-elways-comments-on-anthem-protest. If they didn't sign him its because he's asking for more money than they feel he's worth. Metalhead's right when he says we'd rather see him start over Siemian but I don't want a middling player like Kaep sucking up team resources.

Its still the preseason and rosters aren't closed. Kaep's likely asking for more than teams feel he's worth right now. He's been mediocre lately and teams likely feel like his asking price, ability and PR issues don't even out. After a few games let teams assess their qb situation and CK's agent suggests a lower price tag he's likely to get snapped up.

Lefties could support his cause by simply ebaying the horsehocky out of Kaep's jerseys. Hey may reduce some product sales with controversy but if owners see his merchandise flying off the shelves they may think he's worth it.

 

[metalhead]

I didn't realize Siemian was making the league minimum. That certainly changes things a bit, but the Broncos are still in a championship window. If I'm reading it right, they have ~$10 mil in cap space which is likely to increase after final cuts, though not by much.

I dunno, I'd be super-pissed if my team was throwing away a shot at another ring because they don't want to spend cap space on a QB. I find it hard to believe you couldn't get Kaep for low-end starter money at $8 mil or so for a year or 2. You're not winning squat with Trevor Siemian, and Lynch isn't ready. I think it's a total waste of a good roster.

 

[Light Cleric]

By passing QBR. When you account for rushing, Kaepernick clearly exceeds what Siemian is capable of. When you account for the fact that Kaep has proven he can take a good team to a Super Bowl (and almost lead them back to win it), I think that also counts for, well, more than "nothing."

At some point, particularly when you talk about the NFL, you have to take your head out of the stat book and look at what a guy has actually accomplished on the field. That isn't meaningless no matter how many arguments one wants to make to the contrary, particularly for the QB position. Look at how many statistically proficient QBs struggle to win even 1 playoff game.

It matters. Not enough to anoint a guy like Kaepernick as your savior when he clearly doesn't have that level of ability, but as a stopgap for a year or two before your playoff-level talent disappears, you could not find a better option than Kaepernick.

If I had a nickel for every time this crap happens in a discussion like this I'd have enough money to buy the Browns and then regret it.

You know how this argument has gone? We need to look at the numbers and see Kaepernick is actually a good quarterback, except for the ones that show he isn't, or ones that we don't "trust", in which case we need to look at what's done on the field. Which is, you know, not a goddamn thing the last three years.

There's a reason those Football Outsider's stats earlier had a bunch of good QBs at the top of the passing stats, but a mishmash of good/bad/awful QBs(including Bortles and Osweiller) at the top of the running stats: running is not their primary job. You know why Kaepernick had good ratings running? Because he can't read defenses very well, so he rlies on his legs. As PFF noted, he was one of the worst quarterbacks in the NFL with a clean pocket in 2016.

Here's another way of looking at it: he was only good when the team around him was loaded with talent and an excellent, if batpoop-crazy head coach. A team that went to he NFC championship game the year before with Alex Smith. Maybe he was the product of the team, the same way the Jets went to back-to-back AFC Championship games with Mark Sanchez under center, only for it to be revealed later that Sanchez isn't actually very good when the defense isn't carrying him. Once the Niners started hemmoraging talent to early retirements and stuff, voila, Kaepernick wasn't an amazing QB anymore.

Side note: that part about the Super Bowl irritates me. Maybe if he and the rest of the team hadn't spent the first half doing nothing but getting their collective asses beat before the power went out, he could have come all the way back. This is what infuriates me about comebacks, like the last Super Bowl where the Falcons blew a 28-3 lead. As much as I loved, looooooved watching the Falcons blow a 28-3 lead, they never would have been in position to blow a 28-3 lead if Brady had played better, so it bothers me that Brady gets more credit for digging their own hole than just playing well to start with.

(Did I mention the Falcons blew a 28-3 lead? Because they blew a 28-3 lead. I don't know if I said it enough.)

So yeah, like I said earlier, if he wants to be a backup somewhere, he should be. Period. But this constant overselling of him is just painful to read and doesn't help anyone. It reads like there's a conclusion people want but can't figure out the right order of hoops to jump through to get there.

 

[metalhead]

You know how this argument has gone? We need to look at the numbers and see Kaepernick is actually a good quarterback, except for the ones that show he isn't, or ones that we don't "trust", in which case we need to look at what's done on the field. Which is, you know, not a goddamn thing the last three years.

Nope, this is wrong. I never said he was "good," I said his overall performance was "average." Those are 2 different things. If you want to amend that to "slightly below average," be my guest, but going lower than that would not be an accurate description.

Also, do you see what you did there? "Well, he has to run a lot because he sucks!" Er, OK, maybe, but he's still much more effective than Osweiler or Bortles when he does. You are complaining about people ignoring negative stats, but then you turn around and ignore stats yourself. And that still bolsters my argument that if you're going to have an average or worse QB on your roster, Kaep is a superior option to many of the others. They're all going to suck and run around a lot, so you might as well have the best one at running.

 

[Light Cleric]

Well, given that you admitted that don't understand how the two stats interact, I was explaining why one is less important than the other. That's a far cry from ignoring it.

I am putting more weight on the ability of a quarterback to throw the ball and read a defense than his ability to run. The main reason for this is there is already a position dedicated to running the ball which generally does a much better job of it. There are plenty of QBs who can throw but not run worth a damn. There are zero remotely effective quarterbacks who can run but not throw well. There's good reason for this.

Also, it's worth noting that Bortles and Osweiler are now on the bench where they belong, along with almost all the other quarterbacks in Kapernick's tier last year. Of the bottom ten, seven are now on the bench, with the exceptions being Goff(for whom I said trading for was effing dumb at the time, but Jeff Fisher was also a turd of a HC so who knows), Cam Netwon and Flacco(a guy who has actually won a Superbowl and was coming off a torn ACL).

 

[metalhead]

Bortles and Osweiler are both still on a roster, and were both given a chance to compete for a starting job.

Your explanation sucks, though. You're saying that it's less important because you personally feel that way, but that's not what the stats seem to be saying. They are attaching a yardage value to each aspect of the position, so if a guy is -200 yards to replacement in passing, and +200 yards to replacement in rushing, can he then be considered to be replacement-level? My question is whether that is a reasonable conclusion; the stats would seem to say yes, but I'm not 100% sure about it. That's all. It's not a matter of one being weighted vs. the other, because yards-to-replacement is meant to be an absolute stat, much like WAR is in baseball. But WAR has both an offensive and defensive component, and while simply adding dWAR to oWAR will get you close to the final WAR, it doesn't quite work that way. So I'm not certain if the football stats can simply be added, or if there is a more complicated method of combining them.

QB running can be quite valuable. I'd wager it's largely what allowed Kaep to be successful his first couple of years in the league. Obviously his relative lack of passing skills limits what he can accomplish long-term, but I'm not arguing he's a long-term solution. I'm only arguing that he is good enough at QB - partly based on his rushing ability - to merit a roster spot and a shot at a starting gig.

 

[caketastydelish]

Metalhead, I'm not sure why you think the Broncos are legit contenders to go the Super Bowl this year (or even the playoffs for that matter) and all they would need is Colin Kaepernick.

The Broncos will probably be the bottom team in their division, with or without Kaepernick. The Chiefs are the chiefs. Not an exceptional team but a solid team. Getting a better win/loss ratio than the Chiefs is far from a guarantee. Raiders: they've been playing incredible. They also drafted well and added Beast Mode... who is playing for a cheap contract, because he loves his home town and is passionate about it. Chargers: Anticipated to have a MUCH better season this year than they've had recently. They had one of the best drafts in the league. The only reason they've been bad in the first place is that of injuries (which have now been fixed) and simply bad luck with the refs in close games. The Broncos would be lucky just to be a wild card team. You cannot tell me Colin Kaepernick is the man who would change this into giving the serious Super Bowl chance. The only way you could even remotely make that claim is if they're in a weak division.

 

[Commodore]

If I witness someone murder someone else, and that person is found not guilty at trial, am I to believe that person innocent despite having seen him commit the crime?

That's a pretty outlandish scenario. And irrelevant. Did you personally witness OJ murder anyone? Did you personally witness Big Ben rape or sexually assault anyone? No? Then it is irrational for you to claim their guilt to be a matter of fact. You, personally, have absolutely no proof they are guilty of those crimes, yet claim to be certain of their guilt. Which is fine. People can believe whatever they want. However, it doesn't change the fact that such a belief is an irrational one.

There can be ample proof of one's guilt that doesn't necessarily extinguish all reasonable doubt.

If it doesn't extinguish reasonable doubt, then it isn't proof. Evidence maybe, but not proof.

 

[metalhead]

That's a pretty outlandish scenario. And irrelevant. Did you personally witness OJ murder anyone? Did you personally witness Big Ben rape or sexually assault anyone? No? Then it is irrational for you to claim their guilt to be a matter of fact. You, personally, have absolutely no proof they are guilty of those crimes, yet claim to be certain of their guilt. Which is fine. People can believe whatever they want. However, it doesn't change the fact that such a belief is an irrational one.

No it isn't, you were saying that a court of law is the only legitimate arbiter of truth. Which is of course ridiculous, but fine. Therefore, its findings would be more trustworthy than what I witnessed with my own eyes. That isn't outlandish at all, people witness crimes or are victims of crime all the damn time, where the assailant is not convicted. That is a thing that happens. But if that "proof" wasn't enough to convince a court, than maybe I am being irrational in believing it? After all, the court didn't believe it.

If something seems more likely to be true than not true, it is rational to believe in that thing. Our whole system of civil justice runs on that fact. I don't know where you got this idea that the only rational standard for belief is 100% metaphysical certainty, but that's bogus. Even criminal courts don't require that level of proof. There is ample proof of OJ and Big Ben's guilt; OJ was found liable for the deaths in a civil proceeding for christ's sake, so was that irrational?

 

[rah]

OJ was found liable for the deaths in a civil proceeding for christ's sake, so was that irrational?

Since less evidence is required for civil convictions, I would not promote them as more certain proof of guilt while making fun of the more strict requirements. Regardless of the fact that I've always thought he was guilty also.

 

[metalhead]

The question isn't certainty, the question is rationality. Commodore is attempting to set the bar for rationality as "proven in a criminal court beyond a reasonable doubt," where any belief below that standard is irrational. I'm merely trying to point out how silly that is.

 

[rah]

There is ample proof of OJ and Big Ben's guilt; OJ was found liable for the deaths in a civil proceeding for christ's sake, so was that irrational?

And this was silly also by the same standard.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But even advanced metric creators admit that they haven't really figured out how to separate a player's individual play from the performance of the team they play for, so if you're using advanced metrics that way, you're using them improperly.

It's not accurate, but it is more accurate than gutter analysis like "did this guy win a super bowl" or "playoff record", which separate out the player's performance even less.

Also, there actually is often a large variance for QBs between performance in "important" situations, and performance in "garbage time." 538 just did a whole article on it. In fact, QBR attempts to capture this very idea, by weighting their play metrics based on high-leverage and low-leverage situations. You're making a baseball argument here and trying to apply it to football, but the analogy doesn't hold well because there are way too few playoff games that the vast majority of players will ever play in, to either set a mean, or observe a reversion to it.

That's a pretty disingenuous thing to cite. Yes, teams that are winning or losing big alter their strategies which influences stats. That has nothing to do with my point that "statistically good QBs lose in the playeoffs therefore they're not actually good" is a farce.

QBR awards more credit to successful conversions, but we don't have any substantive data that players on average suddenly become better during these plays.

I dunno, I'd be super-pissed if my team was throwing away a shot at another ring because they don't want to spend cap space on a QB. I find it hard to believe you couldn't get Kaep for low-end starter money at $8 mil or so for a year or 2. You're not winning squat with Trevor Siemian, and Lynch isn't ready.

If you put that cap space on Kaep, you're not putting it on other players. Denver isn't swimming in cap like Cleveland. They would likely have to give up legitimate value elsewhere to bring him in, which means he must be better than Siemian by enough to justify it...QBR last year suggests otherwise.

so if a guy is -200 yards to replacement in passing, and +200 yards to replacement in rushing, can he then be considered to be replacement-level?

Yes, and replacement level effectively implies an interchangeable player with the talent pool sitting in unsigned FAs.

 

[Berzerker]

Ray Lewis is not a happy camper

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...d-kept-him-from-getting-signed-by-ravens/amp/

short version: Kap's GF lost him a job with the Ravens by comparing Lewis to the Sam Jackson character in Django Unchained