Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Huddle Writer Differences


sp3ctr3
 Share

Recommended Posts

:D

 

Does anyone have a pool going on how many of these we will see this year? This is at least the third or fourth that I recall in the last two weeks.

 

Yeah sorry, I am certainly the first one to make a post that hasn't been made before.

 

What are we going to do about S. Smith?

Is A. Johnson starting this week?

What do we do about RBBC at the Giants or at Dallas?

etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah sorry, I am certainly the first one to make a post that hasn't been made before.--Don't sell yourself short, you might be the first who has made the 6th duplicate of any post.

 

What are we going to do about S. Smith?--Cut him for Amani Toomer, ASAP

Is A. Johnson starting this week?--He'll be back when he's healthy.

What do we do about RBBC at the Giants or at Dallas?--RBBC's are bad. Trade Jacobs and/or MBIII for non-RBBC RBs like Brian Leonard and Cedric Benson.

etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

S. Alexander has the top TB point projection but is then a borderline start?

 

I like having different opinions, but this hurts the value of the tools...

 

why are you reading both features then if you're just expecting them to provide duplicate information. Just read the one you like best. Problem solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read this :D

 

 

Since the two pieces are done completely separate from each other, that it took five weeks into the season to see something that seems significantly different is more of a surprise it took so long than it is a lack of a cohesive message. We both obviously have our reasons for what we expect but in the instance where we do not agree, that too says something about the game/player. Obviously projecting numbers and predicting performances is an exact science anyway, so what would the value of having two independently created views be if they just always agreed with one another? I for one enjoy when we disagree because we can learn more how the season is evolving for teams.

 

Of course this happens at least occasionally every season and it always will because we do not consult one another about every game though we will sometimes discuss games and players when there are big questions. I think a difference of opinion is healthy and of value, not a mixed message.

 

We may discuss one game or so a week and this week was the CAR-NO game. Our discussions usually end with "thanks... I can't quit you."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D He somehow was able to get his name changed. He is now SF409ers.

 

Huh, thought it couldn't be done...of course with a handle like that, I'd have a TEAM of hackers working 24/7 to figur out a way to change it :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh, thought it couldn't be done...of course with a handle like that, I'd have a TEAM of hackers working 24/7 to figur out a way to change it :D

DMD had said last year that the site structure made it impossible, then he did it there. Perhaps a change to the 2007 Invision board. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DMD had said last year that the site structure made it impossible, then he did it there. Perhaps a change to the 2007 Invision board. :D

 

Well I'm glad he was able to change his handle. Seems like a good guy, he took the ribbing in stride :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's reasonable to have divergent opinions on the prognostications for a few players every week. It's also very reasonable to question those differences if someone is paying for the information. I'm not sure why some people here get their panties in a bunch when someone has the temerity to ask the reasonable questions about those differences, especially if they have invested money in the site. It would be nice to see the writers who have the divergent opinions discuss where those differences come from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's reasonable to have divergent opinions on the prognostications for a few players every week. It's also very reasonable to question those differences if someone is paying for the information. I'm not sure why some people here get their panties in a bunch when someone has the temerity to ask the reasonable questions about those differences, especially if they have invested money in the site. It would be nice to see the writers who have the divergent opinions discuss where those differences come from.

 

I don't see anything in the original post that suggests a desire to have a reasonable discussion. It sounded like more of the same boring complaints of someone unwilling to make their own decision. If you want to call my response to those types of posts "getting my panties in a bunch" then so be it. You are entitled to your opinion. The only person who attempted to have a real discussion about this issue was Detlef. He stated his case, and received a reasonable response from DMD. Perhaps my frustration has more to do with the fact that fewer and fewer people seem to be willing to do a search, or at least scan the board, before posting what amounts to a duplicate post. With a modicum of effort, the original poster could have read the Detlef post and would have seen the explanation provided by DMD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see anything in the original post that suggests a desire to have a reasonable discussion. It sounded like more of the same boring complaints of someone unwilling to make their own decision. If you want to call my response to those types of posts "getting my panties in a bunch" then so be it. You are entitled to your opinion. The only person who attempted to have a real discussion about this issue was Detlef. He stated his case, and received a reasonable response from DMD. Perhaps my frustration has more to do with the fact that fewer and fewer people seem to be willing to do a search, or at least scan the board, before posting what amounts to a duplicate post. With a modicum of effort, the original poster could have read the Detlef post and would have seen the explanation provided by DMD.

 

I read the Detlet post before I made this post. I was hoping for some information on this discrepancy in particular.

 

I lead a busy life, and I pay for the Huddle to help me make my decisions each week - is this really a bad thing? I guess I would like the Huddle have a separate column at the end of each week where the writers discuss the differences that emerged from the columns.

 

The Huddle came highly recommended and I really enjoy the product, but I am a little sad that this forum feels the need to bash any repeat criticism - as it seems that if this problem is annoying multiple people, there could be a case made to find some remedy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the Detlet post before I made this post. I was hoping for some information on this discrepancy in particular.

 

I lead a busy life, and I pay for the Huddle to help me make my decisions each week - is this really a bad thing? I guess I would like the Huddle have a separate column at the end of each week where the writers discuss the differences that emerged from the columns.

 

The Huddle came highly recommended and I really enjoy the product, but I am a little sad that this forum feels the need to bash any repeat criticism - as it seems that if this problem is annoying multiple people, there could be a case made to find some remedy...

 

Fair enough, but with all due respect, your original post did not really ask for clarification of the specific example. At least, I did not interpret it as a question despite the use of a question mark. It appeared to be nothing more than a statement of your disappointment regarding the tools being made available to you. Perhaps a few extra moments to pose the question would have yielded better results. For example:

 

"After reviewing the Game Predictions and the Start Bench list, it appears the writers have a very different opinion of Shaun Alexander's potential for this weekend, with one predicting a top performance and the other listing him as a borderline start. Does anybody have any additional information which may shed light on this discrepancy?"

 

This, in my opinion, asks the question you appear to want answered, but does so in a positive fashion which is more likely to yield quality, useful responses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I guess I would like the Huddle have a separate column at the end of each week where the writers discuss the differences that emerged from the columns. ...

Projections/predictions are not the same thing as start/bench, as I see it.

 

Take SA this week, Huddle's writers actually don't disagree on anything between the two. The predicted stats doesn't conflict with the opinion that SA does not have a "great matchup" and is not a "stud" this week.

 

Now where they might differ greatly is on mid to lower level players. The prediction, based on statistics and how the game should play out, might say that there's 70yds and a TD for, let's say, Ike Hilliard. Does that mean that Hilliard should be expected to perform at that level and he has a "great matchup" and/or is a "stud?" Absolutely not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"After reviewing the Game Predictions and the Start Bench list, it appears the writers have a very different opinion of Shaun Alexander's potential for this weekend, with one predicting a top performance and the other listing him as a borderline start. Does anybody have any additional information which may shed light on this discrepancy?"

 

And I assume that you are requiring that it be in the form of a question, or it will be disqualified. Thanks a bunch, Alex.

 

I know with great certainty that David & his staff are capable of posting their own defense. Trust me, they don't need you to be a buffer, as well meaning as you may be. If you are going to charge for this service, this kind of questioning is valid & goes with the territory. In fact, it's rather tame on this board - despite how raucous the board can get - compared to other boards.

 

In fact, David may be one of the best debators ever to walk these halls - and that's significant.

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I assume that you are requiring that it be in the form of a question, or it will be disqualified. Thanks a bunch, Alex.

 

I know with great certainty that David & his staff are capable of posting their own defense. Trust me, they don't need you to be a buffer, as well meaning as you may be. If you are going to charge for this service, this kind of questioning is valid & goes with the territory. In fact, it's rather tame on this board - despite how raucous the board can get - compared to other boards.

 

In fact, David may be one of the best debators ever to walk these halls - and that's significant.

 

Two things:

 

1) I'm not requiring anything. I made what I feel was a valid criticism of the original post and provided an example of what I felt was a better way to get the point across. You clearly don't agree. Frankly, I don't care if you do or not, especially when my comments were directed at the original poster.

 

2) I was in no way attempting to "defend" DMD or any other owner/writer of this site. The fact that you drew this conclusion from my responses is surprising. I was criticizing the original poster for what appeared to be nothing more than a shallow complaint. If you choose to interpret that as defending the content of the articles or their authors, then I suggest you take a second look.

 

Look, I find many of the posts you make on the board to be interesting reads, and salute you for being more willing than I to put your neck out there, but in this case you are off the mark. I'm not trying to suppress any body's right to express opinions and concerns about the content of the site. I called the original poster out, not because of the complaint, but because there was nothing more to it than an open ended complaint. There was no substance to the original post, in my opinion. If people want to complain, and perhaps complain is the wrong word, by all means, go ahead. Just be willing to give a reason with a little more meat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information