1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Ryan Tannehill

Discussion in 'Other NFL' started by bbqpitlover, Oct 16, 2019.

Ryan Tannehill is...

  1. A terrible QB

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. A below average QB

    4 vote(s)
    5.7%
  3. An average QB

    7 vote(s)
    10.0%
  4. An above average QB

    39 vote(s)
    55.7%
  5. An elite QB

    16 vote(s)
    22.9%
  6. The GOAT.

    4 vote(s)
    5.7%
  1. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I'm simply saying, even Marino wasn't putting up "elite" numbers year in and year out. I don't think you can even compare the talent Marino had in the field to what Tannehill had. The coaching was far better for Marino, also.
     
  2. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Here's an article that does exactly what cbrad is doing here:

    https://www.footballperspective.com/more-impressive-passing-td-record-manning-2013-or-marino-1984/
     
  3. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    No one is disputing that stats guys do this z-score thing.
     
  4. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Right, but the article is adjusting for era as well, just like he is.
     
  5. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020

    Please read the parameters again... I will state it for the third time. The season in which they both turned 26!

    Whether you like it or not.... It is not difficult to understand. I should not have to explain this to you three times.

    They have birthdays 5 months apart... If it had been 6 months or more I might be willing to listen to your argument.
     
  6. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    I know what the “z-score” reads but here’s what needs to be considered which contradicts the entire z-score concept.

    When Manning set the single season record for touchdown passes, he threw 55, which was 7 more than Marino. When he actually broke Marino’s record in 2004, he threw 49, eclipsing Marino by 1.

    When Marino set the single season record, he threw 48 which was previously 36, eclipsing the previous record by 12 touchdowns.

    Not just that, but Marino’s 5084 single season passing yardage shattered Dan Fouts’ previous record of 4800 yards.

    In addition, Marino also eclipsed Fouts single season completion record.

    So even though the whole z-score factor may say 1 thing, the actual game itself says another. In fact, the NFL was so desperate to be able to have Marino’s playing every Sunday that they changed the rules that made the game less risky for quarterbacks and receivers to try and replicate Marino. And even then, it still took 20 years to eclipse Marino.

    As much as I respect Manning, Marino topped the NFL in touchdown passes 3 years in a row as a full starter, 1984 (48), 1985 (30), and 1986 (44). That’s 122 career touchdown passes in 3 years. As great as Manning was, he wasn’t any where near that...1998 (26), 1999 (26) and 2000 (33)

    While z-score says one thing, the game says another. Marino’s record breaking 1984 season is far more impressive than Manning’s 2004 and 2013
     
    resnor likes this.
  7. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Right, but the degree to which they topped the previous record doesn't say anything about the degree to which they deviated from the league norm in that season. That's what the z-score tells us.
     
  8. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Do you seriously think I don't understand your argument? Of course I understand it. What you're not understanding is that no serious statistical analysis of how age affects QB play would EVER choose the criterion you used. Why would any person ever think of using "the season in which they both turned 26"?? Have you ever seen anyone do that? The ONLY reason to use a criterion like that is because you saw that IF you defined things that way, THEN you could claim Rodgers and Tannehill were in some way similar as a function of age.

    In other words you're cherry picking a criterion to cherry pick a data point. No, either you go by listed age or do something more fancy like time since birth, which like I said I wouldn't mind doing if there was a serious reason to think the discrepancies already pointed out would possibly fade away — no chance of that with the massive discrepancy.

    Oh, and it doesn't matter whether the birth dates are 5 or 6 months apart when in one case (Rodgers) most of the games were played at the age of 25 while in the other case (Tannehill) they were all played at 26. What statistician combines that?
     
  9. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah, I can see how the two concepts of "z-scores" and "impressive" don't always go together. Humans are usually more impressed by something the first time it happens, so even if two events are equally unlikely, they're more surprised (or impressed) the first time.

    So that's a good point that "impressive" may not be the right way to communicate the concept. But in my defense, I was trying to communicate it using non-technical language. Technically, z-scores tell you the probability of something occurring. So while Marino's accomplishment in 1984 was more "impressive" to many observers (and I agree with that), it wasn't more unlikely to occur.

    Now for statistical analysis purposes what you care about are probabilities (or likelihoods if we're talking about hypotheses), so there are really good reasons to treat Marino and Manning's record breaking years as "similar" even if they make different impressions on people.
     
    Pauly and The Guy like this.
  10. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Here's an interesting article that projects Tannehill to be the 17th-ranked QB in the league in 2020, gives him a 9% chance of finishing in the top 5 among QBs in 2020, and a 24% chance of finishing among the top 10, even though the article is based in large part on the following:
    https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-2020-quarterback-rankings
     
  11. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Since I wasn’t able to see any of your posts as of late...and you weren’t able to see mine, I’m not sure if you’ve seen the arguments I’ve made.

    I’ve often told brad that numbers don’t tell the entire story. I would argue that Marino in his first few years in the league deviated FAR from the norm that did Manning.

    By the time Manning, Brees, Rodgers and Brady came into the league, the NFL altered the rules in order to produce another high flying offensive talent that was Marino. Those four mentioned above didn’t deviate from the norm. A higher passing volume volume became the norm. That wasn’t the case during Marino’s first several years.

    That is undisputable
     
    resnor likes this.
  12. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    I’ll take that bet!!!!!
     
  13. Irishman

    Irishman Well-Known Member

    573
    532
    93
    Oct 16, 2017
    High Point, NC
    Can we rename this thread the "Tannehill Express"?

    I hope Ryan has an opportunity to see this thread, just to let him know he made such an impact on so many Jets fans.

    The Rational fans recognized his situation and his development as a QB. The Lemmings went crazy with their lemming juice and their lemming drops. Way to many "lemons" in this thread.
     
    Phin McCool, Puka-head and Sceeto like this.
  14. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Regardless of what's happening in the league, breaking a record by 12 tds would seem to be more difficult than breaking it by one.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  15. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    I would take that bet also.... Higher than 17th... Hell yes
     
  16. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Wait. I think you're misunderstanding something. z-scores literally tell you deviation from the mean. So it's not true that Marino deviated more from the mean than any other QB that has the same z-score. Thing is, there's more than one z-score.

    For example, Marino in 1984 had a z-score passer rating of 2.82 while Manning in 2004 had a z-score passer rating of 2.92. But Marino was better than Manning in TD z-scores (3.46 vs. 3.06) and yards (2.79 vs. 1.82), while Manning was much better in terms of INT z-scores (1.44 vs. 0.73). So if your view of "deviation" focuses more on TD's and yards and less on INT's, then yes Marino > Manning.

    In any case, z-scores literally measure deviation, so it's more a question of which set of z-scores you're looking at rather than whether the stats are measuring deviation.

    Yes that's also a good point. However, keep in mind that the huge rule change in 1978 happened only ~5 years before Marino did that. In other words, it may simply be that almost all the years prior to when Marino did that weren't conducive to such a performance, which would make that deviation look more impressive than it actually was.
     
  17. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    I get yours and brad whole z-score stat. I just don't agree with it.

    In 1984, the league average of offensive pass to rush ratio was 51-49 percent, rather balanced. Miami's offense with Marino at the helm was 55% passing, 45% rushing.

    In 2013, the league average was 56.6 percent passing and almost 44 percent rushing. Denver's offense at that time under Peyton Manning threw the ball 59 percent of the time.

    So during Marino's heyday, the Dolphins threw the ball 4 percent more than the league average with 572 attempts while Manning threw the ball 3 percent more than the league average with his 675 attempts

    Funny thing about "numbers" is that slight deviation on the base ca paint an inaccurate summary.
     
  18. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    upload_2020-6-9_8-16-16.png
     
    resnor likes this.
  19. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Why would total passing attempts or pass percentage change how much you deviate from league average? The "norm" is in that year. Everyone is playing by the same rules so it's not like one environment makes it easier to deviate from the norm than the other.
     
  20. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Another interesting article:
    https://www.pff.com/news/bet-nfl-20...drew-brees-and-aaron-rodgers-top-betting-odds
     
  21. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    lol at this quote: "We will go into the details of our method later this week in another article.."

    These sites always do that. They act like they'll explain details somewhere else and then don't. In particular, see if they ever tell you how they "weighted" recent play, age and rookie season.

    Also, what's the accuracy of the model? They only give you a few examples of what the model predicted. I'm guessing there are a lot of embarrassing predictions? In particular does it do better than Vegas? If not, we should just use Vegas odds which are really hard to beat.

    In any case, whenever you report the result of a simulation like that you need to also report confidence intervals — a range of predictions the model says is 95% likely. I bet a lot of those predicted odds fall within the confidence intervals of others, meaning they're not really distinguishable. Fun read for subscribers though I guess.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2020
    The Guy likes this.
  22. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Well, you guys are talking about deviating from the league norm. The one post argues that Manning had deviated more from the league norm than Marino based on z-scores. I say that's not the case.

    Manning's 675 passing attempts in 2013 was only 20 more passes on average than the rest of the league. That's 655 pass attempts on average throughout the league however...

    Marino's 572 pass attempts in 1984 was 23 passes on average more than the rest of the league. That's 549 pass attempts on average throughout the league.

    The NFL has evolved into a pass happy league, so Manning's 675 pass attempts in 2013 isn't a deviation from the norm the league. At best, he threw 1.25 more passes per game than the league average where Marino threw 1.44 more passes per game than the league average.
     
  23. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    So? Why does it matter? The z-scores for passer rating, TD% or completion% are passing efficiency stats, i.e., "per passing attempt". And if it's a volume stat you're interested in from the outset, then you can't complain about differences in number of attempts.

    You were in the military. Let me ask you a question. Let's say you have 2 shooting competitions:
    1) Everyone gets to shoot at a bullseye target 500 times.
    2) Everyone gets to shoot at a bullseye target 600 times.

    In both cases there are 100 randomly chosen people from some group in the competition. Try arguing now that's it's harder to win the competition with a given percentage margin — harder to deviate from the norm — when you only shoot 500 times instead of 600 times.

    It doesn't matter that it's a more pass happy league. It's "equally" difficult to stand out now as it was in a previous era as long as you're only comparing to other people in the same era. And btw.. z-scores apply to anything. You can compare z-scores from the 100 meter sprint to z-scores for a marathon or to z-scores from the 200 meter backstroke. If in all cases you have the same number of competitors and you randomly choose them (so that the sample of persons does not artificially make it more difficult to win one of those competitions), then there's no reason to think it's harder to stand out in one vs. another.

    * the technical requirement with z-scores isn't what you're talking about. It's whether the distributions of abilities on a z-score axis are similar (do they have similar shape). If the distributions are not similar and one distribution is highly skewed while the other is not, THEN z-scores don't apply. However, in that case you just apply a mathematical transformation to equate distributions and then apply z-scores.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2020
  24. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    This is a video analysis of Sam Darnold and the Jets in 2019, but you can take what Zac says about the OL and Adam Gase’s schemes and cut and paste them into an analysis of Tannehill’s years under Gase.

    I put the OL woes at the Jets fairly on Gase’s shoulders because what we saw at the Jets last year was exactly what we saw with the Dolphins in his tenure.

     
    Sceeto and resnor like this.
  25. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Just mind boggling that the Dolphins screwed up so badly with Tannehill. He is proving to be an excellent QB, teammate, and leader. We all could see that he was a terrific representative for an organization. Absolute class all the way.

    https://theathletic.com/1864373/202...der-in-more-than-qb-rating/?source=dailyemail

    “I think the unfortunate thing about it is, if you’re a white person you don’t have to deal with (racism) on a daily basis and you’re not put in those situations,” Tannehill said in a Zoom call Wednesday with reporters, the first scheduled interviews with Titans players since the May 25 death of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis Police officer inspired worldwide protests. “It’s easy to just go about your life and not recognize it and not realize how big of a deal it is, how many people it affects on a daily basis. I think with this push, I think more and more people are having an awakening to the reality of the situation and how deep it really is, how many layers of injustice there are to it with the court system, and policing, and just on a day-to-day basis. Like I said, there’s so many layers to it. I think that just this push was kind of like the straw that broke the camel’s back, right? It’s been happening for far too long and finally got to the point where enough is enough.”

    And as for the league’s history on this matter: “Just going back to (2016), the league tried to shut it down because it’s trying to protect itself. I think it’s to the point where, this time there’s so much support that they couldn’t do anything from it. The fact that they weren’t proactive is disappointing, that they didn’t jump on board initially is disappointing, just because, like I said, it’s a universal thing that so many guys are affected by. Seems to be there’s so much momentum going that millions of people want change and want it now. A little disappointing that it took that, but I guess better late than never, and hopefully that it can continue when games kick off.”

    OK, so Tannehill’s still polite in ripping the league. But how many guys with his job are doing that at all? These aren’t “let’s stick together while I dodge discomfort as much as possible” responses. These are things Tannehill would not have said a few years ago. He admitted that Wednesday, too.

    “I feel like if I would have known now what I knew back then, I probably would have been more vocal and supportive back then,” he said. “Do I feel great about that, that I didn’t jump fully on board and support initially? No. Do I wish I would have known more and been more supportive back in 2016? Yes, 100 percent, but we all make mistakes. We all have to live and learn and experience to grow, and I feel like I’ve done a lot of growing over the past four or five years.”
     
    rafael and resnor like this.
  26. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    resnor likes this.
  27. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Taking a closer look at the article and a few comments on each...

    The 3 Step Drop;
    One of the things that always made the Patriots so deadly were the quick inside slants the new England offense would run. Opposing defenses never had an opportunity to get to Brady because the ball would be out so quickly and when Brady had a reliable receiving corps, those quick slants were often completions for considerable gains, extending their drives. The same can be said here with Tannehill and the Titans. Vrabel has in his offensive arsenal plays designed for those quick throws that made Tannehill quite deadly. Completing just under 70% of those passes and averaging just over 14 yards per completion, it's no wonder why Tannehill was able to pick defenses apart.

    Outside the Pocket;
    How does one compensate for an iffy offensive line? Roll out! Tannehill has always been an athletic quarterback. No one would ever compare him to a Marino or Manning or any other pure pocket passing quarterback. While Tannehill can indeed play in the pocket, he can also extend plays by rolling out, giving his receivers to opportunity to get open and extend plays. Kind of reminds me of Roethlisburger, extend the play. In these types of scenarios, it ends up as sugar or the other sh word, but with Tannehill completing 61.5% of these passing plays, averaging 16+ yards per completion with no interceptions, it should cause defenses to worry to see him rolling out.

    Play Action Pass;
    Many may not remember him, but I always felt the BEST Play Action Pass quarterback I ever saw was Steve DeBerg. The man had hands the size of Michael Jordan and because of that, he could extend that ball WAAAAAAAAAAAY out their to the running back before quickly tucking it back into his wrist at the last minute. Watching him was poetry in motion. Now while Tannehill may not posses that same physical attribute that DeBerg possessed, his mechanics in executing play action, along with the LEGITIMATE threat in the running game with Henry, the Titans wisely called play action passes often and those dividends paid off. Completing 76.7% of these passes and averaging over 17 yards per completion, play action was the power punch to Tennessee's One Two punch attack.

    Zero Pressure Pocket;
    Remember the 1991 NFL Quarterback Challenge at the Pro Bowl? The Read and Recognition? The quarterbacks standing there with no pressure and throwing the ball at the targets? The one throw Marino made, hitting the 40 yard target bullseye dead center, winning the challenge? If no one is pressuring me, can I make that long distance throw and boy oh boy, did Tannehill shine this season! When the OL did its job and provided him that nice clean pocket, Tannehill was able to do HIS job and make some spectacular throws, completing almost 73% of his passes and averaging 13 yards per completion. Better than Brees, better than Brady, better than Rodgers, better than any other quarterback in the league.

    While no quarterback is "perfect" and each has flaws in their own individual game, Tannehill has played about as perfect as perfect can be and so long as Mike Vrabel is able to do his impression of Belichick and maintain his team as Belichick has been able to do, this is going to be repetitive conversation for years to come.
     
    resnor and AGuyNamedAlex like this.
  28. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    Great article.
     
  29. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    CBrad

    You have no idea what my reasons and motivations are for determining to pick the season in which they both turned 26 years of age. You are making an assumption about those reasons and motivations and then using that assumption to try to devalue the findings of the comparision... So as to bolster your argument. Who is deviating from the path now?

    I can give you plenty of reasons why setting a specific date regarding age does not work... My sister is a perfect example. She missed the cut off by 4 days to start elementary school and had to wait a whole year to start... 4 days.

    Willie Mays is my favourite baseball player... He has his birthday on May 6... So when he played he would play 15 games of the 154 game schedule ( Then after a few years a 162 game schedule.. after his birthday ) But because of the rule you would want to require for comparison sakes he would play less than 10% of the games that year at the younger age.

    There are numerous reasons to dislike setting a specific date to the age comparison and I just gave you two excellent examples.

    As for your argument about how you dismiss my comparison because of the number of games each QB played at the age of 25... That is dependent on another season and injuries can come into effect... It adds more variables. I am removing those.

    There is nothing we can do about the fact that they were not born on the same month. Because their difference in age is less than 5 months apart I chose to look at their stats for the season when they turned 26. This method looks at the games specifically when they were closest in age. I am looking at the season where Tannehill was 26 and one month when the season started and Rodgers was three months away from being 26 when the season started. The other way puts one QB at 26 and 9 months of age and the other at 26 and one month of age At the start of the season Which is a larger age gap. I stand by my reasoning.

    I am not asking you to love it... And I appreciate you making charts and graphs here... Thank you. But when you make assumptions about me and my motivations and then try to use those assumptions to dismiss a point I have made... You can kiss the center of my a*shole.
     
  30. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I already explained to you why your approach is unjustifiable from a statistical point of view. You're cherry picking a criterion to cherry pick a data point, and that's true whatever your "motivations" are. So no I'm not kissing anything of yours. Any person who is serious about determining the effect of age on a QB's performance would NEVER do what you suggested. Dismiss.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  31. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Why would the league norm then and now even have any meaning? These Z-Scores assume a lot of things about some form of equality between the past and present, and that the only inherent difference difference is the rule set.

    That is highly debatable at the very best and incredibly flawed at worst.

    You're assuming with the same rule set players would put up comparable numbers then and now...and I'd argue that is inherently flawed and incorrect.
     
    resnor and The_Dark_Knight like this.
  32. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    I agree with you 100% Alex. I would argue that if today's "elite" quarterbacks played with the rules of yesterday in place, their performance would be greatly reduced due to the accepted and condoned utter violence that was permitted on quarterbacks and receivers.

    On the other hand, if quarterbacks and receivers of yesterday played with the more protective rules that are in place for quarterbacks and receivers today, good quarterbacks would be great and great quarterbacks would be immortal legends.

    In fact, I would argue the NFL Record Book for Quarterbacks would still be in Marino's private library.
     
    resnor and AGuyNamedAlex like this.
  33. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Ju
    Right, and that is without even mentioning how much better medical treatments and post game treatment are so much better now.

    I'm not saying that QBs now dont get hit and have aches, they do, but the punishment was way worse at the position back in the day.

    Manning could go in after a game and get state of the art advanced treatment that is basically like alien technology compared to the 80s and 90s.

    It was a lot harder to go out there week after week, remain healthy and play at peak performance like Marino did...and we see that in how QBs can play into their mid 40s now.
     
    resnor likes this.
  34. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Not just that, but also look at the potential psychological aspect of it. Back in the day, quarterbacks KNEW they were going to get hit...it was coming. Hell, back in the 70's, it wasn't uncommon for quarterbacks to get body slammed. Those quarterbacks KNEW they were going to get hit and get hit brutally. No so today. Today's quarterbacks, comparatively speaking should be wearing a skirt and high heels in the back field. They aren't going to get hit like their predecessors so they're more apt to stay there in the pocket to deliver that last minute strike.

    Same thing goes with receivers. Back in the day, when a receiver came across the middle and the ball was thrown to him, he just KNEW he was going to get viscously laid out by the safety. Remember the infamous Nat Moore helicopter spin catch? That's a 15 yard penalty today so receivers aren't as skiddish about going up for passes that they once may have been...and more likely to make a reception without fear of getting the clocks cleaned and the ball getting knocked out of their hands.

    Just that one aspect alone would seriously hamper today's quarterbacks and receivers playing then...and yesterday's quarterbacks and receivers playing with today's rules.
     
    resnor likes this.
  35. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020

    I did look at the age of the QB... The season in which they both turned 26. Thanks for playing.
     
  36. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Oh that's so funny. You actually thought I was talking about you when I referenced people who are "serious" about determining the effect of age on a QB's performance? No, I'm talking about people who are trying to make a valid statistical inference — you know people who don't cherry pick a criterion to cherry pick a data point like you did.
     
  37. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020

    Pucker up sweetheart..... and kiss the center of my a*shole

    Seems like you are fixated on it.
     
  38. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    Cherry pick that.
     
  39. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What meaning does quarterbacks' turning 26 have? Why is that significant?
     

Share This Page