- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: So what happens when Ivory returns?
Posted on 10/2/11 at 10:01 pm to John McClane
Posted on 10/2/11 at 10:01 pm to John McClane
quote:
JLSIX
Why are statistics irrelevant? That's the only way to compare two like events. And before you say otherwise, yes they are like events.
You should have come on here and made only one statement. "I think Ingram will have a better career than Ivory." And then retired for the evening.
1
Posted on 10/2/11 at 10:03 pm to 3HourTour
quote:so now I bear the burden? sorry buddy. that lies on you. considering you cannot use NFL statistics (b/c they are obviously misleading) it's a judgment call. My only contention was that everyone here used those statistics as absolute proof that Ivory > Ingram. That's retarded. If you can't accept that or wrap your mind around it then that's on you.
I asked you a question. Please answer it so this can all be settled. What proves that Ingram is a better NFL back than Ivory? Just answer that simple question.
Posted on 10/2/11 at 10:04 pm to John McClane
Wow. You're an idiot. I quit. Good night.
Posted on 10/2/11 at 10:05 pm to 3HourTour
Matt Leinart>>>>>Drew Brees
Never forget.
Never forget.
Posted on 10/2/11 at 10:06 pm to IlikeyouBetty
quote:when i was asked that question that is simply what i said.
You should have come on here and made only one statement. "I think Ingram will have a better career than Ivory." And then retired for the evening.
quote:so you obviously believe that basing an opinion on 4 weeks of statistics against different teams with different players with different situations is logical. that's fricking funny. FOUR weeks. It's just simply not an accurate measure.
Why are statistics irrelevant? That's the only way to compare two like events. And before you say otherwise, yes they are like events.
Posted on 10/2/11 at 10:10 pm to John McClane
quote:
against different teams with different players with different situations is logical
haven't you gotten tired of typing this?
Posted on 10/2/11 at 10:11 pm to Gugich22
quote:have you gotten tired of avoiding the fact that using those stats is illogical?
haven't you gotten tired of typing this?
Posted on 10/2/11 at 10:12 pm to Gugich22
Gugs just give it up man. The guy is clueless.
2
2
Posted on 10/2/11 at 10:12 pm to John McClane
It's just simply not an accurate measure.
It's all we've got chief.
If you want to say Ingram was a better back in college I'll ride with you there. I'm trying to be civil cause we're all on the same side ultimately. Good night to you sir.
quote:
It's just simply not an accurate measure.
It's all we've got chief.
If you want to say Ingram was a better back in college I'll ride with you there. I'm trying to be civil cause we're all on the same side ultimately. Good night to you sir.
Posted on 10/2/11 at 10:12 pm to John McClane
regardless of stats, how can you not just admit that Chris Ivory - in his first 4 games as a rookie - looked a lot better than Mark Ingram has in his first four games as a rookie? It's simple...just admit it.
Posted on 10/2/11 at 10:13 pm to Gugich22
good idea...i'm out.
a winner.
2
a winner.
2
Posted on 10/2/11 at 10:14 pm to Gugich22
I'm not reading all this crap but Jslick whatever is a fricking retard.
Posted on 10/2/11 at 10:15 pm to IlikeyouBetty
quote:by the way, great TD name and great avy. My point was very simple. Those statistics are simply not accurate.
It's all we've got chief.
If you want to say Ingram was a better back in college I'll ride with you there. I'm trying to be civil cause we're all on the same side ultimately. Good night to you sir.
what we have is time. we will see. it's just that those stats are not an accurate measuring stick of who is the best NFL RB. And, I'm a huge Ivory fan.
My money is on Mickey and Sean's decision. 
Posted on 10/2/11 at 10:16 pm to John McClane
quote:
have you gotten tired of avoiding the fact that using those stats is illogical?
Earlier you agreed that stats paint an accurate picture. Stats arent end all be all but they are not illogical.
Posted on 10/2/11 at 10:18 pm to Gugich22
I hope you realize the irony in this statement.
quote:It's completely different. and only 4 games. I'm being the logical one by withholding judgment.
regardless of stats, how can you not just admit that Chris Ivory - in his first 4 games as a rookie -
Posted on 10/2/11 at 10:19 pm to CM84
quote:4 games? really? I'm the illogical one?
Earlier you agreed that stats paint an accurate picture. Stats arent end all be all but they are not illogical
Posted on 10/2/11 at 10:24 pm to John McClane
You agreed they paint an accurate picture. Then you said stats are illogical. I understand sample size and taking other factors into accounts. You just keep flip flopping what you saying. You agree they paint accurate pic and then you believe they are illogical
Posted on 10/2/11 at 10:28 pm to CM84
CONTEXT. accurate sample size. I have never said that Ingram's statistics are comparable to Ivory's statistics regarding the first 4 games because it is incomparable. Please, show me how it is comparable.
Posted on 10/2/11 at 10:34 pm to John McClane
quote:
CONTEXT. accurate sample size. I have never said that Ingram's statistics are comparable to Ivory's statistics regarding the first 4 games because it is incomparable. Please, show me how it is comparable.
They are definitely comparable. They have features in common. Will it determine what will happen in the future, no. You can definitely compare Player A and Player B over who got off the better start in their career. Especially if there is a significant difference in performance.
com·pa·ra·ble [kom-per-uh-buhl or, sometimes, kuhm-pair-] Show IPA
adjective
1.
capable of being compared; having features in common with something else to permit or suggest comparison:
Posted on 10/2/11 at 10:37 pm to CM84
it's not comparable if you aren't playing the same teams. get it?
Page 7 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News