Eternal optimist

I question your source here... this implies some Saskatchewan folk have their high school diploma.

My wife and I have our seats in section 109 right behind the away team bench. Excellent for heckling and awesome when the place is really bumping. Close enough that when you hit a player with a beer bottle, he stays down.

I'm not disagreeing with you regarding using 2nd-down conversion as a predictor, in fact it looks like it has some merit. I was just saying that nobody (as far as I can tell) has run the numbers on it for the CFL. As for your other post regarding the QB efficiency rating, its shortcomings are well known and documented.

Did a bit of digging, and there doesn't appear to have been any analysis between 2nd down conversions with wins for CFL quarterbacks. However, I did find comparative analysis using a similar thought process with 3rd down conversions in the NFL. The correlation coefficient between 3rd down conversions and wins in the NFL is about 0.43 which is pretty good for as a single-variable predictor. The QB passer rating still surpasses it though and has a correlation with wins of about 0.51. That said, the NFL/CFL are completely different games and the shortcomings of the QB passer rating are well documented. For those who want a bit of reading, here's the articles that I found on the subject: Source regarding 3rd down conversions: http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2008/01/is-3rd-down-conversion-percentage-good.html Source regarding QB passer rating: http://www.footballperspective.com/correlating-passing-stats-with-wins/

It proves that wins is not an input variable in the QB efficiency rating (which was the "horse behind the cart" dilemma you had mentioned). I'm not sure you're understanding what I'm saying, but I don't know how better to explain it. Bottom line is the best predictor for determining the number of wins a quarterback is likely to have is the QB efficiency rating. It is a calculation designed to predict the output variable (wins) based on the given input variables as discussed in my prior post.

A quick wikipedia search of the formula for determining the quarterback rating yields the following. As you can see, the number of wins a QB has is not a input variable for determining the quarterback efficiency ratio. Straight from wikipedia; as mentioned above: The four separate calculations can be expressed in the following equations: a=(COMPATT−.3)×5{\displaystyle a=\left({{\text{COMP}} \over {\text{ATT}}}-.3\right)\times 5} b=(YDSATT−3)×.25{\displaystyle b=\left({{\text{YDS}} \over {\text{ATT}}}-3\right)\times .25} c=(TDATT)×20{\displaystyle c=\left({{\text{TD}} \over {\text{ATT}}}\right)\times 20} d=2.375−(INTATT×25){\displaystyle d=2.375-\left({{\text{INT}} \over {\text{ATT}}}\times 25\right)} where ATT = Number of passing attempts COMP = Number of completions YDS = Passing yards TD = Touchdown passes INT = Interceptions If the result of any calculation is greater than 2.375, it is set to 2.375. If the result is a negative number, it is set to zero. Then, the above calculations are used to complete the passer rating: Passer Rating=((a+b+c+d)6)×100{\displaystyle {\text{Passer Rating}}=\left({(a+b+c+d) \over 6}\right)\times 100}

The QB efficiency rating is essentially the 'gold standard' for QB effectiveness because it is the statistic that has the highest positive correlation with the number of wins said quarterback produces. To put it in a statistical nutshell, the correlation of variable x to variable y indicates its ability to predict the outcome (output) of a given variable (y - in this case, # of wins by a QB), based on a known quantity (input) of a known variable (x - which in this case, would be the QB efficiency rating). Correlation values range from -1 (a perfect negative 1:1 correlation) to +1 (a perfect positive 1:1 correlation) - a quick google search shows that the general consensus is that the correlation between QB rating and # of wins is about 0.50ish. To date, no other statistic has a higher correlation with the number of wins a QB has. This means that, generally speaking, if you were to look at all QB efficiency ratings since the dawn of football to present day, the QB efficiency rating is the best statistic to determine the number of wins a quarterback will get. The higher their QB efficiency rating, the more wins they are likely to have. Analysis has also been done on other statistics such as total passing yards, completion % etc. In terms of testing, you could hypothetically use anything as your x for testing your null hypothesis. For example, you could do analysis testing the correlation between the temperature the day of the game and # of wins (hint: you probably wouldn't see any correlation that is meaningful). The testing done to date shows that the number of wins a QB has is correlated most consistently with the QB efficiency rating.

So much this.

I think the best way to describe is it brilliantly desperate. The signing itself is desperate, the entertainment value is brilliant.

How do you guys not see the genius that is Jonesy? Obviously he didn't sign Young as a plug-and-play QB upgrade... Young is obviously their import offensive lineman that can also run the fumblerooski...and throw in a pinch.

Y'know... the article about Vince Young just states he has signed with the Riders.... doesn't exactly specify what position he signed for. He could be filling a huge void other than QB for their franchise... Like head coach?

If nothing else... I'd be okay with entertaining the idea of Dressler returning kicks - didn't he used to do that all the time when he was with the Riders?

The Miles signing means more homegrown Canadian talent. He won't make any big splashes in terms of a typical "big" free agency signing...but every team needs a core of dependable, hard-nosed players willing to run through walls for their team. I really like the methodology we're currently using for upgrading our roster this year.

I find statistics like this (especially for special teams) can be misleading sometimes... is Miller actually that good of a player, or did Edmonton just punt/kickoff a lot in 2016 (thus giving him more opportunities to make tackles)? A good example where special teams statistics can be misleading was in 1998 when Eric Blount set the CFL record (at the time) for most kickoff return yards in a single season. The Bombers went 3-15 that year, the only reason Blount even set the record was because he had so many attempts at kickoff returns since the Bombers surrendered so many touchdowns to opponents. So, just for fun, I summarized the punting attempts, per team, for the 2016 regular season from CFL's website. I wanted to add in kickoff attempts, but couldn't find the #s anywhere (I also didn't look particularly hard either). Anyways, here's the results: Team - # of punting attempts SSK (Way to go, idiots) - 134 TOR - 113 MTL - 113 WPG - 112 OTT - 110 EDM - 103 CGY - 100 HAM - 99 BC - 97 Looks like Edmonton didn't punt an excessive amount in 2016 - looks like Miller is just a tough, run-through-walls type player that will be a good addition to the team. Also, he's Canadian.

I don't know about anyone else, but as a season ticket holder I've always been impressed by the fact Wade takes time out of his schedule to meet and greet with anyone who picks up their season tickets on the first day (just basically greets people picking up their tickets). I think the biggest improvement from him coming in is the fact that he's reestablished the idea that season ticket holders are a cornerstone of the Bombers local fan support, revenue and pride and deserve to be treated as such. He has also done a really good job with some of the bad hands dealt to him by the prior regime. Lastly I think he has a huge desire to help this organization win and be a part of Winnipeg that the city can be proud of... that goes a long way.

Apologies if I've been living under a rock, but based on that listing, I presume the Big Blue finally parted ways with Patrick Neufeld? Or is the 44-man roster listing just likely potential starters (in which case I can't blame you for not including him - I think I attended more games than him last year and I only went to the home ones).

Agreed, if nothing else we have a backup that can at least manage a game if Nichols goes down. LeFevour will likely be good in short yardage, and the signing adds some stability to the most important position in the CFL. I think the current regime learned from their mistakes when they bet it all on Willy a few years ago - only to see the season slip away with his season ending injury. That said, I don't know how much learning/developing he's going to be doing - he turns 30 next month. Even if he just meets expectations, I think that will be good enough as a backup role for Nichols. Besides, he's light years ahead of other quarterbacks we've had in prior years such as Brian Brohm , Alex Brink and T.J. Rubley.

Fair points - sorry for the confusion I guess I was using the wrong terminology, you're both definitely right regarding contracts and training camp. I'm unfamiliar with the rules regarding the 'mini-camps' that the CFL teams hold down south, are they required to be signed to a contract to attend those as well? I guess the other thing I'm finding confusing is if we could sign a player before drafting them, why have the draft at all in the first place? Wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of the draft? That said, if this is purely hypothetical, then I'd have to agree with others that you'd sign the player before drafting them, especially with the 1st overall.

Gotta say I agree with you, I think that would be the best of both worlds in that overtime would still be exciting, but would be much more than just a coin-flip = win.

Not quite, I just think signing an unproven player before they've even seen practice/training camp seems like a bit of a gamble. Sometimes players that break into the CFL get calls from down south once the NFL season starts to heat up, and I think many young players would think it is better to play somewhere than not be playing at all.It's unfortunate that the NFL season starts midway through the CFL season since this causes the situation I described above.

Even if we do have the option of signing a 1st-round pick before drafting them (I have no idea if we do) - I still wouldn't do it. Assuming the best-case scenario and you do sign him before drafting and he ends up being way better than projected (i.e. the next Tom Brady/Julio Jones or whatever)... he'll definitely be on somebody's radar down south. NFL teams will be calling with the enticement of better pay, better recognition and more likely than not, the chance to for that player to chase their dream of playing in the NFL (assuming they're from the U.S.). If you keep him wrapped up under his CFL salary, it's a lose-lose situation for both parties: - The player ends up stuck playing below his potential/skill level, and is likely unhappy doing so. - The team ends up with an unmotivated player that is likely a earning a big paycheck for a rookie. This lose-lose situation is the same reason why CFL teams often release players under contract that have an opportunity to make it to the NFL (examples include Weston Dressler with the Riders a few years ago, most recently the Bombers released Quincy McDuffie so he can attempt to tryout for the Cowboys). It's generally considered an act of good faith by the CFL team and often if the player doesn't make cuts, they'll return to the team that released them in the first place. Also I'd definitely trade all our 2017 picks for BLM - even that would still be a steal.

Fun fact of the day: As of today (Feb 7) - 123 days to start of the preseason, 144 days to season opener and 150 days away from the home opener. Let the countdown begin! Not-so-fun fact of the day: 82 days until the Canadian personal tax deadline (April 30, 2017).

I think the reason they shy away from full kickoffs in OT is because then you could potentially end up with very long games in overtime....example in OT: Team 1 receives kickoff, botches the return and starts from their 15, they drive the field (taking as much time as a full drive in the CFL) and score a TD. Team 2 would then get a chance to answer, with the possibility of an equally long, sustained drive and if they were to score another TD, it'd go to double OT. Also if they were to enforce kickoffs, I'd assume they'd have to eliminate/omit the rouge on kickoffs in OT, which would just further confuse any layperson watching the CFL.

Have to agree with JuranBoldenRules here. If nothing else, when you're on offense (especially in football), you are inherently in control of the game...as the team on offense dictates the pace of play, when the play starts and gets to set the tone. Obviously, the defense gets the opportunity to call their own coverage as well, and there is definitely an art in calling effective defensive schemes. At the end of the day though, the D is really just guessing what they think the offense is going to run, and calling what they feel will be effective coverage against that. It's for this same reasoning that predictable offensive schemes fail so miserably, when the defense knows (or know more likely) what the offense is going to call, they lose that inherent edge of unpredictability. Also, choosing to start on D in OT kind of goes with that whole "playing not to lose" idea - you're counting on the opponent's offense to make a mistake first, instead of trying to win the game with your own offense.

Next they'll add Donald Trump to their neg. list as an offensive lineman, I'm sure Jonesy has heard of his protection skills for America's jobs and citizens... those same skills could be applied to protecting a QB!