Quote from: uconnjack8 on February 20, 2024, 08:10:21 AMWhere did you see that he was responsible for 32% of his sacks? I haven't seen that one ( I don't subscribe to PFF). If you are referring to the percent of pressures that turned into sacks, I think you are misinterpreting that stat.
https://twitter.com/Ihartitz/status/1757465944824193328
Quote from: EliWasrobbed on February 20, 2024, 04:07:55 PMhttps://twitter.com/Ihartitz/status/1757465944824193328
That stat says when pressured he was 2nd most likely to be sacked, not that he caused the or was responsible for those sacks. Two very different things.
Quote from: uconnjack8 on February 20, 2024, 04:48:58 PMThat stat says when pressured he was 2nd most likely to be sacked, not that he caused the or was responsible for those sacks. Two very different things.
do you not understand what is written? Of course he was responsible
For those sacks. Just because you are pressured doesn't mean it is entirely on the Oline, you realize people like Lamar Jackson, Joe burrow etc are great at this which is WHY they are considered elite QBs
Quote from: EliWasrobbed on February 20, 2024, 05:01:14 PMdo you not understand what is written? Of course he was responsible
For those sacks. Just because you are pressured doesn't mean it is entirely on the Oline, you realize people like Lamar Jackson, Joe burrow etc are great at this which is WHY they are considered elite QBs
I think it's you who does not understand what is written.
I am not saying Jones was not responsible for any of those sacks, but that stst is not determining root cause of sacks, just who was most likely to be sacked when pressured. How many of those were avoidable is a very different thing.
Quote from: uconnjack8 on February 20, 2024, 05:03:33 PMI think it's you who does not understand what is written.
I am not saying Jones was not responsible for any of those sacks, but that stst is not determining root cause of sacks, just who was most likely to be sacked when pressured. How many of those were avoidable is a very different thing.
If it's the stat that PFF has a metric for, I recall them isolating either pressure or sacks that were the responsibility of the QB. Apparently it's based on game analysis.
Quote from: uconnjack8 on February 20, 2024, 05:03:33 PMI think it's you who does not understand what is written.
I am not saying Jones was not responsible for any of those sacks, but that stst is not determining root cause of sacks, just who was most likely to be sacked when pressured. How many of those were avoidable is a very different thing.
WTF? Buddy....
Quote from: EliWasrobbed on February 21, 2024, 02:18:29 AMWTF? Buddy....
Exactly, you are extrapolating something from a stat that isnt in the stat.
Dummy thing here is you think you are correct.
Quote from: EliWasrobbed on February 20, 2024, 05:01:14 PMdo you not understand what is written? Of course he was responsible
For those sacks. Just because you are pressured doesn't mean it is entirely on the Oline, you realize people like Lamar Jackson, Joe burrow etc are great at this which is WHY they are considered elite QBs
Those guys are considered great QBs for a number of reasons. Evading pressure is one of a number of factors. I am completely aware that sacks and being pressured are not entirely on the OL. However the stat you are using is not assigning responsibility for sacks.
Further there are a number of other factors you are not considering when making your statements. I am no Jones fan but perhaps his pressures turn to sacks more frequently than others because the pressure comes faster for example. There are many other factors, like the type of pressure and why there is pressure.
Lamar for example had almost a half second more time until he was pressured and got pressured a lot less.
Hasnt this stat been in like 4 threads now?
https://pff.com/news/nfl-searching-for-the-next-patrick-mahomes-pff-play-creation-study?
Quote from: Ed Vette on February 21, 2024, 08:20:55 AMhttps://pff.com/news/nfl-searching-for-the-next-patrick-mahomes-pff-play-creation-study?
So based on this extensive study, out of the 26 players ranked in the top 3 tiers (not counting those not yet drafted) more than half - or 14 - have been not good to terrible.
Why anyone would want to trade multiple high draft picks in multiple drafts for a guy who, at best, has a 50-50 shot at success is a complete mystery to me.
Quote from: uconnjack8 on February 21, 2024, 06:14:52 AMExactly, you are extrapolating something from a stat that isnt in the stat.
Dummy thing here is you think you are correct.
https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-sam-howell-washington-commanders-sacks
Not only is Howell creating his own pressure, but he's also turning offensive line-allowed pressure into sacks at an unsustainable rate. He currently leads the league with a 33.7% pressure-to-sack percentage. The league-high rate last season was 30.8%.
Quote from: Ed Vette on February 21, 2024, 08:20:55 AMhttps://pff.com/news/nfl-searching-for-the-next-patrick-mahomes-pff-play-creation-study?
Since they weren't exactly transparent in terms of how they derived this number (they cited factors but failed to "show their work"), I have to judge this exercise based on how logical and reasoned the author of the study is.
So I considered the first paragraph of the article:
QuoteThe Kansas City Chiefs won the Super Bowl despite ranking bottom-seven in wide receiver and offensive tackle PFF wins above replacement (PFF WAR), two premium positions on offense. While some may point to Kansas City's defense being one of the better units in the league, the biggest reason is simply the fact the Chiefs have Patrick Mahomes while everyone else does not.
There is a lot that bothers me in this one paragraph. This is PFF, so I feel comfortable using their metrics to judge their claims. First, I question why they judged the pass blocking only on the offensive tackle play rather than the entire line's play or, better yet, using their pass blocking grade. Looking at their grades for the Chief's line, it's hard not to see that the author was trying to mislead us. I just posted a thread about what makes a championship team, as authored by Daniel Jeremiah. He felt teams need 3 good offensive linemen. The Chief's interior line grades are 74.9, 81.4, and 74.6. So yes, the tackles were below average, but Mahomes could step up on the pocket, which was usually sound due to the stout interior of the O-line.
The second metric the author picked was WR. Since we are all aware that Mahome's biggest receiving weapon is future HOF TE Kelcy, this again appears to be a case of cherry-picking data to create a false impression.
The downplaying of the Chief's defense also struck me as being less than honest. In the playoffs, PFF graded the Chief's defense number one. We also saw a previous stat of how often the defense limited opponents' scoring (setting a new record).
All that dishonesty was to support the claim that the "biggest" reason the Chiefs won this Super Bowl was because they had Mahomes. I certainly agree that having Mahomes helped the team win the Super Bowl, but the biggest reason was the Chief's defense. It carried the team into the playoffs and it won them a championship.
Quote from: uconnjack8 on February 20, 2024, 04:48:58 PMThat stat says when pressured he was 2nd most likely to be sacked, not that he caused the or was responsible for those sacks. Two very different things.
It's not most likely. It's pressure where the QB WAS responsible for pressure creating the sack.
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 21, 2024, 08:45:38 AMSince they weren't exactly transparent in terms of how they derived this number (they cited factors but failed to "show their work"), I have to judge this exercise based on how logical and reasoned the author of the study is.
So I considered the first paragraph of the article:
There is a lot that bothers me in this one paragraph. This is PFF, so I feel comfortable using their metrics to judge their claims. First, I question why they judged the pass blocking only on the offensive tackle play rather than the entire line's play or, better yet, using their pass blocking grade. Looking at their grades for the Chief's line, it's hard not to see that the author was trying to mislead us. I just posted a thread about what makes a championship team, as authored by Daniel Jeremiah. He felt teams need 3 good offensive linemen. The Chief's interior line grades are 74.9, 81.4, and 74.6. So yes, the tackles were below average, but Mahomes could step up on the pocket, which was usually sound due to the stout interior of the O-line.
The second metric the author picked was WR. Since we are all aware that Mahome's biggest receiving weapon is future HOF TE Kelcy, this again appears to be a case of cherry-picking data to create a false impression.
The downplaying of the Chief's defense also struck me as being less than honest. In the playoffs, PFF graded the Chief's defense number one. We also saw a previous stat of how often the defense limited opponents' scoring (setting a new record).
All that dishonesty was to support the claim that the "biggest" reason the Chiefs won this Super Bowl was because they had Mahomes. I certainly agree that having Mahomes helped the team win the Super Bowl, but the biggest reason was the Chief's defense. It carried the team into the playoffs and it won them a championship.
That's not the reason why I posted the article, for the reason the Chiefs won the SB. It was to show the tier groups of similar attributes. How QBs convert pressure into opportunity.
Quote from: Ed Vette on February 21, 2024, 08:55:13 AMThat's not the reason why I posted the article, for the reason the Chiefs won the SB. It was to show the tier groups of similar attributes. How QBs convert pressure into opportunity.
I appreciated that. I just needed to vent about that paragraph. For a site that is all about analytics, that was some of the worst "reasoning" I have ever witnessed.
As for the tiers, I noticed QBs from the same schools ended up in the same or adjacent tiers. That makes me wonder if the system they used may be biased towards certain styles of offense or perhaps failed to account for the defenses faced.
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 21, 2024, 08:58:20 AMI appreciated that. I just needed to vent about that paragraph. For a site that is all about analytics, that was some of the worst "reasoning" I have ever witnessed.
As for the tiers, I noticed QBs from the same schools ended up in the same or adjacent tiers. That makes me wonder if the system they used may be biased towards certain styles of offense or perhaps failed to account for the defenses faced.
Good observation. Perhaps USC sacrifices Oline and compensates with elusive QB who can make something out of nothing, as an example. It could be coaching or it's the QB. I wonder why McCarthy is conspicuously missing.
Quote from: Ed Vette on February 21, 2024, 09:07:24 AMGood observation. Perhaps USC sacrifices Oline and compensates with elusive QB who can make something out of nothing, as an example. It could be coaching or it's the QB. I wonder why McCarthy is conspicuously missing.
Best guess, this study was done prior to the McCarthy declaring
There are all kinds of sacks so I don't buy the sentence that sacks are a QB's fault. Coverage sacks when a QB has lots of time, then gets sacked tends to be more on a QB, but Evan Neal completely missing on a 9 tech who sacks DJ quickly is absolutely not the QB's fault.
Quote from: EliWasrobbed on February 21, 2024, 02:18:29 AMWTF? Buddy....
EliW. This is exactly what we don't want here. I noticed it in another thread too. Please be respectful in your give and take with members. Thanks.
Quote from: Philosophers on February 21, 2024, 09:28:46 AMThere are all kinds of sacks so I don't buy the sentence that sacks are a QB's fault. Coverage sacks when a QB has lots of time, then gets sacked tends to be more on a QB, but Evan Neal completely missing on a 9 tech who sacks DJ quickly is absolutely not the QB's fault.
Of course but that doesn't negate their analysis based on a hypothetical. The videos illustrate a couple of examples. They clearly state that the percentages they arrive at are the responsibility of either the QB, the Oline, or other. Of course it's up to the individual as to whether they trust the evaluation or not.
The Giants need a perception change, we are going to be a case study on what not to do at the Qb position for the next decade. Every team that gets to that 5th year option with their qb, we'll be brought up as a worst case scenario of what happens.
If a qb isn't elite in 3-4 years move on until you find one that is.
Is this what this board is going to be in for, for the next 4-5 months, more Daniel Jones threads, for, against, and who knows what else?
Didn't we have one thread last year for all Daniel Jones posts? God this is going to be a very long off-season if this is what we discuss everyday.
:surrender: :surrender: :surrender: :surrender: :surrender: :surrender: :surrender:
Quote from: LennG on February 21, 2024, 11:49:54 AMIs this what this board is going to be in for, for the next 4-5 months, more Daniel Jones threads, for, against, and who knows what else?
Didn't we have one thread last year for all Daniel Jones posts? God this is going to be a very long off-season if this is what we discuss everyday.
:surrender: :surrender: :surrender: :surrender: :surrender: :surrender: :surrender:
Here's the thing, Lenn. After all the gloating at the conclusion of the 2022 season, hard core detractors continued their assertion that it wasn't a great season. After the 2023 season, the supporters capitulated with the caveat that injuries changed their mind.
Wait and see what happens if the Giants draft another QB. It will start all over. As it did for Jones and Eli as you recall. If there was an internet, the Scott Brunner/Phil Simms saga would have had the same affect.
It's called making myself look good, while making you look bad.
Quote from: Ed Vette on February 21, 2024, 12:09:23 PMHere's the thing, Lenn. After all the gloating at the conclusion of the 2022 season, hard core detractors continued their assertion that it wasn't a great season. After the 2023 season, the supporters capitulated with the caveat that injuries changed their mind.
Wait and see what happens if the Giants draft another QB. It will start all over. As it did for Jones and Eli as you recall. If there was an internet, the Scott Brunner/Phil Simms saga would have had the same affect.
It's called making myself look good, while making you look bad.
I wouldn't care if I looked bad if the fairy tale turned out to be true and Jones transformed himself into Cinderella after five years and multiple injuries to lead the team to the promised land. And I don't want anyone to look bad if they are wrong. My stance is about the Giants as an organization. They have not been run well in a long time and as an ancient fan, I would love to see them start making smart moves. I would love to see them as a dynamic franchise that was forward thinking, not one that is stodgy and always a step or two behind.
Quote from: Ed Vette on February 21, 2024, 08:47:09 AMIt's not most likely. It's pressure where the QB WAS responsible for pressure creating the sack.
Why doesnt it say that then? Do you have an explanation from PFF?
Quote from: uconnjack8 on February 21, 2024, 01:11:31 PMWhy doesnt it say that then? Do you have an explanation from PFF?
I don't have the subscription this year. It did say it on the metric and in the article I posted on this thread.
Quote from: Ed Vette on February 21, 2024, 01:20:38 PMI don't have the subscription this year. It did say it on the metric and in the article I posted on this thread.
Of course there are those who do have a subscription and could provide that for you, but it doesn't serve them.
Because of my engineering background, I am naturally drawn to analytics and statistics. One rule I have is that no matter how well a stat or measure is explained and justified, I like to put it through one more test. I call it, "Does it pass the eye test?" In other words, no matter how much a stat makes sense when you apply it, it shows the top players at the top and the worst players at the bottom. If it doesn't, then I question the value of such a measure, no matter how well it's justified.
Now take the idea that QBs are responsible for their own pressure, and it's worth looking at the percentage of pressures that are being blamed on the QB. Well, PFF has that stat, and for 2023, DJ was 5 worse, being assigned blame for 20.0% of pressures. If I left it at that it would be pretty damning. Only, remember, my eye test.
I looked up at the two QBs who are slightly "worse" than Daniel Jones. Those two QBs being blamed for 20.1% are the QB considered the best in the league and possibly in history and the current league MVP- Mahomes and Lamar Jackson.
That sort of made me dismiss the stat as not all that meaningful, if at all.
Quote from: Ed Vette on February 21, 2024, 08:39:49 AMhttps://www.pff.com/news/nfl-sam-howell-washington-commanders-sacks
Not only is Howell creating his own pressure, but he's also turning offensive line-allowed pressure into sacks at an unsustainable rate. He currently leads the league with a 33.7% pressure-to-sack percentage. The league-high rate last season was 30.8%.
So is pressure to sacks just those pressures that are offensive line created? Is it just "avoidable sacks"?
I think the bold part states pretty clearly that pressure to sacks isnt how many sacks the QB caused.
I have no doubt Jones is the cause of some of his own sacks.
Anyone know how PFF determines who is responsible for a sack? Some maybe easy to see, other could be a blown assignment on a blitz and the QB is blamed with the assumption he didnt move protection properly or throw a hot route...just do not understand how PFF would know the protection call and whether ot not it was executed properly.
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 21, 2024, 01:42:43 PMBecause of my engineering background, I am naturally drawn to analytics and statistics. One rule I have is that no matter how well a stat or measure is explained and justified, I like to put it through one more test. I call it, "Does it pass the eye test?" In other words, no matter how much a stat makes sense when you apply it, it shows the top players at the top and the worst players at the bottom. If it doesn't, then I question the value of such a measure, no matter how well it's justified.
Now take the idea that QBs are responsible for their own pressure, and it's worth looking at the percentage of pressures that are being blamed on the QB. Well, PFF has that stat, and for 2023, DJ was 5 worse, being assigned blame for 20.0% of pressures. If I left it at that it would be pretty damning. Only, remember, my eye test.
I looked up at the two QBs who are slightly "worse" than Daniel Jones. Those two QBs being blamed for 20.1% are the QB considered the best in the league and possibly in history and the current league MVP- Mahomes and Lamar Jackson.
That sort of made me dismiss the stat as not all that meaningful, if at all.
Rich I can understand how those two could have created more pressures for themselves than Jones. They both like to extend plays to try and make something happen. Now that stat doesn't tell the whole story obviously, which is why you use an eye test.
Its a good reason why a stat shouldn't be looked at without some context.
Quote from: uconnjack8 on February 21, 2024, 01:50:13 PMRich I can understand how those two could have created more pressures for themselves than Jones. They both like to extend plays to try and make something happen. Now that stat doesn't tell the whole story obviously, which is why you use an eye test.
Its a good reason why a stat shouldn't be looked at without some context.
When I do as you suggest, the stat is damned ever worse. When you look at the time to pressure and how DJ had the quickest time to pressure of any QB in the league by a significant margin, one wonders how on earth DJ is being assigned 20% of the blame.
I appreciate that some like to say DJ isn't adjusting the protections, but that is a claim not supported by evidence. We don't know how the Giants run their offense in terms of the freedom (which can vary greatly by QB/HC) DJ had in checking out of plays and making protections. Nor are the people making the claim qualified enough, both in high level football knowledge and having spent hours per game with the all 22.
Quote from: LennG on February 21, 2024, 11:49:54 AMIs this what this board is going to be in for, for the next 4-5 months, more Daniel Jones threads, for, against, and who knows what else?
Didn't we have one thread last year for all Daniel Jones posts? God this is going to be a very long off-season if this is what we discuss everyday.
:surrender: :surrender: :surrender: :surrender: :surrender: :surrender: :surrender:
Len,
The problem is that the long-time strong Daniel Jones detractors have been declaring themselves right about Jones and pointing to the 2023 season as proof. Unfortunately, that means they are unwilling to acknowledge the role that support (or, really, lack thereof) played in DJ's poor performance. So, any discussion about QB now and how ready the Giants are to draft another QB will often circle back to a Daniel Jones debate because the detractors will claim that the Giant's offensive talent level isn't the problem; it was just Daniel Jones.
Quote from: uconnjack8 on February 21, 2024, 01:46:09 PMSo is pressure to sacks just those pressures that are offensive line created? Is it just "avoidable sacks"?
I think the bold part states pretty clearly that pressure to sacks isnt how many sacks the QB caused.
I have no doubt Jones is the cause of some of his own sacks.
Anyone know how PFF determines who is responsible for a sack? Some maybe easy to see, other could be a blown assignment on a blitz and the QB is blamed with the assumption he didnt move protection properly or throw a hot route...just do not understand how PFF would know the protection call and whether ot not it was executed properly.
It appears that they only penalize the QB for holding the ball too long and not avoiding sacks. It says nothing about protections and game management (dirty word) that every QB is expected to do. If a time to sack is low, it's on the Offensive line and or the QB. Read what I already posted. They said it clearly. Holding the ball too long and having time to avoid a sack by movement or getting rid of the ball.
https://premium.pff.com/nfl/positions/2023/REGPO
This is a good example of how PFF can be so polarizing. You can post the stats every week and some base the game on snapshots and dismiss when the grade is too low or too high. Or, you can support the data religiously unless or until there is a metric that doesn't fit your bias or narrative and then investigate how you can pick it apart and create "context"... The bottom line is that no matter how obnoxious a fellow member can be, it's best not to tell them that they don't know what they are talking about, unless you are absolutely sure you have it right.
Quote from: Ed Vette on February 21, 2024, 02:19:34 PMThis is a good example of how PFF can be so polarizing. You can post the stats every week and some base the game on snapshots and dismiss when the grade is too low or too high. Or, you can support the data religiously unless or until there is a metric that doesn't fit your bias or narrative and then investigate how you can pick it apart and create "context"... The bottom line is that no matter how obnoxious a fellow member can be, it's best not to tell them that they don't know what they are talking about, unless you are absolutely sure you have it right.
I think the issue is that stats and measures can be used in two different ways. Some use stats and measures to prove a point they made is correct. Others use stats and measures to try and form their views and opinions. I think the latter group will also try to evaluate the value or accuracy of a given stat or measure, as that is an important part of trying to view something accurately.
I think a good example was a couple of weekends ago when I was playing around with stats and measures of the top QB candidates in this year's draft. I was creating my own measures by combining different stats and measures. As I did it, I would back-test what I was doing to see how some of the top prospects in recent drafts faired with my measures to gauge the value of what I created. So even when I thought I had found a good formula to measure QBs, I didn't share them here because I didn't feel the backtesting proved their value.
I think the polarizing aspect comes from people wanting to paint themselves as experts and pain others as not knowing what they are talking about. Instead of discussing a topic, it instead comes down to a pissing contest of who supposedly knows more about football and what a person's track record supposedly is. I have had people suggest I don't know what I am talking about when it comes to QBs because I clearly was wrong about Daniel Jones (this sort of approach raises the stakes about being proven right or wrong) as an example.
As I have said, I love stats and measures, but I have a process, and part of that process is to evaluate how useful or "accurate" any given stat may be (I will say there is no single end-all/be-all stat, they all serve a role and are part of a bigger picture).
That all said, I hope no one takes it personally when I give my opinion about the value of a particular measure or stat. In the end, it's just my opinion, and I hope I am properly explaining why I hold the opinion I am making. As Greg Gabriel said, "It's important to get it right, not be right".
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 21, 2024, 02:48:50 PMI think the issue is that stats and measures can be used in two different ways. Some use stats and measures to prove a point they made is correct. Others use stats and measures to try and form their views and opinions. I think the latter group will also try to evaluate the value or accuracy of a given stat or measure, as that is an important part of trying to view something accurately.
I think a good example was a couple of weekends ago when I was playing around with stats and measures of the top QB candidates in this year's draft. I was creating my own measures by combining different stats and measures. As I did it, I would back-test what I was doing to see how some of the top prospects in recent drafts faired with my measures to gauge the value of what I created. So even when I thought I had found a good formula to measure QBs, I didn't share them here because I didn't feel the backtesting proved their value.
I think the polarizing aspect comes from people wanting to paint themselves as experts and pain others as not knowing what they are talking about. Instead of discussing a topic, it instead comes down to a pissing contest of who supposedly knows more about football and what a person's track record supposedly is. I have had people suggest I don't know what I am talking about when it comes to QBs because I clearly was wrong about Daniel Jones (this sort of approach raises the stakes about being proven right or wrong) as an example.
As I have said, I love stats and measures, but I have a process, and part of that process is to evaluate how useful or "accurate" any given stat may be (I will say there is no single end-all/be-all stat, they all serve a role and are part of a bigger picture).
That all said, I hope no one takes it personally when I give my opinion about the value of a particular measure or stat. In the end, it's just my opinion, and I hope I am properly explaining why I hold the opinion I am making. As Greg Gabriel said, "It's important to get it right, not be right".
It's always good to present both sides of an opinion or a stat. Taking unnecessary sacks is not good but it's just one variable in the evaluation of a QB. Doubling down and overstating a position can be the result of being challenged. In my evaluation of JJ, I stated that I needed more to properly evaluate him however, I pointed out many of his attributes and what I perceived as his potential weaknesses. I've said many times that DJ is a better regular-season QB than Eli was. Eli had much better teams and a HOF HC. I just don't think he will ever get the Giants to the promised land. If DJ was on the 2005-2011 Giants they would have won ten-twelve games a season and in my opinion, would not have gotten to the SB in 2011. The Oline was past its prime. Eli was heroic in that Niner's Playoff Game. DJ would have crumbled.
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 21, 2024, 01:58:19 PMLen,
The problem is that the long-time strong Daniel Jones detractors have been declaring themselves right about Jones and pointing to the 2023 season as proof. Unfortunately, that means they are unwilling to acknowledge the role that support (or, really, lack thereof) played in DJ's poor performance. So, any discussion about QB now and how ready the Giants are to draft another QB will often circle back to a Daniel Jones debate because the detractors will claim that the Giant's offensive talent level isn't the problem; it was just Daniel Jones.
All I said was to have ONE thread for all Daniel Jones stuff. I believe we did that last year also. Why burden the board with thread after thread all basically saying the same thing?
Quote from: LennG on February 21, 2024, 03:55:03 PMAll I said was to have ONE thread for all Daniel Jones stuff. I believe we did that last year also. Why burden the board with thread after thread all basically saying the same thing?
Len,
I am not sure how much it will help. I broke this DJ discussion off from the JJ McCarthy thread AFTER I had asked that the thread stay on topic
Jones has been ranked in the bottom 3rd of Qbs since he was drafted outside of one year and our offenses have been ranked in the bottom 3rd every year.
That's all you need to know inorder to realize we need something else.
Quote from: LennG on February 21, 2024, 03:55:03 PMAll I said was to have ONE thread for all Daniel Jones stuff. I believe we did that last year also. Why burden the board with thread after thread all basically saying the same thing?
I second the vote for a single thread for all DJ topics. The debate is worthless, at this point. Not a single poster has changed their opinion on the matter, the same talking points are repeated over and over, and all it serves to do is clutter the board.