I do in fact appreciate this response, not that you owe me one personally. But when you join an organization that purports to advance football research and you've compiled something significant, then to not put it out there some way, somehow, whether that involves profiting from it (nothing wrong with that, hope you do) or not, is doing a disservice to the spirit or cause of this group.NWebster wrote:I'll actually attempt to give a real answer here, maybe it'll satisfy you, maybe not - but frankly I have no need for all the adolescent sniping.Veeshik_ya wrote: . . . . After all, this is highly double top secret information. Wouldn't want it getting in the hands of that annoying general public.
John and I have, in fact, spent years collecting this info. Neither of us has any illusions of ever making any money off it or even recouping what we've spent in acquiring it. Moreover, neither of us is a web developer, or knows anything about that.
We do, however, want to ensure that it is published in a meaningful way so as not to create further confusion. For example - and there are millions of these little issues - the 1951 data I have for the Browns is from film and is therefore 100% complete (all assigned to individuals, none unassigned) but for the Rams from the same season the data is largely from play by plays and therefore there is a meaningful portion that's missing (not assigned to an individual). Just dumping the data out there absent that context could create the false impression that a particular Brown had more sacks than a particular Ram when that may not be the case.
We are working to compile and present the data in the proper context, but we've got day jobs and families too, frankly it's taking longer than i'd like too.
In the meantime - keep sniping at us if you'd like - but I can assure you there's no massive conspiracy here.
It's like claiming you have a stack of evidence that Bigfoot exists but then not sharing it, preferring to occasionally leak a piece here or there to a select group of other Bigfoot enthusiasts, none of whom would ever have the audacity to question what you've put together and are all too ready to pat you on the back for it. At the end of the day, how is that advancing the cause?
But, to be honest, it's less about the sacks and more about the haughty vibe put out by your research partner. I'm sure all other fellow members of the Knights of Columbus are already lining up with heartfelt character references, but let me ask you this: how would you like to be a young person interested in pro football checking out this site for the first time only to be told it isn't for the general public or challenging your game film watching acumen?
I'm not describing myself. I'm no spring chicken, and I know what I know. But the general tone of arrogance bugged me.
We all had to learn somewhere, and it's time the leadership of this group face the reality that a few hundred members in an almost four decade old organization is not exactly a shining example of robust business development. Maybe there's a reason for that.
