Of course, Wright also predicted that the Chiefs would blow out the Eagles and Bills at home in the regular season this year, based on the exact same logic, and yet....
All true. The flip side is the Homer can also get too worked up about perceived deficiencies because they don’t see the larger picture due to an intense focus on their team.
My Michigan friend insisted their OL was a weakness this year because it was slightly down from the prior year. He didn’t/couldn’t know that it was still better than 98% of the rest of college football.
Sort of a tangent but reminds of me Nassim Taleb's book "Skin in the Game." Part of his point is that neutrality makes one indifferent to the outcome, but that also means you are not exposed to the benefits of being right, or the penalties of being wrong, and according to him, much that has gone wrong in the world can be explained by people being insulated from those consequences. He thinks people should not comment on a financial security UNLESS they have a position in it - contrary to the usual attitude that one should be wary. If they have no position, they don't care about saying something wrong. If they do have a position, they might be dishonest, but there are market and legal mechanisms in place to discourage that.
Note sure the analogy to sports exactly, but being a homer is kind of like having skin in the game...emotionally?
Nick Wright who is a Lebron homer, said those Cavs teams would easily beat the Durant warriors. This turned out to be wrong. If Ethan was more around normie football and basketball fans, the type of fans who would love to listen to Radio Ethan every morning, he would know homers are way more likely to be wrong about their team.
One upshot I find of being a homer too is that it helps me identify who on the national scene puts in the work vs. who's just reciting the generic takes.
Also: homers who regularly go to games know even more, as being in the stadium you see a lot more than those at home who are at the whims of the tv director
Very difficult to even assess the claim because it is competitive sports. How the hell can a "homer" be better at predicting if he can only be a homer to the one team he calls home? Were the Warriors of 2015 playing against themselves or wouldn't you need background info on the other 29 teams to know they weren't likely to match Golden State in quality?
I have a rule against betting in Packers games but this season I wanted to drop it because I was usually right spread-wise. Even so, I am under no illusion that it was the homer in me that steered me the right way, I was also right about NOT picking the Packers in some games and it came from an understanding of the matchups, not my focus on Green Bay.
Are there tags in Substack as in Wordpress? Can we get a Nick Wright tag, so I can efficiently, without having to bother anyone, just read the other 50% of the newsletter? 🤭
this is very pedantic but I think it's just that a fan/close observer is more likely to be right. The definition of homer to me is a blind belief that your team is always right and the other always wrong no matter what, and I think a true homer is just as likely to be more wrong than consensus as they are more right than consensus. Passionate fan does not always equate to homer i.e. a passionate fan can agree with the refs when a tough call goes against the team where a homer cries conspiracy
I think two things are true: a homer is more likely to be correct about their team. They also are more likely to over inflate strengths, and down play weaknesses to a fault. To me the real story is the downfall of local journalism. We have put the embrace debate hot take industrial complex on such a pedestal that the words of Stephen A Smith hold more sway in the discourse of our favorite teams over what the local columnist may pen, or even the local radio host.
Will be a niche observation but you see this every single year in fantasy baseball when people are trying to figure out who closers will be for each team. Every closer chart had Jorge Lopez miles above Jhoan Duran before last season when anyone who spent even a few minutes watching Minnesota play / practice knew Duran would have the closer role locked in by the start of the season. Anyone paying close attention to the team could have seen that coming and obviously the people paying the closest attention to the team are fans
Hypothetical - this offseason the 49ers can replace Brock Purdy with any QB they want and the contract would remain the same. Who are you taking over him?
What skill has Purdy demonstrated that's superior to Tua? He had a worse O-line, comparable weapons, probably a little worse scheme/coaching, and he led the best offense in the league. What does Purdy bring to the table, physically, that Tua doesn't?
Tell that to Trey Lance! No, but I get what you're saying. I just feel like naming college guys when doing this exercise is missing the point and pretty silly.
Tua? Is there another QB named Murray I'm unaware of? Cause the Niners would not take Kyler Murray over Brock. They wouldn't take Hurts, Dak, or Jayden Daniels over Brock. I think they would be hesistant on Caleb beacuse they wouldn't want to live with the growing pains that would accompany such a talented young man.
Tua, Murray, Prescott, Cousins?? is pretty ridiculous based on the complete lack of playoff success from that group.
And three dudes who have never played a snap in the league? that's hard to swallow. I mean, I suppose - they *could* be as good as Purdy!? Would you rather a boat, or a box...that might contain a boat??
Kyler Murray is just a vastly better QB than Purdy. Look at the teams that they're on! And if the 49ers had the opportunity to trade Purdy straight up for any of those three draftees, they would do it in a heartbeat.
Counterpoint: There are people I interact with online who think Daniel Jones is good.
Of course, Wright also predicted that the Chiefs would blow out the Eagles and Bills at home in the regular season this year, based on the exact same logic, and yet....
All true. The flip side is the Homer can also get too worked up about perceived deficiencies because they don’t see the larger picture due to an intense focus on their team.
My Michigan friend insisted their OL was a weakness this year because it was slightly down from the prior year. He didn’t/couldn’t know that it was still better than 98% of the rest of college football.
Sort of a tangent but reminds of me Nassim Taleb's book "Skin in the Game." Part of his point is that neutrality makes one indifferent to the outcome, but that also means you are not exposed to the benefits of being right, or the penalties of being wrong, and according to him, much that has gone wrong in the world can be explained by people being insulated from those consequences. He thinks people should not comment on a financial security UNLESS they have a position in it - contrary to the usual attitude that one should be wary. If they have no position, they don't care about saying something wrong. If they do have a position, they might be dishonest, but there are market and legal mechanisms in place to discourage that.
Note sure the analogy to sports exactly, but being a homer is kind of like having skin in the game...emotionally?
Nick Wright who is a Lebron homer, said those Cavs teams would easily beat the Durant warriors. This turned out to be wrong. If Ethan was more around normie football and basketball fans, the type of fans who would love to listen to Radio Ethan every morning, he would know homers are way more likely to be wrong about their team.
One upshot I find of being a homer too is that it helps me identify who on the national scene puts in the work vs. who's just reciting the generic takes.
Also: homers who regularly go to games know even more, as being in the stadium you see a lot more than those at home who are at the whims of the tv director
Very difficult to even assess the claim because it is competitive sports. How the hell can a "homer" be better at predicting if he can only be a homer to the one team he calls home? Were the Warriors of 2015 playing against themselves or wouldn't you need background info on the other 29 teams to know they weren't likely to match Golden State in quality?
I have a rule against betting in Packers games but this season I wanted to drop it because I was usually right spread-wise. Even so, I am under no illusion that it was the homer in me that steered me the right way, I was also right about NOT picking the Packers in some games and it came from an understanding of the matchups, not my focus on Green Bay.
Don Mattingly should be in the Hall of Fame.
Are there tags in Substack as in Wordpress? Can we get a Nick Wright tag, so I can efficiently, without having to bother anyone, just read the other 50% of the newsletter? 🤭
this is very pedantic but I think it's just that a fan/close observer is more likely to be right. The definition of homer to me is a blind belief that your team is always right and the other always wrong no matter what, and I think a true homer is just as likely to be more wrong than consensus as they are more right than consensus. Passionate fan does not always equate to homer i.e. a passionate fan can agree with the refs when a tough call goes against the team where a homer cries conspiracy
I think two things are true: a homer is more likely to be correct about their team. They also are more likely to over inflate strengths, and down play weaknesses to a fault. To me the real story is the downfall of local journalism. We have put the embrace debate hot take industrial complex on such a pedestal that the words of Stephen A Smith hold more sway in the discourse of our favorite teams over what the local columnist may pen, or even the local radio host.
Speaking of homers...
As a Mavs fan I found this complaint on behalf of the Warriors compelling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjjJBHK3WSg
any thoughts?
feels like a good topic for Spike to discuss on a pod
Will be a niche observation but you see this every single year in fantasy baseball when people are trying to figure out who closers will be for each team. Every closer chart had Jorge Lopez miles above Jhoan Duran before last season when anyone who spent even a few minutes watching Minnesota play / practice knew Duran would have the closer role locked in by the start of the season. Anyone paying close attention to the team could have seen that coming and obviously the people paying the closest attention to the team are fans
Hypothetical - this offseason the 49ers can replace Brock Purdy with any QB they want and the contract would remain the same. Who are you taking over him?
Mahomes, Allen, Burrow, Jackson, Hurts, Herbert, Stroud, Love, Stafford, Tua, Murray, Prescott, Cousins, Caleb Williams, Drake Maye, Jayden Daniels
Tua?
I want your top 10 Ethan! You usually just say he’s a top 10 QB which is defensible but I’m curious what your top 10 looks like.
Hmm…should America’s foremost NFL writer paywall his coveted Top 10?
What skill has Purdy demonstrated that's superior to Tua? He had a worse O-line, comparable weapons, probably a little worse scheme/coaching, and he led the best offense in the league. What does Purdy bring to the table, physically, that Tua doesn't?
I just don’t get the Tua pick because, if arm strength is the knock on Purdy, Tua’s the one guy on the list with an obviously weaker arm
I'm a Niners' homer but anyone after Stroud is pretty ridiculous and, AT LEAST, one of the three college guys will be a bust.
I agree with what youre saying but each of those college QBs has a much higher chance of not being a bust by joining this 49er team specifically
Tell that to Trey Lance! No, but I get what you're saying. I just feel like naming college guys when doing this exercise is missing the point and pretty silly.
also think its dumb to include college guys
Like Trey Lance did?
much higher chance =/= guarantee
Tua? Is there another QB named Murray I'm unaware of? Cause the Niners would not take Kyler Murray over Brock. They wouldn't take Hurts, Dak, or Jayden Daniels over Brock. I think they would be hesistant on Caleb beacuse they wouldn't want to live with the growing pains that would accompany such a talented young man.
Well Purdy's got a great chance to prove us all wrong
Tua, Murray, Prescott, Cousins?? is pretty ridiculous based on the complete lack of playoff success from that group.
And three dudes who have never played a snap in the league? that's hard to swallow. I mean, I suppose - they *could* be as good as Purdy!? Would you rather a boat, or a box...that might contain a boat??
Kyler Murray is just a vastly better QB than Purdy. Look at the teams that they're on! And if the 49ers had the opportunity to trade Purdy straight up for any of those three draftees, they would do it in a heartbeat.
Patrick Mahomes