NFL '10/'11 Season Thread.

[Jon S.]

What a drive by the Texans, 98 yards with just over 2 minutes down by 8! When they play like they have been in the second half they got a beautiful team. Going to overtime at 28s. The catch by Johnson was a beaut(spelling?)...

Hell of a catch!!! When I saw him going up for it, I thought there was no way in Hell he was going to be able to come down with both feet in bounds......an act of beauty if there ever was one!

Now if the Texans can only seal the deal in OT.....I'll go to bed a happy man!

 

[STDiva]

What a game!!! I wonder how many fantasy playoff games are being won because of Houston right now?

 

[Jon S.]

Just one word that says it all for me: FUCK!!!!!

 

[Straight Shooter]

Texans lose, pick six for Ravens

 

[D-rock]

I don't have an aversion to numbers or stats (or even studies) ...I just take them with a grain of salt for the limited insight that can be gleaned from them. Whereas you don't seem to be able to think for yourself without them. :dunno:

Limited insight? I would go with what has the highest correlation with determining who does the best with winning and scoring (or preventing the other team from getting them.). As far as which one is better in that regard between statistics and anecdotal evidence the answer is properly implemented statistics and it's not even close, even for a sport like football where singling out individual performance from that of the team around them is harder to do. If anything the well done statistics would be the main bases on which things should be based and anecdotal evidence, which is what is really limited, taken with a grain of salt along with common sense should supplement that.

 

[Ace Bandage]

Haha, I love watching the Texans lose. Couple that with a Vikings loss and it was a great day for football.

 

[Hot Mega]

Limited insight? I would go with what has the highest correlation with determining who does the best with winning and scoring (or preventing the other team from getting them.). As far as which one is better in that regard between statistics and anecdotal evidence the answer is properly implemented statistics and it's not even close, even for a sport like football where singling out individual performance from that of the team around them is harder to do. If anything the well done statistics would be the main bases on which things should be based and anecdotal evidence, which is what is really limited, taken with a grain of salt along with common sense should supplement that.

There are many different examples of how statistics in a vacuum (void of circumstantial observation) render misleading conclusions.

For example, who caught the most receptions between 2 receivers doesn't necessarily tell you who's the better receiver. There are many factors that can have bearing on those stats between the players...(i.e. playcalling, QB accuracy, number of plays, etc.).

That's the reason why NFL teams pay scouts to go out and eyeball players to try and ascertain what the actual talent level is of a player they're interested in.

But players you see 2 times a year means you as a coach can scout the player yourself. So if that player torches you out of nowhere the first time you play them...then because you compensate for him the next time by game planning your LBs and Safeties to stop him then their RB gashes you or another WR gets deep because of the Safety accounting for the slot now...then that player doesn't have to show up once in the stat books to STILL have a profound impact on the game.:2 cents:

That's why you have to avail yourself of the circumstances and not fixate on raw numbers or stats.:2 cents:

 

[YumiYumi_1988]

Now that the Texas Houstonites are dead, we can now focus on the AFC South championship game on Sunday, Jaguars at Colts.

 

[shayd]

Jeeez...I thought this was over. If you're talking about T.J. Houshmandzadeh...Seattle signed him to a 5 year 40 million contract with a $15m bonus on the heels of 92 receptions in '08 and 112 receptions in '07.

He signed that contract in March of '09 which means his 79 receptions in '09 happened after he signed it.

He's playing at the league minimum for veteran players now.:2 cents:

I don't have an aversion to numbers or stats (or even studies) ...I just take them with a grain of salt for the limited insight that can be gleaned from them. Whereas you don't seem to be able to think for yourself without them. :dunno:

Your claim that statistics are bogus because there are exceptions is absolute hogwash. You're making the exceptions the rule. There are holes bigger than the state of Texas in simply believing "what my eyes see".

But nonetheless, carry on, I understand the value is lost on you.

 

[Hot Mega]

Your claim that statistics are bogus because there are exceptions is absolute hogwash. You're making the exceptions the rule. There are holes bigger than the state of Texas in simply believing "what my eyes see".

But nonetheless, carry on, I understand the value is lost on you.

Did you know the average human being has 1 breast and 1 testicle?

Again, If you ever read what I say you'll see I don't have a problem with statistics on the basis of exceptions or anomalies. I have a problem when people dummy them up to suggest silly things like Baghdad during the Iraq war was statistically 'safer' than D.C. or the Dolphins were statistically better without Welker. You see, they're often times used like a drunk uses a lamppost...to support him when he can't stand on his own, 2 feet instead of for illuminating the limited area around where he's looking.

Food for thought; If stats told you all you needed to know about some game, why would you need to play the game in order to arrive at them?:dunno:

But you're a guy who seems to like quotes. Here are a few of my favs just for you.

Gregg Easterbrook said, "Torture numbers, and they'll confess to anything."

Aaron Levenstein joked, "Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."

Statistics are like women; mirrors of purest virtue and truth, or like whores to use as one pleases. ~Theodor Billroth

William W. Watt, "Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say."

Then there is the man who drowned crossing a stream with an average depth of six inches. ~W.I.E. Gates

A statistical analysis, properly conducted, is a delicate dissection of uncertainties, a surgery of suppositions. ~M.J. Moroney

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." ~Mark Twain,

I abhor averages. I like the individual case. A man may have six meals one day and none the next, making an average of three meals per day, but that is not a good way to live. ~Louis D. Brandeis

:angels:

 

[thebear247]

man that was a great game it sucked to see the texans blow it like that but man what a game

 

[Red001]

Well Bree i figure you had to win based on what i got from my group of Mason,Rice and Foster in last nights game.
Best thing about Houston is they always play better after halftime

Colts-Jags should be interesting as many on ESPN are picking the Colts because they are at home despite how the Jags are finding ways to win.

red001

 

[Bree Olson]

I am super excited that I started Desean Jackson this week!

I'm up 111 to 54, but he still has Matt Schaub, Kevin Boss and the Giants D to play....I think I should be okay.

Well Bree i figure you had to win based on what i got from my group of Mason,Rice and Foster in last nights game.
Best thing about Houston is they always play better after halftime

Colts-Jags should be interesting as many on ESPN are picking the Colts because they are at home despite how the Jags are finding ways to win.

red001

....Fuck Matt Schaub.

Going into the second half, I was still up by at least 20pts(Giants D - 17, Boss - 8), then Schaubie decided it was high time to actually do something. By the time OT started it was tied...So when he threw that pick, I went up 2 pts.

In my league it's kind of weird, I'm in the playoffs now but Rd 1 is 2 weeks and the Finals are 2 weeks as well. So I head into week 2 of rd 1 2 pts ahead of my opponent. Gonna be close.

 

[girk1]

There are many different examples of how statistics in a vacuum (void of circumstantial observation) render misleading conclusions.

For example, who caught the most receptions between 2 receivers doesn't necessarily tell you who's the better receiver. There are many factors that can have bearing on those stats between the players...(i.e. playcalling, QB accuracy, number of plays, etc.).

That's the reason why NFL teams pay scouts to go out and eyeball players to try and ascertain what the actual talent level is of a player they're interested in.

But players you see 2 times a year means you as a coach can scout the player yourself. So if that player torches you out of nowhere the first time you play them...then because you compensate for him the next time by game planning your LBs and Safeties to stop him then their RB gashes you or another WR gets deep because of the Safety accounting for the slot now...then that player doesn't have to show up once in the stat books to STILL have a profound impact on the game.:2 cents:

That's why you have to avail yourself of the circumstances and not fixate on raw numbers or stats.:2 cents:

And that's why I don't like always talking 'pure' stats because people don't always take them into context without looking at the overall impact of that player. Just like I, & those scouts/GM's whose reputations/careers are on the line, knew that Vick(my stat geek posts were aimed at them but they scattered once the 'raw' stats improved) was ALWAYS a DAMN good player despite what the numbers say.

As a Charger fan & diehard 'Dan Fouts Guy' I would take JOHN ELWAY over Fouts & Dan Marino anyday although their raw numbers blow Elway out the water. Elway had a pedestrian 72 QB rating for most of his career(1st 10 seasons especially) & pretty poor TD to INT ratio ,but I would take him over most any QB I have ever seen, all things being equal,(since 1980).


DEION SANDERS doesn't rank in the top 20 all time INT's & wasn't always high on passes broken up/ints' because he was so good/dangerous that offenses AVOIDED throwing his way ,for the most part. That was simply the scouting report sometimes on Deion; "Don't throw the ball his way if possible " & many Defensive Coordinators could be quoted saying that at his peak.

Great lineman are doubled so often that their raw numbers are a bit skewed ,but the FACT is that the opposing teams game plan is devised around them.

 

[Hot Mega]

And that's why I don't like always talking 'pure' stats because people don't always take them into context without looking at the overall impact of that player. Just like I, & those scouts/GM's whose reputations/careers are on the line, knew that Vick(my stat geek posts were aimed at them but they scattered once the 'raw' stats improved) was ALWAYS a DAMN good player despite what the numbers say.

As a Charger fan & diehard 'Dan Fouts Guy' I would take JOHN ELWAY over Fouts & Dan Marino anyday although their raw numbers blow Elway out the water. Elway had a pedestrian 72 QB rating for most of his career(1st 10 seasons especially) & pretty poor TD to INT ratio ,but I would take him over most any QB I have ever seen, all things being equal,(since 1980).


DEION SANDERS doesn't rank in the top 20 all time INT's & wasn't always high on passes broken up/ints' because he was so good/dangerous that offenses AVOIDED throwing his way ,for the most part. That was simply the scouting report sometimes on Deion; "Don't throw the ball his way if possible " & many Defensive Coordinators could be quoted saying that at his peak.

Great lineman are doubled so often that their raw numbers are a bit skewed ,but the FACT is that the opposing teams game plan is devised around them.

^^:surprise: There are more men out there who actually watch the games for entertainment value, because they know the game and to see what actually happens during them???:bowdown::bowdown: A species on the brink of extinction as fantasy football and sports books have nearly killed it off.

Don't get me wrong about fantasy football...I had ALLOT of fun with it the one time/season I was urged to play it. But I see it's turning legions of fans who understood the intricacies of what was happening on the field into stat fanatics. Worse, it portends to affect the game as it's turning the players on the field into stat fanatics.

 

[Basedow]

T.O. blames coaches for Bengals sucking

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5920922

 

[shayd]

Did you know the average human being has 1 breast and 1 testicle?

Again, If you ever read what I say you'll see I don't have a problem with statistics on the basis of exceptions or anomalies. I have a problem when people dummy them up to suggest silly things like Baghdad during the Iraq war was statistically 'safer' than D.C. or the Dolphins were statistically better without Welker. You see, they're often times used like a drunk uses a lamppost...to support him when he can't stand on his own, 2 feet instead of for illuminating the limited area around where he's looking.

Food for thought; If stats told you all you needed to know about some game, why would you need to play the game in order to arrive at them?:dunno:

But you're a guy who seems to like quotes. Here are a few of my favs just for you.

Gregg Easterbrook said, "Torture numbers, and they'll confess to anything."

Aaron Levenstein joked, "Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."

Statistics are like women; mirrors of purest virtue and truth, or like whores to use as one pleases. ~Theodor Billroth

William W. Watt, "Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say."

Then there is the man who drowned crossing a stream with an average depth of six inches. ~W.I.E. Gates

A statistical analysis, properly conducted, is a delicate dissection of uncertainties, a surgery of suppositions. ~M.J. Moroney

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." ~Mark Twain,

I abhor averages. I like the individual case. A man may have six meals one day and none the next, making an average of three meals per day, but that is not a good way to live. ~Louis D. Brandeis

:angels:

Cool story, bro. :hatsoff:

 

[Red001]

Bree that's a weird play off system.
well i move to the semi-finals against the best team this week.

red001

 

[Straight Shooter]

The Vikings are a complete mess right now. Tavaris Jackson has been placed on IR so there is a possibility of either Pat Ramsey, who was just signed off the street or rookie Joe Webb starting if old man Favre can't go. It would be an embarrassment if my Bears can't beat this team, all they have to do is beat the Vikings and have the Packers lose to the Pats and the Bears clinch the NFC North.

 

[D-rock]

There are many different examples of how statistics in a vacuum (void of circumstantial observation) render misleading conclusions.

For example, who caught the most receptions between 2 receivers doesn't necessarily tell you who's the better receiver. There are many factors that can have bearing on those stats between the players...(i.e. playcalling, QB accuracy, number of plays, etc.).

That's the reason why NFL teams pay scouts to go out and eyeball players to try and ascertain what the actual talent level is of a player they're interested in.

But players you see 2 times a year means you as a coach can scout the player yourself. So if that player torches you out of nowhere the first time you play them...then because you compensate for him the next time by game planning your LBs and Safeties to stop him then their RB gashes you or another WR gets deep because of the Safety accounting for the slot now...then that player doesn't have to show up once in the stat books to STILL have a profound impact on the game.:2 cents:

That's why you have to avail yourself of the circumstances and not fixate on raw numbers or stats.:2 cents:

Why did you ever think I meant statistics in a vacuum when I plainly stated that they needed to be tempered with common sense and observations? I wasn't talking about people bending them to show with they want, but people that know what they are doing and doing them as precisely as they can to make the statistics relate to the true reality. In that sense they blow anecdotal observation out of the water, and where shayd got them are the best and most knowledgeable at when it comes to football statistics. Most of the time when it comes to the statistical analysis that I mentioned people don’t like it is because it doesn’t correspond to what they want to believe so it’s easier to just write them off than for people to consider deeply held beliefs might be wrong. People also don't like finding out or admitting their gut feelings about something where wrong.

And that's why I don't like always talking 'pure' stats because people don't always take them into context without looking at the overall impact of that player. Just like I, & those scouts/GM's whose reputations/careers are on the line, knew that Vick(my stat geek posts were aimed at them but they scattered once the 'raw' stats improved) was ALWAYS a DAMN good player despite what the numbers say.

What world are you living in? Before this year almost everybody thought Vick was a very poor quarterback, (was he was indeed very horrible) whether they believed in stats or not. To go back and think people within the game with exception of a few here or there thought he was good anyway is just very revisionist history. Giving the small sample size of good games he has this year he might very well still be bad and regress.

As a Charger fan & diehard 'Dan Fouts Guy' I would take JOHN ELWAY over Fouts & Dan Marino anyday although their raw numbers blow Elway out the water. Elway had a pedestrian 72 QB rating for most of his career(1st 10 seasons especially) & pretty poor TD to INT ratio ,but I would take him over most any QB I have ever seen, all things being equal,(since 1980).

Is there any logical reason or empirical basis for why you believe this or are you just going with Elway just because? I’m curious.

DEION SANDERS doesn't rank in the top 20 all time INT's & wasn't always high on passes broken up/ints' because he was so good/dangerous that offenses AVOIDED throwing his way ,for the most part. That was simply the scouting report sometimes on Deion; "Don't throw the ball his way if possible " & many Defensive Coordinators could be quoted saying that at his peak.

Great lineman are doubled so often that their raw numbers are a bit skewed ,but the FACT is that the opposing teams game plan is devised around them.

Actually people that do stats usually take those things into account, more than the people that just observe the game, and very often even try to incorporate that into any analytical system they have. As an example, that's why most stat people believed Revis was the real defensive player of the year last year instead of Woodson and even thought Woodson was below Asomugha because of one of the very reasons you stated, which is they never threw at him. Woodson got some turnovers which statistics show are more fungible non as easily repeatable actions, but that's what casual anecdotal observers always remember no matter how much it does or does not contribute to winning. So Woodson was not only not the best defensive player last year he wasn't even the best or second best player at his own position.

You complain about how those stats don't take things into account but ironically it's usually the stat analysis people that know more about that and realize things like that better than maybe everybody else because they can think of things more objectively and can even realize what their stats show. They also are the most likely to realize that some people with high stats have them either because they or the rest of the team is not good or as a by product of a system.