Calling Rusty and his Minions.....

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Calling Rusty and his Minions.....

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:

     

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    I am not going to read all that mainly because I think Kerry is a doofus who sits behind his compter trying to predict real football by making up and modifying his statistical methodolgies until he gets the results he wants for his site and future articles.

    The last time I looked up at the score board at the end of a game the team who scored more points won the game.

    ...and that's not to say that the defense can't or should not be improved upon.

    According to Kerry, at the end of your post, if the Pats simply improve the D and the Offense still goes out and scores 13 points it's Lombardi time. Idiotic.

    Here are the only stats that matter...

     

    Offense - The SUPERBOWL years

    offensesbyrs.jpg

    Defense - The SUPERBOWL years

     

     

    So basically two out of the three years the Pats won the superbowl the defense was worse than they were all season long in the biggest game but the offense saved them by not completely falling flat on their face.

    ...and if someone wants to use the argument that the Defense did not generate any turnovers in 2011 I can understand that and accept it as long as you also then accept that it means the offense is just smoke and mirrors and there success and point scoring ability is completely dependent on the defense giving them extra touches to figure it out because they are not efficient or consistent on their own merit.

    ...and if you accept that later point then you should be wishing the Patriots spend  more money in FA and in draft collateral helping the offense over the defense. You can't argue the point both ways. IMHO.

     




     

    I don't know if this Kerry is an idiot, but his work presented above is deinfitely idiotic.

    His analysis fails on a very basic level -- i.e., using the wrong evidence to support his point. He used so much data to support his analysis yet all that data/ and fancy stats are from regular season (I know because he showed league rankings on every one of them) and even other playoff games; therefore are irrelevant to how the SB games themselves actually trasnpired. 

    At most, he could use those data and fancy stats as benchmarks for evaluating performance in the in the actual SB games - kinda what you did except that you did it only on the simplest, yet ultimate indicator of productive output - the score. 

    For about 6 months now, I have not commented on this perpetual debate of who's to blame for the two SB losses. I had a hard time resisting this time, to make the point that quant analysis per se is not to blame here. To blame here is how this person is applying quant analysis. 

    Frankly, in my work, I have seen a lot of people similar to Kerry - people who think they are good analysts, just because they know how to caclulate a desriptive stat like average or standard deviation, or perhaps calculate a correlation. There is more to analysis than that. 

     

     

     




    Seattle congrats!

     

    this may be the most nothing ever said using the most amount of intelligent sounding words and phrases

    BRAVO! ENCORE!

    (stands and applauds)

     



    perhaps because it went over your head. the article actually fits what you describe.

     

    go ahead and elaborate on your point.




    Sorry Seattle, but I agree.

    There's nothing wrong with this analysis, in fact it's very concise.

    You state it's wrong or he uses the wrong facts???? Where?

    He is using it to predict SB winners based on RS stats.  What else would you use?

    Score?  Average score is not a good indicator.  It means they blew out some teams and struggled against better ones.  A team that has a 34ppg can just as likely score 19 as they can 49.  The 34ppg is the average of the two or 16 as it stands.

    The metric used to evaluate O's and D's have been around since the dawn of time.  He does use a more accurate measure of passer rating and defensive passer rating to include more relevant factors but  that's about it.

    Again, they are the same metrics used by the NFl with a little tweaking.

    It is all qualified by the winning percentages shown in each category.

    This is a result of using the same measure of success or failure for each team for a period of over 60 years.

    It makes perfect sense to try and evaluate a victor if you evaluate both sides of the team, as both are contingent on the other.

    A more balanced team is usually going to trump a team with only one strength, at least it is shown to be true 80% of the time.  Of course there are other variables that can't be predicted like human error,  game planning, a lucky play or an injury.  There's no way to predict that but those factors are not as prevalent over the course of of a season, compared as to how well the team performed as a whole.

    The difference (what he is proving) in defensive and offensive play as a whole is major and that is all he is saying.  A bad Defense can negate a good offense and you really have to look no further than any game any Sunday to see that.  If you have a D that can't hold it's own, it tends to make Offenses one dimensional and predictable and easier to defend.  When you are behind, you pass.  If you no lead is safe, you pass.  Even after a 6 minute time eating drive, if you don't score, you still gotta give the ball back to the D and the other team scores and eats away at your lead.  SB46.

    The Pats Offense does this to teams frequently and it's really the only reason the D has success at all.  Sorry but it's true.

    It's been proven over and over and over that when the O has problems, and that really is to be expected occasionally, that the D goes limp.... the picks disappear, the fumble recoveries disappear, the rz stops disappear, they can't get of the field, and they lose.

    There is a reason no team has ever won a SB with a DPR of over 82.

    That's because it puts your O in a position to have to better that against a much better D.

    Impossible, unless you are very, very, lucky.  So far, no team has been that lucky.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Quagmire3. Show Quagmire3's posts

    Re: Calling Rusty and his Minions.....

    a) the Panthers didn't score 38 points in the Super Bowl

    b) who the heck is Kerry Byrne?! And why should we care what he thinks?~

    Rusty 1, TripleOG 0

    Why cant we stick to good football talk and less attacks on other posters?

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Calling Rusty and his Minions.....

    In response to Quagmire3's comment:

    a) the Panthers didn't score 38 points in the Super Bowl

    b) who the heck is Kerry Byrne?! And why should we care what he thinks?~

    Rusty 1, TripleOG 0

    Why cant we stick to good football talk and less attacks on other posters?



    dunno but i'll go out on a limb and say he's Irish

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Quagmire3. Show Quagmire3's posts

    Re: Calling Rusty and his Minions.....

    ^^ lol

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Calling Rusty and his Minions.....

    Hey Pezz,

    Kerry used all the stats to build towards this very conclusion...

    If the Patriots can only amp up pressure on quarterbacks this year and improve the defense – and the pass defense specifically – a fourth Lombardi Trophy is well within reach.

    Well, the fact is that with those Ds in 2011 and 2007, the Pats went to the SB... the very definition of the "Lombardi being within reach". 

    Once they got to the SB, why they ultimately did not get that fourth Lombardi on those two attempts have nothing to do with their regular season play. The only thing you can get from the regular season stats is to use that as an indicator for how we should expect them to perform in that SB game.

    In fact, they were within one or two plays of getting that fourth Lombardi. We can argue for all eternity which play it was, whether it was an offensive play or a defensive play, or whether it was a lucky bounce... the fourth Lombardi was within reach.... therefore should be within reach even without improvements on D.

    I am not at saying they do not need to improve their D. Everyone who have seen my posts on the draft boards know that I have been advocating the Pats to pick a CB and someone next to VW on the early rounds.

    Perhaps more a more acceptable conclusion from his analysis is Pats chances of winning will increase by improving the D (which is a different conclusion). But then Duh... that's really all about nothing. Any improvement will increase the chances of any team winning the SB. 

     

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: Calling Rusty and his Minions.....

    "I am not at saying they do not need to improve their D. Everyone who have seen my posts on the draft boards know that I have been advocating the Pats to pick a CB and someone next to VW on the early rounds."

    Seattle Pat how dare you take a nuanced position on a complex issue? That just doesn't fly on this board. 

    Either you are pro-Brady 100 percent or anti-BB 100 percent. You pick a camp and the other side makes fun of you. Works really well. 

    A few points: 

    - I don't think Rusty uses fake accounts. Could be wrong but they don't resemble his. Accusing people of using fake accounts is a yawner. Strange that Rusty accuses his detractors of using fake accounts even though he resents the same accusations when they come at him.

    - Rusty knows his football so coming at him like he doesn't is a fail. What he struggles with are tendencies to reduce arguments to one variable and then mock those who dare to provide a different view. 

    The big takeaway from this thread is it seems we all have UD6 on permanent ignore where he belongs. I love that no one engaged him on his drivel analysis of the Pats postseasons....

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: Calling Rusty and his Minions.....

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:

    "I am not at saying they do not need to improve their D. Everyone who have seen my posts on the draft boards know that I have been advocating the Pats to pick a CB and someone next to VW on the early rounds."

    Seattle Pat how dare you take a nuanced position on a complex issue? That just doesn't fly on this board. 

    Either you are pro-Brady 100 percent or anti-BB 100 percent. You pick a camp and the other side makes fun of you. Works really well. 

    A few points: 

    - I don't think Rusty uses fake accounts. Could be wrong but they don't resemble his. Accusing people of using fake accounts is a yawner. Strange that Rusty accuses his detractors of using fake accounts even though he resents the same accusations when they come at him.

    - Rusty knows his football so coming at him like he doesn't is a fail. What he struggles with are tendencies to reduce arguments to one variable and then mock those who dare to provide a different view. 

    The big takeaway from this thread is it seems we all have UD6 on permanent ignore where he belongs. I love that no one engaged him on his drivel analysis of the Pats postseasons....

     




    thats the thing though, only babe and his village idiots are so one sided. i believe that the defense could use help, but im not going to act like they were the sole reason they lost those playoff games. when a team that scored 30+ points at ease during the regular season, doesnt get to HALF that in games, they deserve responsibility for the loss. if not all of it, then a good amount of it. brady knows this, his whole offense knows this, but yet some people cant seem to grasp it. they are just fine with our offense scoring in the low teens in the big games....

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from CablesWyndBairn. Show CablesWyndBairn's posts

    Re: Calling Rusty and his Minions.....

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    This is way too much information, football is not that complicated. If the Giants don't make a hundred years play in '07 (or if Samuel hangs on to the ball) and if Welker catches the ball (or Brady thows a better pass, depending on your POV) in '11, they have 5 rings.

    The defense didn't lose those games, it didn't win them when it had a chance to, but it didn't lose them either.

    Fact is, the defense didn't win the '01 or '03 SBs either, in fact it did its very best to give those games away in the end, and the QB and the offense bailed them out. 

    Anybody can see that the defense hasn't been as good as the offense for a few years, but you can't credibly deny that the offense failed to perform anywhere near its expected level in the biggest games, the last two SBs and the AFCCG this year. The defense, on the other hand, probably performed slightly better than might have been expected in those two SBs. The Baltimore game was a fail on both sides of the ball, although the defense wasn't as bad as the offense.




    Agreed.  Good post. 

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from tanbass. Show tanbass's posts

    Re: Calling Rusty and his Minions.....

    Rusty & Babe LOVE to argue...that isn't ever going to change. Neither have a clue how to debate sports in a respectful manner....and that won't ever change.

    I find it amazing that this age old argument even exists. Why oh why do we have to put all the blame for post season failure on one side of the ball? Last time I checked, this was a TEAM sport.

    Despite what all the stat experts want to say.....both the offense & the defense failed to make enough plays to win in the post season over the last several years.

    The offense has failed to score as many points as they usually do....can't be argued, it's a fact.

    The defense has failed to make some critical stops....this is a fact.

    Both sides have let us down folks. What is the point of blaming one side or the other??? BOTH sides need to improve to win in the post season. So if you want to single out certain players....or single plays, and blame the losses on those fractions of the game....go for it.

    The fact remains that BOTH sides made mistakes...and cost us these games. Fact!!

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Calling Rusty and his Minions.....

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:

    Hey Pezz,

    Kerry used all the stats to build towards this very conclusion...

    If the Patriots can only amp up pressure on quarterbacks this year and improve the defense – and the pass defense specifically – a fourth Lombardi Trophy is well within reach.

    Well, the fact is that with those Ds in 2011 and 2007, the Pats went to the SB... the very definition of the "Lombardi being within reach". 

    Once they got to the SB, why they ultimately did not get that fourth Lombardi on those two attempts have nothing to do with their regular season play. The only thing you can get from the regular season stats is to use that as an indicator for how we should expect them to perform in that SB game.

    In fact, they were within one or two plays of getting that fourth Lombardi. We can argue for all eternity which play it was, whether it was an offensive play or a defensive play, or whether it was a lucky bounce... the fourth Lombardi was within reach.... therefore should be within reach even without improvements on D.

    I am not at saying they do not need to improve their D. Everyone who have seen my posts on the draft boards know that I have been advocating the Pats to pick a CB and someone next to VW on the early rounds.

    Perhaps more a more acceptable conclusion from his analysis is Pats chances of winning will increase by improving the D (which is a different conclusion). But then Duh... that's really all about nothing. Any improvement will increase the chances of any team winning the SB. 

     

     




    Nah, He's not plugging in stats to build towards his conclusion.  That seems forced.  He's basing his conclusion on what the stats indicate.

    His conclusion is mostly based on this:

    Real Quarterback Rating (No. 3) – Real QB Rating is our measure of all aspects of QB play, including passing plus rushing, sacks, fumbles, etc. The Patriots produced a Real QB Rating of just 99.35. Only the Packers (112.71) and Saints (105.43) were better.

    Defensive Real Quarterback Rating (No. 24) – New England’s opponents produced a Real QB Rating of 80.38. Even the defense for 2-14 St. Louis was better (78.73)

    He subtracts the difference in the ratings to come up with a number that is a constant.

    In this case 99.35 (very high) minus the (worst Defensive ranking in the league) 80.38 which is about 19.

    The most balanced teams are in the 22-24 range.  Denver had the highest rating last year with a #2 O and a # 5 D of the play-off teams @ a 24.  Unfortunately for them that 20% fail rate came to fruition.

    For instance, Those were 2011 stats, but in 2012 of the 12 play-off teams the Pats were rated 6th.  (which is where they came in) They were ranked 1st in O and last in D which DECREASED their chances of success.  D negating O.

    Seattle and Denver were ranked higher because of their balance between O & D.  They did not do better but of course, nothing is fool proof.  An 80+ % accuracy is pretty good though.

    He is merely showing, with stats through a proven system, that any improvement in the D's ranking would improve the teams chance of success.


    Unfortunately the D played worse than their poor ranking and yes, the O did not live up to their #1.  Bottom line is the team has to stop relying on the O to win.

    There's no better way to kill a good Offense than to attack the poor Defense and limit the O by keeping them on the bench, thus making them easier to defend (1 dimensional) when they are on the field.

      Ask any coach.

    Bottom line is that the D can't allow that to happen.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Calling Rusty and his Minions.....

    In response to tanbass' comment:

    Rusty & Babe LOVE to argue...that isn't ever going to change. Neither have a clue how to debate sports in a respectful manner....and that won't ever change.

    I find it amazing that this age old argument even exists. Why oh why do we have to put all the blame for post season failure on one side of the ball? Last time I checked, this was a TEAM sport.

    Despite what all the stat experts want to say.....both the offense & the defense failed to make enough plays to win in the post season over the last several years.

    The offense has failed to score as many points as they usually do....can't be argued, it's a fact.

    The defense has failed to make some critical stops....this is a fact.

    Both sides have let us down folks. What is the point of blaming one side or the other??? BOTH sides need to improve to win in the post season. So if you want to single out certain players....or single plays, and blame the losses on those fractions of the game....go for it.

    The fact remains that BOTH sides made mistakes...and cost us these games. Fact!!

     



    +1

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from JohnHannahrulz. Show JohnHannahrulz's posts

    Re: Calling Rusty and his Minions.....

    Just stick to football and talk facts and don't resort to puerile namecalling and I'll read what you write. Sometimes I'll agree sometimes I won't.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Calling Rusty and his Minions.....

    In response to JohnHannahrulz's comment:

    Just stick to football and talk facts and don't resort to puerile namecalling and I'll read what you write. Sometimes I'll agree sometimes I won't.



    That is pretty much the way I see it.  

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: Calling Rusty and his Minions.....

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

     

    This is way too much information, football is not that complicated. If the Giants don't make a hundred years play in '07 (or if Samuel hangs on to the ball) and if Welker catches the ball (or Brady thows a better pass, depending on your POV) in '11, they have 5 rings.

    The defense didn't lose those games, it didn't win them when it had a chance to, but it didn't lose them either.

    Fact is, the defense didn't win the '01 or '03 SBs either, in fact it did its very best to give those games away in the end, and the QB and the offense bailed them out. 

    Anybody can see that the defense hasn't been as good as the offense for a few years, but you can't credibly deny that the offense failed to perform anywhere near its expected level in the biggest games, the last two SBs and the AFCCG this year. The defense, on the other hand, probably performed slightly better than might have been expected in those two SBs. The Baltimore game was a fail on both sides of the ball, although the defense wasn't as bad as the offense.

     




     

     

    let me please just clarify myself again. i wasnt talking about the last 2 SBs. I was mainly talking about the 03' SB.   This wasnt meant to be another offense v defense thread. I realize that in each of the last 2 SBs that both offense and defense were at fault. THIS thread was only made because a couple posters here want to question my football knowledge while making statements like the 2003 D was bad and the 11'  unit was better because they gave up less points in thr big game. That to me shows you either dontk know football or have an agenda and this is what the article proved. i dont really care about the metric stats he uses but the opposing QBR of our opponents in 03' was 52 which is insane. That team GOT pressure! I dont think anyone wants to see what the opposing QBR has been the last few years.

    Rusty made the comment first and then redsoxfan agreed and now he is saying im grasping but still hasnt made a rebuttal yet he said I dont know football. I just googled 2003 defense and found this article that proved a few points but the article itself was in reference to the 12 team and how there defenses upgrades may propel them.  The Other Gem in this article is that the 03 team didnt have an effective run stat wise and used smith and faulk together but Brady led that team. So my point was that an effective run game is NOT the main component of winning SBs and rather defense is. We all know that Rusty feels that if we ran the ball a hundred times in the SB we would have won. This past year in the Ravens game also proved that to be false as we used our run game heavily and got low amount of points from it.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Calling Rusty and his Minions.....

    In response to RidingWithTheKing's comment:

    Pats D in SB 46>Pats D in SB 38



    You realize of course that the Panthers had as many possessions in the first half as the Giants had in the entire game right?  The Patriots defense dominated that game until it turned into a shootout at the end which tends to happen when teams have more and more chances to score.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: Calling Rusty and his Minions.....

    "the 2003 defense was so great that it allowed 29 points in the super bowl to the great jake delhomme LMAO!!

     

    the 2012 pats defense allowed 28 to flacco, but yet the 2003 defense was great and the 2012 defense was horrible? HAHAHAHAHA!! flacco put up some points on this defense, no doubt, but a BIG part of the reason is because our offense couldnt hold on to the ball"

     

    This is the gem redsox fan came out with that made me post this article. He and rusty are the same in that they dont know how to analyse other factors of the game. They simple point to a score and try to paint a picture but cant comprehend that other factors determine how the game plays out and Rusty is still sticking to his pea shooters..  lol

     

    Jake Delhomme may have flopped after his big contract but he balled that year and was a gamer in the SB. Both teams RAN the ball at each other all 1st half with no success before both teams decided to air it out and the defenses were gassed from the physical play.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share