Stats the correlate well with scoring

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    Prolate why does your conclusion not hold true with the team you root for? Why is passing more not correlating to scoring more for our team? 15.5 points per game scored in the biggest games of our season in 6 straight years of losing in the post season. 285 passes(almost 50 per loss) why don't we score more?

    What evidence do you have that being a more balanced offense would have resulted in less then 15.5 points per game scored? Reality seems to directly contradict what you are saying. We scored 37 points per game the last 3 games of this last season till we played Denver by running for 800 combined yards in those games.

    Why do you hate running so much? Did somebody run you over with a car? Repressed memories? What gives? 

    Anybody besides triple og and his use of the "eye test" care to enlighten me on this?(This hero claims he knew Tom Brady would be Tom Brady before he took over for Bledsoe....ok) he claims McCourty is blah because of his famed eye test he uses while watching DMac play the game. Hey OG tell us more about how dumb BB is for signing Chung the guy you say sucked....again. 

    In reality your "eye test" is as poor an indicator of succes as prolates theory of 1 dimensional offense's being a good thing. Both are distorted, ignore reality and are heavily persuaded by the agenda being pushed by the individual behind them.

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Prolate why does your conclusion not hold true with the team you root for? Why is passing more not correlating to scoring more for our team? 15.5 points per game scored in the biggest games of our season in 6 straight years of losing in the post season. 285 passes(almost 50 per loss) why don't we score more?

    What evidence do you have that being a more balanced offense would have resulted in less then 15.5 points per game scored? Reality seems to directly contradict what you are saying. We scored 37 points per game the last 3 games of this last season till we played Denver by running for 800 combined yards in those games.

    Why do you hate running so much? Did somebody run you over with a car? Repressed memories? What gives? 

    Anybody besides triple og and his use of the "eye test" care to enlighten me on this?(This hero claims he knew Tom Brady would be Tom Brady before he took over for Bledsoe....ok) he claims McCourty is blah because of his famed eye test he uses while watching DMac play the game. Hey OG tell us more about how dumb BB is for signing Chung the guy you say sucked....again

    In reality your "eye test" is as poor an indicator of succes as prolates theory of 1 dimensional offense's being a good thing. Both are distorted, ignore reality and are heavily persuaded by the agenda being pushed by the individual behind them.

    [/QUOTE]


    And that has exactly what relevance to this thread?  The truth is I was chungs biggest fan when he was drafted and I thought Him and Meriweather were gonna combine to be the best safety duo in the league. I was wrong. Now BB has resigned him to be a depth player because he will surely release the bust Tavon.  What exactly is your point again?  Losing ground in This debate so you change topics? 

    There is a Chung thread if you wanna talk about him...   Just curious...Did Rusty ask you to fill in for him?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    Wozzy and Champ are not reading carefully.  I never said passing more correlates with scoring.  In fact, I said there was little correlation between pass attempts and offensive points. I also said there was little correlation between run-pass mix and scoring.

    What I did say is that there is an extremely strong correlation between net yards per pass play and points.  Teams that are productive when they pass score more than teams that aren't productive.  Productivity in the running game or frequency of running, however, does not correlate well with offensive points.  This doesn't mean running is unimportant or makes no difference.  But it does strongly suggest that the key to scoring on offense is being productive when you pass.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Because our D doesnt get off the field. Stop putting your brain through un neccessary pain trying to figure this out.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The D let up the fewest points of all our Super Bowls since 2001.

     

    The D made the Giants punt the ball more than we did.

    The D wasn't the reason our offense turned the ball over twice.

    The D doesn't play offense and isn't responsible for scoring.

    Repeating yourself ad nauseam doesn't make you correct, it makes you look like a stubborn fool who simply can't refute the facts I just posted above.

    [/QUOTE]

    The D gave up two TDs and two FGs in just 8 possessions and allowed a 75% completion percentage and an average gain of 6.6 yards per passing play.  This is mediocre at best. 

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Because our D doesnt get off the field. Stop putting your brain through un neccessary pain trying to figure this out.

     



    The D let up the fewest points of all our Super Bowls since 2001.

     

    The D made the Giants punt the ball more than we did.

    The D wasn't the reason our offense turned the ball over twice.

    The D doesn't play offense and isn't responsible for scoring.

    Repeating yourself ad nauseam doesn't make you correct, it makes you look like a stubborn fool who simply can't refute the facts I just posted above.

    [/QUOTE]

    The D gave up two TDs and two FGs in just 8 possessions and allowed a 75% completion percentage and an average gain of 6.6 yards per passing play.  This is mediocre at best. 

    [/QUOTE]


    No to mention the Giants were never a good reg. season team and werent high scoring. Shutting down the rams was no small feat. We held to 17. They had averaged 31 ppg.

    We held a pretty good offense in Caroline to NO point through almost 2 quarters before both defenses got gassed and started to give up big plays. It was a shootout but Plenty of Defense early on and we SHut down Stephen Davis.

    Vs Philly, this to me was a bit misleading as we only won by 3, but it seemed like more. Philly was held to 21 when they averaged 24.

     

    Now lets look at the last 2 SBs. In 2007, we still had a pretty good D but they were old. All I recall is that our D was NOT getting off the field on 3rd downs. Eli was able to continue to complete easy 1st downs on 3rd and 5s. We kept sending Meriweather on the SAME blitz that Jacobs KEPT Stuffing and giving Eli time to sit back and pick apart our weak secondary led by Ellis Hobbs. Brady gave us the go ahead lead and the D collapsed in the end game. Not much help from laura Maroney and Brady did what he needed to get us a win.

    In 2011, that was a total underachieving defensive team that made the SB off Bradys Arm. This game was Ugly as our D NEVER got ONE 3 and out. It allowed Eli to stay on the field while Brady got cold. He still delivered until he was hurt on a J.Tuck sack and his accuracy slipped but he still delivered the ball to Wes in the only place he could without it being picked and it was dropped. After Eli put his team in front, Brady was STILL fighing and hit Aaron, Deion, and someone else in the hands and they dropped all 3, and the comeback fell short.

    how in the world do you bozos somehow pin these losses on Brady OR lack of running when its obvious the D failed. The Giants plan was never to try and outscore the Pats, rather just keep them off the field. It Worked. In THIS game, I look to Giants D. They had averaged giving up 400 yards a game and 25 points. They held us to 17. That was the difference. We didnt have many chances to score as the Giants held us to low time of posession but the stats were surpisingly very even.

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I countered your off-topic post by pointing out that a better correlation to winning is the turnover battle, not the total points scored.

     


    Does anybody alive agree with the above statement?

    Winning the turnover battle is always important to winning, but scoring more points then the other team is how you actually win games.

    Total points scored > winning turnover battle.

    To answer your question, You can win the turnover battle by not turning the ball over to the other team. If you don't lose the turnover battle, then you????

    Here is an arbitrary stat I will throw out there. Teams that pass more turn the ball over more. See 285 pass attempts to 111 rush attempts(only 64 power runs. Real smash mouth hey) in 6 straight playoff losses in a row dating back to the year 2007. 15.5 ppg scored. We turned the ball over more then the other team in all of those games.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow.  Just wow.

    Does it make you feel better to put words in my mouth that I never actually wrote?

    Did I claim that you could win games by scoring fewer points than your opponent?  No.

    But it's not a coincidence that of the 12 highest scoring teams in NFL history (total points for the season) only the 1999 Rams won the SB.   So, you must score more points than your opponent to win a game, but scoring lots and lots of points may actually be detrimental to your team's success.   Unless you like 1 out of 12 for odds.   I don't.

    And do you realize that if neither team turns the ball over that you have not won the turnover battle?   If you don't force a TO (we haven't in the last 4 playoff exits) you cannot win the TO battle.   At best it's a draw.

     

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I countered your off-topic post by pointing out that a better correlation to winning is the turnover battle, not the total points scored.

     


    Does anybody alive agree with the above statement?

    Winning the turnover battle is always important to winning, but scoring more points then the other team is how you actually win games.

    Total points scored > winning turnover battle.

    To answer your question, You can win the turnover battle by not turning the ball over to the other team. If you don't lose the turnover battle, then you????

    Here is an arbitrary stat I will throw out there. Teams that pass more turn the ball over more. See 285 pass attempts to 111 rush attempts(only 64 power runs. Real smash mouth hey) in 6 straight playoff losses in a row dating back to the year 2007. 15.5 ppg scored. We turned the ball over more then the other team in all of those games.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow.  Just wow.

    Does it make you feel better to put words in my mouth that I never actually wrote?

    Did I claim that you could win games by scoring fewer points than your opponent?  No.

    But it's not a coincidence that of the 12 highest scoring teams in NFL history (total points for the season) only the 1999 Rams won the SB.   So, you must score more points than your opponent to win a game, but scoring lots and lots of points may actually be detrimental to your team's success.   Unless you like 1 out of 12 for odds.   I don't.

    And do you realize that if neither team turns the ball over that you have not won the turnover battle?   If you don't force a TO (we haven't in the last 4 playoff exits) you cannot win the TO battle.   At best it's a draw.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Gee Remember the last SB when our D had plenty of chances to get turnovers but couldnt fall on a ball???  True is answering his own questions and doenst even know it. Our D did not get the same league leading turnovers they got in regular season. He doesnt understand that this is part of the reason we averaged 15 ppg in the Big one because in reg.season we always get turnovers and give our offense more chances

    More posession, more turnovers = more chances to score. In each of the last 2 SBs our turnovers were absent and our D stayed on the field forever killing our offense TOP. Thats WHY we lost, not because we didnt run Benny 30 times!  LOL

     

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I countered your off-topic post by pointing out that a better correlation to winning is the turnover battle, not the total points scored.

     


    Does anybody alive agree with the above statement?

    Winning the turnover battle is always important to winning, but scoring more points then the other team is how you actually win games.

    Total points scored > winning turnover battle.

    To answer your question, You can win the turnover battle by not turning the ball over to the other team. If you don't lose the turnover battle, then you????

    Here is an arbitrary stat I will throw out there. Teams that pass more turn the ball over more. See 285 pass attempts to 111 rush attempts(only 64 power runs. Real smash mouth hey) in 6 straight playoff losses in a row dating back to the year 2007. 15.5 ppg scored. We turned the ball over more then the other team in all of those games.



    Wow.  Just wow.

    Does it make you feel better to put words in my mouth that I never actually wrote?

    Did I claim that you could win games by scoring fewer points than your opponent?  No.

    But it's not a coincidence that of the 12 highest scoring teams in NFL history (total points for the season) only the 1999 Rams won the SB.   So, you must score more points than your opponent to win a game, but scoring lots and lots of points may actually be detrimental to your team's success.   Unless you like 1 out of 12 for odds.   I don't.

    And do you realize that if neither team turns the ball over that you have not won the turnover battle?   If you don't force a TO (we haven't in the last 4 playoff exits) you cannot win the TO battle.   At best it's a draw.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I copied and pasted what you wrote. You said that turnovers correlates to winning more then points scored. You are wrong....again.

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wozzy and Champ are not reading carefully.  I never said passing more correlates with scoring.  In fact, I said there was little correlation between pass attempts and offensive points. I also said there was little correlation between run-pass mix and scoring.

    What I did say is that there is an extremely strong correlation between net yards per pass play and points.  Teams that are productive when they pass score more than teams that aren't productive.  Productivity in the running game or frequency of running, however, does not correlate well with offensive points.  This doesn't mean running is unimportant or makes no difference.  But it does strongly suggest that the key to scoring on offense is being productive when you pass. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah thats the problem, we're not reading carefully enough.  It's not you trying to polish a turd into a diamond.  You never said passing more correlates into scoring more, you just heavily insinuated it.  Running teams with competent QB's are the the most productive offenses in league history, the most clutch.  Running matters...

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Wozzy and Champ are not reading carefully.  I never said passing more correlates with scoring.  In fact, I said there was little correlation between pass attempts and offensive points. I also said there was little correlation between run-pass mix and scoring.

    What I did say is that there is an extremely strong correlation between net yards per pass play and points.  Teams that are productive when they pass score more than teams that aren't productive.  Productivity in the running game or frequency of running, however, does not correlate well with offensive points.  This doesn't mean running is unimportant or makes no difference.  But it does strongly suggest that the key to scoring on offense is being productive when you pass. 

     



    Yeah thats the problem, we're not reading carefully enough.  It's not you trying to polish a turd into a diamond.  You never said passing more correlates into scoring more, you just heavily insinuated it.  Running teams with competent QB's are the the most productive offenses in league history, the most clutch.  Running matters...

     



    Wozzy, I made a simple, precise statement: that net yards per passing play correlates extremely well with offensive scoring.  Every term in my statement is completely definable and quantifiable. 

    • Net yards per passing play = (Yards receiving minus yards lost per sack) / (Pass attempts plus sacks)
    • Offensive scoring = offensive TDs (running and receiving TDs in the stats) times 7 points plus FGs times 3 points. (I count each offensive TD as seven points because the stats don't tell which PAT was associated with which TD).
    •  Correlation coefficient between those two stats = ranges between .78 and .86 over the past three seasons

    You meanwhile make a completely subjective statement with terms only vaguely defined:

    "Running teams with competent QB's are the the most productive offenses in league history, the most clutch."

    Please tell us how you define "running teams"

    Please tell us how you define "competent QBs"

    Please tell us how you define "productive offenses"  

    Please tell us how you define "most clutch"

    Once you define and quantify your terms, we can all evaluate whether there's any truth in your statement or whether it's just some kind of vague impression you have. 

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I countered your off-topic post by pointing out that a better correlation to winning is the turnover battle, not the total points scored.

     


    Does anybody alive agree with the above statement?

    Winning the turnover battle is always important to winning, but scoring more points then the other team is how you actually win games.

    Total points scored > winning turnover battle.

    To answer your question, You can win the turnover battle by not turning the ball over to the other team. If you don't lose the turnover battle, then you????

    Here is an arbitrary stat I will throw out there. Teams that pass more turn the ball over more. See 285 pass attempts to 111 rush attempts(only 64 power runs. Real smash mouth hey) in 6 straight playoff losses in a row dating back to the year 2007. 15.5 ppg scored. We turned the ball over more then the other team in all of those games.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow.  Just wow.

    Does it make you feel better to put words in my mouth that I never actually wrote?

    Did I claim that you could win games by scoring fewer points than your opponent?  No.

    But it's not a coincidence that of the 12 highest scoring teams in NFL history (total points for the season) only the 1999 Rams won the SB.   So, you must score more points than your opponent to win a game, but scoring lots and lots of points may actually be detrimental to your team's success.   Unless you like 1 out of 12 for odds.   I don't.

    And do you realize that if neither team turns the ball over that you have not won the turnover battle?   If you don't force a TO (we haven't in the last 4 playoff exits) you cannot win the TO battle.   At best it's a draw.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Always worth re-reading (from one of BB's press conferences):

    Q: There were a couple games and situations where you guys persevered with the run even though you were behind and it paid off. 

    BB: There's always an element to if you can balance off your offense to try to balance it off and give the defense more things to work on that, again, in some of those games when a team is playing you more to throw the ball, then that gives you more opportunities to run it. If a team is playing you more to run the ball, then that gives you more opportunities to throw it. Again, I think the most important thing for us has always been moving the ball and scoring points. It's not about how many runs or how many passes or how many times we throw the ball to this guy or how many times that guy carries the ball. It's about trying to match up and attack our opponents and score points. I think that's really the measure of what you do offensively. Can you score points and score enough points to win? All the other stats you want to throw in there are relevant but they're not as important as scoring. On the flip side of it of course is the turnovers. If you can score points and not turn the ball over, you're probably going to win a lot of games in this league. If you're not scoring a lot of points and you're turning the ball over, then you're probably not wining very many games. To me, that's really what it comes down to. However that happens, whether you throw it 50 times or run it 50 times. Either one could be good as long as you're achieving your goal of moving the ball and scoring points and not turning it over.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I countered your off-topic post by pointing out that a better correlation to winning is the turnover battle, not the total points scored.

     


    Does anybody alive agree with the above statement?

    Winning the turnover battle is always important to winning, but scoring more points then the other team is how you actually win games.

    Total points scored > winning turnover battle.

    To answer your question, You can win the turnover battle by not turning the ball over to the other team. If you don't lose the turnover battle, then you????

    Here is an arbitrary stat I will throw out there. Teams that pass more turn the ball over more. See 285 pass attempts to 111 rush attempts(only 64 power runs. Real smash mouth hey) in 6 straight playoff losses in a row dating back to the year 2007. 15.5 ppg scored. We turned the ball over more then the other team in all of those games.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow.  Just wow.

    Does it make you feel better to put words in my mouth that I never actually wrote?

    Did I claim that you could win games by scoring fewer points than your opponent?  No.

    But it's not a coincidence that of the 12 highest scoring teams in NFL history (total points for the season) only the 1999 Rams won the SB.   So, you must score more points than your opponent to win a game, but scoring lots and lots of points may actually be detrimental to your team's success.   Unless you like 1 out of 12 for odds.   I don't.

    And do you realize that if neither team turns the ball over that you have not won the turnover battle?   If you don't force a TO (we haven't in the last 4 playoff exits) you cannot win the TO battle.   At best it's a draw.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Always worth re-reading (from one of BB's press conferences):

    Q: There were a couple games and situations where you guys persevered with the run even though you were behind and it paid off. 

    BB: There's always an element to if you can balance off your offense to try to balance it off and give the defense more things to work on that, again, in some of those games when a team is playing you more to throw the ball, then that gives you more opportunities to run it. If a team is playing you more to run the ball, then that gives you more opportunities to throw it. Again, I think the most important thing for us has always been moving the ball and scoring points. It's not about how many runs or how many passes or how many times we throw the ball to this guy or how many times that guy carries the ball. It's about trying to match up and attack our opponents and score points. I think that's really the measure of what you do offensively. Can you score points and score enough points to win? All the other stats you want to throw in there are relevant but they're not as important as scoring. On the flip side of it of course is the turnovers. If you can score points and not turn the ball over, you're probably going to win a lot of games in this league. If you're not scoring a lot of points and you're turning the ball over, then you're probably not wining very many games. To me, that's really what it comes down to. However that happens, whether you throw it 50 times or run it 50 times. Either one could be good as long as you're achieving your goal of moving the ball and scoring points and not turning it over.

    [/QUOTE]

    YUP. What he said.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    [/QUOTE]

    In 2001 we ranked 8th in the NFL in rushing attempts per game. We ranked 2nd in post season rushing attempts.

    2003 we ranked 12th in rushing attempts because Antwoine Smith sat for the first half of the regular season, we ranked 2nd in postseason rushing attempts behing the Panthers who also happened to play in the Super Bowl.  We rushed more then they did coincidently and won that game.

    2004 we ranked 5th in the entire NFL in rushing attempts, we led the post season in rushing attempts.

    30 rushing attempts a game is enough to rank a team top five in rushing attempts every season for at least the past 20 years.  You should really consider not talking before reading some very basic stats.  

    Saying we should run more isn't the same as saying pass less, that's just you being misleading.      

    In the last Super Bowl we scored on the first drive of the 2nd half using the no huddle, we didn't score for the remainder of the game, that suxs.  I don't have to count the rushing attempts or passing attempts to know they suxed.  But I guess you guys are right, passing more leads to more scoring... what a joke.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Just to get the facts straight, maybe it's worth looking at the postseason rush-pass ratios for the past 15 Super Bowl Champions.  These are listed in order from the team that had the highest percentage of running plays to the team that had the least percentage of running plays. 

    2000.  Baltimore ran its way to a championship, running on 62% of postseason plays and passing on 38%

    2005.  Pittsburgh also ran its way to a championship, with 58% runs versus 42% passes.

    2013.  Seattle was definitely a running team, 55% runs to 45% passes.

    2004.  New England ran behind Corey Dillon, 53% runs to 47% passes.

    2002.  Tampa Bay also ran 53% of the time, while passing on 47% of its plays.

    2012.  Baltimore was fairly balanced, running 51% of the time and passing 49%.

    2008.  Pittsburgh liked balance too, running 49% of the time and passing 51%.

    2007. Giants were relatively balanced, running 48% of the time and passing 52%.

    2006.  Indianapolis were similar to the Giants, running 48% of the time and passing 52%.

    2010.  Green Bay was more of a passing team, running on just 44% of its plays and passing on 56%.

    2003. New England (despite what some think) liked to pass--running on just 43% of its plays and passing on 57%.

    2009.  New Orleans was even more pass heavy, running on just 42% of plays, and passing on 58%.

    2011. Those Giants threw their way to victory, running only 39% of the time and passing 61%.

    2001.  The New England Patriots also ran just 39% of the time and passed 61%.

    1999.  And the kings of passing their way to victory were the Rams, running only 29% of the time and throwing a whopping 71%. 

    I'd say that's 5 running teams, 4 balanced teams, and 6 passing teams. 

    Oh, and lest anyone get fooled, the reason the Pats were first or second in rushing attempts in their Super Bowl winning years was because, as the Super Bowl winner, they played more games than most teams.  Of course they had more total rushing attempts than most--they played 3 games while most other teams played 2 or 1.They were also second in rushing attempts in the postseason in 2011 when they lost the Super Bowl--again just because they played more games than most other teams.  Attempts per game is a better stat because it adjusts for number of games played.  But that stat doesn't help Wozzy too much. In 2011 the Pats were fifth in attempts per game with 26.7.  In 2001, by coincidence, they were also fifth in attempts per game with an identical 26.7.  Guess Charlie Weis and Bill O'Brien were more alike in the playoffs than Wozzy realizes . . . 

    Really, the best way to judge balance is to do what I do above . . . look at percentages of pass plays and run plays.  That accounts for number of plays as well as for number of games. And when you do that, you see that two of the three Pats Super Bowl champions were teams that liked to pass in the playoffs. 

     

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    Prolate why does your conclusion not hold true with the team you root for?

    Why is passing more not correlating to scoring more for our team?

    15.5 points per game scored in the biggest games of our season in 6 straight years of losing in the post season. 285 passes(almost 50 per loss) why don't we score more?

    When is the last time a team won a super bowl scoring less then 15 points?

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Prolate why does your conclusion not hold true with the team you root for?

    Why is passing more not correlating to scoring more for our team?

    15.5 points per game scored in the biggest games of our season in 6 straight years of losing in the post season. 285 passes(almost 50 per loss) why don't we score more?

    When is the last time a team won a super bowl scoring less then 15 points?

    [/QUOTE]

    Dude . . . productivity in the passing game (i.e., net yards per passing play) is what correlates with scoring.  Passing attempts have little correlation with scoring.  I keep saying that over and over.  How come it doesn't sink in?  

    Wozzy is trying to make some argument that Super Bowl winning teams run more.  I just showed above that in the past 15 years, Super Bowl winning teams have been run-heavy, pass-heavy, and balanced in pretty much equal numbers.  But that was just refuting Wozzy's point. 

    My point is simple.  The data shows that net yards per passing play not only correlate well with scoring, but correlate with scoring better than just about any other stat and certainly better than any of the running stats. 

     

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Prolate why does your conclusion not hold true with the team you root for?

    Why is passing more not correlating to scoring more for our team?

    15.5 points per game scored in the biggest games of our season in 6 straight years of losing in the post season. 285 passes(almost 50 per loss) why don't we score more?

    When is the last time a team won a super bowl scoring less then 15 points?

    [/QUOTE]

    Dude . . . productivity in the passing game (i.e., net yards per passing play) is what correlates with scoring.  Passing attempts have little correlation with scoring.  I keep saying that over and over.  How come it doesn't sink in?  

    Wozzy is trying to make some argument that Super Bowl winning teams run more.  I just showed above that in the past 15 years, Super Bowl winning teams have been run-heavy, pass-heavy, and balanced in pretty much equal numbers.  But that was just refuting Wozzy's point. 

    My point is simple.  The data shows that net yards per passing play not only correlate well with scoring, but correlate with scoring better than just about any other stat and certainly better than any of the running stats. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So you spent the past few pages telling us teams that pass well will score more points?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Prolate why does your conclusion not hold true with the team you root for?

    Why is passing more not correlating to scoring more for our team?

    15.5 points per game scored in the biggest games of our season in 6 straight years of losing in the post season. 285 passes(almost 50 per loss) why don't we score more?

    When is the last time a team won a super bowl scoring less then 15 points?

    [/QUOTE]

    Dude . . . productivity in the passing game (i.e., net yards per passing play) is what correlates with scoring.  Passing attempts have little correlation with scoring.  I keep saying that over and over.  How come it doesn't sink in?  

    Wozzy is trying to make some argument that Super Bowl winning teams run more.  I just showed above that in the past 15 years, Super Bowl winning teams have been run-heavy, pass-heavy, and balanced in pretty much equal numbers.  But that was just refuting Wozzy's point. 

    My point is simple.  The data shows that net yards per passing play not only correlate well with scoring, but correlate with scoring better than just about any other stat and certainly better than any of the running stats. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So you spent the past few pages telling us teams that pass well will score more points?

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, in general, teams that are productive in the passing game will score more points. . . and teams that are productive in the run game may or may not score more points.  Productive passing correlates highly with scoring.  Productive running has only a weak correlation with scoring. 

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Prolate why does your conclusion not hold true with the team you root for?

    Why is passing more not correlating to scoring more for our team?

    15.5 points per game scored in the biggest games of our season in 6 straight years of losing in the post season. 285 passes(almost 50 per loss) why don't we score more?

    When is the last time a team won a super bowl scoring less then 15 points?

    [/QUOTE]

    Dude . . . productivity in the passing game (i.e., net yards per passing play) is what correlates with scoring.  Passing attempts have little correlation with scoring.  I keep saying that over and over.  How come it doesn't sink in?  

    Wozzy is trying to make some argument that Super Bowl winning teams run more.  I just showed above that in the past 15 years, Super Bowl winning teams have been run-heavy, pass-heavy, and balanced in pretty much equal numbers.  But that was just refuting Wozzy's point. 

    My point is simple.  The data shows that net yards per passing play not only correlate well with scoring, but correlate with scoring better than just about any other stat and certainly better than any of the running stats. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So you spent the past few pages telling us teams that pass well will score more points?

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, in general, teams that are productive in the passing game will score more points. . . and teams that are productive in the run game may or may not score more points.  Productive passing correlates highly with scoring.  Productive running has only a weak correlation with scoring. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ohh an agenda driver. I get it.

    So again, why does productive passing not correlate( I really like that word) to scoring more for the New England Patriots? We have been productive passing the ball in our 285 pass to 111 run attempts in our last 6 playoff losses. Unless you have developed your own criteria for what is and what is not deemed "productive"?? Why the 15.5 ppg scored in our last 6 playoff losses?

    Hey and while you are conducting your research could you tell us all when the last time a team won a super bowl while scoring under 15 points? My 15 year Glenfiddich(Hey that's a year for every point we averaged in our last 6 consecutive playoff losses) doesn't correlate well with using "Google" 

    Thanks buddy.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Prolate why does your conclusion not hold true with the team you root for?

    Why is passing more not correlating to scoring more for our team?

    15.5 points per game scored in the biggest games of our season in 6 straight years of losing in the post season. 285 passes(almost 50 per loss) why don't we score more?

    When is the last time a team won a super bowl scoring less then 15 points?

     



    Dude . . . productivity in the passing game (i.e., net yards per passing play) is what correlates with scoring.  Passing attempts have little correlation with scoring.  I keep saying that over and over.  How come it doesn't sink in?  

     

    Wozzy is trying to make some argument that Super Bowl winning teams run more.  I just showed above that in the past 15 years, Super Bowl winning teams have been run-heavy, pass-heavy, and balanced in pretty much equal numbers.  But that was just refuting Wozzy's point. 

    My point is simple.  The data shows that net yards per passing play not only correlate well with scoring, but correlate with scoring better than just about any other stat and certainly better than any of the running stats. 

     



    So you spent the past few pages telling us teams that pass well will score more points?

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, in general, teams that are productive in the passing game will score more points. . . and teams that are productive in the run game may or may not score more points.  Productive passing correlates highly with scoring.  Productive running has only a weak correlation with scoring. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ohh an agenda driver. I get it.

    So again, why does productive passing not correlate( I really like that word) to scoring more for the New England Patriots? We have been productive passing the ball in our 285 pass to 111 run attempts in our last 6 playoff losses. Unless you have developed your own criteria for what is and what is not deemed "productive"?? Why the 15.5 ppg scored in our last 6 playoff losses?

    Hey and while you are conducting your research could you tell us all when the last time a team won a super bowl while scoring under 15 points? My 15 year Glenfiddich(Hey that's a year for every point we averaged in our last 6 consecutive playoff losses) doesn't correlate well with using "Google" 

    Thanks buddy.

    [/QUOTE]

    In their playoff losses, the Pats have been less productive in the passing game than their opponents:

    • Denver 2013.  Pats gained 6.4 yards per pass (okay), but gave up a whopping 9.3
    • Baltimore 2012. Pats gained 5.9 (poor) and gave up 6.2 (average)
    • Giants 2011. Pats gained 6.2 (average), but gave up 6.6 (worse than average)
    • Jets 2010.  Pats gained 5.2 (very bad), and gave up 7.8 (terrible)
    • Baltimore 2009. Pats gained 2.9 (atrocious), and gave up 3.4 (also atrocious, but not as atrocious)
    • Giants 2007. Pats gained 4.3 (pitiful), and gave up 6.7 (worse than average)
    • Indy 2006. Pats gained 6.5, and gave up 6.6 (both teams gained above average, but Indy did a bit better)
    • Denver 2005. This one bucks the trend--Pats gained a whopping 9.5 yards per pass play, and gave up 6.8 yards; as usual when the trend doesn't hold, the Pats lost the turnover battle significantly.  They had five TOs in this game, and were -4 overall in TO differential.

    Of course, any individual game could vary from the trend--though in these losses the trend happens to hold pretty well. My obsevation, though, is about general trends over multiple games, not about results in any individual game. When you look at a large data sample, you find strong correlation between points scored and net yards per pass.  

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    Interesting article which reaches the same conclusions I'm reaching from my statistical analysis. 

     http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/08/passing-winning.html

    Look particularly at the graphs which show visually exactly what I've been saying. 

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    "In their playoff losses, the Pats have been less productive in the passing game than their opponents:"

    Wait a second Prolate. Are you now saying that our passing game in our post season losses wasn't very good? Surely you must wonder why we threw the ball a 3-1 ratio(285 passes to 111 runs) in 6 straight losses on the biggest stage if in fact....the Pats have been less productive.

    Gasp.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    "In their playoff losses, the Pats have been less productive in the passing game than their opponents:"

    Wait a second Prolate. Are you now saying that our passing game in our post season losses wasn't very good? Surely you must wonder why we threw the ball a 3-1 ratio(285 passes to 111 runs) in 6 straight losses on the biggest stage if in fact....the Pats have been less productive.

    Gasp.



    No. Unlike you, I think our coaches know what they are doing.  They threw the ball because they knew they had to succeed in the passing game to win.  They didn't succeed, but running more wouldn't have changed the outcome. 

    Your mistake is assuming that abandoning the pass in favour of the run would have improved the result.  The reality is you have to be able to succeed at the pass to win.  Abandoning the pass and running more would have simply been capitulation.  

    Let's try an example to see if you can better understand where your logic is failing:

    Let's say you are in Boston and have to get to LA for a meeting tomorrow.  You go to the airport and your flight is delayed.  Do you give up on flying and try to drive?  Of course not, you stick to your strategy of flying and hope the flight isn't delayed too long.  Abandoning flying in favour of driving is a sure way to miss the meeting. If your flight ends up being canceled you may still miss the meeting, but that doesn't mean that jumping in your car would have produced a better result. 

     

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    "In their playoff losses, the Pats have been less productive in the passing game than their opponents:"

    Wait a second Prolate. Are you now saying that our passing game in our post season losses wasn't very good? Surely you must wonder why we threw the ball a 3-1 ratio(285 passes to 111 runs) in 6 straight losses on the biggest stage if in fact....the Pats have been less productive.

    Gasp.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No. Unlike you, I think our coaches know what they are doing.  They threw the ball because they knew they had to succeed in the passing game to win.

     They didn't succeed, but running more wouldn't have changed the outcome. How would you know?

     

    Your mistake is assuming that abandoning the pass in favour of the run would have improved the result. Nobody said anything about "abandoning the pass" we just want them to stop "abandoning the run".

    .  The reality is you have to be able to succeed at the pass to win B.S you have to be able to do both, to refute this is futile..  

    Abandoning the pass and running more would have simply been capitulation.  I think most sane human beings would agree that there is a large gap between abandoning the run and running more then 285 passes to 111 runs in 6 straight post season exits. But I guess you're not one of them.

    et's try an example to see if you can better understand where your logic is failing:

    Let's say you are in Boston and have to get to LA for a meeting tomorrow.  You go to the airport and your flight is delayed.  Do you give up on flying and try to drive?  Of course not, you stick to your strategy of flying and hope the flight isn't delayed too long.  Abandoning flying in favour of driving is a sure way to miss the meeting. If your flight ends up being canceled you may still miss the meeting, but that doesn't mean that jumping in your car would have produced a better result. 

    My logic isn't failing. We have passed at a 3 to 1 ratio in 6 straight playoff losses and its lead to 15 points per game scored. Passing more hasn't helped.

    Stop talking in circles and refute these facts. Note, facts,  not trumped up blown out B.S pie charts.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    "In their playoff losses, the Pats have been less productive in the passing game than their opponents:"

    Wait a second Prolate. Are you now saying that our passing game in our post season losses wasn't very good? Surely you must wonder why we threw the ball a 3-1 ratio(285 passes to 111 runs) in 6 straight losses on the biggest stage if in fact....the Pats have been less productive.

    Gasp.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No. Unlike you, I think our coaches know what they are doing.  They threw the ball because they knew they had to succeed in the passing game to win.

     They didn't succeed, but running more wouldn't have changed the outcome. How would you know?

     

    Your mistake is assuming that abandoning the pass in favour of the run would have improved the result. Nobody said anything about "abandoning the pass" we just want them to stop "abandoning the run".

    .  The reality is you have to be able to succeed at the pass to win B.S you have to be able to do both, to refute this is futile..  

    Abandoning the pass and running more would have simply been capitulation.  I think most sane human beings would agree that there is a large gap between abandoning the run and running more then 285 passes to 111 runs in 6 straight post season exits. But I guess you're not one of them.

    et's try an example to see if you can better understand where your logic is failing:

    Let's say you are in Boston and have to get to LA for a meeting tomorrow.  You go to the airport and your flight is delayed.  Do you give up on flying and try to drive?  Of course not, you stick to your strategy of flying and hope the flight isn't delayed too long.  Abandoning flying in favour of driving is a sure way to miss the meeting. If your flight ends up being canceled you may still miss the meeting, but that doesn't mean that jumping in your car would have produced a better result. 

    My logic isn't failing. We have passed at a 3 to 1 ratio in 6 straight playoff losses and its lead to 15 points per game scored. Passing more hasn't helped.

    Stop talking in circles and refute these facts. Note, facts,  not trumped up blown out B.S pie charts.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, you are being completely illogical.  The fact that we passed at a certain rate and scored a certain number of points does not mean that passing at a lesser rate would produce more points. 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    "In their playoff losses, the Pats have been less productive in the passing game than their opponents:"

    Wait a second Prolate. Are you now saying that our passing game in our post season losses wasn't very good? Surely you must wonder why we threw the ball a 3-1 ratio(285 passes to 111 runs) in 6 straight losses on the biggest stage if in fact....the Pats have been less productive.

    Gasp.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No. Unlike you, I think our coaches know what they are doing.  They threw the ball because they knew they had to succeed in the passing game to win.

     They didn't succeed, but running more wouldn't have changed the outcome. How would you know?

     

    Your mistake is assuming that abandoning the pass in favour of the run would have improved the result. Nobody said anything about "abandoning the pass" we just want them to stop "abandoning the run".

    .  The reality is you have to be able to succeed at the pass to win B.S you have to be able to do both, to refute this is futile..  

    Abandoning the pass and running more would have simply been capitulation.  I think most sane human beings would agree that there is a large gap between abandoning the run and running more then 285 passes to 111 runs in 6 straight post season exits. But I guess you're not one of them.

    et's try an example to see if you can better understand where your logic is failing:

    Let's say you are in Boston and have to get to LA for a meeting tomorrow.  You go to the airport and your flight is delayed.  Do you give up on flying and try to drive?  Of course not, you stick to your strategy of flying and hope the flight isn't delayed too long.  Abandoning flying in favour of driving is a sure way to miss the meeting. If your flight ends up being canceled you may still miss the meeting, but that doesn't mean that jumping in your car would have produced a better result. 

    My logic isn't failing. We have passed at a 3 to 1 ratio in 6 straight playoff losses and its lead to 15 points per game scored. Passing more hasn't helped.

    Stop talking in circles and refute these facts. Note, facts,  not trumped up blown out B.S pie charts.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, you are being completely illogical.  The fact that we passed at a certain rate and scored a certain number of points does not mean that passing at a lesser rate would produce more points. 

    [/QUOTE]

    We wouldn't know would we? And that is the entire point. What we do know is one of the greatest passing offenses in regular season history year in and year out go pass heavy against great post season defenses and score 15 points a game in their last 6 losses(7 years).  That is what we do know as fact!

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share