The Dude Abides...The Stats That Don´t Lie, Week 5
"You like the freaky stuff, huh? That's cool. The Stats that Don´t Lie can be naughty, too. Real, freaky naughty."
----White Goodman
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Now that week 5 is over, we can be sure of three things:
- The Broncos can play with any team in the NFL.
- Gloves are made to be removed.
- Mustard and brown can never look as ugly as silver and black.
Once again welcome to the Stats That Don't Lie, in which we take a look at the Week 5 games from the perspective of Turnovers, Field Position, Time of Possession, and 3rd Down Efficiency. In other words, the stuff that the Raiders aren't very good at.
As always, for those that need a primer, or want to look at the stats from previous weeks, just click on the following links:
A few words before the numbers. The Denver-New England game was classic case of one team dominating the first half statistically. New England was mauling Denver in all 4 of the categories. But by the end of the game, however, Denver had reversed course, specifically in time of possession and 3rd down efficiency. And even though New England technically won the turnover battle and the field position battle, realistically, the two teams were tied in both categories (Orton's Hail Mary).
I wrote last week that Denver needed to really focus on working on its special teams and 3rd down efficiency, because the trends were not positive. I would still make this case, although they have improved with respect to 3rd downs. Josh McDaniels essentially said as much this week when said the team played as poorly as they could have on special teams and somehow were still able to come out with a win against New England.
The stats confirm this. Here is where Denver ranks in the 4 categories through week five:
- Average Turnovers/Game: Tied for 5th
- Average Starting Field Position: 23rd
- Average Time of Possession: 8th
- Average 3rd Down Efficiency: 19th
It will be interesting how McDaniels addresses the field position issue. In week 5, McKinley was back returning kicks. Will this continue?
To me the most interesting game of the week statistically was the Kansas City/Dallas game. Dallas turned the ball over more, got pounded in time of possession, and lastly, the Chiefs (on average) had much better starting field position. This clearly pointed to a Chiefs victory (in fact, I picked the Chiefs based on how well they were doing with turnovers and field position). However, it didn't happen. Why not? The answer is 3rd down conversions. The Chiefs are last in the league in converting third downs (averaging 19.22% per game) and in the Dallas game they were 5/17. Simply atrocious.
Another lesson is clear from this game: turnovers and field position are the two great equalizers. Kansas City had no business being in this game with Dallas. But when you lose the battle of field position and turnovers, and you lose it badly, you are in for a long day no matter who you are facing (the Raiders notwithstanding).
A quick note before getting into the stats. Last week, it was pointed out correctly that I have been calling a "win" in the turnover category if the team that won the game tied in the turnover category. This is true. I have been taking a tie goes to the runner approach. Next week, I am going begin separating this out so that everyone can see both the frequency with which both teams tie in turnovers, but also so that it will give a more clear picture.
Here is the week 5 Summary:
- The team that won the turnover battle won 11 of 14 games played (79%).
- The team that won the time of possession battle won 8 of the 14 games played (57%).
- The team that had better third down efficiency won 10 of the 14 games played (71%).
- The team that had better average starting field position won 8 of the 14 games played (57%).
- There were 5 games this week in which a team won all four categories. In 4 of the 5, the same team won on the scoreboard (80%). For the season, this stat is 24 out of 25 games.
- The winning teams this week averaged 1.21 turnovers, 31:42 in time of possession, 44.01% on 3rd downs, and their average starting field position was the 29.14 yard line.
- Top 5 in giveaways: KC, PHI, SEA, NYJ, MIA (all tied with 0 giveaways)
- Top 5 in time of possession: 1.DEN! (OT) 2.ATL 3. NYG 4.SEA 5. KC 6. TB
- Top 5 in 3rd downs: 1.DET 2.MIA 3.MIN 4.IND 5.ATL
- Top 5 in avg. starting field position: 1.NYG 2.ATL 3.CLE 4. KC 5.CAR
- Of the 76 games that have been played this season, 85.53% were won by the team with less turnovers, 65.79% with a better time of possession, 64.47% by the team who won on 3rd down, and 71.05% by the team that won the field position battle.
Also, here are the 5-week averages that you can use as a benchmark for this week's stats:
Score TOs TOP Third Down Field Pos Comment
CIN 17 2 34:19 38.46% 21.64 Cincy can run...and run clock.
BAL 14 2 25:41 27.27% 26.80
CLE 6 1 28:26 25.00% 34.85 Shouldn't have been even close.
BUF 3 3 31:34 35.29% 21.42
WAS 17 1 28:48 22.22% 33.00 Car. wins 3 of the 4.
CAR 20 2 31:12 33.33% 34.25
PIT 28 1 27:25 37.50% 28.18 Detroit impressive on 3rd downs.
DET 20 1 32:35 68.75% 26.00
DAL 26 2 32:00 41.67% 22.33 KC & 3rd down = putrid.
KC 20 0 34:38 29.41% 34.46
OAK 7 3 23:56 9.09% 24.85 The Hutt is bad on 3rd down.
NYG 44 1 36:04 50.00% 37.55
TB 14 3 34:33 50.00% 28.33 TB a turnover machine.
PHI 33 0 25:27 40.00% 31.91
MIN 38 1 27:21 63.64% 21.00 STL a worse TO machine.
STL 10 4 32:39 41.67% 25.30
ATL 45 2 36:29 57.14% 36.31 Matt Ryan? No, field position.
SF 10 3 23:31 28.57% 26.50
HOU 21 1 33:25 30.77% 28.77 Houston, explain yourself.
ARI 28 1 26:35 22.22% 26.25
NE 17 1 28:22 35.71% 25.82 5-0! Suck it down, Clayton.
DEN 20 2 36:29 42.86% 25.67
JAX 0 2 25:16 15.38% 20.09 Win all 4 and you win.
SEA 41 0 34:44 42.86% 33.55
IND 31 2 33:38 57.14% 31.30 Manning deadly on 3rd down.
TEN 9 2 26:22 35.71% 27.00
NYJ 27 0 26:25 36.36% 26.90 Miami is better than you think.
MIA 31 0 33:35 64.29% 23.22
If you're wondering how the Broncos and Chargers match up with respect to the 4 categories, here you go (these are averages per game):
TEAM Turnovers TOP 3rd Down Field Position
Den 1 31:46 36.19% 27.38
SD 1.67 30:50 50.30% 28.97
Given that Denver has an overtime game, the TOP for each team is about even. San Diego has been a monster on 3rd downs, and slightly better in field position. Denver has bested SD in the most important categories, turnovers. It appears as if this game could hinge again on Denver's defense and whether or not it can get SD off the field on 3rd downs.
Go Broncos!
Last Stat: Percentage Change Orton has a complete neckbeard in Week 6: 26.74%
This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR
25 recs |
58 comments
Comments
lebowski, there is a lot to ingest here...rec'd of course.
It would be curious to see a breakdown of the four categories using Denver’s second half (and OT) play only then multiplying it by 2.
I have been so impressed with ajustments and our second half play, that I am almost in awe. I wonder if there is a site that breaks stats down by half—I know we must be one of, if not the best 2nd half teams in the NFL.
I’m lovin’ the McDaniels/Nolan Show.
Guardian of the Gate to La La Land!
Gonsoulin, Taylor, Little, Wright, Gradishar, Atwater, Davis, and Sharpe...
Why are they not in the Hall...I just don't understand.
by Mike Clark on Oct 14, 2009 6:30 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Mike, Thanks for Reading of course
The closest I have found is the situational stats page at nfl.com for individual players. For example, here is Kyle Orton’s situation stats through week 5:
http://www.nfl.com/players/kyleorton/situationalstats?id=ORT716150
But your comment is helpful, Mike. If I can’t find this somewhere, I think it would be interesting to create a Halftime Adjustment Index, which can rank each team each week based on how well they adjust (and as reflected by these 4 stats). Mike, you have given me an idea, man…and possibly something to patent..haha,
Mike, this was great feedback, thanks!!!!
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 14, 2009 6:40 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
lebowski, I almost kick myself...I thought about this after the Cowboy game, know how to do it...yet did nothing this Sunday.
I will copy the four stats at halftime, I usually track each game on CBS scoreboard, then compare the stats at games end.
I suppose I could look at the start of our 3rd quarter threads. Guru usually posts the half-time stats to begin the threads.
Guardian of the Gate to La La Land!
Gonsoulin, Taylor, Little, Wright, Gradishar, Atwater, Davis, and Sharpe...
Why are they not in the Hall...I just don't understand.
by Mike Clark on Oct 14, 2009 7:00 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mike, sounds perfect!
You may have to get the field position retro, but you can simply grab the drive charts from Yahoo real time (this is how I am able to tell the group in the game thread Denver’s average starting field position at halftime) and do the averages that way.
We should try to create a score for this adjustment ability for “rankability” for each team. So if we see Denver winning the 2nd half of each of their 5 games, their score would be higher than say KC who perhaps only won the second half of 1 of their 5.
I am thinking about this as we write…
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 14, 2009 7:10 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've gathered TOP aand TO from Guru's 3rd Q thread and the final TOP and TO for each of our first five games.
At a glance….we are a very good team in the second half…practically awesome.
Guardian of the Gate to La La Land!
Gonsoulin, Taylor, Little, Wright, Gradishar, Atwater, Davis, and Sharpe...
Why are they not in the Hall...I just don't understand.
by Mike Clark on Oct 14, 2009 8:26 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice job as always, Dude
I smiled when i saw Clayton had us ranked #4 this week. McDaniels may not require vindication, but I likes me some!
Conversation nonstarters: hoping McDaniels fails, comparing Bears to Broncos, Cutler to Orton, apples to oranges, and casual drinkers to Raiders fans.
by broncosmontana on Oct 14, 2009 7:22 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Montana
Does he say he is wrong, however? I would love to see his mea culpa.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 14, 2009 11:06 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Frankly
Clayton and those in his business, with the notable exception of one Adam Schefter, are so wrong so often in their preseason predictions, they probably don’t really think about mea culpas that much. If they did, they’d never have time to write or talk because they’d be too damned busy writing mea culpas. ^^
Conversation nonstarters: hoping McDaniels fails, comparing Bears to Broncos, Cutler to Orton, apples to oranges, and casual drinkers to Raiders fans.
by broncosmontana on Oct 14, 2009 11:27 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
consider joe's clips from yesterday
those guys weren’t just wrong about us, they were wrong about KC and SD as well. It would be fascinating to look at every preseason prediction made by Clayton and Dukes and see which ones actually came to fruition. Now those would be some telling stats.
Conversation nonstarters: hoping McDaniels fails, comparing Bears to Broncos, Cutler to Orton, apples to oranges, and casual drinkers to Raiders fans.
by broncosmontana on Oct 14, 2009 11:30 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
BM (no, not BMarsh:-)
What if you went back and grabbed Clayton’s predictions for the last 5 years, let’s say. You could easily correlate this to the actually winners to show how successful he would be, to let’s say…flipping a coin.
Seriously man. We should find this out. Then flip a coin or roll some dice to randomly pick the winners each year (even if retro active, it wouldn’t’ matter because the number would be pre-assigned before the roll). Would you have a better prediction percentage? It would be interesting.
If you aren’t game, let me know. I’ll do it, or one of us could pick Dukes, the other Clayton and then we come back and roll the dice live on our thread. Now that would be funny.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 15, 2009 1:05 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
CK
Your line of thinking if on target. If your question is, “Does having more 1st downs than your opponent correlate to wins?” then the answer is absolutely, just not as high as 3rd down conversion. Look at this link. These guys ran it over a 10 year period, and it correlates close to what I saw in 2008 and in this current season:
http://www.twominutewarning.com/g13.htm
They essentially put the highest correlation in order:
1) Turnovers (78%)
2) Rushing Yards (73%)
3) Time Of Possession (70%)
4) Total Yards (68%)
4) 3rd Down Conversion (68%)
5) More First Downs (66%)
They did not look at average starting field position, which I believe is about 70%, so I used my four categories because I did not believe the total yards were a good reflection and didn’t tell the whole story.
Your line of thnking is good Kitten.
Regarding your specific question about the quick strike. Perhaps a little thought experiment. Let’s say you had a hypothetical team that scored on 1st down every single time they got the ball. Their 3rd down conversion rate would be 0%. They would probably lose TOP and field position wouldn’t matter that much. So it’s possible in a vaccum. But as my friend Trogdoor points out, these 1st down strikes would come with a lot of risk, and as such, turnovers. And if you lost the turnover battle, you had better watch out.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 15, 2009 12:48 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like magic! Orton the great and powerful Wizard must have messed with your post
Wow…rushing yards has a 73% correlatiion to winning! But then it is an integral part of winning that TOP battle and keeping turnovers low (assuming your RB doesn’t fumble), so that makes sense.
"Take what you can. Give nothing back!"
by Colorado_Kitten on Oct 15, 2009 8:35 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correlation, but no Causation
Its hard to tell how important the running game is, because usually once a team gets up enough they try to run the ball more to eat the clock, this pads the running stats, and the teams that are down, start throwing more to catch up without killing much time, so their running game gets ignored.
Getting the correlation to winning of say First half running stats would be interesting though.
by gOOn on Oct 15, 2009 2:54 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn't necessarily pad rushing stats.
Defenses pressure the run late in games if they are down. They know, just as well as we do, that the offense is going to eat clock. So, they’ll play the run a little bit closer, which hurts yards per attempt. Sure, you’ll catch 2 or 3 yards here and there, but if a team is stacking the box because they know you are gonna run it more often, you won’t improve your yards/attempt.
Note for other commenters:
Be very careful typing “eat clock”, because if you type too fast, like me, it may look like something else. Luckily I caught it this time.
Bringing Bronco love from 1,112 miles away
by kentuckybronco on Oct 16, 2009 1:37 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
great presentation.
keep that bar high. :D
rec’d btw
"The best defense is a good offense. Or is it the other way around." Wolverine
Pray for the best, prepare for the worst, and know you will come down somewhere between the two.
Livin' in La La Land and Lovin' It
by BShrout on Oct 14, 2009 8:24 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
thanks, bshrout
once I did week 1, then week 2, I couldn’t turn back!
Also, I am obsessed with seeing how all of this stuff is going to correlate and if I can translate it into some sort of predictive pattern.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 14, 2009 11:17 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
you're a maniac!
a glorious, glorious maniac. : )
Conversation nonstarters: hoping McDaniels fails, comparing Bears to Broncos, Cutler to Orton, apples to oranges, and casual drinkers to Raiders fans.
by broncosmontana on Oct 14, 2009 11:31 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Decision Trees / Neural Nets
There are a couple of free software programs out there where you can put in a comma separated value data set, and it will generate a Decision Tree, or a neural net for you. All you have to do is add win or lose as one of the columns, and you’re good to go. I find for these types of stats, the decision tree works better, the neural net just takes too much data to train properly
by gOOn on Oct 15, 2009 2:59 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is there any other sports blog in the world
that talks about neural nets??? God bless MHR!!!
Conversation nonstarters: hoping McDaniels fails, comparing Bears to Broncos, Cutler to Orton, apples to oranges, and casual drinkers to Raiders fans.
by broncosmontana on Oct 16, 2009 10:20 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really good stuff again, lb, and thanks and rec'd
So statistic wise, it’s
1.TO
2.3rd down eff.
3. and 4. Tie TOP and FP
translating to Ws so far this season. Do you have ranks for seasons past for this, perchance? My guess is, with NE’s penchant for winning the TO battle, that it would hold true. Thanks again for all the work you put into this. And all the other fan-tastic posters here.
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime.
"Losing stinks" - Josh McDaniels
by azbroncomaniac on Oct 14, 2009 8:40 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
AZ
I looked at every game from 2008, but that is all I did on my own. The guys over at two minute warning looked at a 10 year period and got similar results to my correlation from 2008 and from this year. Check out this link:
http://www.twominutewarning.com/g13.htm
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 14, 2009 11:23 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks Dude...Appreciate all the work...And, rec'd of course!
by BroncoSense72 on Oct 14, 2009 9:49 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
BS72
Hey man, thank you! I enjoy this MHR community a lot. It’s good to have a place I can mingle with people who are as crazy as I am about the Broncos.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 14, 2009 11:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, I've been thinking about this third-down conversion stat, Dude
and I can’t help but think that it might distort the picture of an offense designed for quick strike. Maybe they convert a lot on firsts and seconds, so they don’t have as many third downs (and thus less sample size). Would calculating just the number of first-downs change the picture slightly? I’m not sure…what are your thoughts, Dude?
Of course, thinking about it, the more third downs you can get, the more TOP you’ll have, too (rather than if you just convert on firsts and second downs). So maybe the third-down conversion rate isn’t just important for moving the chains, but its also an indication of an O’s ability to grind-out TOP, keeping the ball from their opponent and keeping their own D rested.
"Take what you can. Give nothing back!"
by Colorado_Kitten on Oct 14, 2009 10:02 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I think over 60 (or 68 minutes ;)
it works out. And you have to take all 4 stats into consideration. Teams with quick strike also tend to turn it over more on average because of higher risk plays. But then, some teams are just good, see Broncos, Denver.
It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. -- Thomas Sowell
by Trogdoor on Oct 14, 2009 10:44 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
CK
I responded to you, but the post magically appeared above your post in the thread, please check it out….strange.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 15, 2009 12:53 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another fine twist of the knife
into the faders back. And I like the last stat too! Lol
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
by KaptainKirk on Oct 14, 2009 10:05 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Kap
have you noticed he is getting closer and closer to the neckbear. he’s got the mini beard going now…..You don’t even want to know the numbers I had to crunch to get that stat. hahaha!
It’s never too early to sucker punch the Raiders….wait a tic….their coach does that already.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 15, 2009 12:54 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
I did notice the beginnings of a neckbeard on Sunday – and I thought of you Dude! Go Neckbeard!
"Take what you can. Give nothing back!"
by Colorado_Kitten on Oct 15, 2009 8:27 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great Dude!
And the link to last week was great too, I missed out on it.
“Miami is better than you think.” I picked Miami in my pick ’em league. It propelled me back into a tie for first place.
Go Broncos! Sack Rivers! I really really don’t like Rivers.
It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. -- Thomas Sowell
by Trogdoor on Oct 14, 2009 10:40 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Orton's INT
It seems to me that the pick that Orton threw against the Patriots was wholly inconsequential and had the same impact as an incomplete pass in those circumstances….and frankly in other circumstances, might have been the same as a really long punt….it impacts your analysis a bit, and if anything, further explains the Broncos win…since you count a tie as a “win” (in the event that pick was disregarded)….
And…this analysis is awesome…a great read and frankly it has informed the way I watch football games now…thanks!
What if you don't know Jack....but Jack knows you?
by Hugo Norton on Oct 14, 2009 10:54 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
and since Moss
downed Orton’s INT at the 4 yard line, that too would be another inconsequential stat. Some stats must be thrown out due to the situation at the end of the half and the game.
It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. -- Thomas Sowell
by Trogdoor on Oct 14, 2009 11:48 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guys, agreed
the numbers don’t always give an exact description…however, I am most interested in correlation to winning, so it’s a bit of an experiment to see how the season plays out.
However you both raise and interesting point. If we could objectively decided what to throw out, then we would be on to something I think.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 15, 2009 12:56 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about throwing out turnovers that don’t result in a play for the other team, and turnovers on 4th down that result in a kneel down to end a half. These two situations don’t provide the opportunity to score, or prevent another scoring attempt by the offense that loses the ball.
"My job description is to win football games. I'm a hard worker. I'm not flashy by any means, but my job is to play football and win and I plan to do that." Kyle Orton
by odarol on Oct 15, 2009 11:52 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Orton's 1 INT
I just consider it the universe equaling out his stats from the Immaculate Deflection. I’m a believer that we could very well have won that game without it, but it sure was great for KO’s stats wasn’t it?
by RaRaDonk89 on Oct 15, 2009 12:03 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Love this series.
Once the percentage chance of Kyle having a neckbeard matches the percentage of Denver third down completions a rip in the space-time continuom (sp?) will occur and Sauron will decapitate Darth Vader in an Orc vs Wookie FFA cage match for the title belt, no-holds-barred. Kyle will slay Sauron with a tight spiral to the eyeplate when the remaining wookies side with him (because of his neck beard) and form Wooktron (similar Voltron but much more hairy).
Don’t worry… I am scared too. Scared, and yet in wonderful awe. It will be Beard Wars: Fellowship of the Glove.
ORANGE CRUSH! ... need I say more?
by USMCWall on Oct 14, 2009 11:21 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
ROFL
you crazy bastard lol………….i’m scared too
by RaRaDonk89 on Oct 14, 2009 11:30 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I got a camera
“Let’s shoot this f***er!” lol
Conversation nonstarters: hoping McDaniels fails, comparing Bears to Broncos, Cutler to Orton, apples to oranges, and casual drinkers to Raiders fans.
by broncosmontana on Oct 14, 2009 11:33 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
USMC
Did you still want me to post the rankings on these 4 stats for your Beatpaths?
Also, I’ll be posting some Chargers Limericks tomorrow. Look forward to seeing what you got! ha!
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 15, 2009 12:59 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great work again,
BDawk made a statement in his press conference that had been ringing in my little head. We can’t keep making up 10 point differences. We have to start strong and finish strong or teams are going to start pouncing on us.
by bfree2bronc on Oct 15, 2009 12:55 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Bfree
If I may take a shot at translating BDawk:
“Our Defense keeps being put out there on a short field in the first half.”
Of course, he’s too much of a bad ass to say this….but the shoe does fit right now for the Broncos. I think right now that is the one legitimate concern about Denver. Special Teams. And I’ll throw in a plug for 3rd downs too.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 15, 2009 1:09 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about the special teams killing two three and outs????
That probably didn’t help field position, either. They gave 20 yards of penalties. The defense actually had three separate three and outs to get off the field.
So, it definitely isn’t all on the offense. Sure, the offense could get off to a better start in the first half, but the special teams has to keep the defense off the field, too.
Bringing Bronco love from 1,112 miles away
by kentuckybronco on Oct 15, 2009 11:44 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
BDawk
I watched the NFL Network replay last night, and I thought BDawk said, about the painful drive with the two 4th down penalties, (paraphrased) “I doesn’t matter how long we are out on the field, our job is to stop them and get off the field.”
Maybe you heard a different comment.
It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. -- Thomas Sowell
by Trogdoor on Oct 15, 2009 8:05 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lebo, I look for these stats as soon as Mon ends
thx, these are some great pieces of info….one example. Look at how CHI has won their last two games, DET & SEA. While the DET score was bad, it was 21-21 at half. When I look at their 3rd down eff by opponents in those games, their own 3rd down eff, and field posn, I’m left thinking that they are not playing great football. They are really benefiting from spectacular ST play & in my opinion weak opponents.
Their O and D should raise some question marks for people….not so much at an individual level (I’m not bashing Cutler), but schematically based on performance. They did not give up TOs ag both PIT & SEA, so that was a huge factor…….my point, based on the info you provided, I am all over ATL this week against CHI. I also think ATL is hot, but your data is helping me connect the dots…….alright, lets go watch CHI crush ’em now….either way, great stuff!!!
by BideshiBronco on Oct 15, 2009 2:53 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I should do more
correlating the Dude’s analysis to my pick ’em league, and probably do, subconsciously. I am tied for first, but I usually am pats self on back. :)
It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. -- Thomas Sowell
by Trogdoor on Oct 15, 2009 8:07 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whip those picks out Trog!
I am gonna show the rankings and the power scores later today when I get back from “my real job,” so I’ll have more info for you.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 15, 2009 9:29 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bideshi
in week 4, I had ATL’s power index (based on these stats) slightly higher than Denver’s, and given the 10% -15% increase I would add for home field, This would make me go with Atlanta without hesitation.
You are correct. The Bears are ranked 2nd in Field Position Right now, but most people are attributing all of their success to Cutler. This is simply not true.
I’ll have the power rankings for week 5 based on these stats out hopefully this afternoon and you can see how they would work. I think they will be controversial actually because they are not your typical way of determining power rankings based on the teams record, but on these four categories.
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 15, 2009 9:37 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
bchip, thanks and
much respect for you
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 15, 2009 9:31 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Smooth work.
The finest White Russian to you my Broncos brother!
by precisiontint on Oct 15, 2009 9:18 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Got any Credence?
thanks man
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 15, 2009 9:31 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow, I didn't even have to read past your opening quote to rec'd that.
Bringing Bronco love from 1,112 miles away
by kentuckybronco on Oct 15, 2009 11:34 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
That was probably the quickest rec'd I have ever given.
Bringing Bronco love from 1,112 miles away
by kentuckybronco on Oct 15, 2009 11:35 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks man
If you laughed, that was my intention!!!
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 16, 2009 5:05 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think with all your stats you're missing one important detail
This year, I flew from Texas to see my first bronco game ever at Invesco field.
The game happened to be the Cardinals preseason game, which was our first win this year. Since then we have won every single game.
So i’m thinking we need to figure out a way for me to attend more games so we can keep winning. i’m thinking donations or something similar.
by trumanj on Oct 16, 2009 12:24 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
At least for you to attend early games.
They are undefeated since you went to the game. So, every year, go to the first preseason game and we’ll be good to go.
How about a “get trumanj to the first game fund”??
Bringing Bronco love from 1,112 miles away
by kentuckybronco on Oct 16, 2009 1:38 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
tumanj
This is clearly something I overlooked. There is a 100% correlation. I better work this into the model!!!!
Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
by TJ Johnson on Oct 16, 2009 5:05 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 




























