Wraith

Fair enough.

There was no facemask on that play. Watch it again.

Nice math, genius.

Where did I say the Bills were better than the Redskins? Show me please.

I've got to believe that a big part of why are corners have looked SOOOO bad this year is due to scheme. There are guys who's day job it is to drive UPS trucks that haven't been abused as bad as our guys. Both McGee and Clements have shown they have talent in the past, but this year they look horrible. Of course, you can't blame the scheme for Clements tackling prowess....

The NFL's biggest phonies are the Washington Redskins, and they lost to a winless team as well.

With a slight assist from Andre Davis. Damn that play hurt. He looked like me trying to catch a bomb.

I found a positive. We weren't the only ones to lose to a winless team today. The ESPN darlings the Bengals just got it by the Bucs.

The surgery explains the incredibly bad decision making? I didn't realize it was brain surgery he had.

So you're saying Losman was better than his rating today?

I won't question your conclusion ( ) but your method is a little flawed. The odds of picking the Bills record, in order, at random, is 1/65536. That would be (1/2)^16...

You are being incredibly ticky tacky here. Are you really trying to draw a distinction between "turning some heads" and "making a statement." Why do you get define what is and isn't a statement? Why are you even arguing this? The point the author of this thread was trying to make is that beating the Bears this weekend, in their own house, after the way they beat the Seahawks, would draw some attention and change the way the Bills are viewed. That is a correct statement. You're argument is pure semantics and irrelevant. Stop being so nitpicky.

That's part of it I'm sure, but it's not like he's ever had a huge turnover game. His max in a game ever is 3. That's not exceptionally high at all.

That is also possible. Either way, I am comfortable saying that Roethlisberger's 34.3 passer rating IS indicative of his play this year. All in all, I think QB rating is not a bad tool. It certainly isn't the worst of the generally accepted statistics. I do not know the formula off-hand, but I do know that it at least tries to account for a wide range of parameters to give a balanced view of performance. However, not knowing the formula, I cannot say if it takes down/distance/situation/etc into account. That information is CONTEXT and it is CRITICAL to any statistic being worthwhile.

I wouldn't rather have had Ben in his lousy two games that earned him that god awful rating. Are you trying to argue that he played better than his QB rating this season indicates or that he IS better than his QB rating indicates? Your problem is that QB rating is a summary statistic, not a predictive statistic. Big Ben is probably better than his 34 QB Rating, but his play the last two games certainly isn't. That 34.3 rating only applies to the last two games, in which he has been awful.

The name of the song is not "Time of Your Life." It's "Good Riddance." I hope you all appreciate that irony. You're welcome.

That's not evidence, moron. Give me some specific plays, or gee, even some data. I see that the Bills gave up 3 sacks today, which shockingly, is exactly their average per game this year. I see the Willis McGahee gaining more yards in the second half than the first. I see Duke Preston getting a key block on the P. Price TD Screen play.

Come back when you have some supporting evidence.

The swelling comes later. Just you wait.

You're just proving my point. You don't understand statistics so you are easily misled. I said nothing about what I believe. I said that system ranks Betts' performance as the best after three games. We may have to add reading comprehension to your list of improvement areas. Now, if you knew anything about statistics, you would know that basing any kind of decision on a small sample size such as this is foolish. A small sample size can be heavily influenced by outliers. In this case, Betts had one hell of a performance in week three, while having limited carries in the other two weeks. Over the course of a season, these outliers have less of an effect (if they really are outliers). Look at the top three running backs in 2005 using their system: Larry Johnson, Shaun Alexander, and Edgerin James. That doesn't seem to be too far fetched. I could not care any less that you watched some of those games or not. It's pretty apparent from this thread alone that two people can watch the same game and come away with totally opposing viewpoints. That's because human observations are SUBJECTIVE. Statistics, done properly, are OBJECTIVE. They take human's inherent bias out of the equation. The NFL has chosen to use overly simplistic statistics that do not properly describe reality. People who use those statistics without understanding the limitations of the data are just as ignorant as those that see the statistics, disagree with the supposed conclusions, and proclaim that "Statistics are for losers." The fact is, if you base an entire argument upon your gut feeling, proclaiming Losman has no "football insticts" or just doesn't have "IT" without being able to quantify what the hell those terms mean, you deserve all the crap you get. Just like in the real world, if you can't back up your claims with data, I have no use for you.

No. It says his performance over the first three games of the season has been the best.

This post makes you sound ignorant. Incredibly so. Statistics can only be used to lie to people who don't understand them. Sick of being misled? Educate yourself. And why the hell do you put stats in quotation marks?

Yes, that was the implication. Thanks for pointing that out for those in the audience incapable of noticing subtlety.

I think that has been happening slowly but surely and will improve. Just keep in mind that Kodak employed 65 K in Rochester not that long ago, from which a large percentage were chemical engineers (I'm talking thousands). They had (and still have, actually) chemical engineers coming out their ears. Reabsorbing those who were downsized is an incremental process.

Hahaha, that is actually completely true. Rochester is super saturated with a lot of brilliant chemists and chemical engineers as a result of Kodak.