TheFunPolice Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 This Bears game is an interesting matchup I think.... Cutler is Fitzpatrick with elite talent, IMO. He can get red hot and the Bears can beat anyone, then the next week he can throw 5 INT and they can lose to the Jags. Very inconsistent. So, yes, I can see the Bills winning, but I wouldn't necessarily bet on it.
YoloinOhio Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 This Bears game is an interesting matchup I think.... Cutler is Fitzpatrick with elite talent, IMO. He can get red hot and the Bears can beat anyone, then the next week he can throw 5 INT and they can lose to the Jags. Very inconsistent. So, yes, I can see the Bills winning, but I wouldn't necessarily bet on it. Pretty much. Losing Bradham for that game just royally sucks.
TheFunPolice Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 Pretty much. Losing Bradham for that game just royally sucks. Yes it does.... hopefully we will have Dareus
bbb Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 He did have a way with the media...I do remember Bucky Gleason writing a scathing piece about him though. It's not available anywhere online that I know of, but there was a thread about it a few years ago: http://forums.twobil...c/page__st__340 Wow - that was scathing! This kind of sums up the part we are talking about: Such transparent personalities aren't usually embraced in this town, but this was a charade for the ages. Flutie had two performances working - the one he played for the public and the off-Broadway persona reserved for behind closed doors. We're talking two totally different dudes. You like the one you see. You wouldn't like the one they know.
Bob Malooga Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 This will be the first huge test for our secondary, minus Byrd...this is where we find out exactly how good the "Savages" really are. Especially Gilmore and McKelvin...if they can shutdown these WR's, they can shutdown any WR's. On a sidenote...I think the Bears are a darn good team, with a really good HC, a damn good QB, arguably the best WR duo in the league, an elite RB, and a talented defense...it'll be a good test for the Bills.
Kirby Jackson Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 This will be the first huge test for our secondary, minus Byrd...this is where we find out exactly how good the "Savages" really are. Especially Gilmore and McKelvin...if they can shutdown these WR's, they can shutdown any WR's. On a sidenote...I think the Bears are a darn good team, with a really good HC, a damn good QB, arguably the best WR duo in the league, an elite RB, and a talented defense...it'll be a good test for the Bills. Ha ha, I am already trying to mentally prepare myself that the season isn't over if the Bills don't win this game. It will be one of the toughest games on the schedule but I know how I am. If the Bills will lose I will convince myself that they are a 6-10 team at best.
YoloinOhio Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 Ha ha, I am already trying to mentally prepare myself that the season isn't over if the Bills don't win this game. It will be one of the toughest games on the schedule but I know how I am. If the Bills will lose I will convince myself that they are a 6-10 team at best. Yeah, there is always a ton of importance placed on game 1 but as I have said before, IMO the 1st and last games of the season are usually the least indicative of a team's overall record.
OCinBuffalo Posted July 31, 2014 Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) Ok, first thing I did was go to Wiki... 1993, beat the Cowboys... the eventual Superbowl Champions (against us) 1994, beat the Patriots (Wild Card team), and Dolphins (1st AFCE) 1995, beat the Colts (Wild Card team) 1996, beat the Eagles (Wild Card team) 1997, no road wins against playoff teams, but did beat the 9-7 Jets 1998, no road wins against playoff teams 1999, beat the Dolphins (Wild Card team), and Washington (1st NFCE) 2000, no road wins against playoff teams 2001, beat the Jets (Wild Card team) 2002, no road wins against playoff teams, but did beat the 9-7 Dolphins 2003, no road wins against playoff teams 2004, beat the Seahawks (1st NFCW) 2005, beat the Bengals (1st AFCN) 2006, beat the Jets (Wild Card team) 2007, beat Washington (Wild Card team) 2008, no road wins against playoff teams 2009, beat the Jets (Wild Card team) 2010, no road wins against playoff teams 2011, no road wins against playoff teams 2012, no road wins against playoff teams 2013, no road wins against playoff teams Once again we see that Mike Schopp sucks at "analytics", even though he now portrays himself as Mr. Quantifiable. The above is OK....but incomplete. And really, basing our analysis on this alone is doing it wrong. Sorry, but it is. If we are going to do analyses, and draw conclusions from them? How about we do the analyses properly? I shall. A real analytics expert, (um, I wonder who that could be?) would recognize that we must study, yes, the existence of a condition, but also, its non-existence, when attempting to identify a pattern. In other words: only looking at road wins against playoff teams, by definition, ignores the definitive relationship between beating another team, and in doing so, keeping them from the playoffs. Yeah, think about it. Be the opposite of Schopp. Don't begin with a premise/agenda. Let the patterns come to you. I'll help. When we beat another team, 100% of the time we lower their chances of making the playoffs, unless they have already qualified. If teams have already qualified, us beating them has 0 effect on their chances to make the playoffs. They already have. No. The real cause/effect here is teams that make the playoffs because they beat us, and, don't make the playoffs because we beat them. Teams rarely qualify for the playoffs by the 12th game on their schedule. Therefore, in a normal distribution, for at least 75% of the games played, each Bills win negatively affects the playoff chances of each team. (And each Bills loss helps them, of course.) If we are doing proper analysis, we'd be comparing helping to hurting in terms of relevance/chances. Let's do it properly. Properly: Only looking at road wins against playoff teams...is essentially only looking at 25% of the picture. You're only looking at Case 1. The other parts of this quadrant: Case 2. road losses against playoff teams Case 3. road wins against non-playoff teams Case 4. road losses against non-playoff teams (And really, we need to add 4 more cases for home, because a win is a win, and so is a loss, for our purposes) 1 and 4 are the least relevant to our analyses. Why? Because, with Case 1, the other team made the playoffs despite losing to us. So, losing to us, in the overall schema, is by definition less relevant. And, with 4, despite beating us, the other team still didn't make the playoffs. Their win, in the overall schema, is less relevant. Actually, you could consider 1 and 4 to be totally irrelevant, for this purpose. No: if we are looking to determine "quality/relevance of Bills win/loss", Cases 2 and 3 is where we need to place our focus. How many of our losses helped the other team make it, how many of our wins kept the other team from making it? The job is to figure out the # of games distributed to each quadrant, and weighting down the games where, regardless of outcome, the other team was going make/miss the playoffs, or throwing those games out completely. Ideally you want to do both, and run the #s for both weighting and chucking those games, to see if there's a real deviation. Then, you can do a % of relevant wins/losses, and that will give you the answers we are after here. Real World: In no uncertain terms: we played a significant(in every way) role in keeping Miami OUT of the playoffs last year. They had a higher than average propensity to make the playoffs throughout the season based on who they beat, but, first we beat them on the road, which lowered their chances, THEN, we beat them at home, which devastated their chances. On the whole, the 1st win had the same effect as the 2nd. However, in terms of odds, the 2nd was devastating. Miami had less chances to make the playoffs as the end of the season approached. There's math, and then, there's psychology. In terms of math, over the entire season, both wins had the same effect. In terms of psychology, Miami got destroyed by the Jets the subsequent weekend, because due to their loss to the Bills, they lost the chance to control their own destiny. Once again: there's a difference between good analysis and bad, and it comes down to familiarity with the material/competence. Edited July 31, 2014 by OCinBuffalo
You herd it hear last Posted July 31, 2014 Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) Once again we see that Mike Schopp sucks at "analytics", even though he now portrays himself as Mr. Quantifiable. The above is OK....but incomplete. And really, basing our analysis on this alone is doing it wrong. Sorry, but it is. If we are going to do analyses, and draw conclusions from them? How about we do the analyses properly? I shall. ... There's math, and then, there's psychology. In terms of math, over the entire season, both wins had the same effect. In terms of psychology, Miami got destroyed by the Jets the subsequent weekend, because due to their loss to the Bills, they lost the chance to control their own destiny. Once again: there's a difference between good analysis and bad, and it comes down to familiarity with the material/competence. Apparently I use the other hemisphere of my brain. But your efforts are outstanding. Edited July 31, 2014 by You herd it hear last
Recommended Posts