papazoid Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 http://blogs.buffalobills.com/2015/10/01/bills-ranking-high-in-toxic-differential/ It was a statistic invented by former Baltimore head coach Brian Billick. Toxic differential takes turnover differential, big pass play differential and big run play differential and adds them together. The higher the number the better. Through the first three games this season the Bills rank very high in toxic differential. Buffalo’s figure is a +12 so far this season, which ranks third in the league right now behind only Carolina, which is a gaudy +17 and Cincinnati at a +14.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 I know it's inconsequential, but I hate the name. I hear 'high in toxic' anything and I don't associate it with good things.
eball Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 I remember last year the Bills started off great in this area through the first two weeks, then fell off drastically. The defense continued to limit big plays but the offense went anemic. Hopefully this year they can keep it up.
eball Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Brian Billick is a dick. "That's why writers write and coaches coach" -- Billick after Elvis Grbac played one good game.
keepthefaith Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Brian Billick is a dick. With a Super Bowl ring
Cleveland Rocks? Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 This is a good stat, as I recall from last year it correlates highly to wins.
Augie Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Good stat. Bad name - makes me think of problems in the locker room.
papazoid Posted October 3, 2015 Author Posted October 3, 2015 should be called "impact" differential. but it does show that roman is willing to take more shots downfield than previous OC's
CSBill Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 Yeah, the name implies its something bad . . . "That's Bad, No That's Good" https://youtu.be/OCvp_Yg8hV4
Rockinon Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 Yeah, the name implies its something bad . . . "That's Bad, No That's Good" https://youtu.be/OCvp_Yg8hV4 "Bad things, man. Bad things." I'm OK with the name.
PlayBills Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 (edited) I wonder if someone could create a weighted version of this stat. Creating a turnover is more valuable than a executing a 30 yard pass, a 50 yard run is obviously more valuable than a 35 yard run, and it doesn't make sense to have a 100% weight (25 yard pass) so close to a 0% weight (24 yard pass). Also, it really doesn't matter how the yardage is gained - a 25 yard run has the exact same impact as a 25 yard pass. Don't know why a 10 yard run gets a team a point, but a ten yard pass gets a team nothing. Edited October 3, 2015 by PlayBills
CJallDAY Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 (edited) ^^^ Because of how it impacts the defense. A 10 yard pass requires no extensive adjustment on the defenses part. A 10 yard run forces them to bring another defender into the box if you line up the same way the next play. Especially in this age of football it definitely matters how the yards are gained. Edited October 3, 2015 by CJallDAY
SCD Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 I know it's inconsequential, but I hate the name. I hear 'high in toxic' anything and I don't associate it with good things. Its toxic to opposing teams. This Buffalo Bills poison is killer, man..
Bills Fan of St Augustine Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 This is a good stat, as I recall from last year it correlates highly to wins. This! Win turnover contest and big plays will normally equal wins.
Recommended Posts