Bleeding Bills Blue Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) So now we take games out to make stats say what we want. What happens to Offense Scoring you take out San Fran game? Want to play that game I already said that.. we go from 10th to 15th. But since the argument is about Tyrod, theoretically we take out the 10 point game that he wasn't allowed to play in. That would bump us from 10th to 8th at 25.9 points per game... Edited August 9, 2017 by dneveu
BuffaloHokie13 Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 A lot of teams lose when you score a bunch of points on them... it just seems to happen to us too often for us to overcome with the current offense. This implies we need a better QB. It should ALSO be noted... that we need a better freakin defense! They need to be more consistent imo. BTW, for context with the 24 point thing, the best win % for any team when opponents score 24+ is 55.56% (Patriots) and they've only allowed 24+ 9 times in the last 2 years. Only 5 teams have a win % at 50% or better (Pats, Raiders, Chiefs, Panthers, Falcons). And only 2 of those teams have allowed 24+ more than 10 times over the 2 years combined (Raiders & Falcons).
MPT Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 So now we take games out to make stats say what we want. What happens to Offense Scoring you take out San Fran game? Want to play that game I already said that.. we go from 10th to 15th. And I already said: "Except 15 other teams played the same team we scored 45 against. We're the only team who played against the Pats' injured third string QB. The former is statistically relevant. The latter is not."
HappyDays Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 I personally don't think it's fair to take away the Pats game when evaluating the defense. Most teams don't have to face the Pats twice, some don't even have to face them once. So of course our ranking looks worse if Brady plays both games. Him not playing actually makes our defensive ranking more comparable to everyone else. Even still DVOA had our defense in the bottom 5 so you don't need to pretend Brady would have played to make us look bad - we were bad enough as it is.
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 And I already said: "Except 15 other teams played the same team we scored 45 against. We're the only team who played against the Pats' injured third string QB. The former is statistically relevant. The latter is not." Fair enough - then we take out the 10 point game... because Tyrod didn't play. I personally don't think it's fair to take away the Pats game when evaluating the defense. Most teams don't have to face the Pats twice, some don't even have to face them once. So of course our ranking looks worse if Brady plays both games. Him not playing actually makes our defensive ranking more comparable to everyone else. Even still DVOA had our defense in the bottom 5 so you don't need to pretend Brady would have played to make us look bad - we were bad enough as it is. Yeah - i have no idea how its calculated though so its hard to like.. value that statistic. What was our offense rated?
MPT Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) Also, if you take out the game Tyrod didn't play, we move into 8th in offense. Edited August 9, 2017 by MPT
BuffaloHokie13 Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 Fair enough - then we take out the 10 point game... because Tyrod didn't play. Yeah - i have no idea how its calculated though so its hard to like.. value that statistic. What was our offense rated? 2015 O: 9th 2015 D: 24th 2016 O: 10th 2016 D: 27th 2014 O: 26th 2014 D: 2nd
MPT Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 I personally don't think it's fair to take away the Pats game when evaluating the defense. Most teams don't have to face the Pats twice, some don't even have to face them once. So of course our ranking looks worse if Brady plays both games. Him not playing actually makes our defensive ranking more comparable to everyone else. Even still DVOA had our defense in the bottom 5 so you don't need to pretend Brady would have played to make us look bad - we were bad enough as it is. We didn't have to play Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, or Matt Ryan. Those kinds of things even out. What doesn't even out is playing against an injured third string QB. I don't think that happened in any other game all season.
Maury Ballstein Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) 25th in yards, 24th in TDs. I don't recall ever saying that wasn't a bad thing, but please stop blatantly lying. 30. Buffalo 31. LA Rams 32. San Francisco http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/passing Also, if you take out the game Tyrod didn't play, we move into 8th in offense.IF ****. The CoT creedo Edited August 9, 2017 by Maury Ballstein
MPT Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 30. Buffalo 31. LA Rams 32. San Francisco http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/passing IF **** Now you're bashing Tyrod by including games he didn't even play in? That's a new low.
HappyDays Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) We didn't have to play Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, or Matt Ryan. Those kinds of things even out. What doesn't even out is playing against an injured third string QB. I don't think that happened in any other game all season. DVOA takes care of these sorts of comparisons for us. Actually you could make a very strong case that our DVOA should be even worse because DVOA is comparative. Our defense did so much better against the Patriots than every other team, so our DVOA for that game would have been really high. So yes as bad as we were on defense, it should actually be worse. Yeah - i have no idea how its calculated though so its hard to like.. value that statistic. What was our offense rated? DVOA is comparative. Say you get 6 yards on a 3rd and 5 against the Seahawks. That will count much more than gaining 6 yards on a 3rd and 10 against the Browns. In traditional stats, those two plays are equally valuable, even though in reality they obviously are not. This is why I always prefer DVOA, it gives the truest picture of a team's success. It accounts for garbage time, down and distance, strength of opponent... everything other stats miss. Edited August 9, 2017 by HappyDays
MPT Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 DVOA takes care of these sorts of comparisons for us. Actually you could make a very strong case that our DVOA should be even worse because DVOA is comparative. Our defense did so much better against the Patriots than every other team, so our DVOA for that game would have been really high. So yes as bad as we were on defense, it should actually be worse. That was my point. Even when you use DVOA, which generally does a really good job of adjusting for these things, our defense was much worse than the points per game statistic would indicate. Then when you consider that DVOA adjusts the wrong way for an injured Brissett playing in place of Brady, it gets even worse. I don't know what's worse than worse than not great, but it's probably not good.
Alphadawg7 Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) So now we take games out to make stats say what we want. What happens to Offense Scoring you take out San Fran game? Want to play that game Oh stop it already...You know damn well we DONT shutout Pats without those EXTREME circumstances. So let me get this straight...in your relentless quest to put TT down in any creative way you can, you somehow think propping up a defense which was bottom 6 in 15 of its 16 games to "average" makes sense? You also believe a team that gives up over TWENTY FIVE points per game in NINETY FOUR PERCENT of its games (15 of the 16) is Average? If you believe that, and I mean truly believe that, then you don't know enough about football to ever comment rationally again. No one in the world other than someone like you trying to defend the defense in order to slander Taylor would ever claim that a team who gives up over 25 points per game on D in 15 of its 16 games is "AVERAGE". Not to mention the ONE game anomaly was without 2 of the greatest players ever at their positions, without the backup to one of them, and started a rookie crap QB with a hurt throwing hand. This is why nothing you say can be taken seriously. I don't care about your or anyone else stance on Tyrod, the FACTS remain the defense was literally and factually one of the worst performing defenses in the NFL last year...PERIOD. Its not something that is even open to interpretation, its an undeniable fact. So please, stop spreading this non sense lie that the D was Average JUST so you can then say TT was worse, which is categorically not true. PS: Why don't you go look up the Pats average Points Per game last year with Brady at the helm...then come back and tell me the shutout is a valid gauge to the performance of the D. Edited August 9, 2017 by Alphadawg7
Big Gun Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 Since the CoT is hell bent on discrediting the defense with a shutout in NE #1, can we take a win away from Tyrod because we know Brady would have killed it if he played. What's fair is fair in CoT twisted logic, right.
MAJBobby Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) Oh stop it already...You know damn well we DONT shutout Pats without those EXTREME circumstances. So let me get this straight...in your relentless quest to put TT down in any creative way you can, you somehow think propping up a defense which was bottom 6 in 15 of its 16 games to "average" makes sense? You also believe a team that gives up over TWENTY FIVE points per game in NINETY FOUR PERCENT of its games (15 of the 16) is Average? If you believe that, and I mean truly believe that, then you don't know enough about football to ever comment rationally again. No one in the world other than someone like you trying to defend the defense in order to slander Taylor would ever claim that a team who gives up over 25 points per game on D in 15 of its 16 games is "AVERAGE". Not to mention the ONE game anomaly was without 2 of the greatest players ever at their positions, without the backup to one of them, and started a rookie crap QB with a hurt throwing hand. This is why nothing you say can be taken seriously. I don't care about your or anyone else stance on Tyrod, the FACTS remain the defense was literally and factually one of the worst performing defenses in the NFL last year...PERIOD. Its not something that is even open to interpretation, its an undeniable fact. So please, stop spreading this non sense lie that the D was Average JUST so you can then say TT was worse, which is categorically not true. PS: Why don't you go look up the Pats average Points Per game last year with Brady at the helm...then come back and tell me the shutout is a valid gauge to the performance of the D. And I dont take anyone seriously that cherry picks their stats. Fact is we shut out a team. And hung 45 on another bad team. So if you want to discount one you have to discount the other or you just cherry pick your stats to make your false claim. Alot like D.C. Let me guess still counting the Points the Offense scored in that game arent we lol Edited August 9, 2017 by MAJBobby
BringBackOrton Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 Since the CoT is hell bent on discrediting the defense with a shutout in NE #1, can we take a win away from Tyrod because we know Brady would have killed it if he played. What's fair is fair in CoT twisted logic, right. Tyrod only winning 6 games is kinda bad, yeah. Let's observe.
Gunsgoodtime Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 2015 O: 9th 2015 D: 24th 2016 O: 10th 2016 D: 27th 2014 O: 26th 2014 D: 2nd Rex Ryan's defensive genius on display there. The offense has been good enough to win, the defense has not the last 2 years, hope that changes this year and we can be good at both, it's usually been a good offense and bad defense, or good defense and bad offense over the years
MPT Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 Since the CoT is hell bent on discrediting the defense with a shutout in NE #1, can we take a win away from Tyrod because we know Brady would have killed it if he played. What's fair is fair in CoT twisted logic, right. So what you're saying is that our defense is so bad that there is no way Tyrod could have beaten Tom Brady if he had played? I'd agree to that.
BringBackOrton Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 So what you're saying is that our team is so bad that there is no way Tyrod could have beaten Tom Brady if he had played? I'd agree to that. FTFY. So our defense loses the shutout, and TT technically went 6-9 last year as our starter. Sounds fair.
MPT Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 And I dont take anyone seriously that cherry picks their stats. Fact is we shut out a team. And hung 45 on another bad team. So if you want to discount one you have to discount the other or you just cherry pick your stats to make your false claim. Alot like D.C. Those two games are not equivalent in their statistical relevance. One is a normal game, the other is not. Let me guess still counting the Points the Offense scored in that game arent we lol Yes, but it would only improve the offense's ranking if we didn't. You can eliminate it if you want, but I don't think that would be honest.
Recommended Posts