Something to keep an eye on: Point differential?

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

9 hours ago, prissythecat said:

 

 

 

 

We also have this epic thread from our resident football high IQ guru

 

 

thats the thread I was talking about 😆 

[Coach Tuesday]

4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

I don't agree at all.

 

"The offense did it's job every week except against KC, basically," you say?

 

Did they do their job when they scored 16 against the Titans? 18 against the Jets in Week7? 24 against the Pats? 19 against the Steelers (the other seven points came on Taron Johnson's pick-six)? 10 against the Ravens in the playoffs (the other seven points came on Taron Johnson's other pick-six)?

 

Certainly the offense was better than the defense last year, but that's far from saying the O were good every game.

 

 

As for how important point difference is ... it's important sometimes.

 

The 2015 SB Champion Broncos had a point differential below 4. So did the 2012 Super Bowl Champion Ravens. The 2011 Super Bowl Champion Giants actually had a negative point differential. The 2007 Super Bowl Champion Giants had a point differential below three points. The 2006 Super Bowl Champion Mannings, um, I mean the Colts had one of 4.2 points.

 

So that's far from a majority, but most stats that measure both offense and defense are going to look good for nearly all Lombardi winners.

 

According to DVOA, which heavily weights opponent-based and situational adjustments - yes, the offense did its job last year.

[YattaOkasan]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think I'd let them off the Ravens game... that was as much about weather conditions as anything, but I agree there were games where the O had some struggles. 

I struggle with the Pitt game.  We ended the game in the red zone after holding the ball for 7+ min.  Thats at least 3 more points that we decided not to score and is likely 7.  With that in mind against one of the best defenses last year, I think the offense did its job in that game too.

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, Coach Tuesday said:

According to DVOA, which heavily weights opponent-based and situational adjustments - yes, the offense did its job last year.

 

 

Yeah, but I wasn't arguing that they didn't do their job overall. You said they did their every week though you excepted the KC game. I'm arguing that; it makes no sense to me.

 

And DVOA doesn't speak to that. It looks at the whole season together.

 

You said, "To be clear: the “'context' here is the defense - the offense did its job every week except against KC, basically.  So the issue was the defense letting the other team keep the game close."

 

And that wasn't so. The offense had some games where they had problems, including two games we won because the defense did a terrific job. Our 18-10 win against the Jets was a much better job by the defense than the offense. Scoring 18 against last year's Jets was not a good job, but holding even the Jets to 10 points is good defense. Scoring 24 against last year's Pats was OK, but holding those same Pats to 21, including that final Zimmer turnover was good defense.

 

The D holding the Chargers to 17, the Pats to 21 and 9 in those two games, the Ravens to 3 in the playoffs, the Raiders to

 

The offense didn't play particularly well - as I said - in several games Did they do their job when they scored 16 against the Titans? 18 against the Jets in Week7? 24 against the Pats? 19 against the Steelers (the other seven points came on Taron Johnson's pick-six)? 10 against the Ravens in the playoffs (the other seven points came on Taron Johnson's other pick-six)?

 

And again, as I said, they certainly were better than the defense. It isn't even a question. They were very good overall. But you said they did their job in every game except the Chiefs. I don't see how anyone could say they did their job in that Titans game. And they weren't good in two or three others either.

 

 

Edited September 8, 2021 by Thurman#1

[Patrick Duffy]

58 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

. some people are suggesting the games will be lower scoring this year because the defense will be better and the Bills will run it more in the 2nd half of games…. ***** that, why change what worked so well down the stretch last season?  Keep the pedal down and blowing teams out.

Agree, it can only take one play or one mistake for any game to shift in other direction. Hopefully we see them put games away enough and not chance it. Unless obviously the game is already way out of reach

[Coach Tuesday]

21 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

And DVOA doesn't speak to that. It looks at the whole season together.

 

Actually DVOA does speak to that, but I gave you the aggregate numbers, not the per-week numbers.  You can go dig up the per-week DVOA if you'd like.  By and large the offense did its job week in and week out last year which the weighted numbers bear out.

[GunnerBill]

30 minutes ago, YattaOkasan said:

I struggle with the Pitt game.  We ended the game in the red zone after holding the ball for 7+ min.  Thats at least 3 more points that we decided not to score and is likely 7.  With that in mind against one of the best defenses last year, I think the offense did its job in that game too.

 

In the Steelers game we struggled first half. Second half the O was on point but for some reason struggled to get it going early that night.

[MJS]

In the NFL the margins of victory are usually pretty slim most of the time. Most games are decided by one score.

 

While it is concerning a little bit, I also think that it provides really good experience. If our players are involved in really close games and find a way to win, that is valuable experience for when they are in those situations again. It's similar to playoff experience. It's tough to go on a run in the playoffs until you have some playoff experience.

 

So, I have confidence that if the Bills are in a close game again this year, they will have the experience to draw from and will be able to push for the win. They'll be a tough team to beat.

 

Also, last year was a pretty tough schedule.

[Thurman#1]

33 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

Actually DVOA does speak to that, but I gave you the aggregate numbers, not the per-week numbers.  You can go dig up the per-week DVOA if you'd like.  By and large the offense did its job week in and week out last year which the weighted numbers bear out.

 

 

Dude, please.  The reason you gave me the overall numbers not the per-week numbers is pretty obvious.

 

"By and large," you say they did their job. Yeah, "by and large," meaning sometimes yes and sometimes no, more yes than no.. Yeah, exactly. Sometimes they did and sometimes they didn't. Over the course of the season they did well - as I have repeatedly said - but in several games they certainly did not.

 

The weeks they didn't were the ones I mentioned before. Again, you said, "To be clear: the 'context' here is the defense - the offense did its job every week except against KC, basically.  So the issue was the defense letting the other team keep the game close."

 

That is what I responded to, and it is not so.

 

The offense was outright poor against the Titans, scoring 16 and putting up three turnovers. That's probably the best example, but they didn't play well in several games, and I've already pointed out which ones, but it's not hard to find for an offense that put up less than 20 points four times (again, against the Steelers, seven points came from Taron Johnson's pick-six).

 

For what is now around the third or fourth time, yes, the offense was good overall. No, not every week except KC. Not even especially close.

 

 

 

Edited September 8, 2021 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

And again ...

 

As for how important point difference is ... it's important sometimes.

 

The 2015 SB Champion Broncos had a point differential below 4. So did the 2012 Super Bowl Champion Ravens. The 2011 Super Bowl Champion Giants actually had a negative point differential. The 2007 Super Bowl Champion Giants had a point differential below three points. The 2006 Super Bowl Champion Mannings, um, I mean the Colts had one of 4.2 points.

 

So that's far from a majority, but most stats that measure both offense and defense are going to look good for nearly all Lombardi winners.

[Coach Tuesday]

9 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Dude, please.  The reason you gave me the overall numbers not the per-week numbers is pretty obvious.

 

"By and large," you say they did their job. Yeah, "by and large," meaning sometimes yes and sometimes no. Yeah, exactly. Sometimes they did and sometimes they didn't. Over the cou

 

The weeks they didn't were the ones I mentioned before. Again, you said, "To be clear: the 'context' here is the defense - the offense did its job every week except against KC, basically.  So the issue was the defense letting the other team keep the game close."

 

That is what I responded to, and it is not so.

 

The offense was outright poor against the Titans, scoring 16 and putting up three turnovers. That's probably the best example, but they didn't play well in several games, and I've already pointed out which ones, but it's not hard to find for an offense that put up less than 20 points four times (again, against the Steelers, seven points came from Taron Johnson's pick-six).

 

For what is now around the third or fourth time, yes, the offense was good overall. No, not every week except KC. Not even especially close.

 

 

 

The reason I gave you the aggregate numbers is because that’s what I had handy in the FO Almanac I purchased.  They provide the weekly numbers on the FO website.  I don’t have time to go dig those up for you, but feel free to do that and we can continue the conversation.  

[Thurman#1]

9 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

The reason I gave you the aggregate numbers is because that’s what I had handy in the FO Almanac I purchased.  They provide the weekly numbers on the FO website.  I don’t have time to go dig those up for you, but feel free to do that and we can continue the conversation.  

 

 

I don't need them. You are the one who originally brought them up, not me. If you feel that they disprove what I am saying, please feel free to post them.

 

More, they don't post single game stats there for those who aren't paying. I am not paying them, though I think their stuff is very good and I have considered it.

 

If you have paid, and if you feel that the single week numbers would help your case, do feel free to post them. My argument is made successfully without them. The offense was not good in several games. It's clear. For around the third time, we are talking about an offense that scored less than 20 points four times, not including the Ravens playoff game. You're the one who brought up DVOA, not me. And yet you only referred to the season-long numbers and I have said over and over that the offense was indeed good when looked at over the course of the season.

 

 

Edited September 8, 2021 by Thurman#1

[Coach Tuesday]

5 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

I don't need them. You are the one who originally brought them up, not me. If you feel that they disprove what I am saying, please feel free to post them.

 

More, they don't post single game stats there for those who aren't paying. I am not paying them, though I think their stuff is very good and I have considered it.

 

If you have paid, and if you feel that the single week numbers would help your case, do feel free to post them. My argument is made successfully without them. The offense was not good in several games. It's clear. For around the third time, we are talking about an offense that scored less than 20 points four times, not including the Ravens playoff game. You're the one who brought up DVOA, not me. And yet you only referred to the season-long numbers and I have said over and over that the offense was indeed good when looked at over the course of the season.

 

 

 

Actually it's free and it took me about five seconds.  There were three games last year with a negative offensive DVOA of more than -1%: KC, Tennessee and Arizona.  Tennessee was worse than KC (-32.4% to -12.7%) so congratulations, you've added a second game to my list.  Well done Thurman.  Drilling down further, only one of those games - Tennessee - had a negative DVOA for passing offense; the other two games were dragged down by negative rushing offense DVOA.  

 

By contrast, there were six games last year with a negative overall defensive DVOA of more than -1%: NYJ (second game), Seattle, Chargers, 49ers, Pitt, NE, Miami (both second games).  In all of them except the Jets game, both the pass defense and rush defense had high negative DVOA; in the Jets game it was the passing defense that let them down.  There was also only one game (Rams) where the defensive DVOA was higher than +20%; by contrast, there were 8 games where the offensive DVOA was higher than +20%.

 

So congrats, you've got me to amend my statement as follows:  other than against KC AND TENNESEE and, in part, Arizona, the offense did its job last year and the defense was the reason for the tight points differential.

 

[Thurman#1]

6 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

Actually it's free and it took me about five seconds.  There were three games last year with a negative offensive DVOA of more than -1%: KC, Tennessee and Arizona.  Tennessee was worse than KC (-32.4% to -12.7%) so congratulations, you've added a second game to my list.  Well done Thurman.  Drilling down further, only one of those games - Tennessee - had a negative DVOA for passing offense; the other two games were dragged down by negative rushing offense DVOA.  

 

By contrast, there were six games last year with a negative overall defensive DVOA of more than -1%: NYJ (second game), Seattle, Chargers, 49ers, Pitt, NE, Miami (both second games).  In all of them except the Jets game, both the pass defense and rush defense had high negative DVOA; in the Jets game it was the passing defense that let them down.  There was also only one game (Rams) where the defensive DVOA was higher than +20%; by contrast, there were 8 games where the offensive DVOA was higher than +20%.

 

So congrats, you've got me to amend my statement as follows:  other than against KC AND TENNESEE and, in part, Arizona, the offense did its job last year and the defense was the reason for the tight points differential.

 

 

 

 

Link?

[Coach Tuesday]

2 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

Link?

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/single-game-dvoa-by-team/2020/buf

[Thurman#1]

Yeah, sorry dude, I don't pay. The reason it took you about five seconds is that you clearly do.

 

What I get is a thing that shows the top five teams, the rest of the data greyed out, and a "Please subscribe" message.

 

 

And even without the link I notice weasel language in your post ... "there were three games last year with a negative offensive DVOA of more than -1%," you say. 

 

Negative DVOAs mean below-average performance. How many games will there be where the offensive DVOA is negative, and thus, below average, while still not meeting your arbitrary threshhold of -1.0%, I wonder?

 

And whether the offense is "dragged down by negative rushing offense DVOA" is beside the point. For like the fifth time,  you said, "To be clear: the 'context' here is the defense - the offense did its job every week except against KC, basically.  So the issue was the defense letting the other team keep the game close."

 

You didn't say that the offense did it's job every week except when the rushing offense posted negative DVOA. That's what you did NOT say.

 

I'm glad you've figured out that the Tennessee and Arizona games were not good for the offense. I actually would not include the Arizona game, but if you want to, fair enough. There were two or three others ... very possibly all those where they ran up a negative offensive DVOA, whether it is below 1% or not.

 

Edited September 8, 2021 by Thurman#1

[Coach Tuesday]

1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

Yeah, sorry dude, I don't pay. The reason it took you about five seconds is that you clearly do.

 

What I get is a thing that shows the top five teams, the rest of the data greyed out, and a "Please subscribe" message.

 

 

And even without the link I notice weasel language in your post ... "there were three games last year with a negative offensive DVOA of more than -1%," you say. 

 

Negative DVOAs mean below-average performance. How many games will there be where the offensive DVOA is negative, and thus, below average, while still not meeting your arbitrary threshhold of -1.0%, I wonder?

 

And whether the offense is "dragged down by negative rushing offense DVOA" is beside the point. For like the fifth time,  you said, "To be clear: the 'context' here is the defense - the offense did its job every week except against KC, basically.  So the issue was the defense letting the other team keep the game close."

 

You didn't say that the offense did it's job every week except when the rushing offense posted negative DVOA. That's what you did NOT say.

 

I'm glad you've figured out that the Tennessee and Arizona games were not good for the offense. I actually would not include the Arizona game, but if you want to, fair enough. There were two or three others ... very possibly all those where they ran up a negative offensive DVOA, whether it is below 1% or not.

 

Lol “weasel language.”  I didn’t include under 1% because it’s not statistically significant.  Dunno what you’re used to in your life but you keep accusing me of hiding the ball and I keep showing you the ball - therapy does wonders my friend.

[Thurman#1]

id

23 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

Lol “weasel language.”  I didn’t include under 1% because it’s not statistically significant.  Dunno what you’re used to in your life but you keep accusing me of hiding the ball and I keep showing you the ball - therapy does wonders my friend.

 

 

I called it weasel language because that's what it is.

 

You're not exactly opaque here, dude. You didn't include under 1% because there are one or two or three more Bills offensive games there.

 

And yeah, you keep hiding the ball and people will keep pointing it out to you. You brought up DVOA, not me. You keep telling me I should use it, and that it only took you five seconds to find the page. When I point out the obvious, that the reason it took you five seconds to find it is that you paid, you change the grounds of your argument yet again. No mention that you were wrong. 

 

So yeah, you keep switching the grounds, and I keep pointing out where you're wrong, and you keep running on to the next point. It ain't me "hiding the ball," dude. It's you. You're the one who has a subscription, not me. And yet for some weird reason you're not telling how many Bills games are between 0 and -0.1%. Hard to figure the reason for that.

 

For around the 5th time, we're talking about an offense that scored less than 20 points four times this season if you do NOT include the playoff game against the Ravens. Of course they had some games that were not very good, regardless of whether you are willing to admit it or not.

 

The amusement is beginning to wear off for me. At some point soon I'll just let what you've written speak for itself. Youre absolute inability to make your point says volumes. 

 

And if therapy works wonders for you, I say that's terrific. Best of luck to you with that, sincerely.

 

Regardless of that, the offense was good but there were several games where they were not. (The Jets game where they managed 18 points on 6 field goals, couldn't score even one TD against a team that averaged allowing 28.6 ppg, for instance.) Pretty sure if you asked Josh Allen about that, he wouldn't disagree for a second.

 

 

 

Edited September 8, 2021 by Thurman#1

[Coach Tuesday]

11 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

id

 

 

I called it weasel language because that's what it is.

 

You're not exactly opaque here, dude. You didn't include under 1% because there are one or two or three more Bills offensive games there.

 

And yeah, you keep hiding the ball and people will keep pointing it out to you. You brought up DVOA, not me. You keep telling me I should use it, and that it only took you five seconds to find the page. When I point out the obvious, that the reason it took you five seconds to find it is that you paid, you change the grounds of your argument yet again. No mention that you were wrong. 

 

So yeah, you keep switching the grounds, and I keep pointing out where you're wrong, and you keep running on to the next point. It ain't me "hiding the ball," dude. It's you. You're the one who has a subscription, not me. And yet for some weird reason you're not telling how many Bills games are between 0 and -0.1%. Hard to figure the reason for that.

 

For around the 5th time, we're talking about an offense that scored less than 20 points four times this season if you do NOT include the playoff game against the Ravens. Of course they had some games that were not very good, regardless of whether you are willing to admit it or not.

 

The amusement is beginning to wear off for me. At some point soon I'll just let what you've written speak for itself. Youre absolute inability to make your point says volumes. 

 

And if therapy works wonders for you, I say that's terrific. Best of luck to you with that, sincerely.

 

Regardless of that, the offense was good but there were several games where they were not. Pretty sure if you asked Josh Allen about that, he wouldn't disagree for a second.

Lol there is ONE game, the first game against the Jets, where the offense had -0.7% DVOA.  That’s it - one.  And that means that for week one, the offense performed just a hair below how an average offense would perform against that defense in those offensive situations.  To my mind the offense did its job in that game, it performed about as it was supposed to.  Not better, not really worse.  It’s not significant to me - if you think it is, feel free to revel in it.
 

Yes I brought up DVOA.  I cited the aggregate season number and you accused me of hiding the ball.  I then dug up the per-game numbers and gave you credit for adding one more game to the list of bad offensive performances - and you again accused me of hiding the ball.  I then revealed to you that there was one game (not several) where the offense registered between zero and negative one and explained why I didn’t count it.  Now you’re telling me to go ask Josh Allen what he thinks. 
 

Your level of emotion/vitriol here is hilarious - show me on the doll where @BADOLBILZ hurt you.

Edited September 8, 2021 by Coach Tuesday

[Thurman#1]

Just now, Coach Tuesday said:

Lol there is ONE game, the first game against the Jets, where the offense had -0.7% DVOA.  That’s it - one.  And that means that for week one, the offense performed just a hair below how an average offense would perform against that defense in those offensive situations.  It’s not significant to me - if you think it is, feel free to revel in it.  
 

Your level of emotion/vitriol here is hilarious - show me on the doll where @BADOLBILZ hurt you.

 

 

Again, if therapy and pretending I'm furious works for you, go ahead. Whatever works for you is fine.

 

But you're kidding yourself if you think you're worth getting angry about. Yeah, I'm consistent about pointing out bad logic. Got nothing to do with anger, though.

 

OK, so DVOA has us down for four games that were below average, right? KC, Arizona, Tennessee and the Jets? And you're trying to pretend that supports your argument? Yeah, that won't really work out for you when you started out saying "To be clear: the 'context' here is the defense - the offense did its job every week except against KC, basically." You've backed off that and now here's another obvious bad game being pointed out to you. One of the ones I already told you about, by the way.

 

Of course the Jets game was bad, by any standard. The Bills offense managed 18 points on 6 field goals, couldn't score even one TD against a team that averaged allowing 28.6 ppg. On the face of it, just plain bad. The first Pats game wasn't good either. Nor the Steelers game, really, where the offense rang up 19 points and gave the ball away twice. 

 

Well, point's been made at this point, whether you see it or not. Your beloved Football Outsiders lists four negative games for the offense, so they agree with me as well.