Passing Better and Defending The Pass (Fallacy Revisited)

AdamJT13 said:
Apparently, you don't understand what "passing better" and "defending the pass better" means.

We averaged more adjusted net yards per pass play (the main stat behind the "theory"). We also averaged more yards per pass play and had a higher passer rating. All of those have a very high correlation to winning, and we won.

That "theory" is as true as it ever was. It's been true in 11 of our 12 games this season and in 48 of our past 50 games overall.
Click to expand...

I love how you have changed the bar. Its sort of similar to how you say it is irrelevant how well we run the ball, as long as we continue to run it. Its as if we could lose 20 yards per running play, so long as we continue to run the ball. LOL. Ok. Carry on, gentlemen, carry on.
 
Yakuza Rich said:
I honestly don't understand your point.

We passed better than they passed. And we won.




YR
Click to expand...


Ha Ha ha. They passed for more yards than we did. Check. We passed for fewer yards than they did and the Vikings defended the pass better. Check. They won. Oops, no, they lost! What in the world happened there?

Hmm. That theory didn't hold up there. So let's amend it to passing efficiency. Yeah, that's the ticket!!

In the land of unicorns and rainbows, it doesn't matter how well you run the ball, just so long as you continue to run the ball. So essentially you could lose 20 yards on every running play, but it is irrelevant, so long as you continue to run the ball and get those 20 yard losses and let them pile up. Pass me some gum balls and gum drops.

But, but but ..... it doesn't happen very often. Wait, it also happened last week against the Commanders!!! Gasp!!! Maybe the seventh seal has been broken and the four horsemen of the apocalypse are upon us!
 
Verdict said:
Ha Ha ha. They passed for more yards than we did. Check. We passed for fewer yards than they did and the Vikings defended the pass better. Check. They won. Oops, no, they lost! What in the world happened there?

Hmm. That theory didn't hold up there. So let's amend it to passing efficiency. Yeah, that's the ticket!!
Click to expand...

Nobody amended that to passing efficiency because that was what the 'theory' was ALWAYS about....passing the ball more efficiently than the opponent.

It's never been about passing yards.

There are various metrics used to determine passing efficiency like QBR, QB rating, DVOA, adjusted passing yards, etc. And using MATH, you can see time and time again that the team that passes the ball more efficiently using any one of those metrics wins the game roughly 80%+ of the time.

You have created a strawman argument for yourself.





YR
 
Just FYI, I understand what the Adam horde, is saying, I just disagree with it. Their theory has been slowly modified to fit their agenda and the situation.

I like these guys, they are just wrong about this particular point. At least that is what I think. I know that Adam will continue to play that tune and many will join in in dancing a jig to that merry tune, but alas, I will not be one of them. LOL.

I like you guys and you bring a lot to this board, I just respectfully think you guys are dead wrong on this one. It is like the running the ball theory..... that it doesn't matter how well you run the ball, so long as you run it. LOL, Right. They know that teams will abandon the run if they can't run it, so it essentially ignores that factor.

You can't see the wind either, so how do you know it is there? If you don't have any air you can't breathe, but pretending it doesn't exist because you cant see it is pretty silly.
 
Yakuza Rich said:
Nobody amended that to passing efficiency because that was what the 'theory' was ALWAYS about....passing the ball more efficiently than the opponent.

It's never been about passing yards.

There are various metrics used to determine passing efficiency like QBR, QB rating, DVOA, adjusted passing yards, etc. And using MATH, you can see time and time again that the team that passes the ball more efficiently using any one of those metrics wins the game roughly 80%+ of the time.

You have created a strawman argument for yourself.

YR
Click to expand...

Keep moving the bar and adjusting the theory, my friend.
 
Verdict said:
Keep moving the bar and adjusting the theory, my friend.
Click to expand...

Well, now you're just being dishonest.

I think if you look up my posts and AdamJT's posts about the subject that the discussion has ALWAYS been about efficiency. Total yards is about as meaningless of a metric as there is.

Put it this way...if a running back runs for 110 yards on 3.3 yards per carry is he 'better' than the running back that runs for 100 yards on 6 yards per carry? The first running back had more yards, so according to your theory he must be better...right?




YR
 
Running the ball is so unimportant that we spent the #4 overall pick on a running back. Don't the Cowboys know that running is unimportant?

Strangely, we are 11 and 1, and the team still hasn't figured out that running the ball isn't important. Perhaps Adam can have a "sit down" with the team and educate them on this issue!!

Just imagine how much better this team will perform when it understands the errors of their ways and jettisons every running back on the team, because it is unimportant!
 
JJHLH1 said:
Percy has a devastating stat on the Dak NFL record thread:

"Prescott 108.3
Bradford 91.6

So far this season, QB with ratings over 100 are 71-9 vs QB with ratings under 100."

That goes a long way towards explaining the Cowboys 11-1 record. This is the second game in a row where Dak's running was the difference in the game. His runs were backbreakers against a defense that played exceptionally well.
Click to expand...

It all boils down to yards per attempt. Bradford had 5.5 yards per attempt. I don't know the stats on that but I don't think you win many games at 5.5 yards per attempt in the NFL.

Dak's YPA was 7.7 which was bolstered by the biggest play of the game that resulted in a TD
 
Yakuza Rich said:
Well, now you're just being dishonest.

I think if you look up my posts and AdamJT's posts about the subject that the discussion has ALWAYS been about efficiency. Total yards is about as meaningless of a metric as there is.

Put it this way...if a running back runs for 110 yards on 3.3 yards per carry is he 'better' than the running back that runs for 100 yards on 6 yards per carry? The first running back had more yards, so according to your theory he must be better...right?

YR
Click to expand...

According to Adam, it is irrelevant how well you run the ball. Don't leave out that part. That's a really awesome, salient point.
 
Let's face it guys, there are all sorts of wonderful theories, but stats really never tell the whole story. The only real stat that matters is the score. Stats are merely indicators. They suggest that they mean something, but often times other factors, that you can't see, factor into the stat in some form or fashion.

To think that Zeke's ability to destroy a defense doesn't help Dak's passing efficiency is really quite unbelievable. I'm just not buying into that or subscribing to that theory at all. To say that the running game is unimportant is really quite silly.
 
I'd like to see the thread referenced where Adam posts anything on this topic other than yards per attempt (plus a couple other factors) is highly successful at predicting the winner of any game.

Last night the Cowboys gave up 5.5 yards per attempt.

The Vikings gave up 7.7 yards per attempt.

Who won?

We know the answer.
 
Verdict said:
According to Adam, it is irrelevant how well you run the ball. Don't leave out that part. That's a really awesome, salient point.
Click to expand...

I'll simply note that when the passing theories were founded, the usual comparison was the correlation between rushing YPC and winning. I'll note that later, rushing success rate and winning were correlated,
and that particular correlation is much higher.

That's item one.

Item two. How much of Dak's passer rating is due to having a chip shot TD late in the game, after the fumbled punt? Ok, Dak was 12/18/139/1/0 which is over 100. But 11/17/131/0/0 calculates to a NFL rating of 88.1

I'd suggest that trying to fit such an exceptional game into a general theory is not the best thing to do. Just from this fan's point of view, the game was driven by turnovers..

D-
 
I thought Dak was meh.

Neither great, nor suckage.

Suckage would have been 9/18 with 0 TDs and 2 picks.
 
Verdict said:
I love how you have changed the bar. Its sort of similar to how you say it is irrelevant how well we run the ball, as long as we continue to run it. Its as if we could lose 20 yards per running play, so long as we continue to run the ball. LOL. Ok. Carry on, gentlemen, carry on.
Click to expand...

Actually, he's never changed the bar. He's been quite clear on the measures and what goes into them. He's never once argued that the most passing yards is the measure by which you compare the theory.

Only people like yourself have tried to argue that. It's almost comical now how some of you still struggle with the concept.
 
The anti-analytic attitude displayed by some on this board is hilarious (and a bit scary). It's actually remarkable that people like Adam and Idgit continue to respond to these obviously wrong-headed criticisms. I'd have long ago thrown up my hands in recognition that some folks won't understand no matter how many times they have their faces rubbed in the evidence. Evidently, understanding is not their strong suit.
 
Sydla said:
Actually, he's never changed the bar. He's been quite clear on the measures and what goes into them. He's never once argued that the most passing yards is the measure by which you compare the theory.

Only people like yourself have tried to argue that. It's almost comical now how some of you still struggle with the concept.
Click to expand...


It is comical that every member of the Adam horde have also ignored the part about Adam saying running the ball is irrelevant, that it doesn't matter how well you run the ball, because it doesn't fit the narrative. Not one person from the Adam horde has discussed that in this thread, because it is not defensible.
 
I am waiting to hear the horde defend the running is irrelevant part but all I am hearing is crickets.
 
Verdict said:
It is comical that every member of the Adam horde have also ignored the part about Adam saying running the ball is irrelevant, that it doesn't matter how well you run the ball, because it doesn't fit the narrative. Not one person from the Adam horde has discussed that in this thread, because it is not defensible.
Click to expand...

But Verdict your original post... The one that started this thread had absolutely nothing to do with "running the football".

Here's the OP:

"Just for the record the Vikings passed better and defended the pass better than we did tonight, and they lost. Looks like that theory isn't holding up very well against these Dallas Cowboys."

I would suggest a new thread if you want to suddenly move the goal-posts of the topic.

I think there have been sufficient replies that have answered your OP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 36 more.
Total: 20,507 (members: 136, guests: 20,371)
Robots: 1,821

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
474,442
Messages
14,537,964
Members
24,211
Latest member
yurikodiaz21
Back
Top