Another Doofus

burmafrd;3981504 said:
This gomer is kind of funny. There are more holes in his so called theory then in any swiss cheeze you can find.

Anyone that does not fit into his little theory are over rated: like the 90's Boys



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...nt.stat.passer.rating.differential/index.html
Click to expand...


When are we fans going to learn that writers and commentators love to say things negatively about the Cowboys to stir up the denizens of Cowboy Nation, of which their are many.
 
tyke1doe;3981505 said:
When are we fans going to learn that writers and commentators love to say things negatively about the Cowboys to stir up the denizens of Cowboy Nation, of which their are many.
Click to expand...


Hah! Hah! The 90's Cowboys won three Superbowls in four years, but by doing so they blow the theory all to hell, so let's call them "over-rated" and pretend they were an anomaly that beat the 49ers soundly despite Bill Walsh's "genius".

Oh, and 56% is an over-whelming stat. Hell, flipping a coin you can get that kind of percentage. If you want to bet the margin, bet on that 56%, but don't bet the family farm.

Let's make it simpler, "high-powered offense, along with a stingy defense usually means that a team has a great chance of winning." Duh.
 
CooterBrown;3981525 said:
Hah! Hah! The 90's Cowboys won three Superbowls in four years, but by doing so they blow the theory all to hell, so let's call them "over-rated" and pretend they were an anomaly that beat the 49ers soundly despite Bill Walsh's "genius".

Oh, and 56% is an over-whelming stat. Hell, flipping a coin you can get that kind of percentage. If you want to bet the margin, bet on that 56%, but don't bet the family farm.

Let's make it simpler, "high-powered offense, along with a stingy defense usually means that a team has a great chance of winning." Duh.
Click to expand...

just shows how incredibly incompetent BSPN is to actually pay someone for this garbage.
 
The most important stat in football is the final score...

An astounding 100% of the teams that were ahead at the end of the game... won the title...

Check it out if you don't believe me...
 
Little Jr;3981590 said:
it was si
Click to expand...


so used to BSPN I just assume anything really stupid comes from them. SI is usually not this dumb.
 
Saying "passer rating differential is the most important stat in football" is misleading and intellectually dishonest. It's a fancy way of saying that teams with great offenses and great defenses usually do very well. It also doesnt factor in that many teams go up by multiple scores on a regular basis, go into prevent and give up a bunch of garbage passing yards and TDs.

A more accurate stat is to just list the combined offensive and defensive ranking for each team.
 
perrykemp;3981647 said:
I dunno, 17 of the Top 25 teams in the modern area with the highest pass rating differential won a Superbowl/Title.

That's not statistically insignificant is it?
Click to expand...

It isnt that it's statistically insignificant, it's that the statistical category itself is misleading. It makes it sound like there is something inherently special about passer rating differential, when in fact all that stat means is that teams with great offenses and defenses typically win a lot of games while simultaneously leaving out certain aspects that can warp those statistics.
 
trickblue;3981623 said:
The most important stat in football is the final score...

An astounding 100% of the teams that were ahead at the end of the game... won the title...

Check it out if you don't believe me...
Click to expand...

Tell that to the 2004 USC Trojans! :D
 
trickblue;3981623 said:
The most important stat in football is the final score...

An astounding 100% of the teams that were ahead at the end of the game... won the title...

Check it out if you don't believe me...
Click to expand...
I looked it up...amazing!
You should really publish your findings, trick.
 
Danny White;3981655 said:
Tell that to the 2004 USC Trojans! :D
Click to expand...
:cool: 2004 Auburn Tigers

The way college football decides it's champion is inexcusable...but that's an old topic.
 
tyke1doe;3981505 said:
When are we fans going to learn that writers and commentators love to say things negatively about the Cowboys to stir up the denizens of Cowboy Nation, of which their are many.
Click to expand...

And that's why most writers and commentators have no integrity.






YR
 
And sorry Kerry Byrne...your 'Passer Rating Differential' was either stolen from me OR way too late as I used this myself, YEARS AGO with what I call QBRD (QB Rating Differential)

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112892&highlight=QBRD

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2238840&postcount=50

Just a couple of when it started.


Doubt I'll get any credit for this. But it does seem odd that the stat I created years ago is now being used by a writer who goes out of his way to rip into my favorite team.










YR
 
The30YardSlant;3981651 said:
It isnt that it's statistically insignificant, it's that the statistical category itself is misleading. It makes it sound like there is something inherently special about passer rating differential, when in fact all that stat means is that teams with great offenses and defenses typically win a lot of games while simultaneously leaving out certain aspects that can warp those statistics.
Click to expand...

I bet rushing differential leaders (rushing yards on offense vs rushing yards allowed) doesn't turn up NEARLY as many superbowl/title winners within the same time range.

Look at the Packer this year -- certainly they are upside on that with a negative number.

Packers still had a very good defense overall.

That would tell me that Passing differential is MUCH more of an important stat for determining title winners that at least some other meaningful metrics.
 
DFWJC;3981671 said:
I looked it up...amazing!
You should really publish your findings, trick.
Click to expand...

Which NFL team has had the great overall point differential in the last 50 years? If it wasn't the 2007 Patriots, they had to be close.

That didn't win them a Superbowl in the end.
 
It's actually the first time I've ever read a sports writer totally discredit himself by stating the Cowboys of the 90's were "over-rated". Usually, they say that the only reason the team was SO dominant was because of "the trade". But over-rated? First time.
 
perrykemp;3981696 said:
I bet rushing differential leaders (rushing yards on offense vs rushing yards allowed) doesn't turn up NEARLY as many superbowl/title winners within the same time range.
Click to expand...

I bet it does if you use teams prior to 1985 or so. This has been a passing league since the mid-80s. That goes hand in hand with my point, though. Name the last GREAT offense that didnt have a good passing game? I can't think of any since the mid-80s. Conversely, there have been many great offenses with only average running games.

That would tell me that Passing differential is MUCH more of an important stat for determining title winners that at least some other meaningful metrics.
Click to expand...

In today's NFL it is, but again, that's because it's a passing league. You can't have a great, high scoring offense in today's league without a good if not great passing game.
 
Ignorance is bliss.......

Don't argue with stupid. Stupid is, stupid does......

He wrote an article and through in "over-rated Cowboys of the 90's" to get a reaction. Hits to his article. Don't feed the animals
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

  • Sarge
    Sarge
    Red, White and Brew...

Members online

Total: 9,216 (members: 46, guests: 9,170)
Robots: 1,432

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
474,003
Messages
14,505,767
Members
24,207
Latest member
TomGiantsfan
Back
Top