Only really matters if the facts are worth looking at. Cleveland is ahead of both teams and they didn't win a single game. Hell, Denver is 5th, which perfectly matches the number of wins they had last year. Chicago won fewer than NE and Dallas, and yet Chicago has more "net explosive plays".
Very doubtful that situational "explosive plays" are even taken into consideration, which means that giving up two 80-yard TD drives in the 4th quarter while leading by 21 points counts the same as giving up two 80-yard TD drives in the 4th quarter while trailing by 21 points. What kind of reliable measurement would treat those situations as equals? One team was coasting to victory, and the other pretty much quit.
More importantly, explosive plays undoubtedly have a higher chance of scoring - or preventing scoring - than non-explosive plays. In that case, the guy should just cut out the middleman and say:
Sure, tallying the most explosive plays in a game LIKELY wins, just as tallying the most points in a game ALWAYS wins. I'll wager my claim of scoring more always winning against his claim of having more "net explosive plays". Neither of us will be able to explain how to arrive at such an outcome, but at least I'll be right 100% of time. As a character Laurence Fishburne once played said, "there's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path".
His tweet gives an answer to everything, while simultaneously providing an answer to nothing. "Just have more explosive plays", he says. Yes, and just win all the time while we are at it. Just win and stuff...because then you win more. Not really a new trend though. PFF has made a killing off inventing measurements that make no sense.
