Defense better without Irving?

funny that people would be surprised that losing the quarterback of the defense would have the biggest impact on the team...
 
It shouldn't be all that surprising that you can lose an RB and still function - it's not like Alfred Morris stepped in and put up bad numbers. He was similar to Zeke but just had less carries.

And looking at the PFF ratings of Irving and those behind him, while Irving wasn't ranked highly, he's far better than the DTs behind him. There is a dropoff there.
 
funny that people would be surprised that losing the quarterback of the defense would have the biggest impact on the team...

I guess you need to reread the posts, they're pretty simplistic but you misread something.
 
Tank and Lee are far more critical to team success than some suspended DT who doesn't even want to be here.
 
I don't think Arlington has helped the defense. Stadium location is irrelevant.
 
Stats are dangerous in the wrong hands. They can be manipulated. The team is better Zeke, I don't care what those squirly numbers say.

Prime example of how stats can lie
That is why I always say... as a programmer... Stats suck! Unless the situations are exactly identical, they don't prove anything.. they just give you a very vague idea of a possibility.

For example when we do split tests on web pages... We are showing visitors the same exact pages in a rotation. Then using something called retargeting pixels, we can have the same visitor see multiple variations, and track what they like or don't like. Then you pick a winning page design, and show that the most.

Those stats you can bank on. Player stats, you can't. The players are different in the situations, different people are out or in because of injury, the plays were different, the teams played were different.

The only way you can gauge NFL players, is watching them play.
 

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
474,003
Messages
14,505,648
Members
24,207
Latest member
TomGiantsfan
Back
Top