This Week's Top Passers

[Future]

4 out of the 5 leading passers this week lost. The only guy to win was Brees against Jax.

The top 6 rushers all won.

I'm not sayin...I'm just sayin

 

[RS12]

Interesting, bet Brees didnt have 3 picks.

 

[Future]

Interesting, bet Brees didnt have 3 picks.

1 TD and 2 picks I believe.

 

[bayeslife]

4 out of the 5 leading passers this week lost. The only guy to win was Brees against Jax.

The top 6 rushers all won.

I'm not sayin...I'm just sayin

Passing the ball well has the highest correlation to winning in the NFL, I don't know what you're trying to prove here.

 

[RS12]

1 TD and 2 picks I believe.

Bet he also did not have 2 returned for TDs. Though I will say the tackling efforts by the Cowboys on those two picks returned for TDs were weak. Saw alot O Linemen on the ground.

 

[Future]

Passing the ball well has the highest correlation to winning in the NFL, I don't know what you're trying to prove here.

Meh. There's something wrong with that stat. I don't know what it is. But it's stupid.

Run the freaking football is what I'm trying to prove :laugh2:

 

[burmafrd]

Passing the ball well has the highest correlation to winning in the NFL, I don't know what you're trying to prove here.

funny how the guy that was pushing that the hardest left out the Boys of the 90's because he felt they were over rated. Like any other stat you can make it say whatever you want

 

[AdamJT13]

Passing the ball well has the highest correlation to winning in the NFL

This is true. And "passing the ball well" doesn't mean getting the most yards.

 

[Future]

This is true. And "passing the ball well" doesn't mean getting the most yards.

I think my problem with that stat has to come from the fact that it doesn't account for situational football (whose leading, weather, who your qb is, etc.) or whether or not the other team is any good :laugh2:. Just wins and losses doesn't tell nearly the whole story when it comes to the run vs. pass debate.

Plus, there are no stats that measure momentum and confidence. Picks drastically change both of those. Punts do not.

 

[AdamJT13]

funny how the guy that was pushing that the hardest left out the Boys of the 90's because he felt they were over rated.

That stat has been true since before the Cowboys of the 1990s even existed. And it was true for the Cowboys of the 1990s as well. When we passed the ball better than our opponent, we almost always won, regardless of how well we ran the ball. If we passed it worse, we usually lost, again regardless of how well we ran it.

 

[AdamJT13]

I think my problem with that stat has to come from the fact that it doesn't account for situational football (whose leading, weather, who your qb is, etc.) or whether or not the other team is any good :laugh2:. Just wins and losses doesn't tell nearly the whole story when it comes to the run vs. pass debate.

Plus, there are no stats that measure momentum and confidence. Picks drastically change both of those. Punts do not.

I'm not sure what your post has to do with the debate. If you throw interceptions, you're not passing it well, and you'll probably lose -- unless the other team is passing it even worse.

 

[Future]

I'm not sure what your post has to do with the debate. If you throw interceptions, you're not passing it well, and you'll probably lose -- unless the other team is passing it even worse.

My point is you're not always going to pass it well. Mistakes are going to happen when you put the ball in the air. So why risk it?

I understand that if a team has a QB throwing for 400 and 3 tds with no turn overs every week they're going to win a lot :laugh2:

 

[Hoofbite]

Passing the ball well has the highest correlation to winning in the NFL, I don't know what you're trying to prove here.

Nothing needs to be proven.

Passing can have the highest correlation of winning all it wants.

As long as games can be won via the ground, via special teams and any other aspect you can't reasonably dismiss the others as being trivial.

In the playoffs, it only takes the 1 out of 10 times loss for the running game to send your *** home.

 

[AdamJT13]

My point is you're not always going to pass it well. Mistakes are going to happen when you put the ball in the air. So why risk it?

I understand that if a team has a QB throwing for 400 and 3 tds with no turn overs every week they're going to win a lot

So, you'd just run the ball every down and never "risk it"? Good luck ever winning a game -- or scoring in double digits. And you still have to stop the opponent from passing well.

The bottom line is that no matter how often you run the ball or pass the ball, you have to be more effective when you do pass than your opponent is when they pass. If not, you'll almost always lose.

 

[burmafrd]

passing the ball well. Lot of possible definitions for that.

Effeciency

or no turnovers

lots of possibilities.

But the fact is that many times a team will run better than pass and win the game. It all depends on the situation.

Anyone slaving themselves to the pass no matter what will end up losing a big game just that same way.


You need to look over what is going on and make sound judgements on what to do.

In this game we had a QB that was shaky; what you do in that situation is NOT KEEP PASSING BLINDLY. Which is pretty much what we did and it cost us this game.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

This is true. And "passing the ball well" doesn't mean getting the most yards.

Nor does it mean you abandon the run altogether.

 

[Future]

So, you'd just run the ball every down and never "risk it"? Good luck ever winning a game -- or scoring in double digits. And you still have to stop the opponent from passing well.

The bottom line is that no matter how often you run the ball or pass the ball, you have to be more effective when you do pass than your opponent is when they pass. If not, you'll almost always lose.

Up by 24, at home, with a defense that's playing very well, I'd pretty much only be throwing on 2nd and short with a shot down field or on 3rd and medium to keep the chains moving. With a big lead like that, they aren't coming back if we just punt.

We technically threw a lot better than Detroit today. But in the end, it was the reason we lost. Maybe it's an anomaly or something, I don't really know. I'm not trying to argue with the stat, I understand what it says, I just think it's flawed and misleading.

 

[casmith07]

Up by 24, at home, with a defense that's playing very well, I'd pretty much only be throwing on 2nd and short with a shot down field or on 3rd and medium to keep the chains moving. With a big lead like that, they aren't coming back if we just punt.

We technically threw a lot better than Detroit today. But in the end, it was the reason we lost. Maybe it's an anomaly or something, I don't really know. I'm not trying to argue with the stat, I understand what it says, I just think it's flawed and misleading.

There's no argument here. I made a post after we went up 24-3 and got the ball back after forcing a DET punt that we needed to play solid, ball-control offense and move the chains. Play the field position game.

We didn't do that, and we lost. We're 2-2. The Eagles are 1-3. The only team we're really looking up at is the Skins right now, at 3-1. I feel pretty good about our chances to win the East.

 

[AdamJT13]

We technically threw a lot better than Detroit today.

No, we did not. Detroit finished with a higher AYPA, thanks to Romo's three interceptions.

Not to mention that NFL teams are 141-5 since 1940 when they return two interceptions for touchdowns.

 

[AdamJT13]

The only team we're really looking up at is the Skins right now, at 3-1. I feel pretty good about our chances to win the East.

The Giants are 3-1 now, too.