Will the offense, defense or ST be in the top 10?

[theogt]

Yardage is an inadequate ranking of teams, but I'd have to say scoring is even more so.

 

[Hostile]

Yardage is an inadequate ranking of teams, but I'd have to say scoring is even more so.

How so? Please describe.

 

[theogt]

How so? Please describe.

The offense didn't score the touchdown that turned around the 2nd Philly game. Offenses often can run up the score, but they choose not to do so and simply run the football 80% of plays in the second half. There's not much of an argument that scoring is a better guage of offense than yardage. Like I said, both are inadequate, but if you have to choose, yardage is the obvious choice, which is why so many people choose it.

 

[Hostile]

The offense didn't score the touchdown that turned around the 2nd Philly game. Offenses often can run up the score, but they choose not to do so and simply run the football 80% of plays in the second half. There's not much of an argument that scoring is a better guage of offense than yardage. Like I said, both are inadequate, but if you have to choose, yardage is the obvious choice, which is why so many people choose it.

Sorry, what? Your last 2 lines contradict each other.

 

[theogt]

Sorry, what? Your last 2 lines contradict each other.

No, they don't.

 

[Hostile]

No, they don't.

Uh, yeah they do.

There's not much of an argument that scoring is a better guage of offense than yardage.

Scoring is better. I agree.

Like I said, both are inadequate, but if you have to choose, yardage is the obvious choice, which is why so many people choose it.

Now yardage is obvious.

Contradiction.

 

[theogt]

There's not much of an argument that scoring is a better guage of offense than yardage.

 

[Hostile]

There's not much of an argument that scoring is a better guage of offense than yardage.

There isn't? In whose mind? Yardage is panned all the time. Even Troy Aikman came up with a ranking system based more on points because yardage is so flawed.

Can you back this up or just share your opinion?

 

[theogt]

There isn't? In whose mind? Yardage is panned all the time. Even Troy Aikman came up with a ranking system based more on points because yardage is so flawed.

Can you back this up or just share your opinion?

I think both are flawed. I think scoring is more adequate in certain circumstances, such as redzone scoring. However, when speaking only of overall scoring vs. overall yardage, the most common opinion (I would assume) is that yardage is more adequate, or less inadequate, rather. I say its most common because it is more often used. There are, like I said, instances where scoring can be more predictive. You'd have to break it down into a system like Aikman's though.

 

[Hostile]

I think both are flawed. I think scoring is more adequate in certain circumstances, such as redzone scoring. However, when speaking only of overall scoring vs. overall yardage, the most common opinion (I would assume) is that yardage is more adequate, or less inadequate, rather. I say its most common because it is more often used. There are, like I said, instances where scoring can be more predictive. You'd have to break it down into a system like Aikman's though.

Thank you, you just made my point for me.

2003 the Dallas defense was overall #1 in yardage allowed. The Patriots #1 in scoring allowed. Anyone who tells you the Cowboys D was better than the Patriots D is crazy.

 

[theogt]

Thank you, you just made my point for me.

2003 the Dallas defense was overall #1 in yardage allowed. The Patriots #1 in scoring allowed. Anyone who tells you the Cowboys D was better than the Patriots D is crazy.

I wouldn't take one example and consider it the rule. And no I didn't make your point. If we're talking about overall scoring v. overall yardage, the latter is a better predictor. Broken down into certain scoring situations and yardage situations you can create a more predictive system, which Aikman has done.

 

[Hostile]

I wouldn't take one example and consider it the rule. And no I didn't make your point. If we're talking about overall scoring v. overall yardage, the latter is a better predictor. Broken down into certain scoring situations and yardage situations you can create a more predictive system, which Aikman has done.

Aikman's system was created because yardage is so inadequate. I gave you 1 example. I can give you dozens. The reverse isn't true. Give me one example of a better offense or defense because the yardage says so.

Just 1.

Surely if yardage is "obvious" you can come up with an example.

 

[theogt]

Aikman's system was created because yardage is so inadequate. I gave you 1 example. I can give you dozens. The reverse isn't true. Give me one example of a better offense or defense because the yardage says so.

Just 1.

Surely if yardage is "obvious" you can come up with an example.

Aikman didn't go to overall scoring did he? No, because that would be even worse. And that one example you gave was a bit inadequate itself, considering Dallas was #2 that year in overall scoring.

Please don't attempt to adopt Aikman's position as your own because that is far from what you were advocating.

 

[Hostile]

Aikman didn't go to overall scoring did he? No, because that would be even worse. And that one example you gave was a bit inadequate itself, considering Dallas was #2 that year in overall scoring.

Please don't attempt to adopt Aikman's position as your own because that is far from what you were advocating.

Cop out.

Wasn't near as "obvious" as you claimed was it?

 

[theogt]

Cop out.

Wasn't near as "obvious" as you claimed was it?

Cop out? I'm trying not to get rude here, but please read what I just said again. As for the obviousness of overall yardage being better than overall scoring--yes, it is obvious.

 

[Hostile]

Yes, it is.

Then give an example that backs up how "obvious" it is. Put up or shut up.

 

[Hostile]

Cop out? I'm trying not to get rude here, but please read what I just said again. As for the obviousness of overall yardage being better than overall scoring--yes, it is obvious.

I read it. I don't agree with it and doubt you can back it up.

 

[theogt]

Then give an example that backs up how "obvious" it is. Put up or shut up.

What are you talking about? Give an example of how obvious it was? I gave you an example earlier with the Philly game.

 

[theogt]

Here are other examples. TDs on punt/kick returns. TDs on interceptions. TDs on fumbles. FGs when the offense was stopped. All of these points are attributed to the offense in your "overall scoring" system. All of these points should not be considered. These are reasons why overall scoring is inadequate. The most adequate scheme would be, or at least would be similar to, Aikman's scheme. The least adequate would be yours.

 

[theogt]

Also, I can point out numerous examples where teams were ranked very high on points per game but should be ranked lower in terms of their overall offense or defense. The problem is that this would turn into a debate about whether or not those offenses/defenses were really better. You would take the position that supported your theory and I would take the position that supported mine. The same can be said about your New England example.