Are You Ready for Some FOOTBALL! - Week 7

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Sava
well, there's no real way to know for sure, so the point is moot...

IMO, I think the impact Vick's injury on the defense's performance is minimal...

the Bears' defense seems to do fine with terrible quarterbacks... they don't use that as an excuse... same with the Ravens when they won the Super Bowl

Trent Dilfer is not a terrible quarterback. He is by no means a good one, but he's a decent one. If I had a spectacularly bad offense, and I had to choose a mediocre QB to lead it, I would choose Trent Dilfer.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Thanks for conceeding defeat, Sava.

And the pwnage of Sava is total and complete

only in your mind

it's fairly obvious...

I presented my points

1. This season, Atlanta is winning with rushing and defense.

2. Michael Vick is a mediocre QB.

I provided ample evidence and supported them with facts and statistics

You never countered them, nor even addressed them...

furthermore, you engaged in tiresome strawmen and red herring arguments that are irrelevant

that is why you lose...

and I win

I'll ask you...

where did you address my points?

you didn't...

you engaged in a strawman about the 2003 season

you engaged in a red herring about hall of fame QB's

you even made up phony statistics!!!

AND YOU CLAIMED THE DETROIT LIONS HAD A DOMINATING DEFENSE!!!!

YOU LOSE!

[Imran Siddiqui]

You're really comparing the Falcons with Vick = good and the Falcons with Johnson and Kittner = bad. Which is fine because we know that Johnson and Kittner suck

Which we know (or think we know) NOW. At the time, people thought Johnson was going to be a starter for another team after the season (someone was going to deal for him). He failed in his role however. Beforehand people thought the Falcons would be fine in Doug Johnson's hands.

He's a special talent but the Falcons would be much better off either running some of the old rushing formations or getting someone else to play QB.

BULL! The Falcons are a team that are high up in the league because of their rushing attack, which Vick is an integral part. As I pointed out before, without Vick the 2004 Falcons would have been 20th in the league in rushing, instead of 1st.

The Falcons have undoubtably the worst WRs in the league.

Any other QB and the Falcons would struggle to make the playoffs (as they usually did before Vick came onto the scene... remember the Falcons have NEVER had back to back consecutive winning seasons).

I think Vick's record speaks for itself. He just wins games.

[Imran Siddiqui]

2. Michael Vick is a mediocre QB.

I provided ample evidence and supported them with facts and statistics

Sorry Sava... you haven't even come close to supporting that point. You've only switched goalposts saying "Oh, I meant passing". I don't see the word "passing" in that point, btw.

Does that mean you've abandoned the idea that you were talking about Vick's "passing" the whole time?

You are such a loser. You start getting pwned and you switch goalposts and say you were arguing something else all along!

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Sorry Sava... you haven't even come close to supporting that point.

maybe you didn't read this

Originally posted by Sava
and Mike Vick is smack dab in the middle of the pack, 15th in the league, with an 83.0 passer rating... 4 TD's, 2 INTs and 4 fumbles in 4 games... very very mediocre...

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=4042291#post4042291

pwned

[Imran Siddiqui]

I read it... it doesn't matter.

Once again, THERE IS MORE TO A QB THAN PASSING THE BALL!

Come back when you want another pwnage though.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I read it... it doesn't matter.

enjoy your kool-aid buddy!

[mactbone]

OK, Imran, how many players are on the field?

Anyway, Vick rushing is a zero sum game. He's not rushing AND passing. He's doing ONE. If Vick was passing as well as an average QB, then he would be one the best in the league. Except he's not passing that well. Every time he runs is one less pass. What you're arguing is that it's better to have two running backs to get more yards instead of a QB.

The Falcons were 30th in passing yards last year. They ran for 167 yards per game and passed for 150 yards per game. How is that good? Passing sets up the run. Look at the Pats, Eagles and Colts. The only reason good teams run (a lot) is to kill the clock in the fourth quarter. Otherwise it really isn't that important to winning.

[Jaguar]

Some teams seem to win just fine with only a rushing game. Take the Falcons, for example...

[Jaguar]

I also put it to you that the run was absolutely not at all important to the 1984 LA Rams' 10-6 winning record. Clearly Eric Dickerson did absolutely nothing of value.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Anyway, Vick rushing is a zero sum game. He's not rushing AND passing. He's doing ONE. If Vick was passing as well as an average QB, then he would be one the best in the league. Except he's not passing that well. Every time he runs is one less pass. What you're arguing is that it's better to have two running backs to get more yards instead of a QB.

The Falcons were 30th in passing yards last year. They ran for 167 yards per game and passed for 150 yards per game. How is that good? Passing sets up the run. Look at the Pats, Eagles and Colts. The only reason good teams run (a lot) is to kill the clock in the fourth quarter. Otherwise it really isn't that important to winning.

Cause we all know the Falcons finished 4-12 with their "30th in passing yards last year" . As Jaguar said, some teams seem to win just fine with a high emphasis on the run.

If you missed it, the Falcons were 11-5 last year and got a first round bye. Who CARES if they were 30th in passing yards? Who CARES if they only passed for 150 yards per game? They get a bunch of rushing yards from Vick and around 2500 yards from the passing game to boot.

In the Falcons offense, the run sets up the pass. The run is first option, the pass is a change of pace. And Vick can toss the ball adequately enough to keep the defense honest for the running game.

Some people just have problems with QBs who don't want to be passing machines. They call them running backs and don't think they are 'real' Quarterbacks. Vick isn't trying to be Peyton Manning, so it makes no sense to compare them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Jaguar
I also put it to you that the run was absolutely not at all important to the 1984 LA Rams' 10-6 winning record. Clearly Eric Dickerson did absolutely nothing of value.

Don't forget the 85 Bears either. You know, the team that was 22nd out of 28 teams in passing yards.

[mactbone]

Here's the article detailing exactly why "establishing the run" is a myth in football. Winning teams run the ball when they have a lead and pad their rushing stats.

The article was written in 2003, using the stats from 2002.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings.php?p=3&cat=11

So far, evidence would seem to suggest that establishing the run isn’t really that important for winning games in today’s NFL. The evidence also seems to back those who say that winning teams build their rushing totals while running out their leads. But in the interest of space, I’ve given a lot of top five and bottom five lists. What about the other 22 teams?

As it turns out, looking at all 32 teams together reinforces what we’ve seen so far: that more rushing attempts early don’t indicate a winning team, but rushing attempts late do.

Statisticians have a concept called the correlation coefficient that measures how much one variable influences another variable. A correlation of 1 means the two variables are completely connected; 0 means they have no connection.

The correlation between first quarter rushing attempts and team wins is a measly .171. That means there is almost no connection between running a lot in the first quarter, and winning a lot of games. The correlation between fourth quarter rushing attempts and team wins, on the other hand, is .750. That’s a sizeable relationship.

By the way, the correlation for first quarter rushing yards and team wins is a bit higher, though still not substantial, at .260. The correlation for fourth quarter rushing yards and team wins is a much lower, at .486. So early in games, it is more important to gain yards than just to run the ball for the heck of it, but at the end of the game the number of runs is more important than how many yards they gain.

To show how winning teams build their rushing statistics by running out the clock with a lead, here are the top ten NFL teams in rushing when a) leading by 14 or more in the third quarter, or b) leading by 7 or more in the fourth quarter. Along with the total yards they gained running out their leads, I’ve included what percentage of their total running game this represents, with the average of all 32 NFL teams being 15%.

Miami 552 yards 26%
Oakland 550 yards 36%
Philadelphia 540 yards 34%
Tampa Bay 422 yards 29%
Tennessee 348 yards 23%
New England 332 yards 25%
Denver 319 yards 16%
Green Bay 316 yards 18%
Pittsburgh 314 yards 20%
Atlanta 309 yards 20%

That’s a pretty good list of wining football teams. Seven of these teams made the playoffs, and the other three went 9-7 and missed the playoffs by tiebreaker. But while all winning teams pad their rushing totals by running out the clock when leading late in games, those yards don’t necessarily represent the same amount of the running game for all winning teams. Philadelphia and Oakland got more than one-third of their rushing yards while running out the clock, but Denver and Green Bay built much more of their rushing total earlier in games.

Incidentally, the playoff team with the fewest rushing yards in these "run out the clock" situations? Indianapolis, with only 93 yards: a mere 7% of their rushing total.

So in 2002, at least, the axiom that teams need to establish the run early to win did not hold true. Some teams won by running early. Other teams won without running early. It also appears that teams with high rushing totals aren’t necessarily establishing their running game from the first snap onwards – but when a winning football team has a high rushing total, it is very likely they got many of those yards while running out the clock.

posted 7-14-2003 at 5:23 AM by Aaron Schatz || Stat Analysis

[Imran Siddiqui]

So in 2002, at least, the axiom that teams need to establish the run early to win did not hold true. Some teams won by running early. Other teams won without running early.

So that's your proof? Saying that winning football teams ran more in the 4th Q and rushing attempts in the 4th Q correlate to winnings teams? NO! You mean that teams that are winning don't try to run out the clock in the 4th Q!!

And the article said, in the quote I picked out that some teams DID win by running early, just that it isn't NECESSARY to win, which no one said it was.

That's a far cry from saying the running game isn't important to winning, when your post said that it was to teams like Denver and Green Bay.

Btw, saying there is no correlation between running early and winning (and no one said there was) does NOT mean there is an inverse relationship between running early and winninng. Just that some running teams win and some lose and running by itself doesn't determine that.

[Al B. Sure!]

here's a thought...

maybe Vick hasn't been a good passer because of lack of people on the receiving end... i mean they got to the NFC championship game with Peerless and Finneran as receivers with the rookie Jenkins... would you expect Vick to pass well? Price is only good if their opposing defence is too busy doubling up the other receiver (the only reason why Price was good in Buffalo was because defence coordinators thought Eric Moulds was the real threat and would half-ass coverage of Price).

Now they don't got Peerless no more and Jenkins has gotten better. If Vick has below an 80 QB rating this season with Jenkins/White/Crumpler... then maybe it's him and not the receivers...