NFL 2013 Season Thread

[Ben Kenobi]

When your defense scores, your special teams score, and you have the luxury of spending literally half the game with the goal of running the clock down while your opponents are forced to throw on every down, it's actually pretty easy.

So they won because they fluked out and scored on special teams and defense? Works for me.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why would we need to gain yards to win?

Odd that. Why indeed? That's a fantastic question.

[-Jrabbit]

So they won because they fluked out and scored on special teams and defense? Works for me.

Not what I said, b1tch. I was addressing your own suggestion regarding offensive yardage in a blowout game. Unsurprisingly, you then choose to ignore your own topic and suggest the game result was somehow a fluke.

Last time I checked, special teams and defense were part of the game, and the performance of those units counts. Seattle won with superior execution in all phases of the game. Denver was ill-prepared and sloppy, which was evident literally from their first play from scrimmage and continued throughout the game.

This move-the-goalposts subject change comment is so typical of you. I would call it intellectually dishonest, but that would imply that you use intellect.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not what I said, b1tch. I was addressing your own suggestion regarding offensive yardage in a blowout game. Unsurprisingly, you then choose to ignore your own topic and suggest the game result was somehow a fluke.

14 points swinging one way will usually settle a superbowl. There's never been a spectacular comeback in one that's succeeded. Plenty that fell short.

Seattle won with superior execution in all phases of the game.

Not on offense. Lynch was like 20 for 20 yards or something.

This move-the-goalposts subject change comment is so typical of you. I would call it intellectually dishonest, but that would imply that you use intellect.

What's so hard to understand about a freak play gifting them a safety, and two TDs? They were up 29-0 with Wilson and Lynch combined under 100 yards.

[Al B. Sure!]

It's pretty hard to get outgained when you win by 35, but somehow the Seahawks managed.

Umm... outgained?

Total Yards:
Seattle: 341
Denver: 306

Did you think no one was going to check, idiot?

[Ben Kenobi]

Did you think no one was going to check, idiot?

Net yards:

237 (Seattle) vs 262 (Denver).

Did you think no one was going to check, idiot?

Yes, Seattle was outgained in net yards. They had just 237 net yards on 46 points, almost 5 yards per point, which is ridiculously low. Average for the year for the entire NFL was 15 yards per point. Had Seattle merely had average luck, they would have only scored 15 points. Denver with average luck would have had 18 points and we'd have seen an 18-15 game.

[Al B. Sure!]

Net yards:

237 (Seattle) vs 262 (Denver).

I want a source for this. Here's mine: http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=340202007

Yes, Seattle was outgained in net yards. They had just 237 net yards on 46 points, almost 5 yards per point, which is ridiculously low. Average for the year for the entire NFL was 15 yards per point. Had Seattle merely had average luck, they would have only scored 15 points. Denver with average luck would have had 18 points and we'd have seen an 18-15 game.

Yards per point? Did you just make up a stat? What the **** does yards per point even mean?! I can't fathom how that would be a meaningful metric at all.

Here's something better. Yards per play.

Seattle: 6.2
Denver: 4.8

Seattle was outgaining Denver by a good margin every play.


Or how about points per play?

Seattle: 43/55 = 0.78
Denver: 8/64 = 0.125


Do I really need to explain why yards per play or, lesserly points per play are meaningful stats? It should be obvious.

But I can't wrap my head around what yards per point even ****ing means.

[Al B. Sure!]

I googled yards per point. This is what I found:

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/6/28/4474552/caution-the-problem-with-yards-per-point-as-a-football-efficiency

Moreover, early- and late-season values correlate much more strongly for yards per play than Yards Per Point. While Yards Per Point explains seven percent of the late season variance, yards per play explains almost 40 percent. Yards per play is more of a skill because turnovers do not affect its value.

Yep.


Not only that but you're looking at the stat completely BACKWARDS!

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/yards-per-point-differential/2013/

For the offense, a lower number gives a indication that the team makes the most our of their possessions by scoring points. For the defense, a higher number indicates that it defenses allow yards against, but they do a good job at preventing points scored (they usually have a good red zone offense as well).

This statistic is very telling, but there are a few drawbacks. It ignores some very important other factors in a football game - turnovers, special teams play, and starting field position.

You ****ing suck, Ben. The fewer yards per point, the BETTER a team is!

According to that site, the Houston Texans were the worst at 20.1 yards per point (with the Redskins, Jaguars, Browns, Raiders, and Jets just a bit better than them). The best teams (with the LOWEST yards per point!) were the Chiefs (12.5), Panthers, Seahawks, 49ers, Patriots, Colts.


SO ACCORDING TO YOUR STUPID METRIC THAT YOU PULLED OUT THE ASS AND INTERPRETED BACKWARDS....

You're a ****ing idiot!

[Al B. Sure!]

Net yards:

237 (Seattle) vs 262 (Denver).

I still want to know where you got this from. I go to NFL.com's gamelog (Here):

Total Net Yards:
Seattle: 341
Denver: 306

Same as ESPN

[Ben Kenobi]

What the **** does yards per point

Presumably it means the net yardage gained divided by the number of points scored.

The point being to highlight that over the course of the year, the average is right around 15 yards per point. This helps us to assess fluke occurrances well outside of the norm.

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201402020den.htm

Total yards minus penalties. That's the definition of net yards. This isn't difficult to understand, Albie.

[Ben Kenobi]

Texans were the worst at 20.1 yards per point (with the Redskins, Jaguars, Browns, Raiders, and Jets just a bit better than them). The best teams (with the LOWEST yards per point!) were the Chiefs (12.5), Panthers, Seahawks, 49ers, Patriots, Colts.

Gee, I can't see how that would have any relevance to the actual seeding of teams.

How many standard deviations would 5 yards per point be from the norm of 15?

[Al B. Sure!]

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...1402020den.htm

Total yards minus penalties. That's the definition of net yards. This isn't difficult to understand, Albie.

Some of that penalty yardage was on the defense, correct?

And that's not the definition of net yards. I used NFL.com. The NFL does not subtract penalty yards to produce net yards.

Pretty sure the NFL determines the definition of net yards, not you



Still waiting for you to actually respond to your erroneous use of that metric. You haven't responded intelligently yet. The lower the yards per point value, the better a team is.

Admit you interpreted the metric backwards.

[Ben Kenobi]

The lower the yards per point value, the better a team is.

[Al B. Sure!]

I weep for the USMC. Do you even understand 'standard deviations?'

Parrot folding chair lasagna

/equivalent to what you're saying


What is your argument? State it out in full. Explain how a low yards per point metric singularly above all other metrics means the Seahawks suck