News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

NFL (2024 Season)

Started by webny99, February 04, 2020, 02:35:53 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

thspfc

#275
Quote from: I-55 on November 01, 2020, 04:50:44 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 01, 2020, 04:28:39 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 30, 2020, 08:37:50 AM
It's becoming increasingly clear that Lamar Fakeson won the MVP on athletic ability, not football knowledge or leadership qualities. Put him against a defense that can figure him out, and he's toast.
Is all.

Someone watched the Steelers game?

Cincy finally won again, if they won all of their 1 possession games the Bungles would be 7-1 and one game behind the lead of the AFC North. Cincy ain't as bad as people think, they just haven't been able to finish games.
But, if they won all their one possession games, you would say they are terrible because they're only winning by one possession . . . to me it literally seems like you think losing is better than winning.  :-D  :-D Or does that just apply for the teams that you don't like? The Titans, Steelers, and Seahawks have won most of their games by one possession. Do you think they are overrated too? Because all I hear from you is trash about the Packers and Bears.


webny99

Quote from: thspfc on November 02, 2020, 07:46:49 AM
Wow, you love to whine about teams winning close games, don't you.

What? I never said that. I think the Saints were the better team, and it was pure bad luck they missed the bye. That's not necessarily the Packers fault, but it is pretty clear the Packers weren't a 13-3 team.

Quote from: thspfc on November 02, 2020, 07:46:49 AM
The Saints lost in the wild card round. To the Vikings. The Packers beat the Vikings twice that season. The Packers made the NFC Championship. If you wanted to say that the Saints should have gotten then second seed before the wild card round last year, fine, but after the fact, it's very clear who the better team was. Don't say wElL tHe PaCkErS gOt DeStRoYeD bY tHe 49ErS. That doesn't matter in this context since the Saints couldn't even make the second round, much less the conference championship game.

Of course the Saints should've been able to beat the Vikings, but that's one of the wilder NFL rivalries, and it's not like hanging on by a thread against the Seahawks and getting blown out by the Niners is somehow more convincing than losing to the Vikings in overtime.

The Packers did enough to get a playoff win, which is to their credit, but, let's be honest, the Saints had a much more viable path to the Super Bowl if they had gotten the bye. Remember, they dropped 46 points on the Niners in the regular season last year - which is more than the Packers did in two games.

webny99

Quote from: thspfc on November 02, 2020, 07:54:23 AM
Quote from: I-55 on November 01, 2020, 04:50:44 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 01, 2020, 04:28:39 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 30, 2020, 08:37:50 AM
It's becoming increasingly clear that Lamar Fakeson won the MVP on athletic ability, not football knowledge or leadership qualities. Put him against a defense that can figure him out, and he's toast.
Is all.

Someone watched the Steelers game?

Cincy finally won again, if they won all of their 1 possession games the Bungles would be 7-1 and one game behind the lead of the AFC North. Cincy ain't as bad as people think, they just haven't been able to finish games.
But, if they won all their won possession games, you would say they are terrible because they're only winning by one possession . . . to me it literally seems like you think losing is better than winning.  :-D  :-D Or does that just apply for the teams that you don't like? The Titans, Steelers, and Seahawks have won most of their games by one possession. Do you think they are overrated too? Because all I hear from you is trash about the Packers and Bears.

You know it wasn't me that posted that, right?

Just double checking.  :)

hotdogPi

I don't follow sports much, but I will say this: in American football and basketball, trying to win is not always the same as trying to get the most points. In American football, you can play in a way that you barely beat your opponent. In basketball, strategies are different in the last minute depending on score difference. In both cases, trying to beat your opponent when you're slightly behind is part of the skill of the game.

In baseball, hockey, and association football, trying to win and trying to get the most points are pretty much the same thing. Your strategy doesn't change much if at all based on the current score. Judging skill by point differential works better in these games.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

thspfc

Quote from: webny99 on November 02, 2020, 08:37:18 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 02, 2020, 07:54:23 AM
Quote from: I-55 on November 01, 2020, 04:50:44 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 01, 2020, 04:28:39 PM
Quote from: thspfc on September 30, 2020, 08:37:50 AM
It's becoming increasingly clear that Lamar Fakeson won the MVP on athletic ability, not football knowledge or leadership qualities. Put him against a defense that can figure him out, and he's toast.
Is all.

Someone watched the Steelers game?

Cincy finally won again, if they won all of their 1 possession games the Bungles would be 7-1 and one game behind the lead of the AFC North. Cincy ain't as bad as people think, they just haven't been able to finish games.
But, if they won all their won possession games, you would say they are terrible because they're only winning by one possession . . . to me it literally seems like you think losing is better than winning.  :-D  :-D Or does that just apply for the teams that you don't like? The Titans, Steelers, and Seahawks have won most of their games by one possession. Do you think they are overrated too? Because all I hear from you is trash about the Packers and Bears.

You know it wasn't me that posted that, right?

Just double checking.  :)
Oops. The point still stands, though. Do you think of the Titans, Steelers, and Seahawks the same way you think of the Bears and last year's Packers?

thspfc

Quote from: 1 on November 02, 2020, 08:41:25 AM
In baseball, hockey, and association football, trying to win and trying to get the most points are pretty much the same thing. Your strategy doesn't change much if at all based on the current score. Judging skill by point differential works better in these games.
That is simply not true.
QuoteI don't follow sports much
Clearly.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: 1 on November 02, 2020, 08:41:25 AM
In baseball, hockey, and association football, trying to win and trying to get the most points are pretty much the same thing. Your strategy doesn't change much if at all based on the current score. Judging skill by point differential works better in these games.

In Hockey, there is definitely a point in the 3rd period where it becomes more of a defensive game for the team with a 1 or 2 goal lead. They will certainly attack the net if given the opportunity, but the overall strategy is defense late in the game.

For baseball, there's some more subtle differences.  Baseball is also a little different than the other sports.  In most other sports, a takeaway can happen at any moment.  In baseball, once a team is at bat, there's nothing the defensive team can do to go on the offensive again until the 3rd out is made. 

A batter generally won't intentionally sit there and strike out. He'll still swing. He'll still run.  But they won't be as aggressive on the basepaths if they have a sizeable lead.  A runner on base won't steal.  The manager won't change pitchers late in the game as often.  They'll try to prevent running up the score as a show of being a good sport, but they won't stop playing completely.

(One memorable game where a player did intentionally strike out...it was a Phillies playoff game, and the pitcher was batting.  It was later in the game, a runner on 1st, and 1 out.  The announcers, fairly keen on what was going on, figured the batter wasn't going to swing and possibly hit into a double play.  Sure enough, that entire at bat, the batter never swung.  He very intentionally struck out.  And that brings up the whole DH versus no-DH argument, which I won't go into in a NFL thread.)

webny99

Quote from: thspfc on November 02, 2020, 09:03:45 AM
Quote from: 1 on November 02, 2020, 08:41:25 AM
In baseball, hockey, and association football, trying to win and trying to get the most points are pretty much the same thing. Your strategy doesn't change much if at all based on the current score. Judging skill by point differential works better in these games.
That is simply not true.
QuoteI don't follow sports much
Clearly.

His point, which is valid, is that basketball and football are more situational than other sports. Like when the Pats allowed the Giants a touchdown in the Super Bowl, or when the Lions allowed the Falcons a touchdown last week.

webny99

Quote from: thspfc on November 02, 2020, 09:00:27 AM
Quote from: webny99 on November 02, 2020, 08:37:18 AM
You know it wasn't me that posted that, right?

Just double checking.  :)
Oops. The point still stands, though. Do you think of the Titans, Steelers, and Seahawks the same way you think of the Bears and last year's Packers?

Not necessarily, no. There is something to be said for teams like the Seahawks that can consistently get the win in close games. Some of it is skill, some of it is luck.

1995hoo

Quote from: webny99 on November 02, 2020, 09:58:35 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 02, 2020, 09:03:45 AM
Quote from: 1 on November 02, 2020, 08:41:25 AM
In baseball, hockey, and association football, trying to win and trying to get the most points are pretty much the same thing. Your strategy doesn't change much if at all based on the current score. Judging skill by point differential works better in these games.
That is simply not true.
QuoteI don't follow sports much
Clearly.

His point, which is valid, is that basketball and football are more situational than other sports. Like when the Pats allowed the Giants a touchdown in the Super Bowl, or when the Lions allowed the Falcons a touchdown last week.

I can think of a few situations where teams' strategies have changed based on the score. One of the ones I remember the best was the Redskins' first game of the 1991 season when they were beating the Lions 45—0 late in the fourth quarter. They had all the backups in the game (even the third-string quarterback), kept the ball on the ground instead of passing, and the Lions still couldn't stop them. They got down to first and goal on the Lions' one-yard line and Joe Gibbs ordered the quarterback (Jeff Rutledge, IIRC) to take a knee on four straight plays rather than running up the score further. Of course in theory point differential is a tiebreaker, such that there might be some incentive to run up the score, but it's way down the list of tiebreakers to the point where it's unlikely to come up. (I don't remember exactly what the hierarchy of tiebreakers was back then, just too long ago.)
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

thspfc

Quote from: webny99 on November 02, 2020, 10:00:45 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 02, 2020, 09:00:27 AM
Quote from: webny99 on November 02, 2020, 08:37:18 AM
You know it wasn't me that posted that, right?

Just double checking.  :)
Oops. The point still stands, though. Do you think of the Titans, Steelers, and Seahawks the same way you think of the Bears and last year's Packers?

Not necessarily, no. There is something to be said for teams like the Seahawks that can consistently get the win in close games. Some of it is skill, some of it is luck.
So that applies to the Bears and '19 Packers as well, correct?

thspfc

Quote from: webny99 on November 02, 2020, 09:58:35 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 02, 2020, 09:03:45 AM
Quote from: 1 on November 02, 2020, 08:41:25 AM
In baseball, hockey, and association football, trying to win and trying to get the most points are pretty much the same thing. Your strategy doesn't change much if at all based on the current score. Judging skill by point differential works better in these games.
That is simply not true.
QuoteI don't follow sports much
Clearly.

His point, which is valid, is that basketball and football are more situational than other sports. Like when the Pats allowed the Giants a touchdown in the Super Bowl, or when the Lions allowed the Falcons a touchdown last week.
They are more situational, but to say like he did that soccer, baseball, and hockey are not situational is a comment that reeks of trying to be an expert on something that you don't know much about.

webny99

Quote from: thspfc on November 02, 2020, 10:18:59 AM
Quote from: webny99 on November 02, 2020, 10:00:45 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 02, 2020, 09:00:27 AM
Quote from: webny99 on November 02, 2020, 08:37:18 AM
You know it wasn't me that posted that, right?

Just double checking.  :)
Oops. The point still stands, though. Do you think of the Titans, Steelers, and Seahawks the same way you think of the Bears and last year's Packers?

Not necessarily, no. There is something to be said for teams like the Seahawks that can consistently get the win in close games. Some of it is skill, some of it is luck.
So that applies to the Bears and '19 Packers as well, correct?

Let's see if they can do it consistently for consecutive seasons. The Packers had an easy schedule last year, and I'm not sure the Bears can keep pulling out close wins - yesterday's Saints game suggests maybe not unless their offense can improve.

TheHighwayMan3561

Quote from: webny99 on November 02, 2020, 09:58:35 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 02, 2020, 09:03:45 AM
Quote from: 1 on November 02, 2020, 08:41:25 AM
In baseball, hockey, and association football, trying to win and trying to get the most points are pretty much the same thing. Your strategy doesn't change much if at all based on the current score. Judging skill by point differential works better in these games.
That is simply not true.
QuoteI don't follow sports much
Clearly.

His point, which is valid, is that basketball and football are more situational than other sports. Like when the Pats allowed the Giants a touchdown in the Super Bowl, or when the Lions allowed the Falcons a touchdown last week.

Baseball is pretty situational (maybe less so that they instituted the three-batter minimum for pitchers). Let's say there are two outs, you have two runners on base. A good hitter at the plate and a weak one on deck. You might pinch hit for the weak hitter if the guy batting reaches, but you probably don't if he makes an out and the inning ends. Also have seen it countless times where a team has a closer warming in their bullpen but immediately sits him down for a weaker pitcher when they add a couple more runs on and put the lead outside the margin of a save situation.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

thspfc

Quote from: webny99 on November 02, 2020, 10:23:04 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 02, 2020, 10:18:59 AM
Quote from: webny99 on November 02, 2020, 10:00:45 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 02, 2020, 09:00:27 AM
Quote from: webny99 on November 02, 2020, 08:37:18 AM
You know it wasn't me that posted that, right?

Just double checking.  :)
Oops. The point still stands, though. Do you think of the Titans, Steelers, and Seahawks the same way you think of the Bears and last year's Packers?

Not necessarily, no. There is something to be said for teams like the Seahawks that can consistently get the win in close games. Some of it is skill, some of it is luck.
So that applies to the Bears and '19 Packers as well, correct?

Let's see if they can do it consistently for consecutive seasons. The Packers had an easy schedule last year, and I'm not sure the Bears can keep pulling out close wins - yesterday's Saints game suggests maybe not unless their offense can improve.
The Packers did not have a particularly easy schedule last year. They went 7-3 against teams with a record of .500 or better. They played three games against Super Bowl teams. And the Titans, Steelers, and Seahawks have all played relatively weak schedules as well. For what it's worth, the Bears have played a difficult schedule, especially over the last five weeks (5-2 Colts, 5-2 Bucs, 5-3 Rams, 5-2 Saints).

thspfc

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 02, 2020, 10:23:08 AM
Quote from: webny99 on November 02, 2020, 09:58:35 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 02, 2020, 09:03:45 AM
Quote from: 1 on November 02, 2020, 08:41:25 AM
In baseball, hockey, and association football, trying to win and trying to get the most points are pretty much the same thing. Your strategy doesn't change much if at all based on the current score. Judging skill by point differential works better in these games.
That is simply not true.
QuoteI don't follow sports much
Clearly.

His point, which is valid, is that basketball and football are more situational than other sports. Like when the Pats allowed the Giants a touchdown in the Super Bowl, or when the Lions allowed the Falcons a touchdown last week.

Baseball is pretty situational (maybe less so that they instituted the three-batter minimum for pitchers). Let's say there are two outs, you have two runners on base. A good hitter at the plate and a weak one on deck. You might pinch hit for the weak hitter if the guy batting reaches, but you probably don't if he makes an out and the inning ends. Also have seen it countless times where a team has a closer warming in their bullpen but immediately sits him down for a weaker pitcher when they add a couple more runs on and put the lead outside the margin of a save situation.
Baseball is very situational, yes, and the rules allow for it as well. Soccer is highly situational. Teams often play with a completely different style or organization when leading compared to when trailing, especially in the second half. Some of that involves bending the rules or "playing dirty" (i.e. taking several extra seconds to inbound the ball while you have the lead). From what I understand about hockey, there are many rules (such as icing) to prevent teams from playing conservatively, but there is still room to change your style of play depending on the score.

Big John

Quote from: webny99 on November 01, 2020, 10:41:16 PM
Speaking of which, I'm still a little miffed the Packers stole the #2 seed last year when the Saints were clearly much more deserving, so I was glad to see the Vikings show up today and notch their second win.

The Niners/Packers game should be interesting: Niners blew them out twice last year, once in the regular season and once in the playoffs. Will be interesting to see which Packers team shows up in what is now a very important game for the Niners.
If the Packers win, critics will just say the 49ers were hobbled by injuries.

thspfc

Quote from: Big John on November 02, 2020, 08:07:24 PM
Quote from: webny99 on November 01, 2020, 10:41:16 PM
Speaking of which, I'm still a little miffed the Packers stole the #2 seed last year when the Saints were clearly much more deserving, so I was glad to see the Vikings show up today and notch their second win.

The Niners/Packers game should be interesting: Niners blew them out twice last year, once in the regular season and once in the playoffs. Will be interesting to see which Packers team shows up in what is now a very important game for the Niners.
If the Packers win, critics will just say the 49ers were hobbled by injuries.
And if they win by eight or fewer points, webny99 will say that the Packers should be 0-8 instead of 6-2.

amroad17

#293
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 02, 2020, 10:08:10 AM
Quote from: webny99 on November 02, 2020, 09:58:35 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 02, 2020, 09:03:45 AM
Quote from: 1 on November 02, 2020, 08:41:25 AM
In baseball, hockey, and association football, trying to win and trying to get the most points are pretty much the same thing. Your strategy doesn't change much if at all based on the current score. Judging skill by point differential works better in these games.
That is simply not true.
QuoteI don't follow sports much
Clearly.

His point, which is valid, is that basketball and football are more situational than other sports. Like when the Pats allowed the Giants a touchdown in the Super Bowl, or when the Lions allowed the Falcons a touchdown last week.

I can think of a few situations where teams' strategies have changed based on the score. One of the ones I remember the best was the Redskins' first game of the 1991 season when they were beating the Lions 45—0 late in the fourth quarter. They had all the backups in the game (even the third-string quarterback), kept the ball on the ground instead of passing, and the Lions still couldn't stop them. They got down to first and goal on the Lions' one-yard line and Joe Gibbs ordered the quarterback (Jeff Rutledge, IIRC) to take a knee on four straight plays rather than running up the score further. Of course in theory point differential is a tiebreaker, such that there might be some incentive to run up the score, but it's way down the list of tiebreakers to the point where it's unlikely to come up. (I don't remember exactly what the hierarchy of tiebreakers was back then, just too long ago.)
Back in 1991, point differential in conference games was the fifth tiebreaker (I believe).  So, if the Redskins had tied another team, say the 49ers, at 14-2, did not play each other that season, and had the same conference record (use 10-2), then net point differential in conference games would be the next tiebreaker step.  When the NFL realigned in to the current setup of four divisions of four teams in each conference with the addition of the Houston Texans in 2002, the tiebreaker steps were changed where point differential is farther down the list (9-11, net points common games, net points all games, net touchdowns all games).  Strength of victory and strength of schedule are now 5 and 6 with a best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed (7) and best combined ranking among all games in points scored and points allowed (8).  Record in common games were given a boost up to 3, having this be more important than conference games. 

In effect, it is not so imperative to run up the score anymore.  More weight is given to just wins and losses, no matter what the score is.  The way the current tiebreaker procedure is set up, it would take a lot of steps before points scored and points allowed are taken into consideration.

Under the previous tiebreaker procedure, the Redskins did not make the playoffs in 1979 with a 10-6 record.  They did lose to Dallas 35-34 in Roger Staubach's final regular season game along with his last comeback from a 34-21 deficit.  However, they still could have make the playoffs over the Chicago Bears, also 10-6, assuming the Bears would not beat the St. Louis Cardinals by more than 33 points.  Well, on the morning of the game, George Halas (the general face of the Bears for 40 years) passed away.  The Bears came out and played spirited football, winning the game 42-6, and knocking the Redskins out of the playoffs.  If the current tiebreaker procedure was in effect then, I believe the Redskins would have made the playoffs based on better record in common games, minimum of four (had four common games--Dallas, St. Louis, Green Bay, and Detroit).  Redskins would have been 5-1 vs. the Bears 4-2 record in common games.

Just using an example to show the difference in the tiebreaker procedure from 1976-2001 vs the one in effect since 2002.

BTW, that 1991 Redskins team was the best Redskins team I had ever seen, if not one of the top 10 best of all-time.
I don't need a GPS.  I AM the GPS! (for family and friends)

TheHighwayMan3561

It was a shame that they moved point differential down. Week 17 of 1999 had a crazy scenario where the Packers and Panthers were trying to outscore each other in separate games and keep their opponents from mitigating their differentials. I think the Packers came out ahead, but ultimately neither made the playoffs as the Cowboys snagged the last berth late that afternoon.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

webny99

Quote from: thspfc on November 02, 2020, 08:28:20 PM
... the Packers should be 0-8 instead of 6-2.

I'd say you're right, but that was a nice win last night against the Niners. They should be 1-7.

thspfc

Quote from: webny99 on November 06, 2020, 09:56:52 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 02, 2020, 08:28:20 PM
... the Packers should be 0-8 instead of 6-2.

I'd say you're right, but that was a nice win last night against the Niners. They should be 1-7.
Yeah, true.

thspfc

As long as we're talking about the Packers, there is one thing that really impresses me about them: they are very good coming off a loss, and have been throughout the LaFleur era. One of the biggest differences between great coaches and average/a little above average coaches is games following a bad performance. Say what you will about their run defense or recieving corps or margin by which they win games, but that is a well coached team.

formulanone

Quote from: webny99 on November 02, 2020, 09:31:29 PM
Fun fact: as Week 8 draws to a close, the Dolphins (!) lead the NFL in fewest points allowed with 130.

They've usually been quietly good at defense in the post-Marino era, though never spectacular enough to be in the national conversation, with such mediocre records.

But they're 5-3 now...I forgot what it's like to be above .500 this "late" in the season.

thspfc

The Seahawks have allowed the second most yards in NFL history through eight games. They are going nowhere in the postseason if they keep that up.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.