eball Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Sounds like a pretty robust offensive output by St. Louis, right? Poor showing by the Buffalo D, right? That's what you'd think if you just read the box score, as many reporters likely did as they "prepared" their articles covering the weekend. Fact: 27 yards on final drive of 1st half, when St. Louis started at their own 13 with 0:40 left and were clearly running out the clock. Fact: 100 yards from the 6:21 mark of the 4th quarter, after Lindell's FG made it 31-14. So, we're really looking at 253 yards (and two scores) over 53:00 of "meaningful" gametime -- and no points over nearly three quarters. I raise the point only because of statements like this from Peter King: "I don't know what Sunday's game means. The pathetic Rams got 380 yards on the unbeaten Bills." Umm, Pete, aren't those the same "pathetic" Rams you predicted would BEAT the Bills? Anyway, it's sloppy reporting, and one could probably tear apart King's comments on the other 13 games of the weekend in similar fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Sounds like a pretty robust offensive output by St. Louis, right? Poor showing by the Buffalo D, right? That's what you'd think if you just read the box score, as many reporters likely did as they "prepared" their articles covering the weekend. Fact: 27 yards on final drive of 1st half, when St. Louis started at their own 13 with 0:40 left and were clearly running out the clock. Fact: 100 yards from the 6:21 mark of the 4th quarter, after Lindell's FG made it 31-14. So, we're really looking at 253 yards (and two scores) over 53:00 of "meaningful" gametime -- and no points over nearly three quarters. I raise the point only because of statements like this from Peter King: "I don't know what Sunday's game means. The pathetic Rams got 380 yards on the unbeaten Bills." Umm, Pete, aren't those the same "pathetic" Rams you predicted would BEAT the Bills? Anyway, it's sloppy reporting, and one could probably tear apart King's comments on the other 13 games of the weekend in similar fashion. Is this your Stat O the Week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted September 30, 2008 Author Share Posted September 30, 2008 Is this your Stat O the Week? Well, damn, yes it is. Changing topic immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Only dummies talk about yards gained WRT offensive and defensive rankings. The most important thing is points scored or allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Well, damn, yes it is. Changing topic immediately. Thanks. I've grown fond of that feature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted September 30, 2008 Author Share Posted September 30, 2008 Only dummies talk about yards gained WRT offensive and defensive rankings. The most important thing is points scored or allowed. The official NFL rankings of offenses and defenses are determined by total yards. My point is that by analyzing a specific game one is able to show that relying solely upon that statistic doesn't tell the whole story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJPearl2 Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 I think this is dead on! A very good point. For me, however, (and you can tell Peter King this as well) the most important stat is this: 4-0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Time of possession and turnovers are the most accurate stats. IMO, if you were only given those two stats on any game you'd be able to tell who won 80% or more of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fewell733 Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 great stuff!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Link eball won, deal with it. Link eball won, deal with it. Link eball won, deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 eball won, deal with it. eball won, deal with it. eball won, deal with it. Wow I can't believe you swooped in before I deleted the extra two! That was a thread I started 15 beers deep after the game on Sunday! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 IIRC, a few years ago when we had Sam Adams, we were near the top in total yards allowed but couldn't stop teams on 3rd down. I think it was Meathead's first year when we lost to the Brian St. Pierre led Pittsburgh 3rd stringers during the last game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JujuFish Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Per Elias: The Rams have lost each of their last seven games by at least 17 points, equaling the longest such streak in NFL history. That mark was set by the Dolphins as a second-year franchise in 1967. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Fact: 100 yards from the 6:21 mark of the 4th quarter, after Lindell's FG made it 31-14. Yeah and 60 of those yards happened on basically an all out blitz when the Bills were trying to murder Trent Green and got caught on a screen pass deep in STL territory...I would bet a lot that if they weren't up 31-14, that play would have probably gone for like 5 yards or so since they would have played it a bit more conservatively... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Per Elias:The Rams have lost each of their last seven games by at least 17 points, equaling the longest such streak in NFL history. That mark was set by the Dolphins as a second-year franchise in 1967. This may be one stat that DOESN'T lie...the Rams are just plain bad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 I think this is dead on! A very good point. For me, however, (and you can tell Peter King this as well) the most important stat is this: 4-0. You are correct, Sir! Stats are for losers and 'journalists' who don't do their homework. 4 straight SB trips with a low ranked 'D' and low TOP stats proved this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devldog131 Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Per Elias:The Rams have lost each of their last seven games by at least 17 points, equaling the longest such streak in NFL history. That mark was set by the Dolphins as a second-year franchise in 1967. The Lambs have also allowed 30 points or more in their last 7 games, this equals a record set by the Denver Broncos in the 60s or 70s(too lazy to look it up for sure). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wraith Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Oh please. Statistics don't lie. Idiots who pull random data out of context (ie King) are the liars and anyone who believes the "statistics" without checking the context are just as stupid. Eball was right on when he checked the context of King's data (the common sense test), but used statistics himself to try to prove that Kings statistics were misleading and that the Bills defense was better than King claims. 253 yards in 53 minutes of meaningful football? Sounds like a stat to me. Are those stats lying, too? Let's cut the "stats are for losers" talk, shall we? People use statistics to lie just like they use language. Let's all stop talking to one another. Statistics have been crucial to the develop of pretty much everything we touch and use and the sport football is pretty simple compared to that. Lazy journalism is for losers, not statistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Statistics are a tool for interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts