Random Raider Stuff

[NCOUGHMAN]

11 minutes ago, BackinBlack said:

LOL cough I am so confused, that site you sent is showing me non of the stats you were quoting lol.
It shows we allowed 106 first downs,  to Dens 90 . . . 
Says it is heading into week 6, so old stats, 

and constantly shows our D as bottom 10. 
Where did it show anything you quoted?

Nope it says den has allowed 125 first for me

[BackinBlack]

2 minutes ago, NCOUGHMAN said:

Nope it says den has allowed 125 first for me

yea i see that now. 
Our D just fell off the cliff last 2 games then. . . no point in using old stats IMO. 

[BackinBlack]

ah actually maybe it is updated, it just says heading into week 6. I dunno. 
Weird cause very different stats then other sites. 

[NCOUGHMAN]

17 minutes ago, BackinBlack said:

also, that is heading into week 6, so after the first 5 weeks of the season. 
The site I provided is up to date, 

So based off that, any reason why our D has regressed so much in all these rankings? 🤣

From what the site shows me our weakest areas in defense are

Turnovers- 4 total good for 31st

sacks- 9 total good for 31st

pass tds allowed - 13 good for 27th

3rd down % - 44% good for 30th

Rdz td% - 75% good for 30th

[BackinBlack]

Also, its irrelevent because we had a bye week.. 
so first downs allowed we have 1 game less on D
and first downs earned we have 1 less game on O

. . . 

agree on that? 

[BackinBlack]

Just now, NCOUGHMAN said:

From what the site shows me our weakest areas in defense are

Turnovers- 4 total good for 31st

sacks- 9 total good for 31st

pass tds allowed - 13 good for 27th

3rd down % - 44% good for 30th

Rdz td% - 75% good for 30th

yes and total numbers dont matter because weve played 1 less game than most teams. 
Hence why we have bottom 5 plays against, same with every team with a bye week already. . . 

You are given our D credit for top 10 first downs against, but it is only because weve played one less game.
It is a meaningless stat

[NCOUGHMAN]

5 minutes ago, BackinBlack said:

yes and total numbers dont matter because weve played 1 less game than most teams. 
Hence why we have bottom 5 plays against, same with every team with a bye week already. . . 

You are given our D credit for top 10 first downs against, but it is only because weve played one less game.
It is a meaningless stat

So we throw away offensive scoring per game and yards per game?

[BackinBlack]

1 minute ago, NCOUGHMAN said:

So we throw away offensive scoring per game and yards per game?

Ah no, you see, per game takes the total and divides by the amount of games you have played. 
So every team on an equal playing field. . . which makes it a better way to judge, because things are more equal

say 100 points allowed for team A and team B
Team A has played 5 games, Team B has played 4.
Team A is allowing 20 per game, where as team B has allowed 25. 


So team A is better on a per game basis even though theyve given up the same amount of points. 

-
whereas, you said our O is like 20th in first downs earned, we have played 1 less game then 22 teams

total plays or something, the more games you played, they more chances you would have. 

[BackinBlack]

this is very basic stuff. 
For defensive bulk stats, playing one less game would help
For Offensive bulk stats, playing one less game would hurt. 

Do we agree here? 
I hope

you cant judge our D based off bulk stats right now. Theyve played one less game then 22 teams. 

You can look at things on a per game basis though. It takes the averages into count. 

[NCOUGHMAN]

4 minutes ago, BackinBlack said:

Ah no, you see, per game takes the total and divides by the amount of games you have played. 
So every team on an equal playing field. . . which makes it a better way to judge, because things are more equal

say 100 points allowed for team A and team B
Team A has played 5 games, Team B has played 4.
Team A is allowing 20 per game, where as team B has allowed 25. 


So team A is better on a per game basis even though theyve given up the same amount of points. 

-
whereas, you said our O is like 20th in first downs earned, we have played 1 less game then 22 teams

total plays or something, the more games you played, they more chances you would have. 

But some teams have played 1 more game with a known result which directly effected the stat’s/ rankings.

I understand the stats vs actually games played thing.

[NCOUGHMAN]

6 minutes ago, BackinBlack said:

this is very basic stuff. 
For defensive bulk stats, playing one less game would help
For Offensive bulk stats, playing one less game would hurt. 

Do we agree here? 
I hope

you cant judge our D based off bulk stats right now. Theyve played one less game then 22 teams. 

You can look at things on a per game basis though. It takes the averages into count. 

You can stand on 23 points/ game  stat for 5 games knowing everyone else is judged by 6 games? And say it’s accurate?

[BackinBlack]

1 minute ago, NCOUGHMAN said:

But some teams have played 1 more game with a known result which directly effected the stat’s/ rankings.

I understand the stats vs actually games played thing.

Trust me, in any bulk stat like yardage, or first downs allowed . . 
playing one extra game will always hurt a D. 

For sacks / ints - it gives them more opportunties to get them. yes.

You need to just think about what stat your looking at, and think would getting more opportunities hurt or help us. 
for stats that are good, turnovers, sacks etc, more opportunties good.
for stats that are bad, points allowed, yards etc, more opportunties bad. 
 

[BackinBlack]

1 minute ago, NCOUGHMAN said:

You can stand on 23 points/ game  stat for 5 games knowing everyone else is judged by 6 games? And say it’s accurate?

yes, it is accurate. because its on a per game basis. 

Imma bow out here. sorry, I cant explain this better. 

Our D is top 10 in first downs allowed because theyve played one less game then 22 teams, that is the reason why.
Sorry I am not explaining simple mathematics better 

[NCOUGHMAN]

35 minutes ago, BackinBlack said:

yes, it is accurate. because its on a per game basis. 

Imma bow out here. sorry, I cant explain this better. 

Our D is top 10 in first downs allowed because theyve played one less game then 22 teams, that is the reason why.
Sorry I am not explaining simple mathematics better 

The only way your explanation is accurate is if the average is maintained through the unplayed game.
 

Otherwise you can’t accurately compare a teams 5 game average to another teams six game average. 

[BackinBlack]

2 minutes ago, NCOUGHMAN said:

The only way your explanation is accurate is if the average is maintained through the unplayed game.
 

Otherwise you can’t accurately compare a teams 5 game average to another teams six game average. 

it is 10000 times better though than doing it by bulk when teams havent played the same amount of games. . . which is what you did, when ranking our O and D by first downs allowed and earned. 

Youre saying my stat isnt fair, because its 5 vs 6. . . but my stat at least factors that difference in. 
Yours dosnt.

The fact you are telling me my stat isnt acurate, because its 5 vs 6 games is crazy becuase your stat also has 5 vs 6 games, and doesnt factor that in at all. 

How does the fact per game, factoring in this massive difference, somehow making the stat worse In your opinion?

I am literally in shock I have to explain this NCough. 
going by per game, every team is on an even playing field. 

Is it perfect, no. It is a stat. LMAO. 

I honestly have no idea what you are arguing here. 
Do you not think its weird that every other team in the top 10 first downs allowed has also had their bye week? 

Honestly. 

Think here. 
Our D, has played 1 less game then 23 teams in the NFL. 
Close to 17% less time to potentially give up a first down.

per game, at least factors this in. 

Jesus, ncough, trying to be polite here, but please think. you are arguing possibly the dumbest argument ive ever seen.