Jump to content
WizardHawk

***The Master Dak-bater Thread*** (Beat off for or against him if you please)

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

There really is nothing to argue. I have been challenging people for 2 years to prove me wrong. The closest they came was a stat that was like 25 years old. Nothing in this millennia shows you need a highly drafted or highly paid RB. Nothing shows that RBs greatly change the chances you win or that they help your passing games. And no one on this site has any evidence to refute that besides "We liked Emmitt and now we like Zeke". Or "everyone knows you need balance" with nothing to back that statement up.

The simple truth: QBs/Pass Game on offense and a defense that can stop the opposing QB are how you win games. Thats the 'rule' to football. It works 85% of the time. The 15% of the time that your QB sucks and the other teams QB is awesome yet you win are the exception. 

Yeah, Matts is absolutely right... unless you are actually trying to win win the game.  If you are interested in winning the game, simply outrushing the other team gives you a 70-75% chance of winning.  I actually tracked that in 2019 if you remember.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

lol. Everything shows you need one. Ive pointed this out many many times. 

Actually, Matts is dead wrong on this one.  Since 2014, the 9 highest paid QBs over that time frame were about 50/50 In making the playoffs and not 1 SB win.  Ben Roethlisberger and Aaron Rodgers really brought up the other 7.  Matthew Stafford, Cam Newton, Philip Rivers, Matt Ryan, and joe Flacco did NOT consistently win.  In fact a pretty good argument could be made that playing QBs top $ caused many of those teams to take a nose dive.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, The_Slamman said:

Yeah, Matts is absolutely right... unless you are actually trying to win win the game.  If you are interested in winning the game, simply outrushing the other team gives you a 70-75% chance of winning.  I actually tracked that in 2019 if you remember.  

It's closer to 50/50 than it is 75/25. As has been shown by multiple websites. A one year flick that you tracked is useless.

6 hours ago, The_Slamman said:

Actually, Matts is dead wrong on this one.  Since 2014, the 9 highest paid QBs over that time frame were about 50/50 In making the playoffs and not 1 SB win.  Ben Roethlisberger and Aaron Rodgers really brought up the other 7.  Matthew Stafford, Cam Newton, Philip Rivers, Matt Ryan, and joe Flacco did NOT consistently win.  In fact a pretty good argument could be made that playing QBs top $ caused many of those teams to take a nose dive.

It's been roughly 65/35 QBs on second contracts in the conf champ or Superbowls since the cap was introduced. It's closer to 60/40 since rookie contracts updated.

And there is no logical argument that involves a good drafting team catering under a QB on a second contract. It only happens when teams grossly mismanage the cap while drafting terribly.

Edited by Matts4313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even know why we're mentioning Stafford, who went from 0 playoff wins on his first contract, to 0 on his second contract, to now 0 on his third. Like people are dismissing Dak as garbage time aficionado off one 8-8 year when this guy straight up threw for 5000 yards on a 4-12 team

I mean on one hand, he and his contract and lack of real success have nothing to do with this conversation, but on the other I really feel like that guy's pretty much the opposite of Dak in a lot of ways. He's "so underrated" per so many neutral fans because he's on the damn Lions and we want to pity them and their fans, when he's just been a borderline Top 10 QB for a while and would have a playoff win against Dallas if he were better at his job of playing quarterback, whereas with Dak people are unable to compartmentalize their hatred for our team and all the attention they get with a natural predisposition to get caught in the lights and overrate the surrounding talent on the team, and just try to assess Dak independent of all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is true and that good just turn down the latest offer, which I will say we really don't know what's true, but if true oh, I will join the Dark Side. I will hate Dak. But not for a lack of quarterback ability. For just being a greedy son of a b****

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

It's closer to 50/50 than it is 75/25. As has been shown by multiple websites. A one year flick that you tracked is useless.

It's been roughly 65/35 QBs on second contracts in the conf champ or Superbowls since the cap was introduced. It's closer to 60/40 since rookie contracts updated.

And there is no logical argument that involves a good drafting team catering under a QB on a second contract. It only happens when teams grossly mismanage the cap while drafting terribly.

Wrong again.  Historically it is 75%.  Recently, it went down to 70%.  It has never been close to 50%.  So again... the running doesn’t matter UNLESS you want to win the game.  If you are interested in winning, simply rushing for more yards than the other team gives your team a 70-75% chance of winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, The_Slamman said:

Wrong again.  Historically it is 75%.  Recently, it went down to 70%.  It has never been close to 50%.  So again... the running doesn’t matter UNLESS you want to win the game.  If you are interested in winning, simply rushing for more yards than the other team gives your team a 70-75% chance of winning.

If you dont use advanced analytics and you use the most possible causal relationship that is designed for simpletons.

Quote

The answer is 54% since 1950, 53% since 1970, 52% since 1990, 52% since 2002, and 53% over the last 10 years. On average, the winning team (since 1950) had 30.95 rushing attempts for 123.25 yards (3.98), while the losing team had 28.63 attempts for 114.01 yards (3.98).

https://www.footballperspective.com/winning-the-rushing-battle-and-winning-the-game/

Quote

NFL playoff teams excel in passing, either by throwing the ball on offense, preventing the pass on defense, or both. From 1998 through 2017, only 39 of 252 playoff teams allowed more yards per pass attempt than they gained. This implies that 84.5% of playoff teams had a positive pass efficiency.

 

Quote

From 1997 through 2017, only 57.5% of playoff teams (145 of 252) had a positive team rush efficiency. The visual of rush efficiency for playoff teams shows a random scatter of points with both positive and negative values. A strong run game or stout rush defense has little effect in helping an NFL team win enough games to make the playoffs

https://thepowerrank.com/2018/09/24/the-surprising-truth-about-passing-and-rushing-in-the-nfl/

 

Quote

#### Results

I find that having a first-half passing-yard advantage increases the probability of winning, but having a first-half rushing-yard advantage has no significant effect.

#### Conclusions and Applications

The results suggest that the common belief that controlling the running game is the key to winning in the NFL may be a misguided belief. Coaches and teams may have greater success by focusing on the passing games, both offensively and defensively.

https://thesportjournal.org/article/is-controlling-the-rushing-or-passing-game-the-key-to-nfl-victories/

 

Use your big brain and figure out why the stat you post is stupid. Rushing doesnt help you win. Rushing allows you to end a game that you are already winning. 

Edited by Matts4313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

If you dont use advanced analytics and you use the most possible causal relationship that is designed for simpletons.

 

https://thepowerrank.com/2018/09/24/the-surprising-truth-about-passing-and-rushing-in-the-nfl/

 

https://thesportjournal.org/article/is-controlling-the-rushing-or-passing-game-the-key-to-nfl-victories/

 

Use your big brain and figure out why the stat you post is stupid. Rushing doesnt help you win. Rushing allows you to end a game that you are already winning. 

Matts, this couldn’t be any more lame... you completely quoted the wrong part and focused only on a subset of the total.  Here’s the quote you need to focus on...

 

Since 1950, how successful were teams that won the rushing battle? Those teams won 72.9% of the time. That number is 72.7% since 1970, 71.9% since 1990, 71.3% since 2002, and 70.5% over the last 10 years.

 

The same held true this year as I showed you during the regular season.

And one more thing...  you confuse running efficiency with out rushing the other team.  A team could rush 12 times for 100 yards and the other team could rush the ball 35 times for 120 yards.  I guarantee you the team that rushes 35 times wins the game 90+% of the time even though the other team was more efficient.  It’s a worthless metric.  Amazingly, you still don’t get it.  We lost to both Buffalo and Minnesota at home last year.  Are Josh Allen and Kirk Cousins better than Dak?  Do they have better weapons (thielen didn’t even play that game)?  Or do we lose cause we could stop the run?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The_Slamman said:

Matts, this couldn’t be any more lame... you completely quoted the wrong part and focused only on a subset of the total.  Here’s the quote you need to focus on...

 

Since 1950, how successful were teams that won the rushing battle? Those teams won 72.9% of the time. That number is 72.7% since 1970, 71.9% since 1990, 71.3% since 2002, and 70.5% over the last 10 years.

 

The same held true this year as I showed you during the regular season.

And one more thing...  you confuse running efficiency with out rushing the other team.  A team could rush 12 times for 100 yards and the other team could rush the ball 35 times for 120 yards.  I guarantee you the team that rushes 35 times wins the game 90+% of the time even though the other team was more efficient.  It’s a worthless metric.  Amazingly, you still don’t get it.  We lost to both Buffalo and Minnesota at home last year.  Are Josh Allen and Kirk Cousins better than Dak?  Do they have better weapons (thielen didn’t even play that game)?  Or do we lose cause we could stop the run?

BECAUSE THAT IS CLEARLY THE SMALL BRAIN RESPONSE AND YOU ARE SMARTER THAN THAT!

Multiple sites all say thing. The only reason that winning teams end up with more yards is *because they are wasting time AFTER they have the leads*

Ill make it simple for you:

  • Rushing is not helping them win
  • Rushing is a product of them already winning. And 85% of the time, they are all ready winning because of efficient run game
  • IE: rushing is the most conservative/safe option for teams that are good passers to run out the clock. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

BECAUSE THAT IS CLEARLY THE SMALL BRAIN RESPONSE AND YOU ARE SMARTER THAN THAT!

Multiple sites all say thing. The only reason that winning teams end up with more yards is *because they are wasting time AFTER they have the leads*

Ill make it simple for you:

  • Rushing is not helping them win
  • Rushing is a product of them already winning. And 85% of the time, they are all ready winning because of efficient run game
  • IE: rushing is the most conservative/safe option for teams that are good passers to run out the clock. 

If you were trying to be blatantly wrong, you are doing an excellent job.  Running the ball effectively and repeatedly is the most important aspect to moving the chains, converting 3rd downs and opening passing lanes.  If you want chunk plays passing the ball... run the ball.  If you want to sustain a drive... run the ball.  If you want passing efficiency... run the ball.  If you want to lose... don’t run the ball.  You’ve got a 70% chance of losing if the other team out rushes you.  
 

literally, everyone who understands football agrees with this.  For the life of me... I can’t comprehend how you can watch games the cowboys lose and not realize most loses we’re caused by teams running on us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

BECAUSE THAT IS CLEARLY THE SMALL BRAIN RESPONSE AND YOU ARE SMARTER THAN THAT!

Multiple sites all say thing. The only reason that winning teams end up with more yards is *because they are wasting time AFTER they have the leads*

Ill make it simple for you:

  • Rushing is not helping them win
  • Rushing is a product of them already winning. And 85% of the time, they are all ready winning because of efficient run game
  • IE: rushing is the most conservative/safe option for teams that are good passers to run out the clock. 

Multiple BS sites that Matts spanks it to

Its a wonder you even watch the games Matts. Doesn't it ruin it for you? Can't you find some kind of simulation site where they input all the outlier fancy stats into some kind of program and it punches out a result? 

Must be brutal for you to have to tune in and see a real game with real nuance played in front of you when a big data dump of stats would be just as good, No?

Edited by TheGame316
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top 10 rushing teams from 2019:

 

 

Ravens(#1 seed in AFC)

49ers(NFC Champions)

Titans(AFC championship appearance)

Seahawks(wildcard win and divisional round appearance)

Cowboys(8-8)

Vikings(wildcard win and divisional round appearance)

Colts(7-9)

Bills(wildcard appearance)

Texans(wildcard win and divisional round appearance)

Cardinals(5-10-1)

 

2 teams with losing records. 7 out of 10 are playoff teams
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a *NOT SO* Fancy Stat from last year

Dak had 30 TD passes

ZERO were on Game Winning Drives

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...