Best Team: Packers, Bills or Browns

[Thomas5737]

1 hour ago, Shanedorf said:

indeed.
I came across one stat-head who suggested its a great predictor of NFL success - better than most other metrics

Yeah he is right, the 4-10 Falcons are clearly superior to the 10-4 Browns.

[Thomas5737]

2 hours ago, Archimedes said:

I’m sorry that you’re having difficulty keeping up.

Packers = Good point differential with easy schedule.

Browns = Negative point differential with easy schedule.

Did you get all that?

So if you are 3-10 with a good point differential you are a good team?

 

2 hours ago, Archimedes said:

And there it is. I already knew you were going to go here, so I’ll reiterate the point I made earlier. Since the Browns beat the Titans “easily”, and the Titans handled the Bills easily, why don’t you just say the Browns are the second best team in the AFC, and predict them to make the AFCCG? I also like how the Steelers blowing out the Browns suddenly doesn’t matter, and you’re counting victories for them that haven’t even gotten yet.

You have trouble reading, I didn't predict a win I said they likely will win if the trend stays the same. I'll guarantee you that if they are both 11-4 going into that game the Browns will be favored, probably by 6 points or more. If the Steelers show something against the Colts that will change or if the Browns struggle against the Jets but if the trend of the last few weeks continue no one will expect the Steelers to win. The Browns defense means I can't predict an AFCCG, They could give up 40 to any playoff team. They could also score 40 against any of them but that just becomes a coin flip each week which I can't guarantee.

 

2 hours ago, Archimedes said:

Well gee, it’s almost like I also pointed out how weak their schedule was as well. I’d give the Browns a pass for their negative point differential if they had one of the hardest schedules in the NFL, an elite QB, an elite coach, a prior proven track record in the playoffs, or an elite defense. The coach is an unknown, so it’s possible he’s elite, but they have none of the other things.

The Browns have a lot to prove before I’m ready to consider them with the top teams of the AFC.

The Browns point differential is good against losing teams because they beat every one of them.The packers have lost to a sub .500 team. The Bills and Browns have not.

[Archimedes]

2 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

So if you are 3-10 with a good point differential you are a good team?

I’m not going to bother answering this silly hypothetical unless you find an example of a 3-10 team with a “good point differential”.

2 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

4 hours ago, Archimedes said:

 

You have trouble reading, I didn't predict a win I said they likely will win if the trend stays the same.

Nice doublespeak there. You’re not predicting a win, you’re just saying they “likely will win” if trends “stay the same”.

k

2 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

The Browns defense means I can't predict an AFCCG, They could give up 40 to any playoff team. They could also score 40 against any of them but that just becomes a coin flip each week which I can't guarantee.

The Browns are: 12th in ppg, 10th in ypg, 10th in points/drive, and 9th in yards/play. The have a good offense, not a great one. I’d maybe slow down on claiming they could score 40 on anyone in the playoffs.

2 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

4 hours ago, Archimedes said:

 

The Browns point differential is good against losing teams because they beat every one of them.The packers have lost to a sub .500 team. The Bills and Browns have not.

Cool story. They still have the worst point differential of any team in either conference currently in a playoff spot, and worst than contenders on the outside looking in, Chicago and Baltimore. The fact that you keep cherry-picking specific parts of their point differential to make it look better than what it really is, is wholly irrelevant to me.

[Thomas5737]

10 minutes ago, Archimedes said:

2 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

So if you are 3-10 with a good point differential you are a good team?

I’m not going to bother answering this silly hypothetical unless you find an example of a 3-10 team with a “good point differential”.

Falcons have a positive point differential and are 4-10. The Browns have a negative point differential and are 10-4. Who do you think is better?

I've carried this on too long, I'm starting to feel silly for continuing this.

[Archimedes]

1 hour ago, Thomas5737 said:

Falcons have a positive point differential and are 4-10. The Browns have a negative point differential and are 10-4. Who do you think is better?

I've carried this on too long, I'm starting to feel silly for continuing this.

The first semi decent point you’ve made. I fell the same and I’m not answering this silly question.

[Tk3]

14 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

Yeah he is right, the 4-10 Falcons are clearly superior to the 10-4 Browns.

I'll take the bait...

Things like point differential shouldn't be used as absolute metrics of success, but its an additional data point to use. Garbage point TD and game winning/losing TD are both worth the same in point differential, but have very different levels of value in real application.

So no, the Browns gave up quite a bit of garbage points, while Falcons blew a lot of close games. So regardless of point differential, the Browns are better

But we ain't talking Browns vs Falcons.. we're talking Browns vs Bills vs Packers

And comparing 3 teams that are in the 10-4 or 11-3 range, its an additional data point that clearly separates the Browns in a negative way from the other two (in addition to things like eye test, strength of opponent, etc)

 

Stop strawmaning the conversation

[Thomas5737]

53 minutes ago, Tk3 said:

I'll take the bait...

Things like point differential shouldn't be used as absolute metrics of success, but its an additional data point to use. Garbage point TD and game winning/losing TD are both worth the same in point differential, but have very different levels of value in real application.

So no, the Browns gave up quite a bit of garbage points, while Falcons blew a lot of close games. So regardless of point differential, the Browns are better

But we ain't talking Browns vs Falcons.. we're talking Browns vs Bills vs Packers

And comparing 3 teams that are in the 10-4 or 11-3 range, its an additional data point that clearly separates the Browns in a negative way from the other two (in addition to things like eye test, strength of opponent, etc)

 

Stop strawmaning the conversation

The other guy said that the Browns were below any of the playoff contenders based solely on point differential, that's how this started I didn't start it. I said I'd have the Browns behind both teams (Bills/Packers) because of their defense but point differential without context is a silly way to eliminate a team.

Would you say the Steelers are better than the Bills because they have the same record and a better point differential? Of course not. There are 100 factors that I would consider before I'd think about using point differential.

[WizeGuy]

32 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

The other guy said that the Browns were below any of the playoff contenders based solely on point differential, that's how this started I didn't start it. I said I'd have the Browns behind both teams (Bills/Packers) because of their defense but point differential without context is a silly way to eliminate a team.

Would you say the Steelers are better than the Bills because they have the same record and a better point differential? Of course not. There are 100 factors that I would consider before I'd think about using point differential.

Agreed. Hell, a month or so ago Buffalo was barely above even in point differential. The Dolphins, on the other hand, had a really good point differential. I don't think anyone would have had Miami above Buffalo at any point this year.

There was an article posted that Buffalo was the luckiest team in the league because their point differential wasn't stellar. Truth is- they were up big on a few teams and let them back in the game. They were clearly a top-10 team when I watched them. They outplayed teams. But they played prevent defense and the offense wasn't quite as potent.

Now, the Browns have gone through a similar situation. I think they're getting hot at the right time much like the Bills. They're not quite at the level of the Bills but to dismiss them entirely is a bit premature. We'll know more in the next few weeks, but the Browns can give any team a run for their money. They're a match up nightmare, and if Baker continues to improve- then they're a very dangerous team.

 

That's how I view teams, anyways- what do they have going for them? Are they more likely to progress or regress in the coming weeks? The Browns look to be progressing. The Steelers, on the other hand, are headed in the opposite direction and Big Ben looks toast. Cleveland is a legit threat to any team in the AFC. They're a playoff team through and through, imo. 

And this is coming from a Bills fan who loathes Baker Mayfield. (It's sports! Every fan needs a few villains in the league!)

Edited December 24, 2020 by WizeGuy

[Thomas5737]

35 minutes ago, WizeGuy said:

Now, the Browns have gone through a similar situation. I think they're getting hot at the right time much like the Bills. They're not quite at the level of the Bills but to dismiss them entirely is a bit premature. We'll know more in the next few weeks, but the Browns can give any team a run for their money. They're a match up nightmare, and if Baker continues to improve- then they're a very dangerous team.

 

That's how I view teams, anyways- what do they have going for them? Are they more likely to progress or regress in the coming weeks? The Browns look to be progressing. The Steelers, on the other hand, are headed in the opposite direction and Big Ben looks toast. Cleveland is a legit threat to any team in the AFC. They're a playoff team through and through, imo. 

And this is coming from a Bills fan who loathes Baker Mayfield. (It's sports! Every fan needs a few villains in the league!)

I'm not sure the next two weeks will show anything for the Browns unless they lose one. They play a struggling Jet team then a team that's struggled more than the Jets over the last few weeks. Now if they lose one it will show something unless Pittsburgh gets things right against the Colts but that's hard to predict at the moment.

I don't think Baker needs to "keep progressing" he has been close to perfect since the first drive of the Bengals game several weeks ago (there were 3 low passing output games because of storms). He needs to keep doing what he is doing and even if the run game stalls like he has a bit recently he can still keep the TDs coming.

A lot of people hate Mayfield, not sure why. Also don't really care much it isn't important. I think a lot of people mesh him and Manziel together. He is loved by teammates and a lot of players throughout the league. The shock jock media doesn't care for him because he responds to them but he is professional in every aspect of the game/media. He doesn't come off as fake like Alex Rodriguez did either which made him disliked.

Maybe it's a good thing for the league though, any press is good press and it's better to have people rooting against someone or a team than having little or no interest.

[candyman93]

Here’s my problem with posting Cleveland’s offensive stats.

 

They went through a 3 game stretch of horrific weather. It made our defense look better than what it actually is. Unless you actually think Cleveland holding Watson to 7 points is legitimate.

[ASmithFan1010]

I really don't trust the Packers and I think they're going to have an ending similar to last year.  It should be Packers, Bills, Browns but I have Bills, Packers, Browns.

[JBURGE]

On 12/26/2020 at 2:11 PM, ASmithFan1010 said:

I really don't trust the Packers and I think they're going to have an ending similar to last year.  It should be Packers, Bills, Browns but I have Bills, Packers, Browns.

I don't see anything wrong with this. I think the Bills and Packers are really close. Browns I would have a fairly distant 3rd

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, JBURGE said:

I don't see anything wrong with this. I think the Bills and Packers are really close. Browns I would have a fairly distant 3rd

This. GB is on the high side of Tier 2 teams (GB, KC, BUF, SEA). CLE is on the bottom side of Tier 4 teams (WAS, ATL, MIN, CAR, LV, CLE, DAL, NE).

There's a chasm between GB/BUF and CLE.

[JBURGE]

3 hours ago, incognito_man said:

5 hours ago, JBURGE said:

I don't see anything wrong with this. I think the Bills and Packers are really close. Browns I would have a fairly distant 3rd

This. GB is on the high side of Tier 2 teams (GB, KC, BUF, SEA). CLE is on the bottom side of Tier 4 teams (WAS, ATL, MIN, CAR, LV, CLE, DAL, NE).

There's a chasm between GB/BUF and CLE.

I have no clue what you are getting at with those tiers, tf?

[Blackstar12]

GB/BUF

Gap

Browns