Jump to content

2020 Divisional: #6 Cleveland Browns vs. #1 KC Chiefs


Who will win?  

106 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win?



Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

This never happened. I never said anything about the Browns "deserving" (or not deserving) to be a playoff team.

Okay, I may have jumbled different conversations in my brain.

14 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Ah. So we base it all on h2h matchups? Jets are better than the Rams, too I suppose? PIT was descending and CLE was ascending to end the year (as reflected in Weighted DVOA). Your question about beating them x times in a row is...kinda nonsense. Nobody knows because DVOA isn't a regurgitation of the final score. So it's sort of a nonsense question with no answer.

If a 15-1 team loses to an 0-16 team you probably don't need to figure out who should be ranked higher. If it is close like two 11-5 teams I would consider head to head a better indicator which team is better than DVOA.

16 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

You seem to be inventing ways that I've used it. I've never once use DVOA as evidence to suggest that team A will beat team B in any single game. It's not made to be used that way, and I certainly don't. It seems you have a misunderstanding here.

I recall where it was disputed now, you were saying the NFC was stronger because of DVOA. The Browns were 18th and behind below .500 NFC teams that they beat but since DVOA said they were the better team that was proof that the NFC was the stronger conference. You certainly used it as an absolute to prove the NFC was stronger even though on the field they weren't... as far as the scoreboard. With all of the factors that DVOA include sure they may have been the better conference if it was tight and you needed a tiebreaker. It wasn't needed though because it wasn't close enough that you needed to rely on any backup data. At least in most's eyes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, candyman93 said:

I don’t want to put words in Incogs mouth, but I assume he’s just using DVOA as merely a tool.

 

Football is a weird sport where anything can happen. 

Well he uses it as a fact too much imo. It should be used as a tool. It doesn't prove anything. Just like if I have a 167 bowling average it doesn't prove I'm not going to bowl a 191.

All sports are weird where anything can happen. For the most part anyway. There are factors that you can't address because they are unknown by outsiders and sometimes even by the team/player. Sometimes you just lack energy or motivation. You do everything to give everything but it is just flat and the person across from you isn't struggling with that at all and everything seems easy for them.

The first Browns/Steelers game was ugly because the Steelers were so much faster and there was nothing we could do. Last game the roles were reversed, we looked faster and focused. Same teams, different days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

I recall where it was disputed now, you were saying the NFC was stronger because of DVOA. The Browns were 18th and behind below .500 NFC teams that they beat but since DVOA said they were the better team that was proof that the NFC was the stronger conference. You certainly used it as an absolute to prove the NFC was stronger even though on the field they weren't... as far as the scoreboard. With all of the factors that DVOA include sure they may have been the better conference if it was tight and you needed a tiebreaker. It wasn't needed though because it wasn't close enough that you needed to rely on any backup data. At least in most's eyes. 

Yes, I used it to show how top to bottom the NFC was superior to the AFC using this metric (which is superior to the h2h records IMO because it takes into account EVERY game including the small subset of h2h inter-conference games). 

There was a false narrative that the AFC was superior buoyed by the initial "dominance" of KC and PIT to start the season and fans didn't catch up to the realization that the top of NFC was actually stronger. It was further buoyed by the conference h2h record which was largely tilted by the match-up of the best AFC division (North) against, by far, the weakest NFC division (East). 

Simple h2h record weights games like GB crushing TEN the same as KC squeaking by Carolina and Atlanta. DVOA puts those victories into context (while also recognizing and including them).

DVOA is an exceptionally useful tool for evaluating relative strength of the conferences this way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

Well he uses it as a fact too much imo

It's not possible to rely on it too much if using any other numbers/results in its place. The only superior tool is an expert eye watching and opining on the actual gameplay. There's a handful of folks on here capable of that, but it's enormously labor intensive. I don't think people at PFF are "expert" but their collection of scores are at least decent attempt to normalize the field.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

It's not possible to rely on it too much if using any other numbers/results in its place. The only superior tool is an expert eye watching and opining on the actual gameplay. There's a handful of folks on here capable of that, but it's enormously labor intensive. I don't think people at PFF are "expert" but their collection of scores are at least decent attempt to normalize the field.

I agree that it's helpful, it just isn't enough to use to ultimately decide which is a better conference because it had the 11-5 Browns 18th overall and behind some below .500 teams that lost to the Browns with fewer good wins and more bad losses.

I don't understand how data from one game can move the Browns up 6 spots when it accounted for 16 games prior to that. It doesn't make sense even if it was a 42-0 blowout. Some of the teams they passed didn't even play.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, candyman93 said:

I don’t want to put words in Incogs mouth, but I assume he’s just using DVOA as merely a tool.

 

Football is a weird sport where anything can happen. 

This is true, as easily as the Chiefs could win they could easily lose. Any Given Sunday is still alive and well. 
 

Browns have an impressive RB Corp, Baker Mayfield at QB, and Myles Garret in his Prime bringing the heat. I don’t think this will be an easily won game for either side. 
 

Can I say it’s amazing to meet in the playoffs and not the regular season? I remember when our games were an annual occurrence. Us the bastard children of John Dorsey. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Chiefer said:

Can I say it’s amazing to meet in the playoffs and not the regular season? I remember when our games were an annual occurrence. Us the bastard children of John Dorsey. 

The John Tait / Dwayne Rudd play is easily the most confused I’ve ever been.   Had to listen on the radio,  announcers had no idea what was going on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chiefer said:

This is true, as easily as the Chiefs could win they could easily lose. Any Given Sunday is still alive and well. 

I wouldn't go that far, makes it sound like a 50/50 thing. I'd say the Browns have a 20% chance of winning and of that percentage it's mostly that they come out on fire like in the Titans or Steelers games and hold on to win.

They could win like in the Bengals game where no one could stop the other team and we just got the ball last.

I really don't see the Browns giving up less than 4 TDs. Even if the Chiefs turn it over a couple times early in the game they will still get theirs. The Browns simply have to outscore the Chiefs (duh) but they can't get a small lead and sit on it.

I do think the Browns will come to play and score at least 24. Could be a 31-30 type game, 41-27 type game or even a 51-45 type game. I don't see a 24-20 type game.

The Browns can't stop 90% of the teams and they certainly can't stop the Chiefs. If they are on they can score with teams. If the opposition stumbles they can build a lead. If the Browns stumble they have almost no chance to recover because the defense can't pick them up. The offense has to come out hot and stay hot. Tall task but they are capable and it's a wonderful feeling as a Browns fan to believe we even have a chance against the Chiefs in the AFC divisional round. We've come a long way in a year and why stop now.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

I agree that it's helpful, it just isn't enough to use to ultimately decide which is a better conference because it had the 11-5 Browns 18th overall and behind some below .500 teams that lost to the Browns with fewer good wins and more bad losses.

I don't understand how data from one game can move the Browns up 6 spots when it accounted for 16 games prior to that. It doesn't make sense even if it was a 42-0 blowout. Some of the teams they passed didn't even play.

It's really good in deciphering which team is better though, even when they've played against eachother.

I mean, who needs things like results and outcomes of games that have actually happened, when you could look up on a chart to see which of those teams are better?

Case in point, he said KC aren't as good as NO, TB and BUF. 3 teams which we have beaten this season away from home. Two of those games weren't actually close until garbage time.

But...ya know....'math'.

You're right to question it, despite people thinking their way is gospel.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, incognito_man said:

Yes, I used it to show how top to bottom the NFC was superior to the AFC using this metric (which is superior to the h2h records IMO because it takes into account EVERY game including the small subset of h2h inter-conference games). 

There was a false narrative that the AFC was superior buoyed by the initial "dominance" of KC and PIT to start the season and fans didn't catch up to the realization that the top of NFC was actually stronger. It was further buoyed by the conference h2h record which was largely tilted by the match-up of the best AFC division (North) against, by far, the weakest NFC division (East). 

Simple h2h record weights games like GB crushing TEN the same as KC squeaking by Carolina and Atlanta. DVOA puts those victories into context (while also recognizing and including them).

DVOA is an exceptionally useful tool for evaluating relative strength of the conferences this way.

You can argue pretty much anything nowadays. The reality is, if right now the AFC teams played NFC teams instead of each other, the AFC teams would slaughter the NFC. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2021 at 12:35 PM, AkronsWitness said:

Ehh yeah but the Browns have proved better than the Titans that if they have to have a big day passing the ball to win that they can do that. The Browns passed all over the Titans, Colts, Bengals, Ravens, ect

Now do I think the Browns can win in a high scoring shootout agains the Cheifs? No. The ground game must play a factor in some capacity to win this game.

 

The Browns passed all over a limping Ravens secondary with Humphrey, Marcus Peters on one leg and Devontae Harris who eventually got injured and Anthony Levine. When Smith, Peters and Humphrey were healthy, the Browns went down by two scores at the beginning of the 4th quarter.

Edited by DeathonWings96
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BigTrav said:

It's really good in deciphering which team is better though, even when they've played against eachother.

I mean, who needs things like results and outcomes of games that have actually happened, when you could look up on a chart to see which of those teams are better?

Case in point, he said KC aren't as good as NO, TB and BUF. 3 teams which we have beaten this season away from home. Two of those games weren't actually close until garbage time.

But...ya know....'math'.

You're right to question it, despite people thinking their way is gospel.

The Browns went 4-1 against the three teams directly above them in the rankings.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To end the regular season the Browns were just behind the 4-12 Falcons: Maybe it was just a crazy year and the metric is usually a better indicator but sometimes you just have to look at something and say this isn't quite right.

17 ATL -4.2% 15 17 -0.6% 17 4-12 -3.1% 21 -0.1% 14 -1.2% 21
18 CLE -5.6% 24 21 -0.7% 18 11-5 5.4% 9 7.4% 25 -3.6% 27
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MSURacerDT55 said:

You can argue pretty much anything nowadays. The reality is, if right now the AFC teams played NFC teams instead of each other, the AFC teams would slaughter the NFC. 

If you have to preface something by saying "the reality is", you know whatever follows is not reality lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forge locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...