Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

[ QUOTE ]
the washington air defense is 22nd in the league, yielding an average 218 ypg. they gave up 251, 306 (brady), 226 (jets!!), and 293 (romo) in the last four games.

i'm not sure that their defense is worse against the run than the pass, but they're crap enough against the pass to say so without looking.

-c

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations on saying the exact same (and incorrect!) thing that someone else already said in the thread. For the second (and hopefully last time), yards per game is a completely useless stat. It doesn't take into effect defense or the fact that Washington is being thrown on more than almost anybody in the league.

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Without going into detail I have Green Bay as a very strong play this week.

They are well positioned to exploit Detroit's weaknesses, whereas Detroit's singular offensive strength is offset by GB defensive strength.

I have GB with a decided edge on both sides of the football.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Detroit's offensive strength is throwing the football, which is GB's defensive weakness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dtroit's ONLY offensive strength is throwing the fb to their WR. GB has great def backfield & has been able to control the opposition's wideouts all year.
Det is not adept at protecting Kitna. GB avg almost 3 sacks per game.
Lions pass for 220 YPG & 1.3 TD per game - GB give up 190 YPG & only 1.2 passing tds per game. These stats for GB while having the lead most of the season requiring teams to throw more.
Det has no consistent running game & GB very good against the run - not a viable option for Det either.

The 3 teams that had offensive success against GB this year utilized their TE - Det doesnt have 1.

I stand by my statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay so the line should be Green Bay -7 right?

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the washington air defense is 22nd in the league, yielding an average 218 ypg. they gave up 251, 306 (brady), 226 (jets!!), and 293 (romo) in the last four games.

i'm not sure that their defense is worse against the run than the pass, but they're crap enough against the pass to say so without looking.

-c

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations on saying the exact same (and incorrect!) thing that someone else already said in the thread. For the second (and hopefully last time), yards per game is a completely useless stat. It doesn't take into effect defense or the fact that Washington is being thrown on more than almost anybody in the league.

[/ QUOTE ]

not to get too technical, but outsiders.com is just another stats org., and while i personally study their material, it is JUST ANOTHER STATS ORG. the data i appended is from NFL.com; as to why that is "wrong" is something you'll have to explain; and finally, the data says enough to be illuminative. does it need to say more?

-c

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

[ QUOTE ]
Okay so the line should be Green Bay -7 right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is value in GB -3 / 3.5 .... -5/-6/-7 all seem like more appropriate lines.

Anybody else agree/disagree...

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the washington air defense is 22nd in the league, yielding an average 218 ypg. they gave up 251, 306 (brady), 226 (jets!!), and 293 (romo) in the last four games.

i'm not sure that their defense is worse against the run than the pass, but they're crap enough against the pass to say so without looking.

-c

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations on saying the exact same (and incorrect!) thing that someone else already said in the thread. For the second (and hopefully last time), yards per game is a completely useless stat. It doesn't take into effect defense or the fact that Washington is being thrown on more than almost anybody in the league.

[/ QUOTE ]

not to get too technical, but outsiders.com is just another stats org., and while i personally study their material, it is JUST ANOTHER STATS ORG. the data i appended is from NFL.com; as to why that is "wrong" is something you'll have to explain; and finally, the data says enough to be illuminative. does it need to say more?

-c

[/ QUOTE ]

You're dense.

This is like saying "PECOTA is just a projection system. I have my own projections too." Maybe "Tangotiger is just a sabr junkie... Kyleb is a sabr junkie too."

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

yeah i am about as smart as tangotiger, i don't see why anyone listens to him instead of me .

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

[ QUOTE ]
yeah i am about as smart as tangotiger, i don't see why anyone listens to him instead of me .

[/ QUOTE ]

Apologies to Mr. Tango for even using the words "Tangotiger" "Sabr" and "KyleB" within ~300 words of one another.

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

[ QUOTE ]
not to get too technical, but outsiders.com is just another stats org., and while i personally study their material, it is JUST ANOTHER STATS ORG. the data i appended is from NFL.com; as to why that is "wrong" is something you'll have to explain; and finally, the data says enough to be illuminative. does it need to say more?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say the data was wrong. I said it was useless, and then I said why it was useless. Washington gives up more passing yards per game because their opponents attempt more passes per game. If you gave me 500 passing attempts against Washington's secondary I bet I could rack up 200 yards too.

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

And then, earlier, had you even read the thread, I stated that a better stat would be that Washington gives up 6.39 yards per attempt, which is 5th best in the NFL. So yeah, yards per game is a relatively worthless stat.

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay so the line should be Green Bay -7 right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is value in GB -3 / 3.5 .... -5/-6/-7 all seem like more appropriate lines.

Anybody else agree/disagree...

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed - and the point I was trying to make along with offering some reasoning for why I feel this way.

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

So you guys think GB should be favored by 13 points if this was in GB?

That's funny.

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

[ QUOTE ]
And then, earlier, had you even read the thread, I stated that a better stat would be that Washington gives up 6.39 yards per attempt, which is 5th best in the NFL. So yeah, yards per game is a relatively worthless stat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know why I am bothering with this - I am not even interested in the wash Pass Def part of the discussion, but I feel it needs to be said. This season teams have thrown against Washington AN AVERAGE OF 34 TIMES PER GAME OVER 10 GAMES!

If the Wash Pass Defense was 5th best in the NFL, teams would be awfully STOOOPID to do that, wouldnt they? Dont they pay these coaches a lot of money to be smarter than that?

Anyway, GB-DET - neutral field - 5 games. I would gladly wager that GB would outscore them by 35 or more points overall, barring major injuries on 1 side or the other. I would be confident that the GB roster & game preparation would "average" out to be 7 PPG better than Detroit.

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

[ QUOTE ]
So you guys think GB should be favored by 13 points if this was in GB?

That's funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea where you get that 13 pt figure - guessing its your sound logic, but I'm not quite sure. I do think GB is much better than Vegas is giving them credit for. And I think Vegas is giving DET too much credit... as they did last week, and again this week.

GB should be a 7/8 point favorite at home - YES.

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

[ QUOTE ]

If the Wash Pass Defense was 5th best in the NFL, teams would be awfully STOOOPID to do that, wouldnt they? Dont they pay these coaches a lot of money to be smarter than that?

[/ QUOTE ]


Well said... teams pass on them, because their RUSH DEF is as good as it is...

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay so the line should be Green Bay -7 right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is value in GB -3 / 3.5 .... -5/-6/-7 all seem like more appropriate lines.

Anybody else agree/disagree...

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed - and the point I was trying to make along with offering some reasoning for why I feel this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's where it comes from. If you agree with -7 being an appropriate line when GB is playing Detroit IN DETROIT, then based on average HFA it translates to GB being a -13 favorite at home. HFA is worth 3 points over a neutral field.

This isn't even taking into account the even greater advantages (or maybe not, educate me) of Lambeau field and taking the Lions out of a dome.

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you guys think GB should be favored by 13 points if this was in GB?

That's funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea where you get that 13 pt figure - guessing its your sound logic, but I'm not quite sure. I do think GB is much better than Vegas is giving them credit for. And I think Vegas is giving DET too much credit... as they did last week, and again this week.

GB should be a 7/8 point favorite at home - YES.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't know where I got the 13 point figure, then you really shouldn't be betting on sports at all.

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

[ QUOTE ]


I dont know why I am bothering with this - I am not even interested in the wash Pass Def part of the discussion, but I feel it needs to be said. This season teams have thrown against Washington AN AVERAGE OF 34 TIMES PER GAME OVER 10 GAMES!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'VE SAID THAT LIKE 3 TIMES ALREADY.

[ QUOTE ]

If the Wash Pass Defense was 5th best in the NFL, teams would be awfully STOOOPID to do that, wouldnt they? Dont they pay these coaches a lot of money to be smarter than that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell if I know. Maybe they've played offenses geared towards the pass. Maybe most head coaches are idiots. All I know is when teams have thrown on Washington, the Skins have performed better than when teams have run on them. You're wrong if you disagree, and I'm not sure how much blunter I can be.

[ QUOTE ]

Anyway, GB-DET - neutral field - 5 games. I would gladly wager that GB would outscore them by 35 or more points overall, barring major injuries on 1 side or the other. I would be confident that the GB roster & game preparation would "average" out to be 7 PPG better than Detroit.

[/ QUOTE ]

So they should be a 4 point favorite or so IN Detroit?

Brilliant!

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you guys think GB should be favored by 13 points if this was in GB?

That's funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea where you get that 13 pt figure - guessing its your sound logic, but I'm not quite sure. I do think GB is much better than Vegas is giving them credit for. And I think Vegas is giving DET too much credit... as they did last week, and again this week.

GB should be a 7/8 point favorite at home - YES.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't know where I got the 13 point figure, then you really shouldn't be betting on sports at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll admit that I am new to the more sophisticated betting strategy... so you undoubtedly have an edge on me there.

I have my money on GB this week - my BET IS IN. Put yours on DET - and show me just how sophisticated of a bettor you are.

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you guys think GB should be favored by 13 points if this was in GB?

That's funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea where you get that 13 pt figure - guessing its your sound logic, but I'm not quite sure. I do think GB is much better than Vegas is giving them credit for. And I think Vegas is giving DET too much credit... as they did last week, and again this week.

GB should be a 7/8 point favorite at home - YES.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't know where I got the 13 point figure, then you really shouldn't be betting on sports at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll admit that I am new to the more sophisticated betting strategy... so you undoubtedly have an edge on me there.

I have my money on GB this week - my BET IS IN. Put yours on DET - and show me just how sophisticated of a bettor you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or I could not bet that game either way because I think it's a pretty fair line and I'd rather not pay vig on a bet I think I'm going to win around 50% of the time.

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you guys think GB should be favored by 13 points if this was in GB?

That's funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea where you get that 13 pt figure - guessing its your sound logic, but I'm not quite sure. I do think GB is much better than Vegas is giving them credit for. And I think Vegas is giving DET too much credit... as they did last week, and again this week.

GB should be a 7/8 point favorite at home - YES.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't know where I got the 13 point figure, then you really shouldn't be betting on sports at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll admit that I am new to the more sophisticated betting strategy... so you undoubtedly have an edge on me there.

I have my money on GB this week - my BET IS IN. Put yours on DET - and show me just how sophisticated of a bettor you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kyro - you obviously just want to be right. You are not interested in considering the other info put forward.

The standard (3 point home advantage) has not been universally accepted for some time - but to the average "note: square" bettor that is what he's heard- so it's gospel.

Of course you dont know why teams are throwing on Wash more than running. Simple: they are more susceptible to the pass than the run.

Lets make you the coach. You can average 6+ yards per pass play against a team that you can't average 4 yds per rush against.

What are you going to do?

Play to win?

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

I don't know how you can say Kyro doesn't consider such-and-such statistic when you ignore the Yards per Attempt statistic.

There are a million other things that can be trotted out - the fact that Washington has played pass heavy teams, for example (Cowboys, Patriots, Detroit, Arizona, Giants, Green Bay), often are ahead to start the 4th quarter, etc.

It seems like neither side will budge, but all other things being equal, Washington's pass defense DVOA is 9th and their rush defense DVOA is 16th.

As for the 3 point HFA not being universal (barring the adjustments, minor or major for each field/situation), someone explain that to me? I'm pretty new here.

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

[ QUOTE ]
Lets make you the coach. You can average 6+ yards per pass play against a team that you can't average 4 yds per rush against.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know how many teams are giving up 6+ yards per pass attempt? 29.

You know how many teams are giving up less than 4 yards per rush attempt? 16.

Washington isn't exactly in an exclusive group here.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like neither side will budge, but all other things being equal, Washington's pass defense DVOA is 9th and their rush defense DVOA is 16th.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been pretty much my point the entire argument. You guys were the one who tried using yards per game as evidence that Washington's pass defense sucked, and then pretending that the reason Washington has more pass attempts on it than all but 4 teams is because they apparently have a shoddy pass defense despite giving up the 4th lowest yards per attempt in the entire league. Like I said, I don't know for sure WHY Washington has more pass attempts against, but I'm pretty sure it's not because their secondary is susceptible.

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
not to get too technical, but outsiders.com is just another stats org., and while i personally study their material, it is JUST ANOTHER STATS ORG. the data i appended is from NFL.com; as to why that is "wrong" is something you'll have to explain; and finally, the data says enough to be illuminative. does it need to say more?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say the data was wrong. I said it was useless, and then I said why it was useless. Washington gives up more passing yards per game because their opponents attempt more passes per game. If you gave me 500 passing attempts against Washington's secondary I bet I could rack up 200 yards too.

[/ QUOTE ]

unfortunately, the teams were not only accumulating yardage, they were doing it with precision: 94 of 140 attempts for a tidy 67% pass completion rate (and this figure includes the jets' 23 of 42). people think the secondary of washington is good: the figures state otherwise. and the inability of washington to stop the pass IS very pertinent, imo: by implication, the washington defense is tougher to run on than pass.

i simply cannot see how you fail to understand such basic strategy: is it not true that offensive coordinators take the path of least resistance?

-c

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

67% pass completion rate and yet they have the 5th best yards per attempt in the NFL. That should tell you something.

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

[ QUOTE ]
67% pass completion rate and yet they have the 5th best yards per attempt in the NFL. That should tell you something.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

You can't make it any simpler to understand cata-tonia. May as well give up the fight.

Hyro - nothing personal - but you are 1 stubborn sob.

In all sincerity enjoy your Thanksgiving.

Even though I am Canadian I grew up in Windsor and have enjoyed Turkeyball for many years.

I'll be at a neighborhood bar having a few cold ones & playing some QB1.

Favorite call: Kitna QB Sack - Gamebreaker lol.

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

I'm a stubborn sob because I know I'm right and you're wrong. Also, the pass completion rate is 62.5%. I have no idea where you got 94/141. I guess I should have checked that and not assumed you were presenting me with actual facts. 62.5 is right around average.

Opponents are getting less than 10 yards per completion against the Redskins, good for 9th in the league, and 6.39 yards per attempt, good for 5th in the league. If, after this, you still want to pretend that the Redskins have a poor secondary, then I'm not the stubborn sob who doesn't get "simple" evidence.

BTW, given what stats you've been using, I'm assuming you think the Jets have a better secondary than the Redskins? I mean, they give up fewer yards per game and fewer attempts per game. Obviously this means they have a better secondary than the Skins.

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

Lol. Kyro - I think I see part of your problem. You are so wound up that you don't look at who posts what. None of the 'facts' you present in your last post were even stated by me yet you attribute them all to me.

As a matter of fact, I dont think the Skins or Jets have an especially good secondary, but I havent said that specifically, nor does it matter to MY OPINION - which was that GB does have a good sceondary, and it will be a difference maker in them covering the spread against the Lions.

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

[ QUOTE ]
Lol. Kyro - I think I see part of your problem. You are so wound up that you don't look at who posts what. None of the 'facts' you present in your last post were even stated by me yet you attribute them all to me.

As a matter of fact, I dont think the Skins or Jets have an especially good secondary, but I havent said that specifically, nor does it matter to MY OPINION - which was that GB does have a good sceondary, and it will be a difference maker in them covering the spread against the Lions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't really attribute those to you. I'm responding to both of you. You both think Washington has a poor secondary. You're both wrong. You seemed to agree with catatonia on his post so I'm going to lump you both in when I respond.

Also, Washington's secondary is better than GB's secondary. GB's secondary is averagish.

Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
 

OK, maybe Washington's secondary isn't better than it's running game anymore.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3127928