No pumpkin pie from Vegas

[kyro]

[ 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.

[BobbyLight]

[ 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?

[cato-tonia]

[ 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

[digdeep]

[ 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...

[Thremp]

[ 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."

[kyleb]

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

[Thremp]

[ 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.

[kyro]

[ 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.

[kyro]

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.

[1MoreFish4U]

[ 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.