Assani vs the StatHeads: Evaluating NFL QBs

[snowden719]

If you were coaching the titans, with a historically great defense, why would you try to control the ball a lot and minimize the amount of possessions your historically great defense plays? It seems like you want your defense to play reasonably often, to lower the variance that occurs within a game. A team like the jets is the one that wants to keep its defense off the field as much as possible.

[Pudge714]

Assani,
Irt to causation correlation
You have A and B
A is correlated with B
That doesn't mean A causes B or B causes A.
That is correlation doesn't equal causation.

Causation doesn't equal correlation would be
A causes B
A isn't correlated with B
That is impossible since A causes B.

[Boris]

I think Randy Moss doesn't get enough credit for making Brady so damn good. Seriously.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
With an equation or inequation it doesn't matter which is on the left and which is on the right side....am I wrong?



99,998 and counting

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the actual phrase is "Correlation does not imply causation" which is actually false, but if you switch it around and make it "Causation does not imply correlation" its REALLY false, since you cannot have causation without correlation. You didnt exactly phrase it this way, but to say Causation isnt correlation is kind of misleading, since it IS correlation, its just correlation and a bunch of other things. Kind of a square rectangle thing, ya know?

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Randy Moss doesn't get enough credit for making Brady so damn good. Seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

peak Randy Moss = best WR ever

seriously. I never watched him as much as I do now,and I'm stunned at hoe good of WR he is. that sounds dumb - I mean I always figured he was fast as hell and could jump, but I never realized how good his hands were, how amazing his timing was, how shifty/good at using his hands/cheating he is, and in addition, everyone says his football iq is incredibly high. he picked up the offense super fast, and plays every down.

double edit: the Pats are gonna break the points scored record held by the Vikings, and the key cog (besides the qb) in each offense was Randy Moss. not a coincidence

[MuresanForMVP]

[ QUOTE ]
If you were coaching the titans, with a historically great defense, why would you try to control the ball a lot and minimize the amount of possessions your historically great defense plays? It seems like you want your defense to play reasonably often, to lower the variance that occurs within a game. A team like the jets is the one that wants to keep its defense off the field as much as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]


I dont claim to know a whole lot about football, but would I be wrong in saying that this is probably completely wrong? 1). Why would you want the other team to have the ball more? More possessions and more time on the clock typically would mean more points, or am I wrong? 2). Wouldn't a historically great defense be good at staying off the field, if you know what I mean?

I've never heard of a gameplan wherein the defense manages to control the clock...

[MuresanForMVP]

If a football mind disagrees with that please let me know, cause I'm really just pulling that outta my head, and I'd like to learn more

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you were coaching the titans, with a historically great defense, why would you try to control the ball a lot and minimize the amount of possessions your historically great defense plays? It seems like you want your defense to play reasonably often, to lower the variance that occurs within a game. A team like the jets is the one that wants to keep its defense off the field as much as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]


I dont claim to know a whole lot about football, but would I be wrong in saying that this is probably completely wrong? 1). Why would you want the other team to have the ball more? More possessions and more time on the clock typically would mean more points, or am I wrong? 2). Wouldn't a historically great defense be good at staying off the field, if you know what I mean?

I've never heard of a gameplan wherein the defense manages to control the clock...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think he is making the point that taking more chances with your offense is a reasonable strategy when you have a phenomenal defense, at least as compared to when you have a terrible one. If I'm the QB of the Titans or the Ravens, I know that my defense is capable of papering over my mistakes, so I'm more free to take chances.

Of course, you could make the exact opposite argument, in that since your defense is so good, you dont NEED to score that much in order to win, and only by throwing pick 6's and giving the other guys a short field are you really going to get hurt. I dont think its actually possible to "theorize" as to which of these two approaches is correct, its probably one of those things where you have to try and find some data.

[snowden719]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you were coaching the titans, with a historically great defense, why would you try to control the ball a lot and minimize the amount of possessions your historically great defense plays? It seems like you want your defense to play reasonably often, to lower the variance that occurs within a game. A team like the jets is the one that wants to keep its defense off the field as much as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]


I dont claim to know a whole lot about football, but would I be wrong in saying that this is probably completely wrong? 1). Why would you want the other team to have the ball more? More possessions and more time on the clock typically would mean more points, or am I wrong? 2). Wouldn't a historically great defense be good at staying off the field, if you know what I mean?

I've never heard of a gameplan wherein the defense manages to control the clock...

[/ QUOTE ]


you get about the same amount of possessions as your opponent does in a game. Once your defense is on the field then obviously they want to get off it, but that doesn't mean that you don't want to play a high possession game. If the titans score about 3 points per possession and give up 1 point per possession on average, then the more possessions in the game the more likely they are to win unless they're more poorly conditioned than their opponent. (assuming playing a high amount of possessions is more tiring, not obvious to me that this is true).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you were coaching the titans, with a historically great defense, why would you try to control the ball a lot and minimize the amount of possessions your historically great defense plays? It seems like you want your defense to play reasonably often, to lower the variance that occurs within a game. A team like the jets is the one that wants to keep its defense off the field as much as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]


I dont claim to know a whole lot about football, but would I be wrong in saying that this is probably completely wrong? 1). Why would you want the other team to have the ball more? More possessions and more time on the clock typically would mean more points, or am I wrong? 2). Wouldn't a historically great defense be good at staying off the field, if you know what I mean?

I've never heard of a gameplan wherein the defense manages to control the clock...

[/ QUOTE ]


you get about the same amount of possessions as your opponent does in a game. Once your defense is on the field then obviously they want to get off it, but that doesn't mean that you don't want to play a high possession game. If the titans score about 3 points per possession and give up 1 point per possession on average, then the more possessions in the game the more likely they are to win unless they're more poorly conditioned than their opponent. (assuming playing a high amount of possessions is more tiring, not obvious to me that this is true).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting argument, it seems fairly obvious but I honestly dont think I've ever really heard anyone discuss this before.

Which probably means it has been discussed many times and is common knowledge to smart football people, but I'm not one of those.