TNF - MIN @ GB

[loafoftatupu]

I had snagged the Packers D during the bye week... I kept them knowing the situation and while I love starting my Hawks D, with Ponder out there I couldn't resist in starting GB. I nearly had the shutout on top of the turnovers and the special teams score.

But nothing pleased me more than to look and see my opponent had the Vikings D as a loyal Minny fan.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Good ole Roland. uses outliers to confirm his position. I think your moniker needs to read "Mr. Confirmation Bias"

Outliers? Wait, you seriously don't remember when I picked a random NFL week and pointed out that the team that won ToP in all those games lost almost as much as they won?

Look at it over a season, it's not far from being a coin toss. MEANINGLESS stat. Don't be salty.

 

[pmedic920]

Flynn first throw this year = INT. [emoji2]

 

[Cartire]

Baldwin would have dragged that toe.

 

[OrFan]

I really do not see anybody from our farm team worth acquiring this year.

They just don't make minor league teams like they used to.

 

[ivotuk]

LOL at Matt Flynn! That look and body language was comical!

 

[Cartire]

Good ole Roland. uses outliers to confirm his position. I think your moniker needs to read "Mr. Confirmation Bias"

Outliers? Wait, you seriously don't remember when I picked a random NFL week and pointed out that the team that won ToP in all those games lost almost as much as they won?

Look at it over a season, it's not far from being a coin toss. MEANINGLESS stat. Don't be salty.

I remember in the same thread we took a three year span over your one week and found winners had TOP 68% of the time. Nice try Mr. Confirmation Bias.

 

[ivotuk]

Good Ol' Flynn, is up a time out because you can't get your shit together

 

[ivotuk]

Great throw! Halfway between two receivers. But a great hands off there.

 

[Seahwkgal]

These Thursday night games always suck. Having these Thursday games every week may have not been one of the NFL's better ideas.

Hasn't every one of the Thursday night games been blowouts so far this season?

 

[chris98251]

Yeah, the NFL really screwed CBS on this years schedule.

 

[Our Man in Chicago]

Flynn first throw this year = INT. [emoji2]

Well, he looked really good kneeling that ball. You've got to admit that much.

 

[Laloosh]

That game was amazing... And by amazing, I mean horrible.

 

[Sarlacc83]

These Thursday night games always suck. Having these Thursday games every week may have not been one of the NFL's better ideas.

Hasn't every one of the Thursday night games been blowouts so far this season?

Yup. Seems like a failed experiment without a bye week in between.

 

[chris98251]

These Thursday night games always suck. Having these Thursday games every week may have not been one of the NFL's better ideas.

Hasn't every one of the Thursday night games been blowouts so far this season?

Yup. Seems like a failed experiment without a bye week in between.

Ratings and advertisements CBS's problem, we got a pot load of Money Cha Ching!

 

[kearly]

The three biggest blowouts in TNF history have happened the last three games. I'm sure CBS loves hearing that given that they are paid something like $800 million to broadcast these games this year (blowouts are bad for ratings).

I love having more nationally televised football, but TNF is just a terrible idea as it's currently set up. The home team has an enormous advantage. Even with the monster blowout loss by Washington, home teams on TNF have roughly been as good as Seattle at home the last two years. How the NFL thinks this is acceptably fair is beyond my understanding. Getting a road game on TNF is almost a certain loss and any team that gets TNF home games is getting a favor from the league that cannot be evenly distributed to all 32 teams (unless they expand TNF massively).

One thing they could do is to program the schedules so that TNF teams are always coming off a bye. That would fix the issue nicely, though it would make scheduling a bit more complicated and it would rob some players of vacation time.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I remember in the same thread we took a three year span over your one week and found winners had TOP 68% of the time. Nice try Mr. Confirmation Bias.

68% over three years? I don't remember that specific number. Got linkage? (P.S., there are so many WILD outliers such as a winning team having 16m ToP that it's still a pretty false number and one which is skewed hugely by turnovers, etc.)

 

[kearly]

Some thoughts on the game:

Not that it was an easy situation, but wow Ponder is horrible.

Matt Asiata averaged a strong 4.8 yards per carry despite the blitz heavy nature of Green Bay's game plan. Watching Asiata I am starting to feel comfortable with the idea that he might be a slightly above average NFL RB. He's more talented than guys like Law Firm and Shonn Greene for sure, and he seems more athletic than Toby Gerhart was last year. It's too bad he fumbled and it's too bad he was never on the field when it mattered most for fantasy owners, but I thought he actually had a really nice game.

Cordarrelle Patterson is starting to look like a one hit wonder. Even with Bridgewater, I doubt he'll rebound much. I don't really understand why Minny stopped using him on end arounds and handoffs though. He is so much more than a kick returner.

Jordy Nelson had 12.6 fantasy points tonight. He touched the ball one time.

Jarius Wright was Bridgewater's favorite WR last week and he got a lot of targets in this game before it turned into a blowout. He earns the targets by creating separation. When Bridgewater comes back I think he could be a top 20 fantasy WR the rest of the season. I like his talent and so do his QBs.

 

[kearly]

68% over three years? I don't remember that specific number. Got linkage?

Apparently from 2003 to 2008 (five year sample), the win rate for teams with the time of possession advantage was 65.4%.

http://www.stampedeblue.com/2009/4/14/8 ... ctors-time

Not surprising. Time of possession can sometimes be a causality stat (meaning that a team won time of possession because they were running the clock out late after establishing a big lead earlier in the game for reasons that had nothing to do with ball control). So that stat has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Of course, in instances when TOP isn't being deceptive, it is a great stat for illustrating how well a team controlled the game. Teams that control a game usually win, as we've seen up close and personal the last couple years with SF and SEA.

You can tell that TOP matters to Pete. He orders his QBs to snap the ball when the play clock is almost up, and his team led the NFL by far in rush percentage last year. Pete is obsessed with a controlling style of football. Because he knows how hard it is to beat.

34.6% of winners lose TOP. In those instances, teams won by methods other than control. There are many ways to win a football game, but winning by control seems to have the numbers on its side.

The Vikings, especially with Ponder, are a team that hopes to win with control (because putting the game on Ponder's shoulders isn't exactly the greatest game plan). But playing a control style of game requires a certain amount of effectiveness and talent. The 1992 Seahawks were a control type of team too, and they went 2-14 because their QBs were historically bad.

 

[RolandDeschain]

So that stat has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Exactly my point. Also, thanks for the link.

Of course, in instances when TOP isn't being deceptive, it is a great stat for illustrating how well a team controlled the game. Teams that control a game usually win, as we've seen up close and personal the last couple years with SF and SEA.

Exactly, but that still isn't very relevant to ToP itself. All it takes is one explosive play, and your ToP Is skewed by a large margin.

You can tell that TOP matters to Pete. He orders his QBs to snap the ball when the play clock is almost up, and his team led the NFL by far in rush percentage last year. Pete is obsessed with a controlling style of football. Because he knows how hard it is to beat.

I think Pete is obsessed with controlling the game. I don't think he cares very much at all about time of possession. Riddle me this: let's say we hit on a couple of O-linemen and turn into the best run-blocking O-line in the NFL by far, and half our drives start off with Christine Michael going for a 70+ yard TD run. We score a lot but the offense keeps getting off the field quickly. You think he's going to be disappointed about a low ToP number after blowouts? Definitely not, IMO. Controlling the game doesn't mean controlling time of possession, it means dominating your opponent. Long offensive drives helps reduce their offensive opportunities, but quick scores also forces the other offense to be more one-dimensional, different angles to still apply major pressure by you controlling the game.

34.6% of winners lose TOP. In those instances, teams won by methods other than control. There are many ways to win a football game, but winning by control seems to have the numbers on its side.

I think it's incorrect to correlate low ToP with not controlling the game. I understand what you mean but they really are different things. I don't think certain people (not referring to you, Kearly) ever really understood the distinction in the original argument of this topic.