TNF - MIN @ GB

[kearly]

Pete just wants to win games. His method of choice is to shorten the game and win with toxic differential. To shorten the game, Seattle puts a premium on milking every second of clock they can on offense.

But it doesn't stop there. Pete also wants his opponents to milk the clock too. That's why we see Seattle give up a lot of long drives with low yards per play, sometimes even willfully allowing the other team to score TDs late in games, because he knows the opponent can't come back from 21 down in 12 minutes when it requires an 8 minute drive to score.

I think Pete is obsessed with TOP per drive, but the strange twist is that he kind of wants his opponents to have good TOP per drive too.

Seattle wins TOP in most of their games despite this unusual tendency by Pete. Most teams in the NFL are built around a passing offense that isn't designed to win with 18 play scoring drives. Seattle on the other hand, is. So forcing both teams to play by Seattle's rules really works in our favor (unless that other team has Philip Rivers, Antonio Gates, and 115 degree heat on their side).

 

[Cartire]

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.

Just stop. Im getting pretty tired of your inability to admit when you are wrong, or even at the very least, bow out gracefully. The original topic was about you stating that TOP was the most useless stat ever. Many people, including myself, countered with statistical data showing its relevance. Along with testimonials from many coaches, including both Pete Carroll and Sean Payton, who both said TOP was a key part of of their game plans. You then decided to do what you do, and begin to state that we all assumed it was the most crucial stat there is. Which no one ever said. You said turnovers are more important, in some attempt to justify TOP being worthless. NO ONE SAID TURNOVERS WERE NOT IMPORTANT AND THAT IT WASNT A FACTOR IN GAMES. In fact, we all agreed that turnovers were a better indicator. But the original argument was never about which was better. It was about you saying TOP was useless. That was it. But once you discovered that that was false, you decided to change the argument to fit your own narrative. You do this all the time. Its stupid. Its annoying. AND NO, Its not trolling. Its you not having the social ineptitude to admit you are wrong in something.

Maybe you feel like it makes you look weak. Or people will think less of you. But heres the truth. People think you are weak when you cant just admit you were wrong.

And Im already well prepared for you to either attack my credibility/character in an attempt to divert this conversation once again. You never said "Take it with a grain of salt" like Kearly mentioned. And then praise him for saying that in some attempt to reinforce your original thesis. So do what you do best, were all waiting for it. Reform your argument and attempt to use outliers and different discussions to somehow prove your point, and that point is always the same, that no matter what, you were right all along. :roll:

 

[RolandDeschain]

This is pretty funny. You still don't understand the argument, Cartire. You never did.

Here, maybe you'll believe Chip Kelly and Bill Belichick. You may have heard their names before. I suspect you're not quite at their level of football expertise; I know I'm not.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000 ... -overrated

Time of possession long has been one of the most overrated statistics in football. It's broken out by lazy announcers who habitually talk about "controlling the ball" without thinking about what that means.

Thankfully, new Philadelphia Eagles coach Chip Kelly can make the point better than I can.

"I've heard the question about time of possession, but we've talked about all the time -- time of possession is how much time can the other team waste," Kelly told the Philadelphia media Friday, via CSN Philadelphia. "Most games, we lose the time of possession, but it's how many snaps do you face? And I think in both (preseason) games we've played, we've played more snaps than our other team."

http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/new ... he-result/

Carolina runs the ball and takes a lot of time off the clock and leads the league in time of possession. What does that stat mean and what does it tell you about Carolina? How much stock do you put in that stat?

That’€™s why you have an eight-minute time of possession discrepancy in their favor. I don’€™t think that’€™s good or bad. I think that’€™s the way they play and it’€™s definitely working for them, so it’€™s good.

That’€™s all part of the winning formula, which I would say all those things are more important than time of possessions. I think time of possession is kind of a function of third-down conversions and playing from ahead and converting third downs than it is just time of possessions ‘€“ we had the ball more than you did.

Cartire, you don't have to take my word for it; and there is just way too much randomness that dramatically alters time of possession such as turnovers, explosive plays, and also offensive and defensive tendencies of each team; look at the 49ers offense, to this day Kaepernick still takes delay-of-game penalties regularly because he can't even get plays executed on time when he's in a HURRY-UP OFFENSE just before halftime or the end of the game. Also add in the fact that there is always a "winner" and "loser" of that stat no matter what, unlike some other key stats. (There are plenty of games where there is no turnover differential because neither team turned the ball over, or they both turned it over once, etc.)

There are a lot of games where a team winning in the 4th quarter runs the ball to soak up more time to end the game more quickly, but they aren't winning because they are spending more clock minutes, they are spending more clock minutes because they are winning. Big difference. Football Outsiders has also proved pretty conclusively that good teams run when they win, not win because they run, as mentioned and linked in that NFL.com article.

Look at the list of teams sorted by ToP. http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/av ... -net-of-ot

You rag on me for anomalies? Ha. That list is filled with anomalies. Look at Detroit, currently #2 on the ToP list with a 3-1 record...Yet they were 3rd in the league last year for ToP with a 7-9 record, and 6th in the league in 2011 when they went 4-12. I suppose if you were crazy enough you could try to correlate more ToP with their improving record, but we both know that's a joke.

 

[Cartire]

See Roland. This is what you do. Its called Confirmation Bias. You mock/dismiss anything that goes against your argument, and you parade anything that endorses it.

I brought up Sean Payton and Pete Carroll praising TOP, you dismiss it. Then you turn around and use Chip Kelly and BB and say "I suspect you're not quite at their level of football expertise; I know I'm not." Do you even see yourself do this? Its quite a sickness you have going on.

You then dismiss a 5 year analysis in favor of individual disparities to it. Any time something goes against my argument, you use it as some end-all be-all confirmation of your argument. You change the parameters of the original discussion as well. You tell me I dont understand the argument. The argument was this, and only this, "Time of possession is the most meaningless statistic in football." Our entire argument was you stating that it was the most meaningless, and we argued you were wrong in that. Then you changed it around to make it sound like we think its THE MOST important stat in determining wins. WHICH NO ONE EVER SAID.

This is your issue. This is what you are infected by. And whats really sad, I have to assume this is how you act in your everyday life too. I feel more bad for you at this point because I dont believe you will ever see it. Even now, youre only trying to formulate your argument in another way to continue this disease you have. Heres Sean Paytons position on TOP. I suspect you're not quite at his level of football expertise; I know I'm not.

METAIRIE, La. (AP) — For Sean Payton and the New Orleans Saints, time of possession is of the essence.

"It's an important statistic," Payton said Monday, acknowledging the role that his team's ability to control the clock has played in its 5-0 start.

The Saints' fourth-ranked offense has had the ball for an average of 34:37 per game, which led the NFL heading into Monday night's game. The ability New Orleans' 11th-ranked defense to force some quick punts or turnovers has had something to do with that as well.

"Time of possession is really a team stat," safety Malcolm Jenkins said. "It's everybody. It's special teams, it's defense, it's offense, and that's showing you that we're winning as a team in all of our games."

Indeed, it was Jenkins' sack and strip of Jay Cutler — recovered by defensive end Cameron Jordan — that limited Chicago to a single play on its second drive Sunday, and helped New Orleans take an early 6-0 lead en route to a 26-18 victory.

The Saints, who play next at New England, had the ball for 36 minutes in Chicago — 12 minutes more than the Bears. New Orleans managed that despite rushing for only 66 yards.

The Saints entered Monday ranked 26th in rushing, averaging 78.2 yards.

Conventional football wisdom says teams must run well to control the clock. Apparently, that goes out the window in the case of Payton's innovative and prolific offense, which is built around the concept of isolating play-makers in mismatches and letting record-setting quarterback Drew Brees throw as often as needed.

"That's definitely unique — not doing it with a consistent run game," right guard Jarhi Evans said. "But coach Payton and Drew have those timing routes where he gets the ball out quick and those short throws actually go for big gains. We just try to stay on the field and keep converting, and that's what happens when you are converting on third downs, fourth-and-1, like we did."

Payton still sees himself as more of an aggressive than methodical play-caller. Late in the first half, he thought a 36-yard pass attempt intended for Robert Meachem in the end zone was well set up, and that the incompletion could have been ruled pass interference when defensive back Chris Conte pulled Meachem's jersey. Because of the Saints' ability to continue moving the ball after that — even converting a fourth-and-short on Pierre Thomas' run — the Saints kept the ball for an additional minute-and-a-half and still got in the end zone when Thomas scored on a 25-yard screen.

"It's just being productive with your down and distances," Payton said. "It meant taking advantage of a check-down as opposed to an incomplete down the field.

"You want to score every time you have it, so we're not purposely trying to create long drives. But be efficient with your plays, and if you're winning on third down, for instance, you're staying on the field. If you're turning the ball over, conversely, all of a sudden the drive ends," Payton continued. "There's a lot of things that factor into it."

For Payton, time of possession figures prominently in "complementary football," a concept stressed by coaches and often repeated by players at Saints headquarters. In other words, offenses must keep in mind the various things they can do to make the game easier on their defense, and vice versa, with special teams also playing its part to create favorable field position.

That is why Jenkins is quick to credit Brees & Co. for helping keep the Saints defense fresh.

"We're not very tired at all," Jenkins said. "It's not like our offense is going three-and-out and we're back on the field. They're sustaining drives. We're getting a good rest, being able to adjust on the sideline and then coming back out and playing fast."

Notes: Jenkins said the Saints are ignoring a statistic, distributed this week by the NFL, which shows that 90 percent of teams which have opened 5-0 have advanced to the post season under the current playoff format. "You'd be an idiot to listen to that stat and think that you're automatically going to the playoffs," Jenkins said. "Winning five games literally gets you nothing but five games. So people are going to throw that around and look forward, but right now we're just trying to get six."

___

AP NFL website: http://www.pro32.ap.org

 

[RolandDeschain]

See Roland. This is what you do. Its called Confirmation Bias. You mock/dismiss anything that goes against your argument, and you parade anything that endorses it.

I brought up Sean Payton and Pete Carroll praising TOP, you dismiss it. Then you turn around and use Chip Kelly and BB and say "I suspect you're not quite at their level of football expertise; I know I'm not." Do you even see yourself do this? Its quite a sickness you have going on.

Lmao. Check a mirror sometime, bro. When have you not dismissed this yourself? Such hypocrisy. You're the one that turned my opinion of it into a war, by the way. 7-8 years ago I was a "believer" in ToP because it's what we hear by plenty of random talking heads and such. I came to realize that there's a considerable difference between controlling a game and controlling the clock, and that controlling the clock is merely a common byproduct of controlling the game but regularly it is NOT, and that there are a lot of random variables that wildly affect ToP, which makes it a worthless "postmortem" statistic to look at. You literally cannot look at ToP for a season of a team and say they had a good or bad year based on it. How you don't understand this is incredible to me.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

 

[Cartire]

See Roland. This is what you do. Its called Confirmation Bias. You mock/dismiss anything that goes against your argument, and you parade anything that endorses it.

I brought up Sean Payton and Pete Carroll praising TOP, you dismiss it. Then you turn around and use Chip Kelly and BB and say "I suspect you're not quite at their level of football expertise; I know I'm not." Do you even see yourself do this? Its quite a sickness you have going on.

Lmao. Check a mirror sometime, bro. When have you not dismissed this yourself? Such hypocrisy. You're the one that turned my opinion of it into a war, by the way. 7-8 years ago I was a "believer" in ToP because it's what we hear by plenty of random talking heads and such. I came to realize that there's a considerable difference between controlling a game and controlling the clock, and that controlling the clock is merely a common byproduct of controlling the game but regularly it is NOT, and that there are a lot of random variables that wildly affect ToP, which makes it a worthless "postmortem" statistic to look at. You literally cannot look at ToP for a season of a team and say they had a good or bad year based on it. How you don't understand this is incredible to me.

Nice, the old switch aroo. Dont look at me guys, look at him.

No one said it was a great indicator once again. You said it was meaningless, I disagreed. Theres a variety of middling ground that you always overlook. Its one extreme or the other with you. If its not the best, its the worst, or vice-versa.

Just like when you bring up turnover-differential as being a great indicator (which I agree btw, because its ok to do that), I could easily do what you do and go "Look at week 15 against AZ last year, We won the Turnover battle, and yet still lost the game. See, not a good indicator. So many other factors affected it." You see how that looks?

Youve used the argument that TOP is affected by teams running the ball late to hold the lead. Is this not trying to control possession so the other team doesnt get the ball back and score? This seems to be exactly what they are doing. Control more TOP in an effort to eliminate the opposing teams chances at scoring more.

So, at this point, go ahead and get the last word in. Because im done with yet another endless Roland debate. Feel secure in thinking that I dont respond to your next reply as a means of you winning/owning the conversation. Im tired of running in these Roland loops you create.

 

[RolandDeschain]

You are hopeless. Continue thinking I'm the sole proprietor of creating this all you want.

Lol @ Sgt. Largent's GIF.

 

[kidhawk]

Course Ran