The Hits Against PC/Schotty Keep Coming
- Thread starter mrt144
- Start date
chris98251
Well-known member
mrt144":1mlibtgw said:
So what kind of Chocolate are you at odds with Dark, White, regular, imported from a certain place, Hershey's Nestles ? Enquiring minds want to know
chris98251":3bidva1u said:mrt144":3bidva1u said:
So what kind of Chocolate are you at odds with Dark, White, regular, imported from a certain place, Hershey's Nestles ? Enquiring minds want to know
I generally like chocolate that is Dark (like 60% Cocoa to 80%) and has fruity or earthy notes - something that compliments and supports the notes in coffee I also like while being a sweet contrast to the bitterness of coffee. White chocolate is only suitable for holiday beverages and the occasional desert.
In general I prefer chocolate that is sourced from Africa because they tend to have those earthy and fruity notes but it's not an integral thing and basically any place that can produce chocolate in quantities sufficient for mass export have something that I'll enjoy. I really do like just having a square or two a day with my first cup of coffee, then having a cigarette afterwards.
AND THANK YOU FOR ASKING
:irishdrinkers:
Uncle Si
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2007
- Messages
- 20,596
- Reaction score
- 3
Belgian chocolate or GET OUT!!
KiwiHawk
New member
KiwiHawk
New member
We also both breathe air - doesn't change my opinion of you.mrt144":3i3hfk3o said:
Article is dumb, and I’ll tell you why.
The whole thing is built on this false premise: “Basically, the argument for the running game is that it is safer and that it is likely to result in third and manageable.” It attempts to prove this by calling out avg distance on 3rd down, conversion success on 3rd and one, etc. This is dumb dumb dumb. It ignores three more important stats that reflect Pete’s philosophies and the reasons for his success:
1. Turnovers. The Seahawks led the NFL in fewest giveaways as well as turnover differential.
2. Time of possession. The Seahawks were 8th in the league.
3. 4th quarter scoring. “Can you win the game in the first quarter??” Seahawks were 2nd overall.
So, if you want to disagree with the run-first Philosophy, fine. I think the offense should be more balanced and less predictable. But don’t try to claim that the offense isn’t achieving exactly what its set out to achieve with some really dumb 3rd-and-one stat that is a serious reach on the part of the author.
Pete wants to hold on to the ball, wear the other team out, lean on the defense, and win the game in the final quarter. It might not be the best strategy but the Seahawks are executing it well.
The whole thing is built on this false premise: “Basically, the argument for the running game is that it is safer and that it is likely to result in third and manageable.” It attempts to prove this by calling out avg distance on 3rd down, conversion success on 3rd and one, etc. This is dumb dumb dumb. It ignores three more important stats that reflect Pete’s philosophies and the reasons for his success:
1. Turnovers. The Seahawks led the NFL in fewest giveaways as well as turnover differential.
2. Time of possession. The Seahawks were 8th in the league.
3. 4th quarter scoring. “Can you win the game in the first quarter??” Seahawks were 2nd overall.
So, if you want to disagree with the run-first Philosophy, fine. I think the offense should be more balanced and less predictable. But don’t try to claim that the offense isn’t achieving exactly what its set out to achieve with some really dumb 3rd-and-one stat that is a serious reach on the part of the author.
Pete wants to hold on to the ball, wear the other team out, lean on the defense, and win the game in the final quarter. It might not be the best strategy but the Seahawks are executing it well.
hawk45
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2009
- Messages
- 10,009
- Reaction score
- 16
Jville":1bstk5zp said:
LOL, implies that other posters are self-consumed and drift away from Seahaws topics in one post, and then in the very next post breaks arm patting self on back for deeds having nothing to do with football, as if nobody else on the forum makes any charitable contributions or sees the bigger picture (hint: they do, they are just too self-aware to virtue signal it in a message forum for football).
Self-regard, thy name is Jville.
HawkerD
Active member
I am a fan of the Freakonomics podcast and they have been doing a series on sports. The latest in the series had a portion talking about data analytics in terms of NFL play calling. You can find the whole pod cast here: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/think-like-a-winner/. The part I am referring to starts around 33:45
I've copied the relevant portion below. Levitt is Freakonomics co-author and economic professor at the University of Chicago Steve Levitt:
Levitt has also studied the details of in-game decision-making in professional sports. In a paper he co-wrote with Ken Kovash — a one-time University of Chicago research assistant, now a Cleveland Browns executive — Levitt looked at how good N.F.L. offenses are at confusing or deceiving the defense.
LEVITT: We looked at whether teams are making the right choices between running plays and passing plays, and our conclusion is that we see that on average teams seem to make a mistake.
The mistake is, essentially, being too predictable.
LEVITT: They seem to not throw enough passes, relative to running plays. And N.F.L. teams in particular have lots of serial correlation.
“Serial correlation” meaning the previous play is too predictive of the next play. Ideally, you want the play-calling to appear nearly random, to maximize the element of surprise.
LEVITT: It turns out the play that you just ran has a very large influence on the next choice. And interestingly, and almost embarrassingly funny to an economist, is that it’s exactly when that play did badly. So if you do a running play and it didn’t do well, you are much less likely to call a running play the next time because of some belief that, “Well if it didn’t work last time, it’s not going to work this time.”
There are, of course, other factors to consider: if a run play fails, you’ve got more yardage to make up, which might argue in favor of a pass play. But in the final analysis, Levitt and Kovash found that teams were leaving points on the table.
LEVITT: We think the stakes are really high. The magnitude of the mistakes that they made were associated with scoring an extra point a game, which doesn’t sound like much, but an extra point a game would turn into about half of a win per season, and that’s worth about $5 million a year. So it looks like roughly a $5-million-a-year mistake. Currently in the N.F.L, the number of pass plays is about 58 percent. And our belief is the optimal looks much more like 70 percent. And so there really should be dramatically more passes in the N.F.L.
I've copied the relevant portion below. Levitt is Freakonomics co-author and economic professor at the University of Chicago Steve Levitt:
Levitt has also studied the details of in-game decision-making in professional sports. In a paper he co-wrote with Ken Kovash — a one-time University of Chicago research assistant, now a Cleveland Browns executive — Levitt looked at how good N.F.L. offenses are at confusing or deceiving the defense.
LEVITT: We looked at whether teams are making the right choices between running plays and passing plays, and our conclusion is that we see that on average teams seem to make a mistake.
The mistake is, essentially, being too predictable.
LEVITT: They seem to not throw enough passes, relative to running plays. And N.F.L. teams in particular have lots of serial correlation.
“Serial correlation” meaning the previous play is too predictive of the next play. Ideally, you want the play-calling to appear nearly random, to maximize the element of surprise.
LEVITT: It turns out the play that you just ran has a very large influence on the next choice. And interestingly, and almost embarrassingly funny to an economist, is that it’s exactly when that play did badly. So if you do a running play and it didn’t do well, you are much less likely to call a running play the next time because of some belief that, “Well if it didn’t work last time, it’s not going to work this time.”
There are, of course, other factors to consider: if a run play fails, you’ve got more yardage to make up, which might argue in favor of a pass play. But in the final analysis, Levitt and Kovash found that teams were leaving points on the table.
LEVITT: We think the stakes are really high. The magnitude of the mistakes that they made were associated with scoring an extra point a game, which doesn’t sound like much, but an extra point a game would turn into about half of a win per season, and that’s worth about $5 million a year. So it looks like roughly a $5-million-a-year mistake. Currently in the N.F.L, the number of pass plays is about 58 percent. And our belief is the optimal looks much more like 70 percent. And so there really should be dramatically more passes in the N.F.L.
D
DomeHawk
Guest
Ghirardellis, the ones that used to come in a cylinder.
hawk45":1t7yj2yl said:
Your selected quotes omit the question I answered after returning from my deliveries. A common example of altering context thru selective omission.
The specific "mrt144" statement - question I was answering is ....... "It's the freaking off season - what else is there to do?"
If my answer to his question makes you uncomfortable, you have my condolences. If you have your own thoughts on his question, fill free to address the question posed by "mrt144".
Also, there is another question in this meandering thread you may find appealing ..... whats your favorite chocolate?
KiwiHawk
New member
I completely disagree with their fundamental premise: "you want the play-calling to appear nearly random, to maximize the element of surprise."HawkerD":30ienhcu said:
That's complete bullshit. What teams really want to do is to be the side that dictates the game. Whether you are playing offense or defense, if you dictate what your opponent can do, you win.
If you can run the ball when your opponent knows you are going to run the ball, then you win the game, because they have to alter the strength of their unit to respond to something which leaves gaps elsewhere for you to exploit.
In the Minnesota game we shut down a hot NFL offense by dictating on defense what their offense could do. They couldn't run, and our pass rush was effective and coverage was excellent so they had to stick with meaningless short passes that obliterated Cousin's confidence and kept him to nothing but short dump-offs. At no point in that game did Minnesota do something on offense that we had to respond to on defense. We were in charge.
In Dallas, we were not in charge. With both our guards playing hurt, we could neither run block nor pass block effectively. As much as we tried we could not establish any sort of dominance anywhere on the line, which had Carson stymied and Wilson running for his life. Credit to Wilson that he performs well on the run, but with such a disparity between the effectiveness of the relative lines, we were doomed from the outset.
I know people think we should have passed more, but they were watching a different game, or they were too busy looking at their statistics books to see what was going on on the field.
"but the Rams did this..." So what? We haven't sucked for a decade amassing a plethora of early-round picks. We're not the Rams. We just lost a bunch of Pro-Bowlers and have to restock a bit before we can make serious in-roads in post-season, because when you are scrambling to replace starters you don't have depth.
We'll get there, and The Plan will work again. We just ran out of horses.
Uncle Si
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2007
- Messages
- 20,596
- Reaction score
- 3
Jville":1ann4tr8 said:
How about a compromise... Let's keep things on topic as much as possible (being guilty of expressing my love of Belgian chocolate in this very thread not about chocolate at all)
jville.. yours is a noble sentiment but probably deserving of its own post
