PDA

View Full Version : Winston guest-writes for MMQB


nero THE zero
06-28-2010, 11:51 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/eric_winston/06/27/mmqb/index.html

He discusses a number of things including playoff predictions, things the NFL should change, and Texans tidbits:
1. I think the Texans will be playing past Week 17 this season. We return 10 starters on each side of the ball. Last season, our defense over the final 13 weeks gave up just 87.6 rushing yards per game, good for fourth best in the league. Second-year defensive coordinator Frank Bush won't be starting this year from square one. On the other side of the ball, Matt Schaub has gotten better every year since his arrival. His 4,770 passing yards last season are more than Peyton Manning has ever thrown in a single season and rank sixth best all-time. Throw in the best receiver in football, Andre Johnson, and the best talent at the running back position since I have been here, and I think we will be balanced and hard to stop.

...

5. I think I'd like to see Texans rookie Trindon Holliday get in the open field this season. Unfortunately, I have seen the fastest guy in the NFL, Chris Johnson, get into the open field a couple times over the past few years, but I think Trindon can give him a run for his money. This guy is ridiculously fast. This video (around the 2:40 mark) does it justice.

...

7. I think my teammate, David Anderson, our slot receiver, is solid gold. With a twitter name like @whiteout89, you know the kind of sense of humor he has. It's only a matter of time before he gets in front of a TV and shows everyone else what we have been seeing and hearing in the locker room for the past four years. Nobody is safe from Dave's needle. He gets after everyone, but in a way that makes everyone, including the person getting needled, laugh. This usually happens during our 10-minute stretching period before practice. One guy will get it, some more than others, but every one laughs and stays loose. Oh, and he usually does his needling in an English accent. For some reason, it makes it that much more funny! Character guys are essential to have on a team.

Check it out, it's a really good read on a number of topics and a good perspective from the players' side of the CBA standstill.

Dutchrudder
06-28-2010, 12:09 PM
Good read, thanks for posting it!

sbalderrama
06-28-2010, 01:24 PM
Erik is way too articulate to be a lineman.

TimeKiller
06-28-2010, 01:30 PM
David Anderson: More valuable IN the locker room or OUT of it (like on the field)?

I'd like to see Holliday in person. Dude looks fast racing 9 dudes who are all clearly burners. Elite among the elite. Find a way to translate his natural gifts to a football field!!!

infantrycak
06-28-2010, 01:30 PM
Erik is way too articulate to be a lineman.

OLmen have historically been viewed as the "smart football players."

thunderkyss
06-28-2010, 01:35 PM
From the Winston quotes:
Last season, our defense over the final 13 weeks gave up just 87.6 rushing yards per game, good for fourth best in the league.

Normally, I don't mind when a fan says this. But I don't think a coach or player, or even a "reporter" should say something as asinine.

It wouldn't be good for 4th in the league, unless you kick out the first 3 games of everyone else's schedule.

Or kick out the worst 3 performances...

You have to do one or the other, if you're going to say "...good for 4th best in the league." Unless you're a casual fan on a message board, or a blog that provides "questionable" data.

JMO

thunderkyss
06-28-2010, 01:47 PM
From the Winston article (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/eric_winston/06/27/mmqb/index.html#ixzz0sAtLvW6u):

I propose changing the schedule to where each team plays every team in their conference plus one rival from the NFC. This admittedly drastic idea would have three big repercussions:

Three, it would add a brand new aspect to the league year -- cross-conference rivalry week. I love this idea. It's like interleague baseball, but for just one game a season. There are some great rivalries (Texans-Cowboys, Steelers-Eagles, Jets-Giants, Raiders-Niners, etc.) that would be awesome to see annually. While I realize every team might not have a natural rival, I think the fans would still be excited for it.


While I like the idea from a S.O.S. perspective, I don't know that it would be Texans-Cowboys. I'm all for it. But I'm sure there are other AFC teams that would like to take a bite out of the Cowboys.

Steelers... Kansas City.. Browns...

CloakNNNdagger
06-28-2010, 01:48 PM
OLmen have historically been viewed as the "smart football players."

Who wears the NFL's smarty pants? (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=glenesk/100226&sportCat=nfl)

infantrycak
06-28-2010, 01:50 PM
From the Winston quotes:


Normally, I don't mind when a fan says this. But I don't think a coach or player, or even a "reporter" should say something as asinine.

It wouldn't be good for 4th in the league, unless you kick out the first 3 games of everyone else's schedule.

Or kick out the worst 3 performances...

You have to do one or the other, if you're going to say "...good for 4th best in the league." Unless you're a casual fan on a message board, or a blog that provides "questionable" data.

JMO

It's far from asinine. Sure the rankings might change slightly but point out the other teams that had as exceptionally bad first three weeks as the Texans and then went on to perform very well. If you can't, your point has no merit.

Hardcore Texan
06-28-2010, 01:58 PM
It's far from asinine. Sure the rankings might change slightly but point out the other teams that had as exceptionally bad first three weeks as the Texans and then went on to perform very well. If you can't, your point has no merit.

Yes, I think he was talking about progression, getting better by both the players and the coaches. Hence the comment about Bush not having to start over from square one. Solid comment By Winston IMO.

nero THE zero
06-28-2010, 02:24 PM
From the Winston quotes:


Normally, I don't mind when a fan says this. But I don't think a coach or player, or even a "reporter" should say something as asinine.

It wouldn't be good for 4th in the league, unless you kick out the first 3 games of everyone else's schedule.

Or kick out the worst 3 performances...

You have to do one or the other, if you're going to say "...good for 4th best in the league." Unless you're a casual fan on a message board, or a blog that provides "questionable" data.

JMO
If the premise is that the Texans were a top 5 run stopper in 2009, then of course it's silly.

But, if the premise is that the Texans' defense was playing lights out after X point in the season, then the numbers speak for themselves.

The long play plagued the Texans' defense at the beginning of last season. The optimists noted that if the defense could cut down on the long plays it would be a good defense. There were a number of peripheral stats (i.e. TFL) that supported that idea. The pessimists countered by saying you can't ignore plays that happened.

Well, it turns out both were right. The early season defense was plagued by long plays. But, when the defense figured how to cut those plays out, and they did, they turned in the numbers Winston is citing, which is an indication of how you should expect the team to play over the course of the entire next season (which is his point).

dalemurphy
06-28-2010, 02:51 PM
From the Winston quotes:


Normally, I don't mind when a fan says this. But I don't think a coach or player, or even a "reporter" should say something as asinine.

It wouldn't be good for 4th in the league, unless you kick out the first 3 games of everyone else's schedule.

Or kick out the worst 3 performances...

You have to do one or the other, if you're going to say "...good for 4th best in the league." Unless you're a casual fan on a message board, or a blog that provides "questionable" data.

JMO


"Asinine" would be if Winston cherry-picked three or four really bad games from the schedule and then argued they were very good with those exceptions. That argument is different than saying that once Pollard hit the field, Cushing had a couple games under his belt, and Frank Bush got a feel for calling games the defense showed how good it can be and became proficient run stoppers.

I do agree with you about how silly some of those arguments can be. I always enjoy the expert analyst during football games that show the stat of the team's record when it runs the ball 30+ times... and act as if the key to winning is simply to hand off the ball 30 times, totally ignoring the reality that those stats exist because the team has a lead and pads the rushing carry stats while icing the ball in the 4th quarter. The analyst would lead you to believe that the coach should dial up more handoff when down 24-0.

CloakNNNdagger
06-28-2010, 02:55 PM
If the premise is that the Texans were a top 5 run stopper in 2009, then of course it's silly.

But, if the premise is that the Texans' defense was playing lights out after X point in the season, then the numbers speak for themselves.

The long play plagued the Texans' defense at the beginning of last season. The optimists pointed out that if the defense could just cut down on the long plays, it would be pretty stout. There were a number of peripheral stats (i.e. TFL) that supported the idea that the defense was pretty good minus the long play. The pessimists countered by saying that you can't ignore plays that happened.

Well, turns out both were right. The early season defense was plagued by long plays. But, when the defense figured how to cut those plays out, which they did, you get the numbers that Winston is offering, which is an indication of how you should expect the team to play over the course of the entire next season (which is his point).


Cushing was a significant factor in stuffing the middle last year. How the defense with Cushing vs without Cushing functions is yet to be determined.

nero THE zero
06-28-2010, 02:58 PM
Cushing was a significant factor in stuffing the middle last year. How the defense with Cushing vs without Cushing functions is yet to be determined.
It was a combination of Cushing, Pollard, and a simplification in/familiarization with scheme.

The defense won't be as good without Cushing as it will be with, obviously. Should be interesting to see how much of a difference he makes.

TimeKiller
06-28-2010, 03:23 PM
Is the stat in question calculated as the Texans' last 13 games against the rest of the league's whole season? Or is it every team's last 13 games? I have a feeling it's the first and wonder how, if at all, that stat changes giving everyone the same 13 game time frame. Or better yet, take out the worst 3 performances of the whole season (because I think it's pretty clear that the worst 3 were the first 3) for every team and recompare numbers. I sense a project coming on....

JB
06-28-2010, 03:27 PM
Is the stat in question calculated as the Texans' last 13 games against the rest of the league's whole season? Or is it every team's last 13 games? I have a feeling it's the first and wonder how, if at all, that stat changes giving everyone the same 13 game time frame. Or better yet, take out the worst 3 performances of the whole season (because I think it's pretty clear that the worst 3 were the first 3) for every team and recompare numbers. I sense a project coming on....

Take any 13 games for any team, and if the defense is holding the opposition to 87.6 yds per game, that is going to rank pretty high.

dalemurphy
06-28-2010, 03:33 PM
Is the stat in question calculated as the Texans' last 13 games against the rest of the league's whole season? Or is it every team's last 13 games? I have a feeling it's the first and wonder how, if at all, that stat changes giving everyone the same 13 game time frame. Or better yet, take out the worst 3 performances of the whole season (because I think it's pretty clear that the worst 3 were the first 3) for every team and recompare numbers. I sense a project coming on....

That's silly! The point of the comparison exercise regarding the Texans' defense after week 3 is not to literally rank them versus each NFL team but simply to note their dramatic improvement and how they played over the last 3 months. It's quite possible that they would rank even higher if you dropped the entire NFL's first three games, since some of them surely had some of their better weeks over the early part of the season.

The reality is that this is a new season and a new team. All statistical analysis of the '09 season can really do is help identify areas of potential strengths and weaknesses. Based on the '09 performance, clearly there is reason for optimism regarding the rushing defense. That being said, if Indy and Washington have 150 yard rushing games against us in week one and two, I won't be claiming that we are a very good run defense based on games 4-16 of the previous season.

No More 8-8's
06-28-2010, 03:33 PM
I also want to say, that he had an interview with SIRIUS BLITZ this afternoon too on NFL RADIO.

HoustonFrog
06-28-2010, 03:54 PM
Great work except he made a mistake..Kurt Warner started in the Arena League, not NFL Europe. So bad example for his minor league argument.

thunderkyss
06-28-2010, 04:19 PM
Is the stat in question calculated as the Texans' last 13 games against the rest of the league's whole season? Or is it every team's last 13 games? I have a feeling it's the first and wonder how, if at all, that stat changes giving everyone the same 13 game time frame. Or better yet, take out the worst 3 performances of the whole season (because I think it's pretty clear that the worst 3 were the first 3) for every team and recompare numbers. I sense a project coming on....



Take any 13 games for any team, and if the defense is holding the opposition to 87.6 yds per game, that is going to rank pretty high.

I have no doubt that our best 13 games vs anybody's best 13 games will be favorable to us. I have no problem, with anyone saying the Texans limited their opponent to 87.6 yards per game over the last 13.

I just think it is irresponsible for someone in the media to throw out that it would be good for 4th in the league.

If it were prefaced with "Over that same period... " or to say that it is "comparable..." maybe. But to just throw it out, as "good for fourth best in the league." I think it is irresponsible. Asinine might have been a little strong.

Bottom line, 87.6 yards/game over 13 weeks, is not good for 4th place in a 16 week season.

I understand what he means... I just think it is irresponsible the way he said it.

thunderkyss
06-28-2010, 04:21 PM
I have no doubt that our best 13 games vs anybody's best 13 games will be favorable to us. I have no problem, with anyone saying the Texans limited their opponent to 87.6 yards per game over the last 13.


I'm also pleased... proud even, that our team has been able to put up that kind of performance over a 13 week period. In offseasons past, we would be talking about a 2 game stretch where... or the last 7 games, or something to that affect, where a large portion would be in games, that didn't matter.

painekiller
06-28-2010, 06:01 PM
Boy I can't wait until the offseason is over so that we can chew on some real stories and facts, instead of the wording of an article.

eriadoc
06-28-2010, 06:06 PM
Great work except he made a mistake..Kurt Warner started in the Arena League, not NFL Europe. So bad example for his minor league argument.

I don't see that as a bad example at all. ;)

ChampionTexan
06-28-2010, 06:48 PM
Great work except he made a mistake..Kurt Warner started in the Arena League, not NFL Europe. So bad example for his minor league argument.

He did both. After he signed with the Rams, they had him play a season in Europe, during which he was the starter for the Amsterdam Admirals.

I think Erik was saying was that no matter how good he was in the Arena league, he wasn't going to make it big-time in the NFL without the "NFL minor league" experience.

From the article:Sure, there is the CFL and Arena Football, but those aren't the same kind of games.

drs23
06-28-2010, 08:39 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/eric_winston/06/27/mmqb/index.html

He discusses a number of things including playoff predictions, things the NFL should change, and Texans tidbits:


Check it out, it's a really good read on a number of topics and a good perspective from the players' side of the CBA standstill.

This is what caught my eye:

5. I think I'd like to see Texans rookie Trindon Holliday get in the open field this season. Unfortunately, I have seen the fastest guy in the NFL, Chris Johnson, get into the open field a couple times over the past few years, but I think Trindon can give him a run for his money.

CJ ran a 4.24 at the combine in '08. TD ran a 4.32 @ the '10. How many ms does a RB lose after 2 years of contact? (Legit question, just asking) Gotta figure it's a little at least.

I didn't play organized sports after 9th grade but my last year we had a guy that could plant and move sideways in the same motion. Trindon Holliday reminds me the world of that cat. Guys (big guys) were there before he was, ready to smash that little bug, and he was there, then gone. Little streak crossing the end zone.

Really hope TD gets the playbook down so he can stay.

JB
06-28-2010, 08:51 PM
This is what caught my eye:

5. I think I'd like to see Texans rookie Trindon Holliday get in the open field this season. Unfortunately, I have seen the fastest guy in the NFL, Chris Johnson, get into the open field a couple times over the past few years, but I think Trindon can give him a run for his money.

CJ ran a 4.24 at the combine in '08. TD ran a 4.32 @ the '10. How many ms does a RB lose after 2 years of contact? (Legit question, just asking) Gotta figure it's a little at least.

I didn't play organized sports after 9th grade but my last year we had a guy that could plant and move sideways in the same motion. Trindon Holliday reminds me the world of that cat. Guys (big guys) were there before he was, ready to smash that little bug, and he was there, then gone. Little streak crossing the end zone.



Really hope TD gets the playbook down so he can stay.

Sounds like me! :D

drs23
06-28-2010, 09:07 PM
Boy I can't wait until the offseason is over so that we can chew on some real stories and facts, instead of the wording of an article.

What you got against articles, Willis?:fingergun:

valleytexfan
06-28-2010, 09:49 PM
Excellent find to help fill this dead space. Thank you! Eric is one of the most well-spoken guys in the NFL and he can also express himself well in print. His column flowed nicely. He's got a bright future in the media after his playing days are over IMO.

ArlingtonTexan
06-28-2010, 10:48 PM
Eric Winston is doing a good job of making himself into a media star before his career has ended. Not sure what venue he will use eventually, but he has a chance to be better after the game is over (and I think he is alright as a player).

TimeKiller
06-29-2010, 07:46 AM
He's definitely setting himself up for an analyst position on a broadcast team. Well spoken, knows the game...hell he could probably do a better job right now than a lot of 'em.

nero THE zero
06-29-2010, 08:04 AM
Eric Winston, the next John Madden?

b0ng
06-29-2010, 08:51 AM
How about he just replace Tony Kornheiser on MNF? Hell I have dishrags that have more conversation depth than Kornheiser does when he's in the booth on MNF.

ArlingtonTexan
06-29-2010, 03:17 PM
How about he just replace Tony Kornheiser on MNF? Hell I have dishrags that have more conversation depth than Kornheiser does when he's in the booth on MNF.

Gruden replaced Tony a year ago.

WWJD
06-29-2010, 04:16 PM
I really enjoy Coach Gruden on tv but I bet he'll be back on the sidelines one day. To me he's very entertaining.

thunderkyss
06-29-2010, 05:09 PM
I really enjoy Coach Gruden on tv but I bet he'll be back on the sidelines one day. To me he's very entertaining.

I don't remember the exact play, or who was in the booth with him. But Bellichick made some decision, (I think it was to go for it on 4th down, on the wrong side of the field, at the end of the game) that didn't go the way he planned, and the Patriots lost that game.

The two guys in the booth, were talking about what a stupid decision it was, and it looked like Gruden was biting his tongue, before they went to commercial.

They came back, and the two were still going on, about how that doesn't make sense, what a colossal mistake, yada, yada, yada (I'm sure one of the guys was Jaworski).. But it looked like Chucky had enough, and he unloaded on them, "Are you kidding me? This man won 4 Super Bowls..." or something to that affect. Basically getting into the commentators who have never had to make such a decision, in a situation when it really counted.

I'd like to see more of that. Someone like Chucky bitzhslappin those Monday Morning QBs, as if.

JB
06-29-2010, 05:33 PM
I don't remember the exact play, or who was in the booth with him. But Bellichick made some decision, (I think it was to go for it on 4th down, on the wrong side of the field, at the end of the game) that didn't go the way he planned, and the Patriots lost that game.

The two guys in the booth, were talking about what a stupid decision it was, and it looked like Gruden was biting his tongue, before they went to commercial.

They came back, and the two were still going on, about how that doesn't make sense, what a colossal mistake, yada, yada, yada (I'm sure one of the guys was Jaworski).. But it looked like Chucky had enough, and he unloaded on them, "Are you kidding me? This man won 4 Super Bowls..." or something to that affect. Basically getting into the commentators who have never had to make such a decision, in a situation when it really counted.

I'd like to see more of that. Someone like Chucky bitzhslappin those Monday Morning QBs, as if.

That was the Indy game

Speedy
06-29-2010, 06:46 PM
PLAY THE SUPER BOWL ON SATURDAY.

Might be a good idea, but I'd settle for moving the time back to 2:30 or 3:00.

CHANGE THE SCHEDULE.

The schedule is prefect the way it is. Other than cutting the pre-season games in half, I'd leave the schedule alone.

The second problem I have with the current OT is the arbitrary way the team gets the ball. Again, after a great game, the team that gets the first chance to win is the one who wins a coin flip. How is that the way to help decide a game?

Play defense! That IS part of football too.

Create a minor league.

I actually posted that idea here 3 years ago.

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=686653&postcount=17

thunderkyss
06-29-2010, 06:57 PM
Play defense! That IS part of football too.



When a large percentage of games are won by the team who won the toss... that should be enough to tell you the rules favor the passing game too much, for this to be a fair way to resolve a tie. Between the 20s it is very difficult for even the best defense to stop an average offense.

WWJD
06-29-2010, 07:00 PM
I don't remember the exact play, or who was in the booth with him. But Bellichick made some decision, (I think it was to go for it on 4th down, on the wrong side of the field, at the end of the game) that didn't go the way he planned, and the Patriots lost that game.

The two guys in the booth, were talking about what a stupid decision it was, and it looked like Gruden was biting his tongue, before they went to commercial.

They came back, and the two were still going on, about how that doesn't make sense, what a colossal mistake, yada, yada, yada (I'm sure one of the guys was Jaworski).. But it looked like Chucky had enough, and he unloaded on them, "Are you kidding me? This man won 4 Super Bowls..." or something to that affect. Basically getting into the commentators who have never had to make such a decision, in a situation when it really counted.

I'd like to see more of that. Someone like Chucky bitzhslappin those Monday Morning QBs, as if.

I remember that game and the exchange you are speaking of..that's one of the things I like about him. He is very smart about the why's of the game. One of the reasons I think he really belongs on somebody's sidelines as their HC. I don't always agree with him but I really like him on that broadcasting team.

Speedy
06-29-2010, 07:13 PM
When a large percentage of games are won by the team who won the toss

That's the real problem. That statement is just not true.

b0ng
06-29-2010, 08:26 PM
That's the real problem. That statement is just not true.

As of 2008 or so the percentage of teams winning the flip also winning the game was 60%. Also, teams winning the flip elected to receive almost 100% of the time (123 out of 124 times).

60% is a pretty decisive favorite, kickers being more accurate, and NFL rules favoring a passing game more and more, it's getting a lot more difficult to "just play defense".

Speedy
06-29-2010, 08:54 PM
As of 2008 or so the percentage of teams winning the flip also winning the game was 60%. Also, teams winning the flip elected to receive almost 100% of the time (123 out of 124 times).

60% is a pretty decisive favorite, kickers being more accurate, and NFL rules favoring a passing game more and more, it's getting a lot more difficult to "just play defense".

And how many of those games were where the team that won the toss the only team that touched the ball, 'cause if both teams touch the ball (which I'm sure there's a percentage for that) and the team that won the toss still ends up winning the game, then that kinda skews those percentages you're posting.

And if you go back more than just 2 years I think you'll find those percentages a lot closer to around 53-54% or so, which by no means is a "large percentage". Especially when you factor in the percentage of both teams touching the ball.

Now if you can come up with a large percentage of the team winning the toss being the only team that has possession, thus winning the game, then maybe you'd have an arguement.

b0ng
06-29-2010, 09:33 PM
And how many of those games were where the team that won the toss the only team that touched the ball, 'cause if both teams touch the ball (which I'm sure there's a percentage for that) and the team that won the toss still ends up winning the game, then that kinda skews those percentages you're posting.

And if you go back more than just 2 years I think you'll find those percentages a lot closer to around 53-54% or so, which by no means is a "large percentage". Especially when you factor in the percentage of both teams touching the ball.

Now if you can come up with a large percentage of the team winning the toss being the only team that has possession, thus winning the game, then maybe you'd have an arguement.

I will only take the first page I found on google when I typed in "nfl overtime statistics present".

Factually speaking, over the past decade, there were 158 OT games, including playoff games. There were 2 ties, and there was 1 game in which the coin flip winner chose to defend a side of the field rather than choosing to receive. (They lost.) In 96 of the 158 OTs, or 61%, the coin flip winner won the game.

If you agree 50% would be the fairest rate, you might think 61% isn't very far from 50%. But that's not the right way to look at it. The NY Times recently correctly pointed out that the correct comparison is 61% vs. 39% for the respective winning percentages of the coin flip winner and loser, not 61% vs. 50%. An advantage of over 3:2 is no small advantage.

http://www.xtrapointfootball.com/20100221243/2010-archives/february/nfl-overtime-vs-ncaa-overtime-a-practical-solution.html

then we have this: http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_11_08_04.html

The data appear to support the notion that the football team scoring first in sudden-death overtime is usually the one that had won the coin toss and received the ball.

Interestingly, the cumulative data hide the effect of a rule change that occurred in 1994, when kickoffs were moved back 5 yards to the 30-yard line. Since 1994, nearly one-third of overtime games have been won on the first possession by the team that received the ball first. In the first 20 seasons, under the old rule, slightly more than one-quarter of the games were won in this fashion.

A recent analysis by economist Richard E. Hawkins of Pennsylvania State University in DuBois confirms that these differences are statistically significant.

"The analysis finds with 99.99 % certainty that the [coin] flip has made a difference in the outcome of the game over the last 10 years," he concludes. "But for the period prior to those 10 years, the coin flip cannot be shown to be important."

That was written in 2004.

That's the real problem. That statement is just not true.

Which means this statement is actually not the true one. Basically all the talk about first possession or second possession means squat. The team that wins the toss is winning the game more often than not under the current rules. Rule changes, and field goal kickers are making things skew in favor of whoever is getting the ball first whether they are winning on the first possession or the next possession they get.

Revolution
06-29-2010, 10:32 PM
Great work except he made a mistake..Kurt Warner started in the Arena League, not NFL Europe. So bad example for his minor league argument.

When the Rams signed him they assigned him to NFL Europe. I think that is what he was referring to...

Speedy
06-30-2010, 01:27 PM
Again...tell me how many times the coin flip winner is the only team that touches the ball. If that number is high then I can see an arguement.

If both sides touch the ball and the coin flip winner still wins the game, that goes into that 61% and the perception becomes that the coin flip winner wins because they won the toss and were the only team to touch the ball, and that's just not the case.

What percentage of home teams win their games? Maybe we should play all games at neutral sites so we can be fair.

b0ng
06-30-2010, 04:33 PM
Since TK stated that the winner of the flip is winning more often than not, and the percentages show that is the case, as stated above, his statement is still true. Your retort that it isn't true because X Y Z doesn't change the fact that the coinflip has determined the winner of the game 61% of the time since OT rules have been instituted. Trying to call somebody out as being wrong, and then back peddling when the percentages are there (and have been discussed ad nauseum) then trying the murky up the waters by demanding to know about home team percentages without even trying to answer your own questions is just silly.

TK's statement still stands as factually correct, whether you like it or not. The winner of the coinflip is winning the game >60% of the time and it's not a statistical anomaly due to a small sample size.

thunderkyss
06-30-2010, 05:35 PM
...then trying the murky up the waters by demanding to know about home team percentages without even trying to answer your own questions is just silly.


qft..

nero THE zero
07-01-2010, 09:21 AM
Since TK stated that the winner of the flip is winning more often than not, and the percentages show that is the case, as stated above, his statement is still true. Your retort that it isn't true because X Y Z doesn't change the fact that the coinflip has determined the winner of the game 61% of the time since OT rules have been instituted. Trying to call somebody out as being wrong, and then back peddling when the percentages are there (and have been discussed ad nauseum) then trying the murky up the waters by demanding to know about home team percentages without even trying to answer your own questions is just silly.

TK's statement still stands as factually correct, whether you like it or not. The winner of the coinflip is winning the game >60% of the time and it's not a statistical anomaly due to a small sample size.

His post implied that the coin flip was a direct determinant of the winner. In order to prove that, you must show that a large percentage of coin flip winners win on the first possession.

After that point, when both teams have touched the ball, causality goes out the window and whether the team that won the coin flip won the game becomes a novelty stat.

dalemurphy
07-01-2010, 09:36 AM
And how many of those games were where the team that won the toss the only team that touched the ball, 'cause if both teams touch the ball (which I'm sure there's a percentage for that) and the team that won the toss still ends up winning the game, then that kinda skews those percentages you're posting.

And if you go back more than just 2 years I think you'll find those percentages a lot closer to around 53-54% or so, which by no means is a "large percentage". Especially when you factor in the percentage of both teams touching the ball.

Now if you can come up with a large percentage of the team winning the toss being the only team that has possession, thus winning the game, then maybe you'd have an arguement.

Of course the current system is fair. The rules are the same for both teams. Each team has an equal chance to win the coin flip. Even afterwards, the team losing the flip has a decent chance to win the game. This is not the issue... It's about fans! I don't pay money to see a game largely determined by a coin flip. That is not interesting to me. So, I applaud any steps the NFL takes to make overtime more interesting and determined more by on-field football action and less by a silver dollar.

Goldensilence
07-01-2010, 09:43 AM
David Anderson: More valuable IN the locker room or OUT of it (like on the field)?

I'd like to see Holliday in person. Dude looks fast racing 9 dudes who are all clearly burners. Elite among the elite. Find a way to translate his natural gifts to a football field!!!

In the locker room. His production went down last year because Jones went up. The guy is great for a locker room but, he's limited as a player and he's about to get buried on the depth chart at 4th receiver.

Didn't see him in person, but they did have the Texas Vs the Nation Bowl out here and the dude is small but, man he's a burner! He also has great open field vision. Gary's going to have to find a way to keep him on this team because there's not going to be a way he slips through to the PS.

He would kill teams on screen plays.

76Texan
07-01-2010, 11:29 AM
In the locker room. His production went down last year because Jones went up. The guy is great for a locker room but, he's limited as a player and he's about to get buried on the depth chart at 4th receiver.

Didn't see him in person, but they did have the Texas Vs the Nation Bowl out here and the dude is small but, man he's a burner! He also has great open field vision. Gary's going to have to find a way to keep him on this team because there's not going to be a way he slips through to the PS.

He would kill teams on screen plays.
The only two things that I'd like to see Holiday improve on:

- Focusing whenn catching the football, whether in the return game or as an offensive player. I don't think he has bad hands, just lack of concentration once in a while that resulted in a fumble (like JJ).

- Turning vertically upfield as soon as he gets the ball, and trust his blockers.
When he does that, good things usually happen.
When he doesn't, coaches can tear their hair out.

And maybe also, learn proper spacing when taking on the swing pass and screen pass.

rmartin65
07-04-2010, 07:06 PM
I love the idea of a minor league system. Cities without pro teams only. Expand the draft (double it) in order for teams to get a hold of more players. Make it like minor leagues in hockey.