Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck
That's so true. When we're losing, the people who are trying to look on the bright side retreat to a position using stats to show that we're close to winning. When we're winning, the people who are trying to look on the dark side retreat to a position using stats to show that we're close to losing.
For me, a dissection of the stats of a winning team is really a dissection of how they won. Kubiak was more conservative last year... at times... because he could afford to be. He didn't have to take as many risks to try to win the game. The fact that we won so many games proves that he was right about that.
Now, he just has to figure out what he needs to fix and change to be able to take out teams like the Packers and Patriots and how to construct the team so it doesn't fade at the end of the season.
One thing I found interesting, among one of the playbook series that I was able to download some time ago is that some of them are game plan where one team actually record the tendency of another.
You quickly realize that it's already irrelevant by the time you read it; but it's still fascinating or informative just the same.
On the other hand, there are other play books that actually spell out the strength and weakness of the individual players on a certain team and what was the general goal that the coaches looked for entering the season.
Again, these are somewhat to very out of date; they don't affect anything.
There's really nothing that Belichik did that Shanahan can't tell and vice versa by watching regular game tapes.
What was "informative" to me is to see (or to try to get a glimpse of) different systems teached by different coaches at different points in time.
I still go back to them here and there, as I know I can get a little more out of each every time around.
It's just a fascinating sport; things that are old can come back anew with a different twist.