Wade IS More Valuable Than Kubiak

[TexansFanatic]

Originally Posted by Nitrofish

I do not believe Kubiak was concerned if we lost...

If true, he really does need to be fired immediately.

Originally Posted by Nitrofish

I am sure he would have liked a win, but a loss would not have changed a single thing in the playoff picture

This is simply an absurd thing to state and undeniably false. No matter how much you want the loss to the Colts to be meaningless so you can sweep it under the rug, it was huge in terms of playoff positioning. Kubiak's teams don't fare well against playoff teams on the road. He has a 2-19 record against them.

Originally Posted by Nitrofish

Let go of the last two losses, get behind the team and let's beat the Titans and then take care of business in the post season.

Nobody here isn't already behind the team.

[Nitrofish]

Originally Posted by TexansFanatic

This is simply an absurd thing to state and undeniably false. No matter how much you want the loss to the Colts to be meaningless so you can sweep it under the rug, it was huge in terms of playoff positioning. Kubiak's teams don't fare well against playoff teams on the road. He has a 2-19 record against them.

Playoff seeding DOES NOT matter. And his regular season record against them has nothing to do with our playoff run, especially since we are not playing the Colts in the playoffs.

Get over it already.

The fact is neither is MORE valuable... this season shows one thing clearly. Together they are a winning combination and when all of the pieces are healthy and back in place, there is no limit to what they can and will achieve.

[TexansFanatic]

Originally Posted by Nitrofish

Playoff seeding DOES NOT matter. And his regular season record against them has nothing to do with our playoff run, especially since we are not playing the Colts in the playoffs..

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

That's right, the Texans won't be playing the Colts....

[TexansFanatic]

To suggest that playoff seeding in the NFL is unimportant is quite simply asinine.


Team Stat Visualizations and Trends
Dec 23, 2011
The Importance of Playoff Seeding

This is the time of the year for joy and family and gifts--all that good stuff. But more importantly, it’s also the time for teams to jockey for playoff seeds. I get the sense that the conventional wisdom is that yes, seeds are somewhat important, but the notion that ‘just get in the playoffs and anything can happen’ is the dominant view. But as we'll see, seeding is critically important.

We’ve seen many wildcard teams make it to, and even win, the Super Bowl. There are four wildcard berths each year, and when we see a wildcard team make it to the Super Bowl, it’s noted, highlighted, and becomes part of the team narrative. No one remarks when the #3 seed makes it to the big game, despite it being less likely than either of a conference’s two wildcard seeds to make it.

Although it’s certainly true that ‘anything can happen’, that’s really only true from the perspective of a neutral observer. If you’re looking at the chance that any one of the four wildcard teams make it to the Super Bowl, you’ve got a pretty solid chance of seeing that happen. But if you look at it from the perspective of one particular wildcard team, your chances of going to the Super Bowl are relatively slim. It’s all a matter of perspective.

Football commentators certainly understand that seeds are important—a team would always prefer a higher seed. But I sense that they don’t fully appreciate how critical seeds are in the current NFL format. I hear talk about having home field advantage and having a week off to get healthy, but commentators seem to overlook the most important part of a playoff bye: It’s an automatic win in the first round. Maybe it’s overlooked because it’s so obvious, but those other considerations pale in comparison to the value of a free win. Right away, a bye practically doubles a team’s chance of making it to the Super Bowl. Doubles. A different way of thinking of the playoff format is that the top two seeds are the only two that actually ‘make the playoffs’, and the other four seeds must first win a play-in game.

To isolate just how critical seeding is, I calculated the chances each seed would make it to the Super Bowl due to seeding alone, ignoring differences in team strength.

I gave home teams a 60% chance of winning each game. Although the league-wide average is 57%, that number includes many mismatch games. When teams are close in ability, home field becomes more decisive. (Think of it this way: If the Packers played the Maryland Terrapins, the outcome wouldn’t depend at all on where the game was played.)

The probability for the #1 seed is straightforward. It’s just 0.6*0.6 because they need to win 2 home games. The #2 team needs to win 1 home game and has a 60% chance of being on the road in the conference championship (if the #1 seed wins its first game) and a 40% of being at home (if the #1 seed loses.) The total probability for the #2 seed would therefore be 0.6 * [(0.6*0.4)+(0.4*0.6)], which comes to 0.288. The probabilities for the other seeds become more complex but can be calculated the same way.

Here is how the probabilities work out for each seed. Also listed are the actual proportions of Super Bowl appearances since 2002 when the current format began. Keep in mind that the 'actual' numbers reflect the effect of both seeding and team strength, and that there are only 18 observations since '02, so they will be statistically noisy. Also note that the chances will not sum to 100% due to rounding. (Thanks go to my research intern for compiling the actual numbers.)

Please Click Here For A Better Look At This Table

Seed SB Prob Actual
1 36% 44%
2 29% 22%
3 11% 11%
4 10% 6%
5 7% 6%
6 6% 11%

You can see that the #1 seed has about six times the chance of a wildcard team to make it to the Super Bowl. The #2 seed has nearly five times the chance. These are enormous differences, and they’re due to seeding effects alone.

Right now the 49ers and Saints are jockeying for the #2 seed in the NFC. The loser of that battle will fall from a 29% shot to an 11% shot at making the Super Bowl.

In the AFC, the biggest battle is between the Ravens and Steelers for what is most likely going to be the #2 seed, assuming the Patriots win out. The loser of the AFC North battle will sink to the #5 seed, cutting their chance of making the Super Bowl by over a factor of four, from 29% to 7%. In other words, the division champion quadruples its chance of making it to Indianapolis in February.

When it comes to making it to the Super Bowl, seeding alone is critically important, far more so than even team strength.

LINK

[Nitrofish]

Well thank you captain obvious. I mean it does not take a genius to figure out that the #1 seed is more likely to make it since they play one less game, but my data (Real SB Winners) shows that teams in the last ten years have proven that model wrong.

To be fair they both are small sample sizes and as the article states a bit noisy. Someone needs to do a full statistical analysis, but then rule changes and other factors would be in play. I think you miss the point.

You and others are going to extreme length to prove we have little chance at winning, and I really do not understand your point. I mean I guess we should all curl up in a ball and not even show up for the games then right?

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by steelbtexan

Anyway, if you cant admit the offensive gameplan looked like something Emory Bellard (Aggie reference) drew up. There's no point in further discussing this topic. We will have to agree to disagree.

That's the same plan that beat the Bucs, 37-9. Schaub was 11 of 15, where Yates was 13-16.

[welsh texan]

Both are pretty mediocre head coaches. So far they seem like a pretty incredible combination as a pairing. Frankly, I'm scared of a situation where Kubiak gets locked up again and Wade decides to move on. If either one was to leave I'd be extremely unhappy not seeing Bill Cowher chased hard to take the reigns.

Wade has one thing over Kubiak, and that seems to be his talent evaluation. From what I've seen, Kubiak isn't even great at talent evaluation on his side of the ball, a good coach yes, but how many wasted picks have we seen on Offense in the Kubiak era? Some of them fairly high as well.

Sure he seems to coach up the 6th and 7th rounders quite well, but look at the number of misses in the 3rd round where you should be hoping to find an eventual starter. Most of them are tight ends.

Still, I'm pretty happy right now, excited to see what the D will look like with a full offseason programme for coaching, a healthier Demeco Ryans, and a couple of good picks to improve the depth.

[Dishman]

Originally Posted by welsh texan

Both are pretty mediocre head coaches. So far they seem like a pretty incredible combination as a pairing. Frankly, I'm scared of a situation where Kubiak gets locked up again and Wade decides to move on. If either one was to leave I'd be extremely unhappy not seeing Bill Cowher chased hard to take the reigns.

Wade has one thing over Kubiak, and that seems to be his talent evaluation. From what I've seen, Kubiak isn't even great at talent evaluation on his side of the ball, a good coach yes, but how many wasted picks have we seen on Offense in the Kubiak era? Some of them fairly high as well.

Sure he seems to coach up the 6th and 7th rounders quite well, but look at the number of misses in the 3rd round where you should be hoping to find an eventual starter. Most of them are tight ends.

Still, I'm pretty happy right now, excited to see what the D will look like with a full offseason programme for coaching, a healthier Demeco Ryans, and a couple of good picks to improve the depth.

Both are mediocre Head Coaches? One of these head coaches has a sub .500 record and the other does not, which leads me to believe one of these coaches isn't so mediocre.

[Texan_Bill]

Why?!?!?? Why did my dumbass self read all the stupidity in this thread??!!?

*punches self in the junk*

[Tailgate]

Which one is easier to replace and the repercussions of letting each go? In other words how transferrable are our current systems to a new coach? How entrenched are we in this offense? Imo Kubiak is just as valuable as Wade in this manner.

[HOU-TEX]

Originally Posted by Texan_Bill

Why?!?!?? Why did my dumbass self read all the stupidity in this thread??!!?

*punches self in the junk*

I've jumped to the last page every day. It hasn't gotten any better, so I've refused to read through the entire thread.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by Tailgate

Imo Kubiak is just as valuable as Wade in this manner.

There are too many examples of good defenses with no offenses this year to say one is more valuable than the other.

A team like Cleveland is now 11th, would have much better defensive stats if their offense could stay on the field. Same can be said for Jacksonville, the Jets, or the Seahawks.

We saw last Thursday what happens to our defense when our offense can't stay on the field.

[ChampionTexan]

Bill Parcells career regular season record as a Head coach without Bill Belichick on his staff is 55-57. His record with him is 117-73. His post-season record without him is 0-3. With him, it's 11-5 and includes two Super Bowl victories, a third Super Bowl appearance, and another appearance in the AFC Championship Game.

I'm not concerned with who you like, or what you (and I) think should have happened after last season or after 2009. If the partnership is working, enjoy it and relax. Someday - for whatever reason - it will either stop working, or cease to exist. Worry about that when the time comes.

[Texecutioner]

Originally Posted by TexansFanatic

To suggest that playoff seeding in the NFL is unimportant is quite simply asinine.


Team Stat Visualizations and Trends
Dec 23, 2011
The Importance of Playoff Seeding

This is the time of the year for joy and family and gifts--all that good stuff. But more importantly, it’s also the time for teams to jockey for playoff seeds. I get the sense that the conventional wisdom is that yes, seeds are somewhat important, but the notion that ‘just get in the playoffs and anything can happen’ is the dominant view. But as we'll see, seeding is critically important.

We’ve seen many wildcard teams make it to, and even win, the Super Bowl. There are four wildcard berths each year, and when we see a wildcard team make it to the Super Bowl, it’s noted, highlighted, and becomes part of the team narrative. No one remarks when the #3 seed makes it to the big game, despite it being less likely than either of a conference’s two wildcard seeds to make it.

Although it’s certainly true that ‘anything can happen’, that’s really only true from the perspective of a neutral observer. If you’re looking at the chance that any one of the four wildcard teams make it to the Super Bowl, you’ve got a pretty solid chance of seeing that happen. But if you look at it from the perspective of one particular wildcard team, your chances of going to the Super Bowl are relatively slim. It’s all a matter of perspective.

Football commentators certainly understand that seeds are important—a team would always prefer a higher seed. But I sense that they don’t fully appreciate how critical seeds are in the current NFL format. I hear talk about having home field advantage and having a week off to get healthy, but commentators seem to overlook the most important part of a playoff bye: It’s an automatic win in the first round. Maybe it’s overlooked because it’s so obvious, but those other considerations pale in comparison to the value of a free win. Right away, a bye practically doubles a team’s chance of making it to the Super Bowl. Doubles. A different way of thinking of the playoff format is that the top two seeds are the only two that actually ‘make the playoffs’, and the other four seeds must first win a play-in game.

To isolate just how critical seeding is, I calculated the chances each seed would make it to the Super Bowl due to seeding alone, ignoring differences in team strength.

I gave home teams a 60% chance of winning each game. Although the league-wide average is 57%, that number includes many mismatch games. When teams are close in ability, home field becomes more decisive. (Think of it this way: If the Packers played the Maryland Terrapins, the outcome wouldn’t depend at all on where the game was played.)

The probability for the #1 seed is straightforward. It’s just 0.6*0.6 because they need to win 2 home games. The #2 team needs to win 1 home game and has a 60% chance of being on the road in the conference championship (if the #1 seed wins its first game) and a 40% of being at home (if the #1 seed loses.) The total probability for the #2 seed would therefore be 0.6 * [(0.6*0.4)+(0.4*0.6)], which comes to 0.288. The probabilities for the other seeds become more complex but can be calculated the same way.

Here is how the probabilities work out for each seed. Also listed are the actual proportions of Super Bowl appearances since 2002 when the current format began. Keep in mind that the 'actual' numbers reflect the effect of both seeding and team strength, and that there are only 18 observations since '02, so they will be statistically noisy. Also note that the chances will not sum to 100% due to rounding. (Thanks go to my research intern for compiling the actual numbers.)

Please Click Here For A Better Look At This Table

Seed SB Prob Actual
1 36% 44%
2 29% 22%
3 11% 11%
4 10% 6%
5 7% 6%
6 6% 11%

You can see that the #1 seed has about six times the chance of a wildcard team to make it to the Super Bowl. The #2 seed has nearly five times the chance. These are enormous differences, and they’re due to seeding effects alone.

Right now the 49ers and Saints are jockeying for the #2 seed in the NFC. The loser of that battle will fall from a 29% shot to an 11% shot at making the Super Bowl.

In the AFC, the biggest battle is between the Ravens and Steelers for what is most likely going to be the #2 seed, assuming the Patriots win out. The loser of the AFC North battle will sink to the #5 seed, cutting their chance of making the Super Bowl by over a factor of four, from 29% to 7%. In other words, the division champion quadruples its chance of making it to Indianapolis in February.

When it comes to making it to the Super Bowl, seeding alone is critically important, far more so than even team strength.

LINK

You'd think this is pure common sense to anyone that has watched football or any tournament format in any sport before, but apparently people will say anything to try and make themselves seem right in an argument. Seeding isn't important. Lol!!

[Texan_Bill]

Originally Posted by HOU-TEX

I've jumped to the last page every day. It hasn't gotten any better, so I've refused to read through the entire thread.

I'm not sure if I want to scrub my brain with bleach or shove an ice pick through my ear hole.

[steelbtexan]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

That's the same plan that beat the Bucs, 37-9. Schaub was 11 of 15, where Yates was 13-16.

With Wade

Which kinda proves the point that while both Wade and Gary have their flaws as HC's.

The answer to the OP's question is, obviously Wade and it's not even really close.

Hopefully NF can go back to tending to the sheep now.

[steelbtexan]

Originally Posted by ChampionTexan

Bill Parcells career regular season record as a Head coach without Bill Belichick on his staff is 55-57. His record with him is 117-73. His post-season record without him is 0-3. With him, it's 11-5 and includes two Super Bowl victories, a third Super Bowl appearance, and another appearance in the AFC Championship Game.

I'm not concerned with who you like, or what you (and I) think should have happened after last season or after 2009. If the partnership is working, enjoy it and relax. Someday - for whatever reason - it will either stop working, or cease to exist. Worry about that when the time comes.

Best post of this entire thread

Repped

[HOU-TEX]

Originally Posted by Texan_Bill

I'm not sure if I want to scrub my brain with bleach or shove an ice pick through my ear hole.

As dirty as your mind is...I'd go with the bleach to the brain

Or you could opt for the splintered toothpick in the peepee hole

[Nitrofish]

Originally Posted by Texecutioner

You'd think this is pure common sense to anyone that has watched football or any tournament format in any sport before, but apparently people will say anything to try and make themselves seem right in an argument. Seeding isn't important. Lol!!

First of all DO NOT twist my words. I said they are not as important as you make them out to be. That clearly the #1 or #2 seed does not always win it, or even win it more than any others. My point was stop trying to make it out like the Texans have no chance because they lost to the Panthers and the Colts.

So the fact that last years winner was a #6 seed and my post of the last ten years of SB winners being pretty much a split, you are just to ignore and hook your wagon to some obscure article on a website that openly says it's numbers are noisy and a very small sample size just to make yourself seem right? I mean read the comments at the bottom of that article and you will see plenty who disagree and even debunk it.

It's ok with me... You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. I guess we will see who was right in the next month or so eh?

I guess we should stop having a Super Bowl and just find out who wins the highest seed in the regular season then crown them champions.

[Señor Stan]

Originally Posted by Nitrofish

I guess we should stop having a Super Bowl and just find out who wins the highest seed in the regular season then crown them champions.

Hmmm....I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter...

Sincerely,

the BCS