Ok, Like for real, how do you want to go about this moving forward?

Tougher doesn't necessarily mean close games. It can also mean high stakes games or comebacks or all like I said. You're assigning meaning when it doesn't apply again.

You're great at stats. There's gotta be a measure for comebacks, close games and high stakes that will prove or disprove my claim that they're the best at those types of "tough" games.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That doesn't mean they're going to coast their way to whatever record they earn or not try as hard. It just means I believe they'd elevate to a level they can't tap into unless their backs are against the wall.

It's like saying if you're in a fight, you don't take it lightly, but if you're in a fight for your life, you could have a surge of adrenaline that'll help your odds of survival if you have it in you. I believe the Pats do. Most other teams don't possess that level of adrenaline.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Not really. teams can be unfocused unwillingly as in, nobody is purposely dragging arse.

But then someone like Wake and Landry get them fired up and they get hot. Get focused. Get determined.

 

Damn! I just missed quoting finsfandan, before he wisely deleted, most likely the dumbest post of the year. Bwhahaha!!

 

Exactly. Do we really believe the Pats were willingly unfocused in the first half of that SB? No, but they managed to "turn it on" the second half. They weren't themselves but they made it happen.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Dude...WTF are you talking about? hahahahaha

 

OK.. so damn Brady had 88 games in his career (unless I made an error) where he won by at least 14 points. 69 of those games he made every pass attempt. Overall he had 2906 attempts in those games with 66 by backup QB's.

That's 97.8% which is slightly below the overall level of 98% as predicted (it makes sense that he'd make more pass attempts in games are close rather than blowouts).


btw.. these stats (probably for all QB's) are heavily skewed by games with biggest point margin. I mean Brady's biggest blowout was a 59-0 win against Tennessee in 2009 and he had 34 attempts with Brian Hoyer having 11 attempts. 11/(34+11) = 24.4% of all attempts by the backup compared to an average of 2% overall. Point is.. the bigger the blowout the more likely they take Brady out.

 

I'm not sure passing attempts are the best way to look at this. Early on in his career Brady was throwing rarely compared to how much he does nowadays. And if he threw 23 passes through 3 1/2 quarters and a back up cam in and threw 10 in half a quarter that's a bit misleading.

Earlier I listed over the past 5 seasons (excluding 2016) anytime he was pulled when leading by 14 or more points in the 4th quarter.

 

The problem is you haven't given us an operational definition of "turning it on".

And while it's true that "tougher" doesn't necessarily mean "close", the converse is generally true: "close" generally means it was "tougher", meaning that a large percentage of these "tough" games are simply due to NE being a good team and nothing special otherwise.

 

What do you mean, "not really"? That didn't contradict anything I said.

 

Yeah just saw that post. Good job getting the data. Have to get comparable data for a few QB's though to compare. I know that's a lot of work though haha.. (just went through that myself).

 

This is just ridiculous, and congrats on completely de-railing a thread, as usual.

They didn't "turn it on". They did what good teams do, and that's continue to adjust their gameplan, and playcalling during the game to counter what Atlanta did successfully against them early on. If anything more than that, what happened in the Super Bowl was Atlanta playing too conservatively in the second half while the Patriots did what they always do... Stay aggressive, and adjust accordingly. There's no magic switch. There's no higher level. They're consistent. That's why Bill is considered widely as a great coach. They gameplan so well to take away your strengths, and exploit your weaknesses. Occasionally they get it wrong, or the other team handles them differently than they expected, and what do they do? They don't panic. They adjust. Their coaches make changes to find new ways to exploit what you're doing, and off they go. That's just... football. Oh, and to make some happy. They cheat too

Now, can you stop the nonsense, and maybe discuss the topic at hand here, you know... how do we handle the draft to deal with New England?

Unbelievable.

 

Besides maybe Nate Solder, the Patriots haven't invested too many top picks on their offensive line. They just picked a couple guys that dropped (Mason, Cannon) and developed them. Thuney was a 3rd rounder and Andrews went undrafted.

 

His second year starting he threw 600 times. Does he throw more now, yes. If you split up his career pre and post 2007, he averages 36 throws per game vs 32. A difference for sure, but not enough to argue he rarely threw it and definitely not enough to nullify an analysis based on pass attempts.

 

Meh, who cares. They scored 25 points with about 1.5 quarters to go. There is no one reason they "turned it on." But they definitely could have mailed it in after going down 28-3 midway through the 3rd quarter. I mean, that's fat lady territory (cue Jumbo Elliot that fat fark catching a TD ...).

Finfansdan said "Turn it on" but he could also say, kept it on, while minimizing mistakes. Whatever it's all semantics at this point. The Patriots moved the ball all game. But they made a ton of mistakes. Effort was there, mental part was off. You want to call it turning it on, keeping it on, keep on keeping on, whatever. They changed. Lots of mistakes. No mistakes. Call it whatever makes you happy.

They also wore the Falcons down. Despite the high powered ATL offense, despite being down dozens of points, they kept running the ball. Most coaches probably quit running the ball at that point. ATL defense eventually gassed out.

 

In the last 15 years only twice has a SB winner been either the worst or 2nd worst ranked rush defense measured by opponent YPC, and in both cases they had a top 3 offense measured by pass Y/A.

2006: Colts #2 pass Y/A, #32 opponent rush YPC
2010: Packers #3 pass Y/A, #31 opponent rush YPC

That's with Peyton Manning and Rodgers in their primes of course.

The reason I point this out is because the Dolphins were LAST PLACE = #32!! in opponent rush efficiency in 2016 while we were #5 in offensive pass efficiency (big improvement!).

So while this shows it's certainly possible to win a SB with such a bad rush defense, it's rare. You check out most SB winning rush defenses and they're nicely distributed around average. They're neither great nor horrible (offensive and defensive pass efficiency correlates a lot more for winning in today's NFL).

Point is.. I'd go with the defender if you want to improve the odds.

 

I guess if you tried to downplay it, as you have, 4 extra passes a game wouldn't seem like a big difference.

However, if you actually look at the figures you'd see that the difference between 36 and 32 over the season is the difference between playing 16 or 18 games. So, when you compare his pre and post 2007 average attempts, he would have had to play 2 more games pre 2007 to equal his post 2007 attempts. And over 7 years that's 14 extra games. That's like adding on an entire season. In fact, he'd have, based off of his career averages, over 3,600 more passing yards at this point in his career.

And don't look now, but your Brady underoos are showing.

 

They didn't make mistakes in as much as they got their asses handed to them. Brady, in the first half was scared and throwing balls into the dirt. Give him credit for hanging in there, but if the Falcons had not of gassed, the Pats would have lost.

 

You're obsessed. I thought resnor was targeting me because you, him and Fin D are part of the contrarian club.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Read jdang's post. He understands what "turn it on" means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Google polysemy. That goes for all of you arguing with me about "turn it on."

You're just rephrasing what I already said. It doesn't necessarily just mean close, it can ALSO mean a combination of other things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I didn't derail the thread. Danmarino did. Check for yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This was my first post in this thread, which was a response to cbrad. Then danmarino started getting into an argument with me about semantics.

So I didn't derail the thread. Brandon and everybody else who liked that post claiming I did are simply wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Blount fumbling the ball is making a mistake. Everyone made mistakes. Including Brady with his pick six. They were moving the ball, and losing it on the Falcons side twice. Of course they were getting their asses handed to them, but they had a lot of yards and moved deep into ATL territory without any points. The two don't have to be exclusive.

Give Dan Quinn credit. He knows how to fluster Tom Brady ... for 3 quarters. Remember it was the Patriots who tied the previous record for SB comebacks at 10, against Seattle.

 

I made no argument about his ability, so not sure why you believe this is me somehow wearing Brady roos. I just hate bad arguments, and you made a very bad one. Sorry if you felt that in your feels. Next time don't make diarrhea statements.

So if 32 is "barely throwing the ball" compared to 36, what's Ryan at 29 per game this year vs the almost 600 annually he had been throwing? Your argument must mean Tanny was a handoff monkey this year. But then again, maybe he was. Gets us back to whether the offense was dialed back in part due to Tanny ...

In any event, the argument you made was cbrad's position was invalid because Brady threw so few passes compared to now. Well that doesn't really hold up when you look at the numbers.

 

lol...no, you came out with your typical crazy post and derailed the thread.

 

I didn't know that word (polysemy) haha.

Still doesn't change the fact you haven't offered ANY operational definition for "turn it on". Can't keep telling people they can't read your mind when you never tell people precisely what you're referring to. And the reason we need such a definition is precisely because you were asking whether there's any stat that could prove or disprove your claim NE is the best at this undefined "turn it on" thing.

You want to test your idea? Give us an operational definition, which btw doesn't mean there can't be other definitions. It just means we need a working definition.

 

About 2/3 of the time, though keep in mind it's hard to argue winning ToP was the reason you won the game when a lot of winning ToP comes from running out the clock (in other words you do things to kill the clock AFTER you did something else to help you get the lead in the first place).

But irrespective of that.. if you improve run defense you improve ToP.

 

You don't hate bad arguments, you create them. For instance, I'm not sure what RT's attempts per game has to do with this argument. However, RT has averaged more attempts per game over his first 5 seasons than Brady did over his.

RT's 30 (not 29) attempts per game this season was below his average, however, Brady had more attempts than RT in a season only once when you compare their first 5 seasons. Oh...wait..you would love to compare a 17 year NFL veteran to a 5 year veteran, right? lol

 

I shouldn't have to when the phrase can be interpreted different ways, I didn't expect 100 posts over semantics. I already gave the analogy about a surge of adrenaline (a fight where you're trying to win vs a fight for your life).

Want a definition? Turning it on can mean correcting uncharacteristic mistakes made earlier in the game, taking advantage of lost opportunities later in the game, elevating to a higher level play when down by more than 10 points the beginning of the 4th quarter, etc. I already specified "tough games" consists of close games, comeback games, and high stakes games (to clinch the division, playoff games, SB).

 

To the first paragraph, if you say you shouldn't have to provide a definition because there are many different definitions, then you can't criticize OUR interpretation of "turning it on"!

The second paragraph helps of course. For it to be "operational" so that one could get stats on it, you'd need to weight each component (provide numbers that represent how relatively important each component is.. like maybe you think "high stakes games" matters twice as much as "close games" etc.. different weights give us different operational definitions).

 

No way, man. I said Jessica Alba is prettier than Kate Upton...you must believe that or your wrong!

 

The term, "turn it on" has been used in sports(and elsewhere) for decades, but all of a sudden on a sports site, lol, no one knows what it means.

 

I think only one person here doesn't know what it means.

 

It's actually a sign of a good discussion when people realize they need to provide a definition they can agree on so that they're not talking past each other. That's why I don't see this discussion in any negative light.

 

Yes, but when I'm ASKED what I MEANT, then I can't be criticized what my interpretation is. That's what derailed the thread. I originally responded to a post you made, then danmarino took it upon himself to criticize my interpretation.

If you're going to make a mathematical operation: close games = 1. comeback games = 2. high stakes games = 4. There can be a combination within the same game. You decide what constitutes a close game (for example higher than average lead changes, low differential with 5 minutes remaining, etc.). Let's say a comeback is where one team was down by 14+ points at any point of the game and wins. A high stakes game is any game that clinches the division or is a playoff game anywhere from wildcard to SB.