Seattle is battle tested, Denver not so much. Wilson can run. Manning will be throwing into the best secondary, good luck with that. Speed and the mobile quarterback win this game.
Seahawks ML
Battle Tested against who? The 49ers the 24th ranked offense in the league....
0
Quote Originally Posted by forkball:
Seattle is battle tested, Denver not so much. Wilson can run. Manning will be throwing into the best secondary, good luck with that. Speed and the mobile quarterback win this game.
Seahawks ML
Battle Tested against who? The 49ers the 24th ranked offense in the league....
Shows you how vulnerable a team Seattle is away from home...They played arguably one of the worst all around teams in the NFL this year and were beaten in almost every stat and done so by a back up QB.....This D is not that good away from home where the crowd is the biggest factor in the game...
Indy beat the Broncos in week 7 what does that mean? Nothing. If you want to use strength of schedule as your reason to back Denver, you're nuts man. Look at the path both these teams had to take to get here. It's not even close.
But ya, should be a good game either way i figure, two best teams. G.L. man May the best team win.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Karnzy:
Shows you how vulnerable a team Seattle is away from home...They played arguably one of the worst all around teams in the NFL this year and were beaten in almost every stat and done so by a back up QB.....This D is not that good away from home where the crowd is the biggest factor in the game...
Indy beat the Broncos in week 7 what does that mean? Nothing. If you want to use strength of schedule as your reason to back Denver, you're nuts man. Look at the path both these teams had to take to get here. It's not even close.
But ya, should be a good game either way i figure, two best teams. G.L. man May the best team win.
Indy beat the Broncos in week 7 what does that mean? Nothing. If you want to use strength of schedule as your reason to back Denver, you're nuts man. Look at the path both these teams had to take to get here. It's not even close.
But ya, should be a good game either way i figure, two best teams. G.L. man May the best team win.
I am stressing how much Seattle's Home field advantage has made their D that much better....Away from home they were statistically dominated on both sides of the ball against one of the worst teams in the league this year....
0
Quote Originally Posted by metalbill:
Indy beat the Broncos in week 7 what does that mean? Nothing. If you want to use strength of schedule as your reason to back Denver, you're nuts man. Look at the path both these teams had to take to get here. It's not even close.
But ya, should be a good game either way i figure, two best teams. G.L. man May the best team win.
I am stressing how much Seattle's Home field advantage has made their D that much better....Away from home they were statistically dominated on both sides of the ball against one of the worst teams in the league this year....
Fact is SF had the 30th ranked pass offense in the league this year so your fact brings nothing to the table he was 14-24 with 2 ints 136 yds....Look at the other numbers for SF ranked 24th in total yards on offense with 323 yds and they put 308 yards on Seattle....If Seattle D is that good i would assume they can hold SF to well under their 24th ranked offenses avg...Don't you think?
Damn facts...
SF being ranked 30th in pass offense is incredibly misleading.
For starters they're a running team, first and foremost.
But take a deeper look at the numbers and break them down from PRE-Crabtree and POST-Crabtree.
And remember, other receivers were hurt as well such as Manningham.
But specifically look at the numbers from the Rams game when Crabtree came back and you'll see a FAR BETTER passing offense than 30th in the league.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Karnzy:
Fact is SF had the 30th ranked pass offense in the league this year so your fact brings nothing to the table he was 14-24 with 2 ints 136 yds....Look at the other numbers for SF ranked 24th in total yards on offense with 323 yds and they put 308 yards on Seattle....If Seattle D is that good i would assume they can hold SF to well under their 24th ranked offenses avg...Don't you think?
Damn facts...
SF being ranked 30th in pass offense is incredibly misleading.
For starters they're a running team, first and foremost.
But take a deeper look at the numbers and break them down from PRE-Crabtree and POST-Crabtree.
And remember, other receivers were hurt as well such as Manningham.
But specifically look at the numbers from the Rams game when Crabtree came back and you'll see a FAR BETTER passing offense than 30th in the league.
I am stressing how much Seattle's Home field advantage has made their D that much better....Away from home they were statistically dominated on both sides of the ball against one of the worst teams in the league this year....
Rams were 7-9 in the best division in the league, they're not that bad of a football team.
It's no secret the Hawks aren't as good on the road as they are at home, you can say the same thing with 90% of all teams in all sports.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Karnzy:
I am stressing how much Seattle's Home field advantage has made their D that much better....Away from home they were statistically dominated on both sides of the ball against one of the worst teams in the league this year....
Rams were 7-9 in the best division in the league, they're not that bad of a football team.
It's no secret the Hawks aren't as good on the road as they are at home, you can say the same thing with 90% of all teams in all sports.
Rams were 7-9 in the best division in the league, they're not that bad of a football team.
It's no secret the Hawks aren't as good on the road as they are at home, you can say the same thing with 90% of all teams in all sports.
They had a backup QB when they played Seattle,,,,not just any backup QB but Kellen Clemens.....Cmon that is a terrible argument. The Rams were better with Bradford, but they outgained Seattle in every stat with Clemens...
0
Quote Originally Posted by metalbill:
Rams were 7-9 in the best division in the league, they're not that bad of a football team.
It's no secret the Hawks aren't as good on the road as they are at home, you can say the same thing with 90% of all teams in all sports.
They had a backup QB when they played Seattle,,,,not just any backup QB but Kellen Clemens.....Cmon that is a terrible argument. The Rams were better with Bradford, but they outgained Seattle in every stat with Clemens...
You can throw that weak 8 as an anomaly. seattle was missing both their starting tackles that game and the back ups were completely overmatched by robert quinn and chris long. russell wilson took alot of sacks as if it was almost the game plan to not make any risky throws, take sacks, punt and play defense. alot of seahawk drives were stopped by bad drops by the recievers or penalties and alot of rams drives were sustained by seattle defensive penalties.
yes the seahawks should have lost that one and got bailed out by terrible play-calling by rams offense when on the goal line in the last few seconds. it was just one of those wierd thursday games.
Karnzy - who know who else looked terrible on one of those wierd thursday games and got outplayed by an inferior opponent? The broncos! Once again, broncos played sloppy, made alot of mistakes and lost to a team they could beat 9 out of 10 times.
Karnzy - you are very selective in trying to find reasons to back the broncos. you say seattles number defensive rating is due to a few games agaisnt poor offenses... well how about the broncos racking up points against alot of the worst defenses in the league! and the high altitude of mile high gives the broncos high pace offense an inherent advantage vs defenses in the second half of home games, where defenses get gassed and give up points like a sieve. eg - the ravens, redskins, titans games were all tight in first half, and blowouts in second half.
the broncos offense is great. but you cant haveit both ways by saying the seahawks played weak offenses and then ignore that the broncos played alot of terrible defenses.
the broncos had one of the easiest schedules in the league. the seahawks had a much tougher schedule.
0
You can throw that weak 8 as an anomaly. seattle was missing both their starting tackles that game and the back ups were completely overmatched by robert quinn and chris long. russell wilson took alot of sacks as if it was almost the game plan to not make any risky throws, take sacks, punt and play defense. alot of seahawk drives were stopped by bad drops by the recievers or penalties and alot of rams drives were sustained by seattle defensive penalties.
yes the seahawks should have lost that one and got bailed out by terrible play-calling by rams offense when on the goal line in the last few seconds. it was just one of those wierd thursday games.
Karnzy - who know who else looked terrible on one of those wierd thursday games and got outplayed by an inferior opponent? The broncos! Once again, broncos played sloppy, made alot of mistakes and lost to a team they could beat 9 out of 10 times.
Karnzy - you are very selective in trying to find reasons to back the broncos. you say seattles number defensive rating is due to a few games agaisnt poor offenses... well how about the broncos racking up points against alot of the worst defenses in the league! and the high altitude of mile high gives the broncos high pace offense an inherent advantage vs defenses in the second half of home games, where defenses get gassed and give up points like a sieve. eg - the ravens, redskins, titans games were all tight in first half, and blowouts in second half.
the broncos offense is great. but you cant haveit both ways by saying the seahawks played weak offenses and then ignore that the broncos played alot of terrible defenses.
the broncos had one of the easiest schedules in the league. the seahawks had a much tougher schedule.
You can throw that weak 8 as an anomaly. seattle was missing both their starting tackles that game and the back ups were completely overmatched by robert quinn and chris long. russell wilson took alot of sacks as if it was almost the game plan to not make any risky throws, take sacks, punt and play defense. alot of seahawk drives were stopped by bad drops by the recievers or penalties and alot of rams drives were sustained by seattle defensive penalties.
yes the seahawks should have lost that one and got bailed out by terrible play-calling by rams offense when on the goal line in the last few seconds. it was just one of those wierd thursday games.
Karnzy - who know who else looked terrible on one of those wierd thursday games and got outplayed by an inferior opponent? The broncos! Once again, broncos played sloppy, made alot of mistakes and lost to a team they could beat 9 out of 10 times.
Karnzy - you are very selective in trying to find reasons to back the broncos. you say seattles number defensive rating is due to a few games agaisnt poor offenses... well how about the broncos racking up points against alot of the worst defenses in the league! and the high altitude of mile high gives the broncos high pace offense an inherent advantage vs defenses in the second half of home games, where defenses get gassed and give up points like a sieve. eg - the ravens, redskins, titans games were all tight in first half, and blowouts in second half.
the broncos offense is great. but you cant haveit both ways by saying the seahawks played weak offenses and then ignore that the broncos played alot of terrible defenses.
the broncos had one of the easiest schedules in the league. the seahawks had a much tougher schedule.
Yes the Broncos lost to a Charger team that was in a must win game to make the playoffs, to say they were inferior on defense is far from true....That game Denver kind of went through the motions after the short weeks rest and not really needing the game...Chargers were playing with playoff aspirations....
So Denver points scored away from home: 41 Giants 51 Dallas 33 Colts 28 Chargers 31 NE 35 KC 37 Houston 34 Oakland
Are those weak scores away from home? I just don't see your angle?
0
Quote Originally Posted by bob696969:
You can throw that weak 8 as an anomaly. seattle was missing both their starting tackles that game and the back ups were completely overmatched by robert quinn and chris long. russell wilson took alot of sacks as if it was almost the game plan to not make any risky throws, take sacks, punt and play defense. alot of seahawk drives were stopped by bad drops by the recievers or penalties and alot of rams drives were sustained by seattle defensive penalties.
yes the seahawks should have lost that one and got bailed out by terrible play-calling by rams offense when on the goal line in the last few seconds. it was just one of those wierd thursday games.
Karnzy - who know who else looked terrible on one of those wierd thursday games and got outplayed by an inferior opponent? The broncos! Once again, broncos played sloppy, made alot of mistakes and lost to a team they could beat 9 out of 10 times.
Karnzy - you are very selective in trying to find reasons to back the broncos. you say seattles number defensive rating is due to a few games agaisnt poor offenses... well how about the broncos racking up points against alot of the worst defenses in the league! and the high altitude of mile high gives the broncos high pace offense an inherent advantage vs defenses in the second half of home games, where defenses get gassed and give up points like a sieve. eg - the ravens, redskins, titans games were all tight in first half, and blowouts in second half.
the broncos offense is great. but you cant haveit both ways by saying the seahawks played weak offenses and then ignore that the broncos played alot of terrible defenses.
the broncos had one of the easiest schedules in the league. the seahawks had a much tougher schedule.
Yes the Broncos lost to a Charger team that was in a must win game to make the playoffs, to say they were inferior on defense is far from true....That game Denver kind of went through the motions after the short weeks rest and not really needing the game...Chargers were playing with playoff aspirations....
So Denver points scored away from home: 41 Giants 51 Dallas 33 Colts 28 Chargers 31 NE 35 KC 37 Houston 34 Oakland
Are those weak scores away from home? I just don't see your angle?
Giants - bad defensively at the time, horrible secondary that got picked apart and injuires to the defensive front that rendered them ineffective. The giants gave up 41-0 points to the panthers next week as part of an 0-6 start. Cowboys - i think its well documented cowboys had one of the worst defenses in league history! Colts - nice performance by manning, especially in second half, but i think its pretty fair to call this indy defense medicore (see their two playoff games) Chargers - one of the worst secondaries in the league. the main reason broncos only scored 28 was beacuse charger offense hogged the ball patriots - pats GIFTED 21 points in the first q of that game with terrible fumbles and great field position to broncos chiefs - chiefs were missing their two best pass rushers. credit to manning for repeatedly going to eric decker and exposing the weak link in the chiefs secondary, a rookie corner who i cant remember. cheifs played a very easy schedule first 9 weeks and most football pundits will agree that their defense was overrated (see - playoff game vs colts) Texans - texans were 2-14. 'nuf said. 37 points vs a 2-14 team is like me outscoring my 3 year old nephew 37-10 in a game of nerf hoops Raiders - between them and the jags, the least talented defense in the league.
thank you karnzy. that was an excellent exersice in proving my point. the broncos faced garbage defenses on the road all year long. once again, not saying they arent a great offensive team. the broncos are a great team. but as i just went through game by game above, their numbers are inflated due to facing a multitude of terrible defenses, worse than alot of teams
0
Giants - bad defensively at the time, horrible secondary that got picked apart and injuires to the defensive front that rendered them ineffective. The giants gave up 41-0 points to the panthers next week as part of an 0-6 start. Cowboys - i think its well documented cowboys had one of the worst defenses in league history! Colts - nice performance by manning, especially in second half, but i think its pretty fair to call this indy defense medicore (see their two playoff games) Chargers - one of the worst secondaries in the league. the main reason broncos only scored 28 was beacuse charger offense hogged the ball patriots - pats GIFTED 21 points in the first q of that game with terrible fumbles and great field position to broncos chiefs - chiefs were missing their two best pass rushers. credit to manning for repeatedly going to eric decker and exposing the weak link in the chiefs secondary, a rookie corner who i cant remember. cheifs played a very easy schedule first 9 weeks and most football pundits will agree that their defense was overrated (see - playoff game vs colts) Texans - texans were 2-14. 'nuf said. 37 points vs a 2-14 team is like me outscoring my 3 year old nephew 37-10 in a game of nerf hoops Raiders - between them and the jags, the least talented defense in the league.
thank you karnzy. that was an excellent exersice in proving my point. the broncos faced garbage defenses on the road all year long. once again, not saying they arent a great offensive team. the broncos are a great team. but as i just went through game by game above, their numbers are inflated due to facing a multitude of terrible defenses, worse than alot of teams
Back-up Clemens and the Rams were in the red zone 4 times, before making Back-up mistakes, Rams should of won by 3 Td's....The final drive was epic for them as they shredded the Seattle D. The 30th Ranked Ram D held the Seahawks to under 150 yds total for the night. Read this game as you like but outside Seattle with an extra days rest was not good for Seattle.
Seattle D played the Rams twice this year, and a lot of the Defensive stats that make them #1 were amassed in 1 game against the Giants....
Huge different is that Rams are division Rivals. Everyone in the division pretty much builds their team to beat their rivals. They obviously know them better than the Broncos do. That's why Niners, Cardinals, Seahawks, RAms, all play each other competitively. No reason to compare Broncos and Rams.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Karnzy:
Back-up Clemens and the Rams were in the red zone 4 times, before making Back-up mistakes, Rams should of won by 3 Td's....The final drive was epic for them as they shredded the Seattle D. The 30th Ranked Ram D held the Seahawks to under 150 yds total for the night. Read this game as you like but outside Seattle with an extra days rest was not good for Seattle.
Seattle D played the Rams twice this year, and a lot of the Defensive stats that make them #1 were amassed in 1 game against the Giants....
Huge different is that Rams are division Rivals. Everyone in the division pretty much builds their team to beat their rivals. They obviously know them better than the Broncos do. That's why Niners, Cardinals, Seahawks, RAms, all play each other competitively. No reason to compare Broncos and Rams.
LOL...meaningless thread...your reply is meaningless kid....Taking out the top 2 NFL teams ok will give you that, but if you read the thread Kid you will see that they will not have the 12th man which arguably is a big factor on teams making mistakes on Offense. You sound like a rookie... Are you talking about the 24th ranked Total yards offense in SF that put 308 yds up on Seattle in Seattle? A rookie like you needs to research more...
OK -but did you do the same thing for the Broncos? You would need to remove the worst defensive teams the broncos faced to quantify your analysis. Right now your analysis is very flawed.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Karnzy:
LOL...meaningless thread...your reply is meaningless kid....Taking out the top 2 NFL teams ok will give you that, but if you read the thread Kid you will see that they will not have the 12th man which arguably is a big factor on teams making mistakes on Offense. You sound like a rookie... Are you talking about the 24th ranked Total yards offense in SF that put 308 yds up on Seattle in Seattle? A rookie like you needs to research more...
OK -but did you do the same thing for the Broncos? You would need to remove the worst defensive teams the broncos faced to quantify your analysis. Right now your analysis is very flawed.
Huge different is that Rams are division Rivals. Everyone in the division pretty much builds their team to beat their rivals. They obviously know them better than the Broncos do. That's why Niners, Cardinals, Seahawks, RAms, all play each other competitively. No reason to compare Broncos and Rams.
Broncos Divisional games this year:
Oakland 37-21 Oakland 34-14
SD 28-20 SD 20-27
KC 27-17 KC 35-28
If teams are built to face their divisional opponents why was Denver able to avg 30+ points against theirs? You argument does not hold much belief..
0
Quote Originally Posted by frank the tank:
Huge different is that Rams are division Rivals. Everyone in the division pretty much builds their team to beat their rivals. They obviously know them better than the Broncos do. That's why Niners, Cardinals, Seahawks, RAms, all play each other competitively. No reason to compare Broncos and Rams.
Broncos Divisional games this year:
Oakland 37-21 Oakland 34-14
SD 28-20 SD 20-27
KC 27-17 KC 35-28
If teams are built to face their divisional opponents why was Denver able to avg 30+ points against theirs? You argument does not hold much belief..
Dam right Manning will throw into that secondary, all day! And still no one talks about Denver defense...since that SD loss they stepped up big time! Allowing less then 75 yards rushing in last 4 games, not to mention pretty much keeping scoreless until the 4th quarter in all those games. Against Brady and Rivers whom are top 5 or 6 QBs in the league.denver shuts Lynch down it, it will be a long day for the Seahawks
0
Dam right Manning will throw into that secondary, all day! And still no one talks about Denver defense...since that SD loss they stepped up big time! Allowing less then 75 yards rushing in last 4 games, not to mention pretty much keeping scoreless until the 4th quarter in all those games. Against Brady and Rivers whom are top 5 or 6 QBs in the league.denver shuts Lynch down it, it will be a long day for the Seahawks
They are built to contend within their division, are you serious? NFL Teams are built to contend with the league, not their division...Seattle could not stop the Rams, and the Rams were just as bad as it gets in this league. Seattle has played the Giants ranked 28th in total yards,28th in scoring, and ranked 29th in rushing, they also played the Falcons ranked 32 rush,and 20th in scoring, they played TB ranked 32th scoring,30th pass. the Titans 22nd Total Yards,21st Pass and 19th Points Scored.. they played the Rams twice, they are ranked 30th Total Yards,27th Pass, and 21st Points Scored. These are facts on how a Defense like Seattle can be "Overrated"
Take what you want from the thread, all i am pointing out is numbers...Do i like the Broncos Yes....But again the thread is to point out a Defense who is very over rated.....
Good Luck!!!
You are trying to convince yourself that you are only pointing out the numbers but in reality, you just want to point out he numbers that fit your side of the argument.
1. Yes, teams are built more tilt towards their own divisions. Why? It's because you can go 8-8 but you still can go to playoffs if you win your own division. There are many examples of this so to argue otherwise just doesn't.....
2. You used both the Giants and Titans to make your point but do you even know they were both on the Broncos' schedule as well? Den also got to play Oak twice and I don't believe the Raiders are an offensive powerhouse.
It's ok if you want to argue Hawks' defensive numbers were inflated but so were those for Den.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Karnzy:
They are built to contend within their division, are you serious? NFL Teams are built to contend with the league, not their division...Seattle could not stop the Rams, and the Rams were just as bad as it gets in this league. Seattle has played the Giants ranked 28th in total yards,28th in scoring, and ranked 29th in rushing, they also played the Falcons ranked 32 rush,and 20th in scoring, they played TB ranked 32th scoring,30th pass. the Titans 22nd Total Yards,21st Pass and 19th Points Scored.. they played the Rams twice, they are ranked 30th Total Yards,27th Pass, and 21st Points Scored. These are facts on how a Defense like Seattle can be "Overrated"
Take what you want from the thread, all i am pointing out is numbers...Do i like the Broncos Yes....But again the thread is to point out a Defense who is very over rated.....
Good Luck!!!
You are trying to convince yourself that you are only pointing out the numbers but in reality, you just want to point out he numbers that fit your side of the argument.
1. Yes, teams are built more tilt towards their own divisions. Why? It's because you can go 8-8 but you still can go to playoffs if you win your own division. There are many examples of this so to argue otherwise just doesn't.....
2. You used both the Giants and Titans to make your point but do you even know they were both on the Broncos' schedule as well? Den also got to play Oak twice and I don't believe the Raiders are an offensive powerhouse.
It's ok if you want to argue Hawks' defensive numbers were inflated but so were those for Den.
You are trying to convince yourself that you are only pointing out the numbers but in reality, you just want to point out he numbers that fit your side of the argument.
1. Yes, teams are built more tilt towards their own divisions. Why? It's because you can go 8-8 but you still can go to playoffs if you win your own division. There are many examples of this so to argue otherwise just doesn't.....
2. You used both the Giants and Titans to make your point but do you even know they were both on the Broncos' schedule as well? Den also got to play Oak twice and I don't believe the Raiders are an offensive powerhouse.
It's ok if you want to argue Hawks' defensive numbers were inflated but so were those for Den.
Far from trying to convince myself...Numbers do not lie ...Showing a different side of #1 rankings, and this thread happen to be about Seattle... Denver did not just score big numbers at home, they did it everywhere they played this year.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bunny651:
You are trying to convince yourself that you are only pointing out the numbers but in reality, you just want to point out he numbers that fit your side of the argument.
1. Yes, teams are built more tilt towards their own divisions. Why? It's because you can go 8-8 but you still can go to playoffs if you win your own division. There are many examples of this so to argue otherwise just doesn't.....
2. You used both the Giants and Titans to make your point but do you even know they were both on the Broncos' schedule as well? Den also got to play Oak twice and I don't believe the Raiders are an offensive powerhouse.
It's ok if you want to argue Hawks' defensive numbers were inflated but so were those for Den.
Far from trying to convince myself...Numbers do not lie ...Showing a different side of #1 rankings, and this thread happen to be about Seattle... Denver did not just score big numbers at home, they did it everywhere they played this year.
Far from trying to convince myself...Numbers do not lie ...Showing a different side of #1 rankings, and this thread happen to be about Seattle... Denver did not just score big numbers at home, they did it everywhere they played this year.
So what did I say was wrong?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Karnzy:
Far from trying to convince myself...Numbers do not lie ...Showing a different side of #1 rankings, and this thread happen to be about Seattle... Denver did not just score big numbers at home, they did it everywhere they played this year.
This is it, I couldn't figure out my pick, but this is true, the seahawks struggled with the Rams so there is no way they can beat Denver....yes, this is the sound knowledge I needed. My lawd, it's stuff like this that makes me want to become a book.
0
This is it, I couldn't figure out my pick, but this is true, the seahawks struggled with the Rams so there is no way they can beat Denver....yes, this is the sound knowledge I needed. My lawd, it's stuff like this that makes me want to become a book.
I did not say it was wrong...did i?...What i said was the thread is about Seattle and am showing you a different angle about the Seattle Defense....
No, you didn't but I did see you debating other topics with others as well.
Back to your angle, you used ONE game to illustrate your point. It's really no different if someone using the Giants(a common opponent and both were on the road) as comparison. Giants scored 23 on the Broncos while the Hawks shut them out. How about the Patriots' game? Since numbers don't lie, the Broncos' defense is really horrible compared to the Hawks then, right? My point is ANYONE can pick and choose.......
0
Quote Originally Posted by Karnzy:
I did not say it was wrong...did i?...What i said was the thread is about Seattle and am showing you a different angle about the Seattle Defense....
No, you didn't but I did see you debating other topics with others as well.
Back to your angle, you used ONE game to illustrate your point. It's really no different if someone using the Giants(a common opponent and both were on the road) as comparison. Giants scored 23 on the Broncos while the Hawks shut them out. How about the Patriots' game? Since numbers don't lie, the Broncos' defense is really horrible compared to the Hawks then, right? My point is ANYONE can pick and choose.......
Fact is SF had the 30th ranked pass offense in the league this year so your fact brings nothing to the table he was 14-24 with 2 ints 136 yds....Look at the other numbers for SF ranked 24th in total yards on offense with 323 yds and they put 308 yards on Seattle....If Seattle D is that good i would assume they can hold SF to well under their 24th ranked offenses avg...Don't you think?
Damn facts...
Those are facts alright, here's the facts about those facts.......................
Passing yards has a correlation to victory of 50%...............in other words the team that wins the passing yards battle wins the game 50% of the time.
QBPR has a correlation to victory of 80%.
PREDICTIVE VALUE...............................
Passing yards has a predictive value of 52%.
QBPR has a predictive value of 65%.
Hey, just trying to help you out.
Your building an argument around meaningless passing yard and total yards stats.
If your a newbie who wants to learn to be better at predicting games, build your argument around stats with high correlations to victory and predictive value going forward type stats.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Karnzy:
Fact is SF had the 30th ranked pass offense in the league this year so your fact brings nothing to the table he was 14-24 with 2 ints 136 yds....Look at the other numbers for SF ranked 24th in total yards on offense with 323 yds and they put 308 yards on Seattle....If Seattle D is that good i would assume they can hold SF to well under their 24th ranked offenses avg...Don't you think?
Damn facts...
Those are facts alright, here's the facts about those facts.......................
Passing yards has a correlation to victory of 50%...............in other words the team that wins the passing yards battle wins the game 50% of the time.
QBPR has a correlation to victory of 80%.
PREDICTIVE VALUE...............................
Passing yards has a predictive value of 52%.
QBPR has a predictive value of 65%.
Hey, just trying to help you out.
Your building an argument around meaningless passing yard and total yards stats.
If your a newbie who wants to learn to be better at predicting games, build your argument around stats with high correlations to victory and predictive value going forward type stats.
Those are facts alright, here's the facts about those facts.......................
Passing yards has a correlation to victory of 50%...............in other words the team that wins the passing yards battle wins the game 50% of the time.
QBPR has a correlation to victory of 80%.
PREDICTIVE VALUE...............................
Passing yards has a predictive value of 52%.
QBPR has a predictive value of 65%.
Hey, just trying to help you out.
Your building an argument around meaningless passing yard and total yards stats.
If your a newbie who wants to learn to be better at predicting games, build your argument around stats with high correlations to victory and predictive value going forward type stats.
Passing yards 1st half...........................
Denver 104
Seattle 94
QBPR 1st half...........................
Seattle 83.6
Denver 46.3
Score 22-0, which stat is meaningful ?
Which stat does the score more closely resemble ?
0
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw:
Those are facts alright, here's the facts about those facts.......................
Passing yards has a correlation to victory of 50%...............in other words the team that wins the passing yards battle wins the game 50% of the time.
QBPR has a correlation to victory of 80%.
PREDICTIVE VALUE...............................
Passing yards has a predictive value of 52%.
QBPR has a predictive value of 65%.
Hey, just trying to help you out.
Your building an argument around meaningless passing yard and total yards stats.
If your a newbie who wants to learn to be better at predicting games, build your argument around stats with high correlations to victory and predictive value going forward type stats.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
