Shanny a Stat Master? - The Orange Mane

epicSocialism4tw · 11-30-2005, 10:59 AM

This article shows the 5 statistics most highly correlated with wins. It is no mistake that Shanahan built his team to excel in all 5 categories. Another poster posted part of this article in another thread, but I thought that it deserved it's own discussion...

Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Updated: November 30, 11:50 AM ET
Turnovers, early deficits lead to losses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Greg Garber
ESPN.com

Vince Lombardi, the celebrated coach of the Green Bay Packers whose name adorns the sterling Super Bowl trophy, said that statistics are for losers. Point taken.
Still, culled from the most recent evidence -- the NFL's 2003 and 2004 regular-season statistics -- here are five leading sins of the game that are indisputably (did we mention amazingly?) and undeniably true, more often than not. Upon further review, notice that they are all, like the myriad creatures of the universe, interconnected.

Here, then, is the key to the matrix you never knew existed. The percentage in parenthesis refers to the probability of losing when committing that particular sin.

Sin No. 1: Trailing after the first quarter (75 percent)

While so much emphasis is placed on the fourth quarter and a team's finishing power, it's really how you start the game that matters. Teams that found themselves trailing after the first quarter lost a staggering 75 percent of their games in '03-04.
If you're pressed for time, this will eliminate the need to watch the last three quarters.

Seriously, teams that start slowly invariably lose. The 3-8 Arizona Cardinals have trailed at the end of the first quarter in nine of 11 games. They are 2-7 in those games (22 percent), a figure almost identical with the 23 percent achieved (if that's the word for it) over the course of the 2003 season.

By the same token, teams that set the tone early wind up prevailing -- three times out of four. Take the Indianapolis Colts, for example. The 11-0 Colts have trailed only once after the first quarter. Somehow, they recovered from a 17-0 deficit in spectacular fashion against the St. Louis Rams in Week 7 to win 45-28.

"Is that number right?" asked Insider Rick Spielman, who spent five seasons as the Dolphins' general manager. "That's unbelievable.

"Still, it makes sense. If you're playing with a lead, you can play solid defense and run the ball and control the clock. Your odds of winning will always be better when you can control the clock."

In Week 15 of the 2003 season, all 15 teams that led after one quarter won the game.

Said Green, "I guess that means the old cliché about halftime adjustments isn't true. After the first 15 minutes, the game is essentially over."

Sin No. 2: Losing the turnover battle (81 percent)

This is a tried-and-true truism of the NFL -- what's surprising is the gravity of the number. Lose the turnover battle and you'll lose four games out of five.

Steve McNair's fumble led to a touchdown for the Raiders in Week 8.

Take the Tennessee Titans. While the Titans are 3-2 when they have fewer turnovers than their opponent, they are a dead, solid 0-5 when they have more turnovers. Tennessee committed 13 turnovers in those five games, while opposing teams lost the ball a total of only two times. That kind of hole is difficult to escape.

During the first four weeks of the 2004 season, teams that won the turnover battle went a collective 43-6, a winning 87.8 percent of games.

It's common sense, really. When you lose the ball, you lose a chance to score, while the opposition receives that same opportunity. At worst, it can be a 14-point swing. At best, it's usually a loss of 40 yards in field position. One turnover, quite often, can swing a game.

In Sunday's game against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, the Chicago Bears scored their only touchdown after Alex Brown hit quarterback Chris Simms and induced him to fumble on his own 1-yard line. The ensuing one-yard scoring pass from Kyle Orton to John Gilmore held up as the difference in the 13-10 victory.

Good teams almost always tend to force more turnovers than they yield.

Of the nine top teams in turnover margin -- Cincinnati has the league's best figure, plus-20 -- only one isn't at least three games over .500. And the 4-7 Buffalo Bills (plus-8) are actually still in playoff contention in the anemic AFC East.

Sin No. 3: Allowing a 100-yard runner (75 percent)

On the five occasions the Rams (5-6) have allowed a 100-yard rusher, they are 1-4.
The season began uneventfully for the Rams, who didn't allow a 100-yard runner in the first three games. Then, all hell broke loose: In three successive games, Tiki Barber (24 carries, 128 yards, 1 TD), Shaun Alexander (25-119, 2 TDs) and Edgerrin James (23-143, 3 TDs) sliced up the Rams' defense. Needless to say, all three games resulted in losses.

Although Fred Taylor ran wild on St. Louis -- carrying 22 times for 165 yards -- the Rams managed to hold off Jacksonville 24-21 in Week 8 to even their record at 4-4. But, after their bye week, the Rams reverted to form in Week 10. Alexander savaged the Rams for 165 yards and three touchdowns on 33 carries, and the Seahawks won another game on their way to the NFC's best record so far (9-2).

In 2004, teams that featured a 100-yard rusher had a collective winning record every single week. During Weeks 6-9, the overall record was an astounding 32-1.

Last year, Patriots running back Corey Dillon cleared 100 yards nine times during the regular season. New England won eight of those games; only a four-interception game by Tom Brady (see Sin No. 2) cost them a 29-28 decision at Miami. The Patriots, you might recall, won the Super Bowl and finished with a 17-2 record. This year Dillon has been injured and has produced only one 100-yard game. The Patriots are 6-5 and limping toward the playoffs.

Producing a 100-yard runner usually means that team has actually had the luxury of methodically handing the ball off. And thatsuggests the team is playing with a lead, which, in turn, means that passing is not a necessity.

As former Ohio State coach Woody Hayes used to say, three things can happen when you throw the ball -- and two of them are bad. A turnover (see Sin No. 2) can be deadly and sometimes produce an early hole (see Sin No. 1). A dropped ball counts for nothing and also stops the clock (see Sin. No. 5). And then there is the sack, which leads us to…

Sin No. 4: Allowing more sacks (70 percent)

When legendary Rams defensive end David "Deacon" Jones coined the term "sack" -- as in, sacking and pillaging a rival village -- he saw savage tackling of the quarterback as a means to an end. What he didn't know was that, far more often than not, allowing your quarterback to be sacked more than your opponent's means The End.

Texans QB David Carr knows a thing or two about getting sacked.

Look no further than poor, unfortunate David Carr of the Houston Texans, the poster child of sackitis.

In 54 career starts, Carr has been sacked a ludicrous 190 times (more than 3.5 per game). Houston's record in those games is 15-39 (.278).

In his rookie season, he was decked 76 times -- an NFL record that is being threatened by this year's Texans. After a brutal stretch of three games against Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and Tennessee -- when Carr was sacked a total of 22 times -- the dubious record appeared in jeopardy. But now, through 11 games, with Carr suffering a league-high 50 sacks, the projection is 73. Chances are, based on more recent results, the number will wind up in the high 60s.

The correlation between sacks allowed and losing is a powerful one. The Texans are 1-10, and in their only win (19-16 over the Browns) each quarterback was sacked twice.

This statistic, upon reflection, fits into the matrix. The flip side of a 100-yard runner is a team desperate to catch up. When teams are forced to abandon the run, opposing defenses can rush the passer with abandon. This usually results in increased sacks and all the bad things that come with them.

Teams that allowed more sacks in Week 10 in 2003 were 0-11; in Week 9 of 2004 they were 0-12.

Good teams, as you might expect, protect their quarterbacks. Is it a coincidence that the 11-0 Colts have allowed Peyton Manning to be sacked only nine times -- easily the league's lowest total (among full-time starting quarterbacks). Meanwhile, the Patriots' Brady has been decked 12 times in the last five games, two of them losses.

It is worth noting, too, that the Texans won their only game by avoiding Sins. No. 2 and No. 3 and, instructively, Sin No. 5.

Sin No. 5: Losing time of possession (67 percent)

Possession, they say, is nine-tenths of the law. But in today's NFL you'll have to settle for seven-tenths. OK, to split hairs, 6.7-tenths.
The Buccaneers, by today's air-it-out standards, are a conservative team. Watching them, you might think it's still 1950. Head coach Jon Gruden drafted Cadillac Williams in the first round so, along with fullback Mike Alstott, he could keep pounding teams into submission while the defense did its muscular job.

So far, it's worked out pretty well for the Bucs. They have outscored opponents by a paltry 20 points, but at 7-4 they've won three more games than they've lost. Their narrow margin of error can be seen in the time-of-possession statistics. In 11 games, they have held the ball an average of 2 minutes and 40 seconds longer than opponents.

The Bucs are 5-2 when they win time of possession; 2-2 when they don't. Sunday's 13-10 loss to Chicago underlines the fragile dynamic. The Bears possessed the ball for all of six more seconds than the Bucs -- and won.

Scan the 2005 team numbers and you'll find the usual suspects at the top of the list.

Dallas (33:30) leads the NFL with Kansas City (32:26) and Denver (32:21) second and third, respectively. Those teams -- all in playoff contention -- are guided by old-school coaches Bill Parcells, Dick Vermeil and Mike Shanahan, who have always employed a run-first, pass-second philosophy.

There's one other thing they all have in common: Super Bowl rings.

Greg Garber is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

ludo21 · 11-30-2005, 11:12 AM

Great post!

We do excel in all 5 and that is exactly why we win. Still only stat that matters is W!

Lidderer · 11-30-2005, 11:29 AM

ludo has a point, wins correalate with wins 100% of the time.

also, great post llama.

ludo21 · 11-30-2005, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lidderer

ludo has a point, wins correalate with wins 100% of the time.

Thats truly the only stat this is 100% reliable.

Lidderer · 11-30-2005, 11:32 AM

the cause and effect of #3 is a bit shaky,however. One shouldn't simply try and rush for 100 yards--or that more peculiar benchmark of '20 carries'. A significant lead or a victory most often gives way to 100 yards, rather than the other way around, i'd assume.

that 1st one is quite surprising though.

Lidderer · 11-30-2005, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ludo21

Thats truly the only stat this is 100% reliable.

if you throw an interception there is a good chance the other team will have picked you off.

chanesaw · 11-30-2005, 11:34 AM

What about yards per pass play? I've always heard that one is a good indicator.

ludo21 · 11-30-2005, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chanesaw

What about yards per pass play? I've always heard that one is a good indicator.

it is, but its kinda flawed as it doesnt really count TO's.

yavoon · 11-30-2005, 11:47 AM

I hate that allowing a 100 yard rusher one, the turnover also isnt really my favorite. both of those are pretty backwards reinforcing. winning teams run more and losing teams do more turnover prone things. of course that has NEVER EVER stopped announcers from peddling the old 100 yard rusher crap out.

Beantown Bronco · 11-30-2005, 12:02 PM

Sin # 6 = losing at the end of the 4th quarter (100 percent)

footstepsfrom#27 · 11-30-2005, 12:08 PM

I think that teams win 75% of the time when leading after the 1st quarter not because that has much to do with it, but because a team that's better than its opponent will probably jump out on top. Common sense says that the better team will usually jump out on top. Chicken or egg syndrome...it's not leading after the 1st quarter that determines that you win...it's being a better team and that's why you're leading after the 1st quarter. Most of the rest I agree on though, although in Denver's case a 100 yard rusher doesn't mean much since we could have two guys go over 50 and achieve the same thing. Most teams rely on only one feature back though so I see the correlation there.

Broncos Rule · 11-30-2005, 12:11 PM

Here is the rest of the story:

Vince Lombardi said, "Football is a game of clichés, and I believe in every one of them."

Be careful, fans of football, which clichés you choose to believe.
Here are five myths that have survived the years. Like any good myth, these are rooted in truths. Yet you might be surprised how marginal their effect can be on a game.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2241159

CHEF LUIGI · 11-30-2005, 12:31 PM

"stats are for losers"
if you win, that is the only stat that matters.
when you lose, you search the myriad of stats to find some saliva for your wounds.
300 yard passers lose more times than they win!
when a 3oo+ yard passer does win, there is usually a 300 yard passer on the opposite side of the field who lost!
Winners run the ball!
Losers cant run the ball, thats why they spend so much time passing!
when the broncos run the ball 35+ times a game, they win better than 95 % of the time!

epicSocialism4tw · 11-30-2005, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

I think that teams win 75% of the time when leading after the 1st quarter not because that has much to do with it, but because a team that's better than its opponent will probably jump out on top. Common sense says that the better team will usually jump out on top. Chicken or egg syndrome...it's not leading after the 1st quarter that determines that you win...it's being a better team and that's why you're leading after the 1st quarter. Most of the rest I agree on though, although in Denver's case a 100 yard rusher doesn't mean much since we could have two guys go over 50 and achieve the same thing. Most teams rely on only one feature back though so I see the correlation there.

These correlations are indicators of success. If you see a team regularly jump out to large leads, then you can assume that they are probably on their way to a successful season. If a team does well in every category, you have to think that their chances for success are much greater than they would be otherwise.

Lidderer · 11-30-2005, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHEF LUIGI

"stats are for losers"
1) if you win, that is the only stat that matters.
2) when you lose, you search the myriad of stats to find some saliva for your wounds.

1) remember that giants game we lost? remember that game where the skins lost to the giants? tell me there's not a difference, and tell me the stats don't show this. If the win is the only thing that matters then why don't you just pick up the newspaper monday morning, scan the boxscore for the final tally, and not think about it again until next monday?

2) Yes, and that's probably not a bad idea. dallas can leave that thursday game knowing they have the ability to beat an excellent team based on countless stats of the game. I imagine this helps and says more about the cowboys as a team than simply "dallas lost to denver".

epicSocialism4tw · 11-30-2005, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lidderer

1) remember that giants game we lost? remember that game where the skins lost to the giants? tell me there's not a difference, and tell me the stats don't show this. If the win is the only thing that matters then why don't you just pick up the newspaper monday morning, scan the boxscore for the final tally, and not think about it again until next monday?

2) Yes, and that's probably not a bad idea. dallas can leave that thursday game knowing they have the ability to beat an excellent team based on countless stats of the game. I imagine this helps and says more about the cowboys as a team than simply "dallas lost to denver".

National football league football is just football. Football players in the national football league care who wins football games football style. Whoever plays national football league football must make football plays. Football plays cant be measured with statistics. Football is football...national football league football.

Lidderer · 11-30-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angryllama

National football league football is just football. Football players in the national football league care who wins football games football style. Whoever plays national football league football must make football plays. Football plays cant be measured with statistics. Football is football...national football league football.

it's unfortunate that so many would agree with your fake post. and yet...

CHEF LUIGI · 11-30-2005, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lidderer

1) remember that giants game we lost? remember that game where the skins lost to the giants? tell me there's not a difference, and tell me the stats don't show this. If the win is the only thing that matters then why don't you just pick up the newspaper monday morning, scan the boxscore for the final tally, and not think about it again until next monday?

2) Yes, and that's probably not a bad idea. dallas can leave that thursday game knowing they have the ability to beat an excellent team based on countless stats of the game. I imagine this helps and says more about the cowboys as a team than simply "dallas lost to denver".

I see your a mets fan, and a baseball fan.
two reasons why you would be interested in stats, insteAD OF WINNING!

Lidderer · 11-30-2005, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHEF LUIGI

I see your a mets fan, and a baseball fan.
two reasons why you would be interested in stats, insteAD OF WINNING!

i am not a mets fan. And i never said i'm against winning. But there is grey area that is worth focusing on too.

If a team loses 10 games by a combined total of 16 points, and another team loses 10 games by a total of 122 points, I'd be wary of anyone who says "oh, team A and team B are both 6-10, therefore interchangeable".

I mean how do you think teams correct their flaws? or even discern them?

Excerpted non-existent chat between coaches:

Head Coach: "goddamnit, 5-11 this season!"
GM: "Hmm, let's try and trade up in the first round and draft some wins."
Head Coach: "I like the way you think."

Mediator12 · 11-30-2005, 02:05 PM

Stats correlate to wins. Correlate does not mean cause, and is not a linear function.

Correlation is a statistical technique which can show whether and how strongly pairs of variables are related. For example, height and weight are related - taller people tend to be heavier than shorter people. The relationship isn't perfect.

People of the same height vary in weight, and you can easily think of two people you know where the shorter one is heavier than the taller one. Nonetheless, the average weight of people 5'5'' is less than the average weight of people 5'6'', and their average weight is less than that of people 5'7'', etc. Correlation can tell you just how much of the variation in peoples' weights is related to their heights.

It is simply an indicator of how strongly succeeding in certain area's ties to winning football games.

yavoon · 12-01-2005, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lidderer

i am not a mets fan. And i never said i'm against winning. But there is grey area that is worth focusing on too.

If a team loses 10 games by a combined total of 16 points, and another team loses 10 games by a total of 122 points, I'd be wary of anyone who says "oh, team A and team B are both 6-10, therefore interchangeable".

I mean how do you think teams correct their flaws? or even discern them?

Excerpted non-existent chat between coaches:

Head Coach: "goddamnit, 5-11 this season!"
GM: "Hmm, let's try and trade up in the first round and draft some wins."
Head Coach: "I like the way you think."

glorious

Bronco202 · 12-01-2005, 09:11 AM

Does he realize we havent beaten the Chiefs in Arrowhead in December for at least 10 years?

Mile High Shack · 12-01-2005, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco202

Does he realize we havent beaten the Chiefs in Arrowhead in December for at least 10 years?

why are you posing as a Bronco fan troll?

CHEF LUIGI · 12-01-2005, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lidderer

i am not a mets fan. And i never said i'm against winning. But there is grey area that is worth focusing on too.

If a team loses 10 games by a combined total of 16 points, and another team loses 10 games by a total of 122 points, I'd be wary of anyone who says "oh, team A and team B are both 6-10, therefore interchangeable".

I mean how do you think teams correct their flaws? or even discern them?

Excerpted non-existent chat between coaches:

Head Coach: "goddamnit, 5-11 this season!"
GM: "Hmm, let's try and trade up in the first round and draft some wins."
Head Coach: "I like the way you think."

Both teams are 6-10
thats why stats are for losers!
they look at the stats to figure out what they need to do to win.
its very simple.
LOMBARDI was not a simpleton, he made a very accute statement.
when you win, stats dont matter...
Hence, STATS are for LOSERS.
Like baseball fans.

Bronco202 · 12-01-2005, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

why are you posing as a Bronco fan troll?

I am a Bronco Fan. I have pictures of Elway all over my house. And please don't refer to me as a troll, It reminds me of your mother.

11-30-2005, 10:59 AM	#1
epicSocialism4tw Tebowing the long haul all the way to the title Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: TX, USA Posts: 37,072 Adopt-a-Bronco: Champ Bailey	Shanny a Stat Master? This article shows the 5 statistics most highly correlated with wins. It is no mistake that Shanahan built his team to excel in all 5 categories. Another poster posted part of this article in another thread, but I thought that it deserved it's own discussion... Tuesday, November 29, 2005 Updated: November 30, 11:50 AM ET Turnovers, early deficits lead to losses -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Greg Garber ESPN.com Vince Lombardi, the celebrated coach of the Green Bay Packers whose name adorns the sterling Super Bowl trophy, said that statistics are for losers. Point taken. Still, culled from the most recent evidence -- the NFL's 2003 and 2004 regular-season statistics -- here are five leading sins of the game that are indisputably (did we mention amazingly?) and undeniably true, more often than not. Upon further review, notice that they are all, like the myriad creatures of the universe, interconnected. Here, then, is the key to the matrix you never knew existed. The percentage in parenthesis refers to the probability of losing when committing that particular sin. Sin No. 1: Trailing after the first quarter (75 percent) While so much emphasis is placed on the fourth quarter and a team's finishing power, it's really how you start the game that matters. Teams that found themselves trailing after the first quarter lost a staggering 75 percent of their games in '03-04. If you're pressed for time, this will eliminate the need to watch the last three quarters. Seriously, teams that start slowly invariably lose. The 3-8 Arizona Cardinals have trailed at the end of the first quarter in nine of 11 games. They are 2-7 in those games (22 percent), a figure almost identical with the 23 percent achieved (if that's the word for it) over the course of the 2003 season. By the same token, teams that set the tone early wind up prevailing -- three times out of four. Take the Indianapolis Colts, for example. The 11-0 Colts have trailed only once after the first quarter. Somehow, they recovered from a 17-0 deficit in spectacular fashion against the St. Louis Rams in Week 7 to win 45-28. "Is that number right?" asked Insider Rick Spielman, who spent five seasons as the Dolphins' general manager. "That's unbelievable. "Still, it makes sense. If you're playing with a lead, you can play solid defense and run the ball and control the clock. Your odds of winning will always be better when you can control the clock." In Week 15 of the 2003 season, all 15 teams that led after one quarter won the game. Said Green, "I guess that means the old cliché about halftime adjustments isn't true. After the first 15 minutes, the game is essentially over." Sin No. 2: Losing the turnover battle (81 percent) This is a tried-and-true truism of the NFL -- what's surprising is the gravity of the number. Lose the turnover battle and you'll lose four games out of five. Steve McNair's fumble led to a touchdown for the Raiders in Week 8. Take the Tennessee Titans. While the Titans are 3-2 when they have fewer turnovers than their opponent, they are a dead, solid 0-5 when they have more turnovers. Tennessee committed 13 turnovers in those five games, while opposing teams lost the ball a total of only two times. That kind of hole is difficult to escape. During the first four weeks of the 2004 season, teams that won the turnover battle went a collective 43-6, a winning 87.8 percent of games. It's common sense, really. When you lose the ball, you lose a chance to score, while the opposition receives that same opportunity. At worst, it can be a 14-point swing. At best, it's usually a loss of 40 yards in field position. One turnover, quite often, can swing a game. In Sunday's game against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, the Chicago Bears scored their only touchdown after Alex Brown hit quarterback Chris Simms and induced him to fumble on his own 1-yard line. The ensuing one-yard scoring pass from Kyle Orton to John Gilmore held up as the difference in the 13-10 victory. Good teams almost always tend to force more turnovers than they yield. Of the nine top teams in turnover margin -- Cincinnati has the league's best figure, plus-20 -- only one isn't at least three games over .500. And the 4-7 Buffalo Bills (plus-8) are actually still in playoff contention in the anemic AFC East. Sin No. 3: Allowing a 100-yard runner (75 percent) On the five occasions the Rams (5-6) have allowed a 100-yard rusher, they are 1-4. The season began uneventfully for the Rams, who didn't allow a 100-yard runner in the first three games. Then, all hell broke loose: In three successive games, Tiki Barber (24 carries, 128 yards, 1 TD), Shaun Alexander (25-119, 2 TDs) and Edgerrin James (23-143, 3 TDs) sliced up the Rams' defense. Needless to say, all three games resulted in losses. Although Fred Taylor ran wild on St. Louis -- carrying 22 times for 165 yards -- the Rams managed to hold off Jacksonville 24-21 in Week 8 to even their record at 4-4. But, after their bye week, the Rams reverted to form in Week 10. Alexander savaged the Rams for 165 yards and three touchdowns on 33 carries, and the Seahawks won another game on their way to the NFC's best record so far (9-2). In 2004, teams that featured a 100-yard rusher had a collective winning record every single week. During Weeks 6-9, the overall record was an astounding 32-1. Last year, Patriots running back Corey Dillon cleared 100 yards nine times during the regular season. New England won eight of those games; only a four-interception game by Tom Brady (see Sin No. 2) cost them a 29-28 decision at Miami. The Patriots, you might recall, won the Super Bowl and finished with a 17-2 record. This year Dillon has been injured and has produced only one 100-yard game. The Patriots are 6-5 and limping toward the playoffs. Producing a 100-yard runner usually means that team has actually had the luxury of methodically handing the ball off. And thatsuggests the team is playing with a lead, which, in turn, means that passing is not a necessity. As former Ohio State coach Woody Hayes used to say, three things can happen when you throw the ball -- and two of them are bad. A turnover (see Sin No. 2) can be deadly and sometimes produce an early hole (see Sin No. 1). A dropped ball counts for nothing and also stops the clock (see Sin. No. 5). And then there is the sack, which leads us to… Sin No. 4: Allowing more sacks (70 percent) When legendary Rams defensive end David "Deacon" Jones coined the term "sack" -- as in, sacking and pillaging a rival village -- he saw savage tackling of the quarterback as a means to an end. What he didn't know was that, far more often than not, allowing your quarterback to be sacked more than your opponent's means The End. Texans QB David Carr knows a thing or two about getting sacked. Look no further than poor, unfortunate David Carr of the Houston Texans, the poster child of sackitis. In 54 career starts, Carr has been sacked a ludicrous 190 times (more than 3.5 per game). Houston's record in those games is 15-39 (.278). In his rookie season, he was decked 76 times -- an NFL record that is being threatened by this year's Texans. After a brutal stretch of three games against Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and Tennessee -- when Carr was sacked a total of 22 times -- the dubious record appeared in jeopardy. But now, through 11 games, with Carr suffering a league-high 50 sacks, the projection is 73. Chances are, based on more recent results, the number will wind up in the high 60s. The correlation between sacks allowed and losing is a powerful one. The Texans are 1-10, and in their only win (19-16 over the Browns) each quarterback was sacked twice. This statistic, upon reflection, fits into the matrix. The flip side of a 100-yard runner is a team desperate to catch up. When teams are forced to abandon the run, opposing defenses can rush the passer with abandon. This usually results in increased sacks and all the bad things that come with them. Teams that allowed more sacks in Week 10 in 2003 were 0-11; in Week 9 of 2004 they were 0-12. Good teams, as you might expect, protect their quarterbacks. Is it a coincidence that the 11-0 Colts have allowed Peyton Manning to be sacked only nine times -- easily the league's lowest total (among full-time starting quarterbacks). Meanwhile, the Patriots' Brady has been decked 12 times in the last five games, two of them losses. It is worth noting, too, that the Texans won their only game by avoiding Sins. No. 2 and No. 3 and, instructively, Sin No. 5. Sin No. 5: Losing time of possession (67 percent) Possession, they say, is nine-tenths of the law. But in today's NFL you'll have to settle for seven-tenths. OK, to split hairs, 6.7-tenths. The Buccaneers, by today's air-it-out standards, are a conservative team. Watching them, you might think it's still 1950. Head coach Jon Gruden drafted Cadillac Williams in the first round so, along with fullback Mike Alstott, he could keep pounding teams into submission while the defense did its muscular job. So far, it's worked out pretty well for the Bucs. They have outscored opponents by a paltry 20 points, but at 7-4 they've won three more games than they've lost. Their narrow margin of error can be seen in the time-of-possession statistics. In 11 games, they have held the ball an average of 2 minutes and 40 seconds longer than opponents. The Bucs are 5-2 when they win time of possession; 2-2 when they don't. Sunday's 13-10 loss to Chicago underlines the fragile dynamic. The Bears possessed the ball for all of six more seconds than the Bucs -- and won. Scan the 2005 team numbers and you'll find the usual suspects at the top of the list. Dallas (33:30) leads the NFL with Kansas City (32:26) and Denver (32:21) second and third, respectively. Those teams -- all in playoff contention -- are guided by old-school coaches Bill Parcells, Dick Vermeil and Mike Shanahan, who have always employed a run-first, pass-second philosophy. There's one other thing they all have in common: Super Bowl rings. Greg Garber is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-30-2005, 11:12 AM	#2
ludo21 RIP Darrent Williams Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Glendale, AZ Posts: 17,901 Adopt-a-Bronco: Paul Ernster	Great post! We do excel in all 5 and that is exactly why we win. Still only stat that matters is W!

11-30-2005, 11:29 AM	#3
Lidderer & Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 1,780	ludo has a point, wins correalate with wins 100% of the time. also, great post llama.

11-30-2005, 11:32 AM	#5
Lidderer & Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 1,780	the cause and effect of #3 is a bit shaky,however. One shouldn't simply try and rush for 100 yards--or that more peculiar benchmark of '20 carries'. A significant lead or a victory most often gives way to 100 yards, rather than the other way around, i'd assume. that 1st one is quite surprising though.

11-30-2005, 11:34 AM	#7
chanesaw Ring of Famer Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Indiana Posts: 1,174 Adopt-a-Bronco: Elvis Dumervil	What about yards per pass play? I've always heard that one is a good indicator.

11-30-2005, 11:47 AM	#9
yavoon Ring of Famer Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 10,260	I hate that allowing a 100 yard rusher one, the turnover also isnt really my favorite. both of those are pretty backwards reinforcing. winning teams run more and losing teams do more turnover prone things. of course that has NEVER EVER stopped announcers from peddling the old 100 yard rusher crap out.

11-30-2005, 12:02 PM	#10
Beantown Bronco Athletic Supporter Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Mass Posts: 19,040 Adopt-a-Bronco: Matt Prater	Sin # 6 = losing at the end of the 4th quarter (100 percent)

11-30-2005, 12:08 PM	#11
footstepsfrom#27 helmet to helmet hitter Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Arlington, TX Posts: 16,117 Adopt-a-Bronco: Joe Mays	I think that teams win 75% of the time when leading after the 1st quarter not because that has much to do with it, but because a team that's better than its opponent will probably jump out on top. Common sense says that the better team will usually jump out on top. Chicken or egg syndrome...it's not leading after the 1st quarter that determines that you win...it's being a better team and that's why you're leading after the 1st quarter. Most of the rest I agree on though, although in Denver's case a 100 yard rusher doesn't mean much since we could have two guys go over 50 and achieve the same thing. Most teams rely on only one feature back though so I see the correlation there.

11-30-2005, 12:11 PM	#12
Broncos Rule Seasoned Veteran Nemo has been found! Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 374	Here is the rest of the story: Vince Lombardi said, "Football is a game of clichés, and I believe in every one of them." Be careful, fans of football, which clichés you choose to believe. Here are five myths that have survived the years. Like any good myth, these are rooted in truths. Yet you might be surprised how marginal their effect can be on a game. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2241159

11-30-2005, 12:31 PM	#13
CHEF LUIGI winning recipe man cooking up a victory Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: in the kitchen Posts: 377	"stats are for losers" if you win, that is the only stat that matters. when you lose, you search the myriad of stats to find some saliva for your wounds. 300 yard passers lose more times than they win! when a 3oo+ yard passer does win, there is usually a 300 yard passer on the opposite side of the field who lost! Winners run the ball! Losers cant run the ball, thats why they spend so much time passing! when the broncos run the ball 35+ times a game, they win better than 95 % of the time!

11-30-2005, 02:05 PM	#20
Mediator12 OM analyst REAL Front Seven Bandwagon !!! Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: INDY Posts: 9,701 Adopt-a-Bronco: Malik Jackson	Stats correlate to wins. Correlate does not mean cause, and is not a linear function. Correlation is a statistical technique which can show whether and how strongly pairs of variables are related. For example, height and weight are related - taller people tend to be heavier than shorter people. The relationship isn't perfect. People of the same height vary in weight, and you can easily think of two people you know where the shorter one is heavier than the taller one. Nonetheless, the average weight of people 5'5'' is less than the average weight of people 5'6'', and their average weight is less than that of people 5'7'', etc. Correlation can tell you just how much of the variation in peoples' weights is related to their heights. It is simply an indicator of how strongly succeeding in certain area's ties to winning football games.

12-01-2005, 09:11 AM	#22
Bronco202 Rookie Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 79	Does he realize we havent beaten the Chiefs in Arrowhead in December for at least 10 years?