Please, you are the one who acts like nobody else's points are valid. I realize that I can be an annoying prick, I'm very self aware. I don't think you realize how condescending you sound sometimes.
I cannot help how you take my comments. I am certain that I come off condescending to people who make wise ass comments, but frankly when its in response to that kind of attitude I dont really care how I come off. I think you would agree with that.
And you just keep making ridiculous statements like "high amount of very bad plays".
4 is not a high amount of anything.
Yes, it really is. 4 runs of over 10 yards out of 23 is extremely high.
The Bills, worst run D in the NFL in the first 4 games last year allowed only 16 runs over 10 out of 150. They would have had to allow 10 more to hiyt that rate. Think about that. The worst run D in the league allowed about 2.4 out of every 23. 4 out of 23 is very high.
By the way, I have never said that this game has any certain significance on what the defense will look like in the season. In fact I qualified the statement before I first made it due to these being backups.
The significance of not being good vs the run in that game may be nothing. But that doesnt change that it was what it was.
And 11 yard run is not a VERY BAD PLAY.
First I don't think I said very bad in caps. But a 10 yard run is essentially a total failure by the front 7. BB has said the first 10 belong to the front 7 and the secondary is responsible from 10 on.
A pick six is a very bad play. I suppose 4 pick-sixes in a game would be a high amount given their rarity.
We are talking about run D. If we were talking about pass receiving dropping a perfect pass wide open would be a very bad play. Run blocking a whiff would be a very play, and so on.
I'm not debating the value of run defense as it relates to the outcome a game, I am discussing good run D vs not good run D.
4 is also not very frequently.
Out of 23 it is.
Their is no way to support the statement because again, your sample size is miniscule.
No its the ENTIRE SAMPLE SIZE of the run defense in that game.
Sample size is irrelevant anyway. The topic is those 23 running plays. We aren't predicting the future, we are assessing those 23 plays. Having 4 runs over 10 yards out of 23 is a very, very high proportion.
Sample size only applies when predicting the future, not when assessing performance by including every example.
Example: If you bat 4 times and strike out 3, you struck out an enormously high proportion of the time in that game. Sample size is irrelevant, because it isnt a sample its the entire game.
Using the above to say you can't hit is misusing statistics by using a small sample size. Big difference.
Trust me, I took stats like six times in college (same class), and if there was one thing I learned (might have been the only thing) it's that sample size is everything. (That and factorials are awesome because they are written as 4!) Now if there had been 4! bad plays then I might give it some credence.
See above. Sample size is everything
in statistics but not in assessing the entire scope of the argument. We aren't analyzing the statistics of the game and making a projection from them, we are comparing them to an enormous sample size (run D in the NFL) to say it was too often.
In this case the sample size is enormous, because the samle size is where we make the projection (based on all NFL run Defense allowing 17% of your runs over 10 yards is very high) and applying the conclusion from the largest sample size available to the sum total of our data that we are judging based upon the sample size we drew the conclusion from.
(If I were an @$$ I'd slam your statistics education here)
So yes, given the sample, how they reacted for the next 10 plays after a couple of bad ones is quite instructive, as my close friend and mentor Bill Belichick mentioned.
How they responded is part of the overall assessment of the run D. Saying it was somewhat better later is not saying the overall assessment was good.
Again to baseball, Beckett allowed 5 in the first the other day. I loved the way he adjusted and battled back, and would complement that. I wouldn't say he pitched well.
And now you are blaming the more aggressive defense I see.
Where did I blame? This is an issue that is a potential drawback in a more aggressive defense. So why wouldn't we be concerned if that evolves as an issue or doesnt?
That is a nice move after your insistence they were in 2-gap. Proven wrong you now use it to try and bolster your argument. Nice tactic. (<----- me being an annoying prick, I told you I'm self-aware).
Yeah you kind of are.
I don't get your approach. Do you think this is about making a statement then abandoning all integrity and tricking, lying, cajoling and manipulating to make your point seem true whether it is or not?
If so that is sad.
There is no tactic. Aggressive run Ds allow more long runs. I have no skin in this game. I WANT the Patriots to play great. But I'm not going to pretend they did just to feel better about it.
Of course the potential negatives in a change in scheme are things I am going to be atuned to.
The fact that I thought I saw 2gap discipline across the board on first view, and saw 1gap on the weakside on second view has nothing to do with my opinion that the results were not good.
I said that from point 1. I have studied and extrapolated data to show that the long runs were alarming frequent. That has nothing to do with whether it was one gap or 2, except it becomes more interesting when one gapping corresponds to an increase in long runs.
And BTW, thank God we are being aggressive up 33-9 late in the 3rd. They can have their crappy draw plays. It will pad their run stats and help you make some sort of point eventually if they do it enough to raise the sample size, but it sure as hell isn't going to cost us any games.
I disagree with your thinking here. This wasn't prevent defense pass only mode. This was base D against an offense executing a drive as if it were 0-0 in the first. We can't dismiss plays in a preseason game because of the score, its just not the same thing.
I apologize for being the annoying prick I am. (More self awareness, my shrink will be psyched!)
Your words, not mine, I just think there is no need to get personal, it always turns things in an unproductive way.
Alas, you need to see my shrink. When you say that you value something and I must not (I am not going 15 pages back to find the exact quote), it implies that I am unable to see or appreciate the value that is there. You don't actually say "YOU'RE WRONG!" but it still has a passive-aggressive, and dismissive quality.
Actually it is a response to frustration of diminishing the significance. I remember what you are talking about and after you consistently tried to argue its 4 plays so it doesnt matter, and i said something to the effect of I guess my standard is higher than yours. I don't know how else to communicate with someone saying the bad plays just don't really matter.
If you're calm then don't get upset if I'm an annoying prick. It is just as valid a style of debate as condescending, passive-aggressive, dismissive.
As I said, I am always calm, I just think that when people stray from the facts and their opinion and focus on personal attacks on the other poster, it always gets ugly, and I don't understand why people do it. (And yes I do, but I believe only in retribution)
I'm not angry either, just passionate as you are. I am just psyched we have football to argue about again!
Thats a good way to end this discussion, until we can talk about tomororws run D or pass blocking or punt coverage or whatever.
