Do any other fans feel cheated by the playoffs and this Giants rematch?

[reflexblue]

Oh...

My...

GOD.

This guy likes to type, and type, and type, and type. What a wast of cyber ink.

 

[46=42]

i wonder if this stupid moronic thread has made it to messages of other teams. if so im sure they are having a great laugh. this thread is by far the worst thread ever created at pats fans.

Of course it has. Impressed that the OP managed to troll seemingly reasonable people for 30 pages...

Sounds like OP is not happy to have to face us again and is trying to reinvent the NFL to suit his fandom. P***y.

Most of you seem decent and you're better than Jet fans. We share something in common, I'm sure - the only thing better than making the SB is seeing them so miserable bc of the way everything shook out with us ending their season, Foot Fetish Fattie, NE, etc. Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch (outside of the NFC East, that is).

Good luck in Indy:rocker:

 

[PatriotSeven]

Of course it has. Impressed that the OP managed to troll seemingly reasonable people for 30 pages...

Sounds like OP is not happy to have to face us again and is trying to reinvent the NFL to suit his fandom. P***y.

Most of you seem decent and you're better than Jet fans. We share something in common, I'm sure - the only thing better than making the SB is seeing them so miserable bc of the way everything shook out with us ending their season, Foot Fetish Fattie, NE, etc. Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch (outside of the NFC East, that is).

Good luck in Indy:rocker:

The only thing better is seeing Giants fans miserable after the Patriots blow them out, especially those that have the audacity to call Pats fan a troll in their own forum.

Unbelievable. The nerve.

 

[Catch42]

Can you at least admit that the Giants team playing now isn't the same team that lost the midseason games to GB, 49ers and the Saints.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Patsfan74, I read both of your posts and will respond to both of them here. You make a lot of good points and you are right. I am defining who is the best in different terms than what the playoffs are telling us the best teams are. I mean that was my whole point. I don't agree that we're always getting the best teams even in the Championship games, let alone the Super Bowl.

But I think you are a bit confused still in what I am asking judging by your comments of computer systems and W/L records. I wouldn't agree that just because the Patriots or GB have the best records that they are the best teams. That's silly too. There are plenty of weak divisions in the NFL which can create artificial #1 records. Which is the entire point of a round-robin style playoff system. A round-robin playoff structure doesn't care about your W/L record. In fact it cares less about that because regardless of your "seed" you still have to face all of the other champions. Something that's not currently taking place. So it doesn't care that you go 16-0, if you can't also pass through all 3 champions and come out with one of the two best playoff records to advance to the Championship game. A playoff record wouldn't just be something used for records comparisons, but it would actually be something meaningful and of value each and every year. You have to beat the best, and go through the best, to be the best.

Currently, at the end of a regular season we do assign the #1-6 teams in the playoffs by seeds as if they really were the best teams going into the playoffs. It is in fact, currently, more like the BCS games, and it does in fact favor the #1 seed. Just not the best team. What round-robin would do, is re-arrange them before the Championship game to make sure they really are the real #1 and #2 teams in their respective conferences. So in other words, just because GB finished 15-1 and Pats 13-3, it wouldn't mean they would have an easier time if they really, truly were not as good as their records suggest. Round-robin actually weeds out the "artificial" #1 seeds which, though a rare occurrence, might not really be as good as a wild card team, though they would benefit from that schedule.

But it also weeds out the inconsistent and "opportunistic" teams that find their way in the playoffs that thrive on...luck and an opportunistic win or perhaps an ideal combination of opponents. A team that might never actually even need to face a #1 or even a #2 team, not because of something they did, but because of something some other team accomplished. Currently, someone else can take out the best teams so you don't even have to worry about them. This year, the 49ers played a great game to take out the one team the Giants never even got close to beating, the Saints.

A hypothetical example of the issue with the current playoff format:


A round robin style playoff format, while not perfect either, doesn't benefit the team with the best winning record, it doesn't benefit the team with the worst winning record. It benefits the true best teams by forcing all teams to take the same road to get to the Championship. It's purpose is to spit out the two best teams, indifferent of their W/L records or seeding going into the playoffs and almost completely eliminate chance and bad teams from getting through. Right now, not all teams race the same race. Some get shortcuts reserved only for them by sheer seed placement or pre-determined schedule. So basically it tests all teams against the same standard. Once you get out of this phase, chance, luck, and opportunity is right back in the game for the major Championships. So if the Giants were that team, they'd have nothing to worry about.

The NFL originally did in fact start off with a playoff system that more frequently produced the top 4 teams in the Championship games. When they had 3 divisions in each conference, there were still only 8 teams in the playoffs, 4 in each conference, and it wasn't yet necessary to add a round-robin playoff structure because you almost always ended up with the best 4 teams in the playoffs. And that's what you want. But as more teams joined the league, and more teams needed money to survive and stay in business the playoff format was slightly adjusted to create more playoff spots, in the form of wild card teams, but chose NOT to restructure the playoff format. They let it be decided by seeds and single elimination. The main motive behind it, was not competition. It was certainly not player safety(teams could care less about NFL players getting hurt up until about the late 80's). And it was none of the things you want to believe. It was money! So I disagree with the statement that what I am asking for is a Cyber Bowl, but rather, getting rid of the "Money Bowl", and bring back the real Super Bowl.

And as far as this part goes:



You've just described the New England Patriots over the past 10 years. The Giants simply don't fit into that description. And the only way the Giants would have the worst odds, is if they really had to go through the best playing teams in the playoffs this year. And that can easily be debated. They simply went through the best "seeds", nothing more. And if you have such a big issue with regular season winning records, then how can you sit there and repeatedly state they beat the best teams? The best teams according to what? The regular season records so many are eager to discount as being unimportant? That's an obvious two sided argument. People either need to make up their minds or come to the conclusion, like I have come to the conclusion, that we will never know. And that's just a shame.

But they do certainly fit the second portion of that, or more correctly this definition:


They certainly have gotten very good at figuring out how to be very opportunistic and take advantages of the NFL playoff structure. Twice in 5 years. And they should be credited for it because they have gotten even better at it, no longer needing a double digit winning record, but can now end up in the Super Bowl with only 9 regular season wins. Perhaps next year, they can do it with 6 because apparently now that Tim Tebow's here, who can almost do it with 8, playing only 11 games a season, they have some serious competition

But that's not going to earn them my credit though for being the best team.

PS: Round-robin also doesn't eliminate or assure Goliath wins every year. The perceived underachiever and underdog still has the same chances to succeed or come through. In fact, probably even more.

My first advice is that you figure out how to use 100 words to say what you say in 1,000 because it's impossible to stay interested in reading your treatises.

From the frequent appearance of "round-robin" as I scanned the above, I imagine you are proposing such a format to replace the current playoffs.

OK. How would that have worked this year? Which teams? Beginning one week after the 17 week season, who would have played whom and when? How would the playoffs end by February 5th? No theory. No long messages. Real teams. Real games. 100 words.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Really? Well I apologize to anyone that I may have missed but I think I took everyone's argument into consideration who understood what I was originally saying in the first place. Now I've read a couple of arguments that have completely misunderstood the original point. I didn't think it was worth responding more than once other than to let them know they didn't understand the premise.

I have yet to see one argument that "proved" it was a bad idea, as you continue to point out, or to mock it without any kind of intelligent response, other than to make some ignorant statements like "it works for soccer" this "can't work for football". Which I simply used as an example anyway.

OK. A lot of smart people have invested a lot of posts in responding to you, but you claim you are "misunderstood." Fair enuff.

Please state your point in 100 words or less.

Before you dis that request, I think you might find it takes longer to compose a point in 100 words than 1,000. If people are indeed "misunderstanding" you, it's probably because you are taking sooooooooo long to say what you say that they don't focus on whatever you think your core message is.

Sit back and take the time to make your point clearly and succinctly.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Can you at least admit that the Giants team playing now isn't the same team that lost the midseason games to GB, 49ers and the Saints.

Why would I admit something that's not evidently clear? Considering how they played against the 49ers, barely squeezing out a 3 point win, they looked exactly like that team that lost midseason games to GB, 49ers and the Saints.

I know everyone wants to build it up like they went through this amazing transformation, but you know what makes me feel even better about what I'm saying? When even DVOA agree. And I rarely ever agree with these guys...

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Conference Championship DVOA Ratings
So basically they didn't come right out and say that the Giants are a mediocre team, but that mediocre teams do in fact reach the Super Bowl. And they also can't rate them off their past 8 games like they do everyone else, cause they just look too crappy. They only look decent enough over their past 5 wins. Well imagine that...

Opponent adjusted efficiency
NE 31%
BAL 10%
NYG 12%
SF 15%

Non adjusted efficiency
NE 10%
BAL -2%
NYG 2%
SF 9%

I don't actually ever agree with what their breakdowns or rankings(offense, defense, etc) but I do agree with what the overall numbers are showing: they basically measured a big difference between how the Patriots play and everyone else in those football games as well as their strength of victory, how well they executed and how efficient they were compare to the other teams.

Their season rankings:
GB 28.34% #1 in the league

NE 4 22.5% #4 in the league
NYG 9.0% #12 in the league

So just to kind of translate what they're saying is that both the Patriots and SF would have come out looking efficient, by their numbers, if they played the way they did against any other NFL team, while the Patriots, despite their -2 margin, looked more efficient against the Ravens in the Championship game than they have looked overall this entire season. They're also implying SF lost despite being the more efficient playing football team, and also came out looking more efficient despite being -2 in turnovers.


They're also saying that:

Baltimore increased their efficiency by 12% by capitalizing on Patriots mistakes.
NY Giants increased their efficiency by 8 % by capitalizing on SF's mistakes
SF increased their efficiency by 6 % by capitalizing on the Giant's mistakes.

NE increased their efficiency by a whopping 21% by capitalizing on the Raven's mistakes.

So basically the Patriots are in a league of their own when it comes to burning you for your screw ups. The Ravens did pretty decent on capitalizing on the Patriots mistakes. While SF and the Giants couldn't win a game they were handing and gifting each other all game long....which is true...how long did we all have to wait for a freaking winning FG? What was it like 5 hours? I think I decided to make popcorn in between that "thrilling" 4th quarter offensive showdown and overtime

They're also saying that even with the Raven's missed FG, which can't possibly be more ******ed on the ****** scale, the Giants and SF came out looking equally ******ed. Oh wait, we did have the SF defense knocking each other unconscious instead of grabbing interceptions didn't we? So if the Giants are worse, just how ******ed....are they? That's a lot of ******ness in all 3 of those football teams and the Patriots were clearly the only ones able and capable of taking advantage of it. It was like The Three Stooges playing Championship football.

So if anything, and we were to credit the Patriots with the same type of "improvement" everyone else is crediting the Giants, then the Patriots are the only ones showing any kind of improvement considering it came out a whole 10% higher in DVOA in the Championship game than they were all season and despite their performance came out looking better than GB has looked all season in efficiency. Did I mention they were -2? And so was SF?

Yeah...but...but...but the competition in the playoffs is so much tougher! I guess it has to be because we can't accept it for a second that YES, it can in fact be even worse. And no playoffs doesn't always mean tougher competition, better playing and neither does the Super Bowl. Well screw that, I'm not going to start saying that these teams played amazing football just because it's the playoffs and that's how the NFL, TV, ESPN and everyone wants to see it and it bothers you because I'm calling it like I'm seeing it.

All of them played worse than they usually do, except the Giants who looked like themselves, but NE still looked like their usual "Bruce Lee 1 inch punch self, ready to strike like a ninja if you take a wrong step" while the other 3 couldn't beat a blind man in a reading contest. And the only ones ready to play in the playoffs last Sunday appeared to be the Patriots. But but but....the Giants are "hungrier". Looks to me like it appears for some reason the other teams were just already full.

So basically the NFL, TV and the zealots want to "protect the sanctity of the NFL playoffs image" like Isray wants to "protect the sanctity of the Colts horseshoe" when it's clearly evident to anyone who refuses to be brainwashed that both the Championship games, like the Colts this year, were a sloppy, suck fest that looked nothing like the efficient playing I saw out of these teams in the regular season...except the Patriots.

Well deal with it! Instead of berating me for not wanting to agree with something as preposterous as seeing what took place was great football and stop believing my own eyes, what's wrong with demanding that we get some Championship caliber football in the freaking Championships...when it's evident every stat, Mary and Joe we can come up with are indicating the same thing! The regular season gave us better playing football and sharper teams than the Championship weekend and the only ones that played like they deserved to be in it were the Patriots.

 

[Ring 6]

Ok Andy, I can see you perhaps are misunderstanding what I said and continue to claim I am wrong. Wrong about what, exactly? I didn't make any claims of who I thought would be the best and turned out wrong. Maybe you can show me where I did that, and you might have an argument but I don't believe that I did.

I am not misunderstanding anything. You are saying that the system doesn't determine the best team, and that is wrong, because you are wrong about the definition of the best team. The sport has defined it. There is no system to set up that will result in who you think is best winning when they are not best.

And I just want to say I have responded to defense argument and presented evidence numerous times since I began posting in this forum.

You have responded by listing one ridiculous stat that has them ranked second and totally ignored many people explaining to you why that stat is a horrendous yardstick.

If you are referring to that then I'm pretty sure the Patriots holding the Broncos to 10 points and then the defense showing their strength against the Ravens prove it right, not wrong.

How they play in the playoffs does not prove an opinion of HOW THEY PLAYED in the regular season. You were not analyzing the defense in film review and predicting their future, you were taking those 16 games and arguing they had played the second best defense in the NFL. That is ludicrous.

But anyway, look throughout my post history and you will find threads and post where I presented varied quality defensive statistics and explanations which proved to be very solid measurements throughout the playoffs. And it's such a complicated topic that there's simply no point to re-opening it in this thread. There's plenty of others that understand it and have presented similar statements or numbers as well.

No, you did not. You found a stat that they were ranked second in, and called them the second best defense and have totally ignored the posts that have shown you why that stat is a horrendous means to rank a defense.

As far as your other 3 points, it's not about me or what I think. It's about finding out. Your argument is they are the best because this playoff systems says so. Well ok. You want it to end there and let it be that. I understand that. But you should know sports do change playoff formats, conversations like this do take place, and they are valid topics. They were initially created by people and committees, not the sport. And the fans, and their input, frankly were not involved. Nor will mine be. So don't worry. If you're ok with leaving everything up to them and just simply accepting what they put out, that's cool. Got no choice anyway. But it doesn't mean I can't ask the question.

Asking the question is fine. Arguing that Green Bay lost because they forgot how to play is assinine.
You belittle achievement by taking this fantasy football approach. Who you think is better is proven wrong when they lose in the playoffs. That is simply a fact.

My premise in the OP initially was to openly question the system and bring in the argument that it is flawed in the first place. You believe it to be adequate and the final word. I don't. So if you continue to use the argument they're clearly the best, because that's what the system we have says they are, what is there left for us to debate?

Well, that is the point, there is nothing to debate. The best team is determined on the field.

That's your opinion, plenty of people agree with it, like I originally stated, I understand I may be in the minority there, and there's nothing for me to argue there. The entire point was that it questioned the adequacy of the format itself and it has little to do with me not liking the current outcome due to some fear or being wrong.

Your entire argument is that you think the wrong teams have won.

Are you kidding me?

This couldn't have been more favorable for me as Patriots fan. This isn't about making my personal opinion of who the best is come true. Because frankly, my personal opinion of who the best team really is remains the same: I don't know. And neither do you. You just choose to more easily accept what an inadequate playoff system spits out and I don't.

This is where you are totally wrong. Who is best is determined on the football field in real life in football games.
The best team is the one that plays the best within the definition of winning. That is not debatable. Any team that does not win the SB that you want to call 'best' begs the question, best at what? Not best at achieving the singular goal that all 32 teams strive to achieve.
We could argue the Broncos are the best team in the NFL because the rule that makes a forward pass legal is inadequate, and if they would do away with that rule, the Broncos are the best. We could argue the Saints are the best because the rules should be that whoever passes for the most yards should be deemed Champion.
Instead the BEST TEAM is defined as the one that wins all its games when losing eliminates you from consideration.
Also, you should consider the definition and purpose of a team. The purpose of a team is not to accomplish enough things to argue how good they are, but to take the one sole opportunity they have to win a Championship and accomplish it.

PS: Unless your telling me I'm wrong for questioning it, which is what honestly sounds like you're saying.

You are wrong because you don't understand that BEST is an achievement, not a vote.

 

[Ring 6]

Why would I admit something that's not evidently clear? Considering how they played against the 49ers, barely squeezing out a 3 point win, they looked exactly like that team that lost midseason games to GB, 49ers and the Saints.

I know everyone wants to build it up like they went through this amazing transformation, but you know what makes me feel even better about what I'm saying? When even DVOA agree. And I rarely ever agree with these guys...

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Conference Championship DVOA Ratings
So basically they didn't come right out and say that the Giants are a mediocre team, but that mediocre teams do in fact reach the Super Bowl. And they also can't rate them off their past 8 games like they do everyone else, cause they just look to crappy. They only look decent enough over their past 5 wins. Well imagine that...

Opponent adjusted efficiency
NE 31%
BAL 10%
NYG 12%
SF 15%

Non adjusted efficiency
NE 10%
BAL -2%
NYG 2%
SF 9%

I don't actually ever agree with what their breakdowns or rankings(offense, defense, etc) but I do agree with what the overall numbers are showing: they basically measured a big difference between how the Patriots play and everyone else in those football games as well as their strength of victory, how well they executed and how efficient they were compare to the other teams.

Their season rankings:
GB 28.34% #1 in the league

NE 4 22.5% #4 in the league
NYG 9.0% #12 in the league

So just to kind of translate what they're saying is that both the Patriots and SF would have come out looking efficient, by their numbers, if they played the way they did against any other NFL team, while the Patriots, despite their -2 margin, looked more efficient against the Ravens in the Championship game than they have looked overall this entire season. They're also implying SF lost despite being the more efficient playing football team, and also came out looking more efficient despite being -2 in turnovers.


They're also saying that:

Baltimore increased their efficiency by 12% by capitalizing on Patriots mistakes.
NY Giants increased their efficiency by 8 % by capitalizing on SF's mistakes
SF increased their efficiency by 6 % by capitalizing on the Giant's mistakes.

NE increased their efficiency by a whopping 21% by capitalizing on the Raven's mistakes.

So basically the Patriots are in a league of their own when it comes to burning you for your screw ups. The Ravens did pretty decent on capitalizing on the Patriots mistakes. While SF and the Giants couldn't win a game they were handing and gifting each other all game long....which is true...how long did we all have to wait for a freaking winning FG? What was it like 5 hours? I think I decided to make popcorn in between that "thrilling" 4th quarter offensive showdown and overtime

They're also saying that even with the Raven's missed FG, which can't possibly be more ******ed on the ****** scale, the Giants and SF came out looking equally ******ed. Oh wait, we did have the SF defense knocking each other unconscious instead of grabbing interceptions didn't we? So if the Giants are worse, just how ******ed....are they? That's a lot of ******ness in all 3 of those football teams and the Patriots were clearly the only ones able and capable of taking advantage of it. It was like The Three Stooges playing Championship football.

So if anything, and we were to credit the Patriots with the same type of "improvement" everyone else is crediting the Giants, then the Patriots are the only ones showing any kind of improvement considering it came out a whole 10% higher in DVOA in the Championship game than they were all season and despite their performance came out looking better than GB has looked all season in efficiency. Did I mention they were -2? And so was SF?

Yeah...but...but...but the competition in the playoffs is so much tougher! I guess it has to be because we can't accept it for a second that YES, it can in fact be even worse. And no playoffs doesn't always mean tougher competition, better playing and neither does the Super Bowl. Well screw that, I'm not going to start saying that these teams played amazing football just because it's the playoffs and that's how the NFL, TV, ESPN and everyone wants to see it and it bothers you because I'm calling it like I'm seeing it.

All of them played worse than they usually do, except the Giants who looked like themselves, but NE still looked like their usual "Bruce Lee 1 inch punch self, ready to strike like a ninja if you take a wrong step" while the other 3 couldn't beat a blind man in a reading contest. And the only ones ready to play in the playoffs last Sunday appeared to be the Patriots. But but but....the Giants are "hungrier".

So basically the NFL, TV and the zealots want to "protect the sanctity of the NFL playoffs image" like Isray wants to "protect the sanctity of the Colts horseshoe" when it's clearly evident to anyone who refuses to be brainwashed that both the Championship games, like the Colts this year, were a sloppy, suck fest that looked nothing like the efficient playing I saw out of these teams in the regular season...except the Patriots.

Well deal with it! Instead of berating me for not wanting to agree with something as preposterous as seeing what took place was great football and stop believing my own eyes, what's wrong with demanding that we get some Championship caliber football in the freaking Championships...when it's evident every stat, Mary and Joe we can come up with are indicating the same thing! The regular season gave us better playing football and sharper teams than the Championship weekend and the only ones that played like they deserved to be in it were the Patriots.

I just want to point out that what you think those statistics say are not what they say.

 

[PatriotSeven]

I just want to point out that what you think those statistics say are not what they say.

Yeah I keep noticing you completely disagree with anything I say without actually offering any kind of explanation other than to say I'm wrong and you know better. So fyi, statistics are meant to be interpreted. And I say they are. Because frankly so far, all you're doing is pointing the finger and saying "you're wrong because I say so" and I'm not sure what makes you the final authority on anything.

And that goes for pretty much every single response you typed in your reply to me which I don't care to debate with you any further: "No you didn't. You are totally wrong. What you say can't be true. You are wrong. The stats you show are terrible. Etc, etc, etc."

Do your own research and take a look at your own replies before you accuse others of doing what you're displaying. Stop belittling if you wish for me to respond to you any further.

 

[Ring 6]

Yeah I keep noticing you completely disagree with anything I say without actually offering any kind of explanation other than to say I'm wrong and you know better. So fyi, statistics are meant to be interpreted. And I say they are. Because frankly so far, all you're doing is pointing the finger and saying "you're wrong because I say so" and I'm not sure what makes you the final authority on anything.

And that goes for pretty much every single response you typed in your reply to me which I don't care to debate with you any further: "No you didn't. You are totally wrong. What you say can't be true. You are wrong. The stats you show are terrible. Etc, etc, etc."

Do your own research and take a look at your own replies before you accuse others of doing what you're displaying. Stop belittling if you wish for me to respond to you any further.

OK, lets make it easy.
Please explain and back up the facts behind this statement to indicate you understand what you are reading:

Baltimore increased their efficiency by 12% by capitalizing on Patriots mistakes.

Maybe after that we can discuss how yards per point is a horrendous way to rank a defenses play?

 

[Ring 6]

Yeah I keep noticing you completely disagree with anything I say without actually offering any kind of explanation other than to say I'm wrong and you know better. So fyi, statistics are meant to be interpreted. And I say they are. Because frankly so far, all you're doing is pointing the finger and saying "you're wrong because I say so" and I'm not sure what makes you the final authority on anything.

And that goes for pretty much every single response you typed in your reply to me which I don't care to debate with you any further: "No you didn't. You are totally wrong. What you say can't be true. You are wrong. The stats you show are terrible. Etc, etc, etc."

Do your own research and take a look at your own replies before you accuse others of doing what you're displaying. Stop belittling if you wish for me to respond to you any further.

Oh nice job of asking me to detail how I disagree with you then responding y crying that I disagree with you.

 

[mb6592]

The only thing better is seeing Giants fans miserable after the Patriots blow them out, especially those that have the audacity to call Pats fan a troll in their own forum.

Unbelievable. The nerve.

If it acts like a duck, quacks..... As previously stated, I can't tell you how much I hate the whole false bravado schtick. Have you learned nothing from the Rex Ryan fiasco? If these two teams played 10 times, how many games are the Patriots winning? 6? Maybe 7? So if they have a 30-40% chance of losing, why act likes it's in the bag? To what purpose? Are we Jets fans? This tact is annoying when reading the Giants fans forum, but from this forum, in light of our experience w/ Ryan, it's dowright idiotic.

 

[Deus Irae]

The only thing better is seeing Giants fans miserable after the Patriots blow them out, especially those that have the audacity to call Pats fan a troll in their own forum.

Unbelievable. The nerve.

This thread, which you've driven to lows not often seen on Patsfans.com, has now been noted on at least one Giants forum:

New York Giants Message Boards - Want a good Laugh

Please, go sign up over there and have it out with them.

 

[PatriotSeven]

OK, lets make it easy.
Please explain and back up the facts behind this statement to indicate you understand what you are reading:




Maybe after that we can discuss how yards per point is a horrendous way to rank a defenses play?

Ok let me make it easy.

I just want to point out that what you think those statistics say are not what they say.

When you respond with a one line statement like this, you're the one that's supposed to offer an explanation, backed up by some kind of logic or evidence instead of what clearly appears to be personal opinion, not me.

Just so we understand how debating works, you're supposed to follow it with the points.

So before I waste my time explaining anything to you in a different manner as if I didn't do a good enough job when initially wrote my post, how about you actually take the time and do that, ok?

And then also please share why yards per point is a horrendous measurement although it would probably better if you did it in any of the other threads that's debating the Patriots defense.

 

[Ring 6]

Ok let me make it easy.




When you respond with a one line statement like this, you're the one that's supposed to offer an explanation, backed up by some kind of logic or evidence instead of what clearly appears to be personal opinion, not me.

Just so we understand how debating works, you're supposed to follow it with the points.

So before I waste my time explaining anything to you in a different manner as if I didn't do a good enough job when initially wrote my post, how about you actually take the time and do that, ok?

And then also please share why yards per point is a horrendous measurement although it would probably better if you did it in any of the other threads that's debating the Patriots defense.

I have no interest in 5000 word posts explaining why you are wrong. You are. I gave you an example, you refuse to answers. That tells me you know you are wrong.

Yards per point is horrendous because:


Team A allows 450 yards and 45 points
Team B allows 100 yards and 10 points
Your metric says these defenses played equally well. If you can't get that, there is no point going further.
And I already explained that, and you ignored it.

 

[PatriotSeven]

This thread, which you've driven to lows not often seen on Patsfans.com, has now been noted on at least one Giants forum:

New York Giants Message Boards - Want a good Laugh

Please, go sign up over there and have it out with them.

So you're saying my post in a Patriots forum hit such a soft spot with the Giants that they decided to debate it in their own forum completely un-instigated? Excellent

Am I the only fan here that understands the bigger meaning behind this? Why would it bother them that much?

 

[Deus Irae]

So you're saying my post in a Patriots forum hit such a soft spot with the Giants that they decided to debate it in their own forum completely un-instigated? Excellent

Am I the only fan here that understands the bigger meaning behind this? Why would it bother them that much?

No, I'm saying your post in a Patriots forum is a joke, and they're laughing at it.


As for bigger meaning, there is none.

 

[reflexblue]

Am I the only fan here that understands the bigger meaning behind this?

Yes with out a doubt......

You are the only One that understands it.

 

[mb6592]

I have no interest in 5000 word posts explaining why you are wrong. You are. I gave you an example, you refuse to answers. That tells me you know you are wrong.

Yards per point is horrendous because:


Team A allows 450 yards and 45 points
Team B allows 100 yards and 10 points
Your metric says these defenses played equally well. If you can't get that, there is no point going further.
And I already explained that, and you ignored it.

Andy, I know it's not in your nature, but please stop feeding this troll. He won't go away on his own and this thread needs to be vanquished from page 1 ASAP. It's an embarrassment. Evidently this $#@X%?@ learned nothing from Rex Ryan.