PrplPplEater
Five Myths of Football
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2241159 By Greg Garber
ESPN.com
Vince Lombardi said, "Football is a game of clich?s, and I believe in every one of them."
Be careful, fans of football, which clich?s 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.
The percentage in parenthesis, based on 2003 and 2004 NFL regular-season statistics, refers to the probability of winning for each particular myth.
Myth No. 1: Fewest penalties wins (54 percent)
Last Sunday, the Giants were whistled for an astounding 16 penalties -- the highest team total in 56 seasons. Offensive tackle Luke Petitgout was responsible for five false starts at raucous and reverberating Qwest Field in Seattle.
"This was my worst game ever," Petitgout said afterward. "To lose makes it all that much worse."
Yes, the Giants lost to the Seahawks 24-21 in overtime. But they would have won if any of Jay Feely's three field-goal attempts down the stretch had been good.
The point is, penalties are not necessarily fatal. Fifty-four percent is hardly an overwhelming majority. This goes against the adage that players have heard since Pop Warner: Penalties are evidence of a lack of discipline. If a team takes care of business in other areas, it can survive a penalty surplus.
In 2003, there were five consecutive weeks in which teams with the fewest penalties had a collective losing record of 19-39. In 2004, there were five straight weeks of nonwinning records (34-43).
The Cincinnati Bengals illustrate the point nicely. They are a tidy 3-2 in games they have been assessed more penalties than the opposition. Consider: They took 17 penalties for 115 yards and still managed to throttle the Vikings (seven penalties) 37-8. In the 16-10 victory over the Texans (nine penalties), the Bengals were whistled for 14 infractions worth 117 yards.
Some things, however, never seem to change. The Oakland Raiders, at least, remain their stereotypical selves. Cause: Their 113 penalties lead the league. Effect: They are a dismal 4-7.
Myth No. 2: Highest average per carry wins (55 percent)
This one's interesting. You would think the average-per-carry would be a deal-breaker in an NFL game in which running is the gold standard. You would think …
But in 2003, it was virtually a statistical dead heat (51 percent). So what gives? In the end, the more important statistic -- keeping in mind the importance of time of possession and turnovers -- is total carries.
Two examples from this past week's games: The Giants averaged 5.7 yards per carry at Seattle -- a full two yards more than the Seahawks -- but the Seahawks ran the ball five more times (34) and ultimately won. The Buccaneers had a better average-per-carry than the Bears (4.3 vs. 3.6), but Chicago squeezed off eight more carries (33) and won the game by a field goal.
Take the curious case of the New Orleans Saints. They're 2-3 when the opposition's average-per-carry is higher but, almost inexplicably, they're 1-5 when they have a higher average per carry. They were 0-5 before the win Sunday over the Jets.
Although the three teams with the highest average-per-carry -- Atlanta (5.1), Denver (5.0) and Seattle (5.0) -- could all be playoff teams, how do you explain Carolina? The Panthers are 8-3, but their average-per-carry is a dreadful 3.0, the worst figure in the league. New England and Dallas are both sitting in first place, but their numbers (3.6 and 3.4, respectively) are woeful.
Myth No. 3: No. 1 conference seed advances to Super Bowl (50 percent)
Next to Myth No. 3 in Webster's Dictionary, you will find a picture of the snakebitten Pittsburgh Steelers.
They fashioned the AFC's best record in 2001, at 13-3, and had the Patriots where they wanted them in the second quarter of the AFC championship game -- in a close one with young starter Tom Brady knocked out of the game. But Drew Bledsoe came off the bench to help defeat the Steelers, 24-17. New England went on to win its first Super Bowl, a memorable 20-17 victory over the Rams.
Three years later, it happened again. The Steelers ripped through the 2004 regular season, winning 15 of 16 games. One of those wins came on Halloween at Heinz Field, 34-20 over those pesky Patriots. But in the AFC title game, New England -- 14-2 in the regular season -- prevailed again, 41-27, and went on to win its third Super Bowl in four seasons.
Two losses at home in the conference title game final in four years -- not quite an advantage for the top seed. In the previous five years, only half of the 10 No. 1 seeds have advanced to the Super Bowl. The 50 percent ratio applied to the 1990s as well.
In 2000, the Baltimore Ravens didn't even win their division, going 12-4 and finishing a game behind Tennessee, but they managed to win Super Bowl XXXV, smoking the Giants 34-7. The previous season, those same Titans were second to Jacksonville in the then-AFC Central, but won at Jacksonville in the AFC title game and came within a yard of victory against the Rams in Super Bowl XXXIV.
Other wild cards have won the final game -- Denver (1997), and Oakland (1980) -- but today's evolving parity seems to have made this an increasing phenomenon.
Myth No. 4: A 300-yard passer usually wins (46 percent)
On the surface, this just can't be possible. Can it?
Three hundred yards is a lot of real estate in an NFL game. The numbers say that when you produce a 300-yard passer, you have a better chance of losing.
On Nov. 13, there were four 300-yard passers:
• Miami's Gus Frerotte (360 yards).
• Arizona's Kurt Warner (359)
• Oakland's Kerry Collins (310).
• St. Louis' Marc Bulger (304).
Despite completing a collective 59 percent of their passes and posting six touchdowns, all of them lost their games.
Warner, one of the great rags-to- riches stories in the history of the NFL, can still throw the ball. He has thrown for 300 yards in four games -- and lost every one, including last Sunday's game against the Jaguars. Warner's former teammate, Eli Manning of the Giants, burned Seattle for 344 passing yards. But you know what happened there.
Bulger, of the Rams, is also 0-4 as a 300-yard passer, including his spectacular 40-for-62, 442-yard, two-touchdown effort against the Giants in the fourth game of the season. That game underlines why the 300-yard statistic often results in a loss. The Rams trailed 17-7 after the first quarter (see Sin No. 1) and were playing from behind the rest of the way. Bulger threw three interceptions (Sin No. 2) in a contest that dictated that the Rams pass, almost from the beginning.
The corollary is Denver's Jake Plummer. He's throwing for fewer yards this year, supported by the Broncos' relentless running game. He's hit 300 yards only once this year, 309 in an easy win over the Eagles. Last year he threw for 499 yards against the Falcons -- and lost 41-28.
Myth No. 5: A kick or punt return for a TD means a win (42 percent)
Special teams, we have been told breathlessly forever, are, well, special.
Since the kicking units are involved in their share of plays, special teams must have an impact. When a team returns a punt or kickoff for a touchdown, you would imagine it would tilt the scales dramatically in the typically close games served out by the NFL.
Uh, no.
There have been eight kick returns for touchdowns so far this season, and only two of them -- the Giants' Willie Ponder (Week No. 1 vs. Cards) and Minnesota's Koren Robinson (Week No. 10 vs. Giants) -- helped their teams win.
Houston's Jerome Mathis has two kick returns for scores. On Oct. 23, he went 89 yards against the Colts, but it was the last score in a game Indy won 38-20. A month later, Mathis took one back 99 yards for a touchdown against the Chiefs, but his team still trailed 10-7.
On Nov. 13, the Vikings did something that had never, ever happened in an NFL game. Minnesota returned an interception, a kickoff and a punt for touchdowns in a single game -- in the Vikings' 24-21 win over Giants -- and still almost lost.
The 300-yard passer thing really shocked me.
--------------------
soup
Quote:
In the end, the more important statistic -- keeping in mind the importance of time of possession and turnovers -- is total carries.
Gee, anyone on the board ever think of that?
--------------------
shepdoggy1
You obviously missed what was said to also keep in mind......
If you turn over the ball multiple times (as we did last week) then the number of carries goes out the window.
Too many variables to look at the number of carries as a singular reason in and of itself. And you will never understand that, apparently. You keep harping on the same thing, over and over and over again.
You're wrong.
--------------------
lampdogg
I don't mean to pile on ya, soup, but shep's right. It's not as cut and dried as you make it out to be.
Just one example:
I another thread here, someone mentioned how Carson Palmer's got one more TD pass than Peyton, one less pick and more passing yards. BUT.... Peyton and the Colts have been playing with the lead all year long.
Therefore, don't have to pass as much. We had to throw it in the late third and 4th quarter last week, to get back in the game, for another example.
--------------------
lampdogg
Quote:
i.e/ Sunday Bloody Sunday: "You can't close this thread and make it go away "
Someone did.
--------------------
shepdoggy1
Smart folks runnin' da show, huh?
--------------------
lampdogg
I'm assuming you got the Sunday Bloody Sunday lyric reference.... if not, forget the whole thing.
--------------------
Anonymous
The guy that wrote this doesn't know what he's talking about. No offense to you purp. First a 54% percent chance of winning is huge!!!
Give me a 54% chance at the blackjack table and I'll walk away rich! 55% is even better. If all I have to do in all my games is to average more yards per carry then my opponents then I win 54% of my games which gives me 9 wins (usually enough to get in the playoffs) If I can also have fewer penalties, now my wins go to 10 and I have a good chance to win the conference. The other 3 things on my this guys list I think he made up because I've never heard of any of them. Now a few things he forgot...
#1 Defense wins championships
#2 Run and stop the run.
#3 The team with the fewest turnovers usually wins
#4 The team with the most "Big" plays usually wins
#5 The teams with the fewest injuries usually make it to the big game.
#6 If your defense holds a team to less than 17 points you'll usually win.
I've heard all of those more than I've heard the bottom 3 from this guy. I'm not going to do the math but I've watched enough football to think that all of the ones I've listed at least give you a 51% advantange and and couple may be even better than this guys top 2. I think if you could consistently combine 3 of these things you have a potential Super Bowl team.
--------------------
Anonymous
Oh I forgot the one about the home team has a TD advantage,
--------------------
PrplPplEater
No offense taken, it's not my article
If you consider that the second you walk onto a field, you have a 50% chance of winning, you'll realize that what he's saying makes sense.... i.e. none of those things really increase your likelyhood of winning at all, and nowhere near what one might think they would.
As for the items you listed, those probably aren't in here because they weren't found to be myths
--------------------
soup
Quote:
Too many variables to look at the number of carries as a singular reason in and of itself. And you will never understand that,
Answer the following, we turned the ball over 5 times last week on what type of plays:
A. Pass
B. Run
C. Special Teams
When you get the answer then think about it until you get it. I fully understand it, it's the rest of you that miss it.
--------------------
shepdoggy1
You are clueless.
--------------------
soup
Way to avoid the question. You call me clueless yet you defend the playcalling of a 4-8 teram that has the #1 red zone D in the AFC. Keep callijng me clueless, everyone calls me that and rather defends the gameplans every year of a team that's 33-73 (give ore take a win or loss) over the past 7 years. I'm glad you enjoy being bad. I have 7 years of proof I'm right, better yet - you have 7 years of proof your wrong being that we haven't run over the past 7 years. I know for a fact what I'm talking about. Want more proof?
In a tight game, Larry Johnson had 30 carries for 140 yds. 83 of those yards came in the 4th quarter against the NFL's #1 RUSH D (another way to look at that, they did not give up on the run even though it was "inneffective" until the 4th Q. In fact, they were down when they still continued to run) Pound the ball, it gets you wins.
--------------------
shepdoggy1
It was a dumb question....
--------------------
soup
Lol.
2003 - 27th in the NFL in rush attempts, 5-11 record
2004 - 17th in rush attempts, 4-12 record - the majority came when Robiske took over
2005 - 25th in rush attempts, 4-8
We need to be in the top 10 in this category. Unfortunately I couldn't go back to 1999-2002 as NFL.com only goes to 2003.
This year, 13 of the top 15 teams in NFL rush attempts have a winning record.
Of the remaining 17 teams, 3 of them have winning records. At some point it will get through your head, probably not anytime in the near future - but at some point you'll learn.
--------------------
shepdoggy1
Quote:
2003 - 27th in the NFL in rush attempts, 5-11 record
21st in passing attempts. What does that show? That we were behind a lot?
Quote:
2004 - 17th in rush attempts, 4-12 record - the majority came when Robiske took over
29th in passing attempts....maybe we should have thrown more?
Quote:
Unfortunately I couldn't go back to 1999-2002 as NFL.com only goes to 2003.
It goes back farther than that...
Remember the playoff season of 2002?
Rushing attempts: 26th in the league
Passing attempts: 15th in the league
Hmmmmm.....wonder what all of that means?
Nada! Squat! Zip! They are raw numbers......
Here's the 2001 rankings for ya as well, courtesy of nfl.com:
Rushing: 21st
Passing: 25th
Do with it what you will.......
--------------------
soup
Quote:
Remember the playoff season of 2002?
Rushing attempts: 26th in the league
Passing attempts: 15th in the league
We started out 4-5, oh - and Couch threw 50 times alone in the Tennessee game. We ran the second half of the season and went 5-2, I remember it well. We ran like mad in the second half of that year. As I stated, we need to be in the top 10 in the NFL in that category. Which part of 14 of the bottom 17 in rushing attempts have losing records don't you understand? Those are not raw numbers. if it were 5 of 10 in each 1/3 you'd have a point, but it's not - it's an overwhelming majority - overwhelming majorities are not a coincidence - they are a trend. Go ahead though, enjoy your balance/pass happy O, I'll keep screaming until I get a game that's run run run run run and run then a PA pass then a bunch more runs. All I know is in half #1 today it was 2 runs to every pass and a 14-3 lead. in half 2 it was balanced and a 17-0 deficit. Those aren't "raw numbers" those are the facts.
--------------------
CincyDawg
Thanks for the article.
Quote:
The 300-yard passer thing really shocked me.
This really shouldn't be too big of a shock - if you think about it, 300 yards typically comes from a lot of pass attempts. And using the "argument" shep and soup are having on this thread points to the fact that teams that are behind, pass more. The Cardinals are a great example of this (as alluded to in the article) - they are always behind, and as a result, often have 300 yard passers - Plummer in the past and now Warner.
On another note - I think the title of the article should have been "Stats are for losers"
--------------------
shepdoggy1
Quote:
We ran the second half of the season and went 5-2, I remember it well. We ran like mad in the second half of that year.
Actually, in the last 8 games of that year the breakdown was:
Rushing plays: 235
Passing plays: 235
Ironic, huh?
--------------------
soup
5+2 = 7.
Just out of curiosity - what was it on the year?
--------------------
shepdoggy1
Quote:
5+2 = 7.
You said the "second half of the season."
A half of a season is 8 games.
Quote:
Just out of curiosity - what was it on the year?
Find it yourself......you said you weren't going to reply to me any more oh bright one.
--------------------
soup
Teams that had more rushing attempts than their opponents were 11-3 today. 2 of the 3 losses came in the final seconds (Miami and Baltimore).
Last week they were 10-6 - 4 of the 6 losses were in OVERTIME. Running the ball gives you, far and away, the best chance to win - if you still don't get it- the hope for all of you is fading. I figured the FACT that 13 of the top 15 RUSHING ATTEMPTS teams in the NFL have winning records would get it through your heads, but deductive reasoning is something this board severely lacks.
--------------------
Anonymous
You have a very narrow mind.
--------------------
Anonymous
Quote:
I fully understand it, it's the rest of you that miss it.
No offence, but that is hilarious, not just because I disagree with you – it would be funny anyway.
Quote:
This year, 13 of the top 15 teams in NFL rush attempts have a winning record.
You are just looking at it backwards, it's not that teams win because they run more, it's that they run more because that have the lead, so they play conservative while keeping the clock running.
--------------------
YTownBrownsFan
Soup ... if we had an extra 5.7 carries/game (Before yesterday. It has probably gone down by virtue of 32 carries) we would hit your amazing "top 10 in rushing attempts".
Would that really make the difference in winning or losing?
The problem, if you want to "statify" it is that we are 28th in the NFL in total number of offensive plays. We are 28th in 1st downs/game. We are -7 in turnover differential. There are so many areas that we lack in that trying to tie it all up in only one stat is oversimplifying it.
--------------------
soup
Quote:
You are just looking at it backwards, it's not that teams win because they run more, it's that they run more because that have the lead, so they play conservative while keeping the clock running.
Because leads take you into overtime all the time...read it again, in fact - taken from this article (which, obviously, I did not write)
Quote:
In the end, the more important statistic -- keeping in mind the importance of time of possession and turnovers -- is total carries .
--------------------
soup
Quote:
Would that really make the difference in winning or losing?
Yes. Imagine if those 5 PASS plays last week that were turnovers were runs, like they should have been. Let's say we don't get a first down, and don't turn it over. We punt and leave them in their territory rather than our 30.
--------------------
soup
Quote:
You have a very narrow mind.
I complain every week that we abandon the run, we are 4-8. If by narrow mind you mean I want to win, then you are correct.
--------------------
shepdoggy1
Hall of Famer
Quote:
Yes. Imagine if those 5 PASS plays last week that were turnovers were runs, like they should have been. Let's say we don't get a first down, and don't turn it over. We punt and leave them in their territory rather than our 30.
Okay....let's magically make them runs. As long as we are playing make believe, if we take 2 each of the 5.7 extra runs that YTown described, and make them each 75 yard TD runs by R Droughns, then we are in the playoffs! woooohoooo!
It's easy livin' in your world now that I see how you do it!
--------------------
YTownBrownsFan
Quote:
Quote:
Would that really make the difference in winning or losing?
Yes. Imagine if those 5 PASS plays last week that were turnovers were runs, like they should have been. Let's say we don't get a first down, and don't turn it over. We punt and leave them in their territory rather than our 30.
Now let's imagine that those runs were in place of the 58 yard TD pass to Northcutt against Tennessee. Or maybe the 2 TDs in yesterday's game turn into FG attempts instead. Maybe Dilfer's 3 TD passes against Green Bay turn into 1 TD and 2 FGs? It's easy to play make believe and asume that your outcome is the only possible one. That's fine in a make believe world ..... but in reality, it's just as possible that the good plays are the ones that will be replaced as it is the bad ones.
--------------------
shepdoggy1
You do realize that the sad thing is once we are a contender, and we have a winning record and are in the top 10 in rushing attempts---the soupy one will say "See! I was right! I told you all!!"
--------------------
YTownBrownsFan
Of course.
And we'l be in the top 10 in turnover differential ..... and number of offensive plays ...... yards/play .... and all of the other categories that good teams generally do well in as well.
One thing that Soup won't even look at is that last year's Super Bowl featured teams ranked 5th and 2nd to last in the NFL in rushing attempts. Last year, we ran the ball 27.6 times/game .... just 2.4 per game off of Soup's magical 30/game. Cincinnati and Indy should have had worse years than we did last year ..... as they were ranked below us in rushing attempts.
--------------------
eotab
"You are just looking at it backwards, it's not that teams win because they run more, it's that they run more because that have the lead, so they play conservative while keeping the clock running."
Trust me, don't even bother trying...lol
--------------------
DCDAWGFAN
Quote:
Quote:
2003 - 27th in the NFL in rush attempts, 5-11 record
21st in passing attempts. What does that show? That we were behind a lot?
Quote:
2004 - 17th in rush attempts, 4-12 record - the majority came when Robiske took over
29th in passing attempts....maybe we should have thrown more?
What it tells me when you are deep in the 20s in both passing and rushing attempts is that not enough of your plays of either kind are successful and that you are not keeping possession of the ball, you are not picking up first downs and your defense is on the field a lot...
--------------------
DCDAWGFAN
Quote:
The guy that wrote this doesn't know what he's talking about. No offense to you purp. First a 54% percent chance of winning is huge!!!
I don't believe a 54% chance of winning is all that huge.. maybe in blackjack where you can sit and play all day every day and eventually a 54% chance is going to net you big money... but this is 16 games, it's a finite sample.... I'll give you a 54% chance of winning a blackjack hand but you are only allowed to play 16 hands... all of the sudden your chances for big success aren't as likely....... as somebody else said, theoretically, you start with a 50% chance of winning and as you yourself pointed out, that gets you 9 wins a year, which is enough for the coach to keep his job but isn't going to make the fans happy in the long run...
I'll tell you the one myth that I can't believe nobody has picked up on... Myth #3
Quote:
Myth No. 3: No. 1 conference seed advances to Super Bowl (50 percent)
Ok do the math... there are 6 teams from the AFC in the playoffs each year and if the No. 1 seed goes to the Super Bowl 50% of the time, that's pretty darn impressive... that means:
No. 1 seed goes to the super bowl - 50%
Seeds 2-6 go to the super bowl - 50%
I'll take those odds over any of the other odds posted on here.
--------------------
Anonymous
I have played at every level with the exception of the pro's, and here's my 2 cents.
ONE THING WINS FOOTBALL GAMES:
1. Field Position
then
2. Time of Possession (but it doesn't mean anything if you cannot score.)
3. Ability to control Line of Scrimmage.
Unfortunately, these are the hardest things to control, that is why the teams that can do them the besst are ussually the winners
Post Extras:
--------------------
jimgreenwood
Quote:
You do realize that the sad thing is once we are a contender, and we have a winning record and are in the top 10 in rushing attempts---the soupy one will say "See! I was right! I told you all!!"
It seems inevitable
--------------------
jimgreenwood
Um... that was three things
--------------------
soup
Quote:
One thing that Soup won't even look at is that last year's Super Bowl featured teams ranked 5th and 2nd to last
I have stated this several times. Actually, NE was 6th in rushing attempts (500+ - the magic number in a year). Philly is an exception to the rule. Nothing is 100%. As I've said 100 times, 13 of the top 15 rushing ATTEMPTS teams in the NFL have winning records - of the 17 left, 3 do. You keep hoping for a 3/17 chance because you love to pass all the time and I'll hope for the 13/15 chance.
--------------------
DG
I think you have to qualify the run wins argument...if the teams have approximately equal talent then a running team that can control the ball and clock and has a better chance. If you remember the 1998 Browns, they were so bad that they could not win even when the other team had 7 turnovers (Titans). E.George ran us over and we had no scoring.
The real difference against a good team is mistakes that limit opportunity to score. A good team can overcome mistakes against a poor team or average team but not against a very good or great team (those teams take advantage of mistakes).
The statistic about penalties does not explain if the penalties lead to a score (or lose points)...if they don't then there is no harm.
The Statistic that showed passing yards aren't important is also misleading if the passing yards don't lead to a score. If the passing yards allow a quick turnaround (90 TD, against a team that has the ball for a controlled score) the passing yards only allow the team to be even and being even against a team that can control the ball and score will only delay a loss.
The run statistic can be misleading because a team that has a high percentage per carry may be getting their entire yards on several big plays while a team with a low YPC has a grind it out Oline and RB that can control the game.
Running is not valuable unless the team can score (good vs poor). Poor teams kill their chances even though they have some success... either running or passing.
I say that Time of Possission, turnovers and ability to score inside the 20 are critical. These are part of the Jets Philosophy:
Reduce mistakes penalties
Reduce turnovers
Score inside the 20
Stop the run make the run work
As a system that is much more a predictor of success.
--------------------
PrplPplEater
Quote:
If you remember the 1998 Browns,
yeah, I remember... it's like they weren't even on the field
--------------------
DG
Alright 1999...is that all you have to say?
--------------------
PrplPplEater
yeah, that was all.
besides this, but after this then that's it.
nothing else.
nope.
--------------------
