Week 4 Gameday Chatter Thread | Cowboys at Saints |10/04/2015

Carp said:
I like Byron Jones and think he will get better and better. Once we move on from Church and move Wilcox to SS so Jones can play FS I think he will have a perfect niche with us.
Click to expand...

I agree. Really like the idea of Jones at FS. Church was a liability this last game, and it could be argued he normally is.
 
For the record...I bought into Randle being able to be a primary runner and be effective. I liked what I saw and counted on the growth of our line, plus the addition of Collins. I liked the philosophy that no one was above the system, with an emphasis on the OL. Well, clearly Randle is not cut out to be a lead back, even a lead back of a RBBC. I am gaining respect for McFadden every game, but he is on the downside of his career. I still believe in the philosophy, we just have to do a better job at RB.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
Yeah it's hard to say. I know Byron Jones has been on the field. I can't think of any plays that really standout as bad but I can't really think of any big plays he has made either.

I'm just kind of lukewarm at this point. It's early though.
Click to expand...

Te's have not had big days against us like they did last year which is attributable to him, he was never thought of as a game changing DB and his draft position shows it.

He needs to play the ball better but he has not been a liability.
 
NoDak said:
In the grand scheme of things, that run didn't do much for us. We got a FG at the end of that possession, and those other 27 runs and 70 yards paint a much clearer picture of how the game went and ultimately turned out for us.

So yeah, removing an abnormality from a much bigger body gives you a more accurate reading. Same reason a lot of judged events kick out both the high and low scores to remove an abnormal outlier.

So basically, stats are fun to talk about around the water cooler, but are worthless when breaking down the entirety of something. Should we be thinking Weeden's 108.8 QBR is telling us we have a HOF caliber QB under center for us right now?
Click to expand...

So what does the abnormality of getting tackled for a loss do?

You can't dismiss either out of hand they both contribute to the final total.
 
Carp said:
Just shows that we are ineffective as a running team.

We can cut the NO run out if you want, but they had an attitude with a run game and physically wore us down. It was an attitude they established, which is something we used to do.

LT mentioned how the defense let us down and that Weeden had better stats than Brees, based on his QBR being .02 higher than Brees. Nevermind the 341 yards and 2 TDs...Weeden and his 246 and 1 TD. The stats don't tell the story, watching them on the field it was very clearly than Brees was superior in every way.
Click to expand...

I agree they had a more consistent run game but they also had their starting QB and receivers.

How does taking out Dubar's run factor into all of that?
 
Genghis Khan said:
Because outliers skew averages. If there is one run for 90 yards, then 9 more runs for a yard a piece, what do you think tells the story more accurately? That the runner averaged 9.9 ypc? Or that other than 1 run he averaged 1 yard per carry? That one play is great and all and probably got you a touchdown, but if the rest of the carries are making you punt the rest of the game, overall it's not good.
Click to expand...

Getting tackled for a loss and goal-line runs also skew averages, you take the good with the bad.

I am not saying the overall run game is good just don't take out a long gain to prove a point.
 
Also, losing Callahan was huge...clearly he was a big part of what we do.

As an aside...I am not giving up on the season, just whining.
 
Jiggyfly said:
I agree they had a more consistent run game but they also had their starting QB and receivers.

How does taking out Dubar's run factor into all of that?
Click to expand...

Read the first bullet of my last post. thx
 
Jiggyfly said:
So what does the abnormality of getting tackled for a loss do?

You can't dismiss either out of hand they both contribute to the final total.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with our overall running game effectiveness? Nothing? Exactly.

And I noticed you conveniently skipped over Weeden's QBR in your defense of the use of stats.
 
Carp said:
Why am I going to read Sturm's article? I disagree with you, whatever he says has no bearing on that. Yeah...some people use them to make a point when they cannot form an opinion of their own.
Click to expand...

Because Sturms article says some of the same things I have said.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
He had 10 carries for negative yards in which game?
Click to expand...

ex·ag·ger·a·tion
/iɡˌzajəˈrāSH(ə)n/

noun

noun: exaggeration; plural noun: exaggerations

a statement that represents something as better or worse than it really is.
"it would be an exaggeration to say I had morning sickness, but I did feel queasy"

synonyms: overstatement, overemphasis, magnification, amplification, aggrandizement; More
dramatization, elaboration, embellishment, embroidery, hyperbole, overkill, gilding the lily

"his testimony was a laughable mix of contradiction and exaggeration"

•the action of making statements that represent something as better or worse than it really is.
"he was prone to exaggeration"
 
NoDak said:
ex·ag·ger·a·tion
/iɡˌzajəˈrāSH(ə)n/

noun

noun: exaggeration; plural noun: exaggerations

a statement that represents something as better or worse than it really is.
"it would be an exaggeration to say I had morning sickness, but I did feel queasy"

synonyms: overstatement, overemphasis, magnification, amplification, aggrandizement; More
dramatization, elaboration, embellishment, embroidery, hyperbole, overkill, gilding the lily

"his testimony was a laughable mix of contradiction and exaggeration"

•the action of making statements that represent something as better or worse than it really is.
"he was prone to exaggeration"
Click to expand...

Could just claim hyperbole and move on.
 
Exaggeration aside, our RBs have a shitload more runs for negative, 0, 1, or 2 yards than they do for ten plus. It's not too hard to figure out which side of the coin the outlier is. Unless you're pushing some silly agenda, that is.
 
NoDak said:
Exaggeration aside, our RBs have a shitload more runs for negative, 0, 1, or 2 yards than they do for ten plus. It's not too hard to figure out which side of the coin the outlier is. Unless you're pushing some silly agenda, that is.
Click to expand...

That's true for all RBs.
 
Hambrick vs Randle. Go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom