# NFL Week 9 **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [November 7, 2010, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-9/559800 "2010-11-07T16:18:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Khadaji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Khadaji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khadaji)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-9/559800/101 "2010-11-08T12:20:34Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#): > > Quote of the night: “The Cowboys went back to basics this week and they’re basically awful.” – Cris Collinsworth Collinsworth annoys me for some reason - but that was funny. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-9/559800/102 "2010-11-08T12:59:40Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > IOW, if you think you have an 80% shot of losing, you don’t go with the low variance, conservative play which results in the game coming close to its expectation (with the expectation that you lose) - you be aggressive, take some risks, and see if the variance works out in your favor. I concur. Along these lines, isn’t football overdue for some changes analogous to what has happened in baseball? I’m thinking of “Sabermetrics” - the analysis and implementation of what actually works, as opposed to conventional wisdom. For example, it seems to be the case that analysis says teams would benefit from attempting 4th-and-short substantially more often than they do. But coaches are averse to the criticism they’d get if this didn’t work, so they go with the duller, more conventional option. ---
**Author:** ![Sigmagirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c89c15/32.png) [@Sigmagirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sigmagirl)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-9/559800/103 "2010-11-08T13:57:08Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Cleveland fucking Browns! What **MOIDALIZE** said. Oh, and :D. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-9/559800/104 "2010-11-08T14:03:46Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > It’s not that crazy. That craziness happened last year. Craziness The Redux! Bengals turn around their season and go 8-1 the rest of the way… ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-9/559800/105 "2010-11-08T14:12:58Z")
I am fearful the Giants read their press reviews and overlook the Cowboys next week. Overall the Giants really are looking very good of late. I thought they would go 10-6 this year but now think 12 wins is quite possible. Remaining schedule is: Cowboys @ Eagles Jaguars Redskins @ Vikings Eagles @Packers @ Redskins ---
**Author:** ![Death\_of\_Rats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a6a055/32.png) [@Death\_of\_Rats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Death_of_Rats)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-9/559800/106 "2010-11-08T14:41:24Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Beautiful. Wade just said at the presser that he doesn’t even know who the 'Girls are playing next week. Just came right out and said it. > > Speaks volumes, doesn’t it? > [@kenobi\_65](#): > > Perhaps he realizes that, from his standpoint, it doesn’t matter, because he won’t be there. 😛 Its a sad comment on the Dallas season when Wade might not even outlast Chilly this season. ---
**Author:** ![soulmurk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@soulmurk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/soulmurk)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-9/559800/107 "2010-11-08T15:18:41Z")
> [@What\_Exit](#): > > Overall the Giants really are looking very good of late. Color me unimpressed. Their wins have come against teams with a combined 17-31 record, and they lost convincingly to the two good teams they’ve played thus far. They’re winning the games they’re supposed to, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but I’m not buying into their dominance of a soft schedule as evidence of their greatness just yet. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-9/559800/108 "2010-11-08T15:35:50Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Mangini, by pulling out all the stops - lateral punt return, fake punt from their own 15, whatever the hell you want to call that play that Stuckey scored on this week - responded exactly how you should respond to a team that’s favored against you. Go for it, take some risks, and hope it works out. In a league full of cowardace and conservatism, it makes me love guys like Payton and Bellichick who are willing to have some balls. It looks like Mangini is willing to do that. > > Otherwise we are just fucking wrecking people. Peyton Hillis has been amazing - he starts running at a defender and they just don’t want to be there. The O-line is blasting people off the ball, and the coverage units seem to have some tricks up their sleeves to confuse even the best QBs in the league. Those weren’t flukey wins - the Browns dominated in both cases in all phases of the game. If only this team showed up on week 1, it’d probably be 5-3 or 6-2 now. I’ve gotta give Daboll and Mangini credit. I’m still not totally sold on them (if they ever run a play-action pass in the red zone, I’ll pass out), but I like that they’re taking smart gambles, not to mention that every trick play they’ve run has been executed to perfection. There was a good article in the paper about Mangini, when he was an intern with the Browns, and how he vowed never to have a player like Andre Rison on his team if he were ever a head coach. All the moves last year were about getting rid of the prima donnas and bringing in character guys willing to play hard within the system, and they’re doing that now. The front office had a fantastic offseason, and the defense seems like it’s finally jelling. For the first time since they’ve come back, I feel like they’re a competently run organization. Oh, and how about that block by Cribbs on McCoy’s TD run? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![DadWagonDriver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/edb3f5/32.png) [@DadWagonDriver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DadWagonDriver)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-9/559800/109 "2010-11-08T15:37:56Z")
I think Stafford is getting shut down for the season. I can only hope he comes back strong next season; the kid is freaking awesome when he’s “on”. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-9/559800/110 "2010-11-08T15:57:40Z")
> [@wmulax93](#): > > I think Stafford is getting shut down for the season. I can only hope he comes back strong next season; the kid is freaking awesome when he’s “on”. He’s Glass Joe. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-9/559800/111 "2010-11-08T16:03:39Z")
Glass-shouldered Joe, at any rate. By my count, he’s missed 11 out of 24 games so far in his career, and appears to be about to miss a bunch more. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-9/559800/112 "2010-11-08T16:07:14Z")
Shaun Hill probably just earned 3 or 4 million bucks. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-9/559800/113 "2010-11-08T16:31:00Z")
If anything, Calvin Johnson and the offensive line did. Whoever starts at QB seems to do pretty well. It’s like the Raiders- no matter who they line up at wideout, running back\* and even quarterback, their offense has been pretty effective this year. That says to me that their O-line is very good. \*I mean, seriously - who the fuck is Marcel Reese? ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-9/559800/114 "2010-11-08T16:51:48Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > I concur. > > Along these lines, isn’t football overdue for some changes analogous to what has happened in baseball? I’m thinking of “Sabermetrics” - the analysis and implementation of what actually works, as opposed to conventional wisdom. > > For example, it seems to be the case that analysis says teams would benefit from attempting 4th-and-short substantially more often than they do. But coaches are averse to the criticism they’d get if this didn’t work, so they go with the duller, more conventional option. While I agree with said analysis, sadly the edge you would gain wouldn’t be _that_ significant, and as you say the number of times you try, and fail, will outweigh, in the media’s eyes, the times you make it and score later in the drive. In any event, there’s been a number of sabermetric football books (or saformetrics, rather?) put out over the years, starting with [Ignatin and Barra](http://www.amazon.com/Football-Numbers-1987-Allen-Barra/dp/0133242609/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1289235073&sr=1-1) and proceeding down to [Football Prospectus/Outsiders.](http://footballoutsiders.com/) ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-9/559800/115 "2010-11-08T16:52:01Z")
> [@soulmurk](#): > > Color me unimpressed. Their wins have come against teams with a combined 17-31 record, and they lost convincingly to the two good teams they’ve played thus far. > > They’re winning the games they’re supposed to, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but I’m not buying into their dominance of a soft schedule as evidence of their greatness just yet. I can’t argue but they look better than I thought they were before game 1 and the Packers and Vikings both look more vulnerable than I expected. 5 of the 8 games are divisional and Jaguars are not a great team. Believe me I have not deceived myself into thinking Superbowl champs, just into have a chance to go deep into the playoffs and hope good things happen. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-9/559800/116 "2010-11-08T17:00:59Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > While I agree with said analysis, sadly the edge you would gain wouldn’t be _that_ significant, and as you say the number of times you try, and fail, will outweigh, in the media’s eyes, the times you make it and score later in the drive. Actually, the [edge would be _quite_ significant](http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrookpreview/070904): > [@](#): > > I asked the computer whiz-kids at Accuscore, whose software simulates entire NFL games, if they could take actual games from the 2006 season and rerun them with everything the same except one team eschewing the punt. We chose three types of games: great games between top teams (for instance, New England at San Diego in last season’s playoffs), good games between good teams (for instance, Denver at St. Louis in the regular season) and average games involving average teams (for instance, we tested the home-and-home series between the 49ers and Cardinals). We defined two sets of punt-shunning rules: the hyperaggressive pedal-to-the-metal tactics advocated by Romer and a somewhat more conservative set of anti-punt rules designed by TMQ. We assigned the anti-punt tactics to the home team but not the visitor, then to the visitor but not the home team in the same pairing. Accuscore simulated about 10,000 sets of games, to wash out the effects of chance. > > Bottom line: **avoiding punts added an average of one point to a team’s per-game scoring, without adding any points to its opponents’ average scoring. Teams avoiding punting became 5 percent more likely to win – statistically significant owing to the thousands of tries. Doesn’t sound like much? One more point scored per game represents the difference between the Bengals and the Patriots of the 2006 season. Last season, one additional victory would have put the Packers, Panthers or Rams into the playoffs. A 5 percent improvement in victory likelihood translates into one additional victory per 20 games, or just shy of one extra win per NFL season**. I think any NFL owner would gladly pay millions of dollars for one additional win per season. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-9/559800/117 "2010-11-08T17:21:50Z")
One issue never raised in TMQs rants is that when using computer simulations such as Accuscore’s is that the results suffer from a lack of real world data. The simulations compile the results of all plays and predict the outcomes by averaging the results of each teams plays. This is fine for games played within the same set of rules and trends. Fundamentally changing a tactic like punts makes all the simulation data suspect and the predictions inherently flawed. It’s difficult to predict what will happen on the various 4th down situations because there are so few of them actually played, the sample size of 4th down plays relative to all other plays are essentially negligible. The few 4th down plays that are run are done in very specific situations that would be quite different from the situations represented by the simulations. Defenses and offenses play very differently in 4th down situations. If Accuscore reran the simulations and treated every 4th down opportunity as if it were a 3rd and goal or 4th and goal try, because that’s essentially how coaches would treat them, I suspect the results would be very different, especially for the good to poor range of teams. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-9/559800/118 "2010-11-08T17:56:11Z")
Why would they be very different? [Quote of the week from Jerry Jones] ([Dallas Cowboys Owner Jerry Jones Calls for Blood: What Took Him So Long? | News, Scores, Highlights, Stats, and Rumors | Bleacher Report](http://bleacherreport.com/articles/512209-dallas-cowboys-owner-jerry-jones-calls-for-blood-what-took-him-so-long)): “I can’t put my finger on [the problem] because I don’t have enough fingers.” ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-9/559800/119 "2010-11-08T18:03:24Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Why would they be very different? The statistical approach glosses over the unique attributes of particular teams in particular situations. For example, when NE went for it on 4th down against the Chargers a couple of weeks ago. Defensible decision, but bad play call. They’re not a good running team. So if you evaluate the decision by their decision to run a vanilla running play, their actual likelihood of success was lower than the statistical likelihood. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-9/559800/120 "2010-11-08T18:04:07Z")
Rumors are that Wade Philips didn’t show up at the practice facility today. He’s probably out. I’m not sure it’s really his fault, although I can’t say I know what the problem actually _is_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-9/559800.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-9/559800.md?page=7)