|
GOOD TIMES ON METH posted:Joey Porter getting off easy boy thats weird To be fair, the cop involved in the Porter incident has a history of unnecessary violence/shooting people while drunk/general jackassery. (e.g. http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2009/06/12/Officer-cleared-in-off-duty-assault-on-South-Side/stories/200906120177 ). So the judge may have made the correct call.
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
Its funny how we side with the cops in celebrity cases but automatically jump to the side of over-escalation and over-prosecution in any other case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
swickles posted:Its funny how we side with the cops in celebrity cases but automatically jump to the side of over-escalation and over-prosecution in any other case. Well the amount the two sides have to do is quite different
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
Burnt ends are garbage
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
okay I've been wondering this for years and I finally have to ask. Why does time of possession matter, aside from allowing defense to rest. Like in the upcoming Cowboys Packers game, a lot of people are saying that it is important for the Cowboys to keep the ball out of Rodgers's hands. But each team gets the same number of drives regardless, give or take one at the end. If Rodgers only gets 6 drives, then the Cowboys only get 5/6/7 drives as well. Each drive offers the opportunity to score the same number of points. So how does keeping the ball for a long time mean that it increases a team's chance of winning?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
blue squares posted:okay I've been wondering this for years and I finally have to ask. Eh, there's something to be said about keeping your defense as fresh as it can be while also keeping the opposing QB from developing a rhythm. Sit on the bench too long, maybe you get thrown out of whack I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
You hold the ball longer, you give them less time to score, and make them have to shorten their playbook.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
Keeping the ball a lot usually means you're winning the field position battle too. Even if you don't wind up scoring points, a 6-8 play drive that stalls at midfield means most likely your opponent is starting inside their 20, making it less likely for them to score if they started at the 30+
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
the longer you have the ball the more likely it is you are getting first downs and scoring and less likely the opponent is doing the same to you. commentators bring up time of possession either because one side is getting slaughtered and the time of possession reflects it or the game is tied/one team ahead and the time of possession shows the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
blue squares posted:okay I've been wondering this for years and I finally have to ask.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
Keep in mind this is rule-of-thumb stuff and not a hard and fast rule. You can win TOP by 3:1 and still lose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
Intruder posted:Burnt ends are garbage When you're wrong you're really wrong. That or you're a BBQ dude posting from the 60s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
The best BBQ always comes from a non-chain that a mildly skeevy dude in the area recommends to you Best wings I've ever had are at Noble Pies in Reno, NV Best chili is between noodles and shredded cheddar and comes from Gold Star Worst team is the Pittsburgh Steelers, long may they lose, forever and ever, go chiefs
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
RE: time of possession The offense can control the tempo and the clock if they're at all competent. Also, the longer you control the ball, the less opportunities for the other team to score.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 09:04
|
|
|
Intruder posted:Burnt ends are garbage Im australian and even i know youre wrong. I feel bad for you ross. But loving lol how petulent billionaires can be. My one wish for 2017 was for it to be funny and chaotic. First trump, now this. I never thought the 1% could provide me with 99% of my lols.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 10:44
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Two new Chiefs "food" items for the playoff game. I'd shove both into my garbage hole which one is it?  a patagonian cavy posted:Best chili is between noodles and shredded cheddar and comes from Gold Star Mods???? 3 DONG HORSE fucked around with this message at 12:25 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
Meredith Baxter-Burnout posted:RE: time of possession Fewer opportunities for both teams to score. You get the ball, that's one opportunity. You do or don't, then the other team gets it. blue squares fucked around with this message at 12:46 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 12:40
|
|
|
Meredith Baxter-Burnout posted:RE: time of possession This is another reason the Ravens are so bad with a lead. They can't sustain drives so the other team is always getting the ball back. A great example of this was that 2010(I think) game against Houston on MNF. We were up comfortably and late. But we couldn't get any first downs and the Texans kept getting the ball back and were able to score. We had dominated the whole game up until this point. If we just got like one drive where we got a few first downs they would never threaten. That's another problem this organization can never fix. We strive to be some sort of ball-control offense but you gotta be able to get first downs to do that. Billick used "ball-control" offense as his nice way of saying the offense was bad. We only came close to actually having this under Kubiak. We've had the players for it we just can't put it together due to dopes running the team. Kawalimus fucked around with this message at 13:34 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
blue squares posted:Fewer opportunities for both teams to score. You get the ball, that's one opportunity. You do or don't, then the other team gets it. So you're right in that for the most part, time of possession has no real bearing on a team's success. The Eagles are an excellent example--this year they led the league with an average of 32:31 in TOP and went 7-9 and last year they were dead last in TOP with 25:51 and went... 7-9. And you are correct in that TOP doesn't change the number of possessions a team will have during a game, so the other team will have just as many opportunities to score. The quintessential example of this is the 2009 game between the Manning-led Colts and the Wildcat Dolphins, where the Dolphins held the ball for 45 minutes, running a grueling, run-first attack that ate the clock and scored slowly. They still lost though, because every time Manning had the ball, the Colts ran a hurry-up offense and scored, so the Colts won 27-23. Now there are some arguments for why TOP might help a team, as you've read--holding the ball for longer can help a defense stay fresh. This has certainly been true for Philly, who had one of the league's better defenses this year, but a poor offense, albeit one that could hold the ball for long stretches of time. Comparatively the Chip Kelly-led team was really good at going three-and-out very quickly, forcing their defense back out onto the field after less than a minute of time had come off the clock. Although both teams finished 7-9, this year's Eagles were probably a better team; they played a much tougher schedule and had a better point differential. Their defense certainly improved even if their offense showed little growth. Brian Burke had a really good article a few years ago that suggested that TOP was an intermediate stat (and one that generally correlates with wins): That it was difficult to actually be good at Time of Possession, but that having a high TOP was an indicator or a side-effect of being good at other fundamental things, like getting first downs and extending drives. If you think about it, there's no such thing as "running out the clock," since the clock runs regardless. There's only "running or passing successfully (and staying in bounds)," which keeps the clock running (also note that this shows another issue with TOP--winning teams tend to have a lopsided TOP advantage because late in the game they are purposely using more clock time between plays). So a team that is able to successfully move the ball will have a greater TOP advantage. Which is another reason that you should focus on efficiency stats over counting or intermediate stats when you think about measuring team success/strength. E: Note that this may not apply to situations where Andy Reid is involved, and time becomes a meaningless concept that is given no consideration whatsoever TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
Kawalimus posted:This is another reason the Ravens are so bad with a lead. They can't sustain drives so the other team is always getting the ball back. A great example of this was that 2010(I think) game against Houston on MNF. We were up comfortably and late. But we couldn't get any first downs and the Texans kept getting the ball back and were able to score. We had dominated the whole game up until this point. If we just got like one drive where we got a few first downs they would never threaten. That's another problem this organization can never fix. We strive to be some sort of ball-control offense but you gotta be able to get first downs to do that. Billick used "ball-control" offense as his nice way of saying the offense was bad. We only came close to actually having this under Kubiak. We've had the players for it we just can't put it together due to dopes running the team. That was six goddamn years ago
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
Time of possession is def an important stat. It's amazing how many coaches gently caress it up. Like, run the drat clock down and don't give them 2 minutes to score. It's amazing how many times a team will take a 3 point lead and give the other team 2 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
Intruder posted:Burnt ends are garbage you shut your dirty whore mouth, i will fight you. I even make my briskets and pork butts texas style and then give people a side of smoked sauce, but I will literally fight you for besmirching the good name of burnt ends.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
A Man and his dog posted:Time of possession is def an important stat. Yeah when you put it like that it seems so easy! Another thing teams mess up is not intercepting the other team's QB during their final drive
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:Yeah when you put it like that it seems so easy! JUST SCORE MORE POINTS HOW IS THIS HARD
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Just win, baby
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
I don't think anyone is arguing that time of possession has no correlation with success, just that there are so many better, stronger indicators that it doesn't justify it's use.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Super Bowl XXV is best remembered for "wide right" but the Giants having over 40 minutes of time possession versus the Bills' ~20 played a crucial factor in that game, especially since Buffalo's offense was an unstoppable juggernaut in 1990.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Sounds like they were pretty stoppable if they only held it for 20 mins
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Because the Giants milked the clock  They were also pretty drat good on defense that season as well
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/819933796803940352
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
The Bills offense at the time was extremely pass heavy, and relied on a ton of short crossing routes at a time when that was still pretty novel.. The Giants gameplan was to ignore Thurman Thomas and play 5 linebackers, dropping them all into coverage, and completely take away those short crossing routes (you could actually hit receivers back then). The Bills took too long to adjust into feeding Thomas over and over again, and their offense was stymied.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Jordy officially ruled out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
I'm really surprised they were even pretending he could play. You can't breathe with cracked ribs let alone run around, and basically any running play would be an open invitation to crack him hard in the chest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Whoops wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Someone started a twitter rumor the Busch family of St Louis has made an offer to buy the New York Jets and is going to move them to STL
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Athanatos posted:Someone started a twitter rumor the Busch family of St Louis has made an offer to buy the New York Jets and is going to move them to STL gotta do something with all that dutch money except for make another lovely beer (kraftig sucks)
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Kalli posted:I'm really surprised they were even pretending he could play. I'm pretty sure NFL players would inject raw morphine into their bone marrow if it gave them a chance to play through injury
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
Quite a custom title.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Never realized the most vicious infighting on these dead forums was in Goons With Spoons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
fsif posted:Never realized the most vicious infighting on these dead forums was in Goons With Spoons. The chili thread led to several permabans and a couple of death threats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 17:57
|
|