RaiderPride
15 years ago
This was the weakest ass post to explain his two year long ignorance. A elementary explanation for being a less than true packer fan.

I do not give a hill of beans what Gavedigga posts. It is like reading the inside door in a truck stop bathroom shitter 80% of the time. A statement that has a stream of venom in it, no matter how suttle, almost always.

I have seen some real Jack Ass Ignorant posters on Packer Forums over the years, but I have never had zero respect for one of them. Not one. Until Garvedigga.

I have zero respect for him, simply because he flaunts it. His Avatar, his posts about how he will be happy when Brett beats the Packers.

It is OK to point out ones concerns, bitch about MM, call for a firing.. But Gravediggga actually flaunted the fact he wanted the Packers to lose to The Vikes. He got a kick out of it.

I will take his advice and ignore him.

All I hope is that his Turncoat ass is not in Game day Chat during the playoffs. It is impossible to ignore a misdirected personality in the rapid fire Game day Chat.
""People Will Probably Never Remember What You Said, And May Never Remember What You Did. However, People Will Always Remember How You Made Them Feel."
HoustonMatt
15 years ago

It really does amaze me that this team was literally 3 seconds away from going 12-4. 12-4 does sound so much better than 11-5.

But I'll take 11-5 over, well, almost anything else any day.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



It's worth noting that the Vikings were just as few seconds away from being 11-5.

I know what people will say. "You are what your record is" and all that bullshit coach-speak, but it's simply not true. Luck plays a huge role in sports, as it does in life. That's why the Packers were 6-10 last year despite outscoring opponents by 39 points (if I remember correctly).

I know I'm getting somewhat off topic, but I don't know that this thread has had a consistent topic for the last 4 pages anyhow.

However, it's interesting to note that this Packer team actually leads the league in Pythagorean Wins. (Uh-oh...stat nerd alert!)

http://www.imarc.net/writable/archives/pythagorean_wins/ 

For those who don't know what Pythag Wins are, they derived from a formula based on points scored and points allowed to arrive at the number of games a team should have "expected" to win based on those point totals. With larger sample sizes (such as in baseball) they're remarkably accurate.

What's even more interesting is that Aaron Schatz of Football Outsiders said that 16 of the last 20 Super Bowl winners were the team with the highest Pythag Win total.

http://www.imarc.net/communique/21-pythagorean_wins_for_the_nfl 

It's unclear to me whether or not that means the team with the most Pythag Wins for the regular season has won the Super Bowl 80% of the time or if it simply means that once the two Super Bowl teams are decided, of those two teams, the better Pythag record has won the game 80% of the time. Regardless, nobody should be surprised if this Packer team makes a deep run.

Just some food for thought.
blank
Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago
Welcome back to the board, HoustonMatt; I've missed your incisive, fact-based analyses.

This concept of Pythagorean wins is interesting. How is the factor derived? Empirically?

A couple of comments. First, the "16 of the last 20 Super Bowls" statistic dates to 2005. I wonder how well it's held up in the subsequent few Super Bowls? Second, I note that of the 6 teams who gave up fewer points than the Packers, none of them scored as many points as the Packers; Green Bay actually scored the third most points in the league this year. Fourth, this quote (from the 2005 article) is rather mind boggling:

Green Bay's winning percent is 55.2% - based on the number of points they've scored and allowed. (201^2.37 / (201^2.37 + 184^2.37)). They should win more than half the games they play. Yet at week 10 in the season, the Packers are 2-7. New England has a winning percentage of 41.2% - they should be a sub-.500 team, yet they're currently leading the AFC East at 5-4.


UserPostedImage
HoustonMatt
15 years ago

Welcome back to the board, HoustonMatt; I've missed your incisive, fact-based analyses.

This concept of Pythagorean wins is interesting. How is the factor derived? Empirically?

A couple of comments. First, the "16 of the last 20 Super Bowls" statistic dates to 2005. I wonder how well it's held up in the subsequent few Super Bowls? Second, I note that of the 6 teams who gave up fewer points than the Packers, none of them scored as many points as the Packers; Green Bay actually scored the third most points in the league this year. Fourth, this quote (from the 2005 article) is rather mind boggling:

Green Bay's winning percent is 55.2% - based on the number of points they've scored and allowed. (201^2.37 / (201^2.37 + 184^2.37)). They should win more than half the games they play. Yet at week 10 in the season, the Packers are 2-7. New England has a winning percentage of 41.2% - they should be a sub-.500 team, yet they're currently leading the AFC East at 5-4.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



To be honest, Im not sure exactly how the formula for football (PF^2.37/PF^2.37 + PA^2.37) was derived, but I assume it was done in the same way as Bill James created the original formula for baseball. Its simply a matter of trial and error. All he did was use runs scored and runs allowed and tinkered with the exponent. With each different exponent, he simply went back through baseball history and tested it. Eventually he found one (1.82) that accurately predicted a teams record. For the outliers who were more than a standard deviation away from their expected win-loss total, you can take it one step further and look at the following season. If your formula is worth a damn, a team that underperformed its expected victory total should improve the following year (as did the Packers from 08 to 09) and vice versa (see this years Miami Dolphins and Carolina Panthers).

As for the Super Bowl winners from 06 to current, I calculated their Pythag wins to see if the pattern held steady. This is incomplete as I didnt do the whole league to see if the Super Bowl winner led the league in Pythag wins, but it should give us some idea.

09 Pittsburgh 11.84 Pythag Wins
08 NY Giants 8.57 Pythag Wins
07 Indianapolis 9.59 Pythag Wins
06 Pittsburgh 11.61 Pythag Wins

Without knowing the other teams Pythag wins, Id assume Pittsburgh in 06 and 09 were among the top 3 at least. The Giants in 08 were predictably an outlier, though NE finished the season a remarkable +315 in point differential, so only a David Tyree catch prevented the Pythag Wins leader from winning the Super Bowl that year. In 07, Id estimate Indy was in the 5-6 range for Pythag Win total, but their opponent, the Bears, look to be either one or two (Baltimore had a very strong Pythag win total that year as well).

So did the pattern hold? Well, kind of.
blank
earthquake
15 years ago



i'd take rodgers 5 td runs over that 7 days in a week. and you, for sure, too :cyclopsani: i don't have to miss the ironic sign :bigsmurf:

"GermanGilbert" wrote:



Lol, you would take 5 qb sneaks over an extra 3td's? Cool, good for you. QB sneaks are all skill

"Gravedigga" wrote:



how many tds from brett? 33. how many tds from aaron? 35. be quite, subborn.

"GermanGilbert" wrote:



5 Sneaks? Right, all Rodgers does is score rushing TDs on sneaks, my grandma could do that. I guess that is why he lead all QBs in rushing yards.

4
12
1
14
1

Distance for Rodger's rushing TDs.
35 TDs no matter how you look at it

The funny thing is that it is somehow assumed that QB sneak TD's are the easiest thing in the world, if this were the case every QB in the league would have about 5 rushing TDs every year, but most teams prefer to use a large running back or fullback in these situations, telling isnt it?

Also, you would rather have 3 TDs than 5 TDs, what is this, GOLF?
blank
Dulak
15 years ago
rodgers has the most rushing yards out of any QB I thought also ...
bozz_2006
15 years ago
true
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
15 years ago
I don't really care what Peter King, or any other talking head says. But it DOES show that others outside of the Packer fan base are seeing what we are seeing. That Ted Thompson is doing a pretty darn good job.
I always stated that i would wait to judge Ted Thompson based on the outcome. It's a shame that some can't "force" themselves to do the same.
"DON'T BOTHER ME WITH THE FACTS.....MY MIND IS MADE UP!!!" seems to be the cry of a few.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (9h) : Chiefs Eagles...again...sigh
dfosterf (10h) : Happy Birthday Dave!
Mucky Tundra (11h) : happy birthday dhazer
TheKanataThrilla (13h) : Exactly buck...Washington came up with the ball. It is just a shitty coincidence one week later
buckeyepackfan (13h) : I forgot, they corrected the call a week later. Lol btw HAPPY BIRTHDAY dhazer!
buckeyepackfan (13h) : That brings up the question, why wasn't Nixon down by contact? I think that was the point Kanata was making.
buckeyepackfan (14h) : Turnovers rule, win the turnover battle, win the game.
packerfanoutwest (14h) : well, he was
TheKanataThrilla (14h) : Eagles down by contact on the fumble....fuck you NFL
Mucky Tundra (14h) : I think this games over
beast (15h) : Eagles sure get a lot of fumbles on kickoffs
Mucky Tundra (15h) : This game looks too big for Washington
packerfanoutwest (18h) : that being said, The Ravens are the Browns
packerfanoutwest (18h) : Browns, Dolphins have longest AFC Championship droughts
packerfanoutwest (18h) : As of today, Cowboys have longest NFC Championship drought,
beast (26-Jan) : Someone pointed out, with Raiders hiring Carroll, the division games between Carroll and Jim Harbaugh are back on (who can whine more games)
beast (26-Jan) : I'm confused, Pete Carroll and Brian Schottenheimer? When Todd Monken, Joe Brady, Kellen Moore, Kliff Kingsbury and Zac Robinson are availab
Zero2Cool (25-Jan) : Any reason I'm catching a shot here about my intelligence?
Martha Careful (25-Jan) : thank you Mucky for sticking up for me
Martha Careful (25-Jan) : some of those people are smarter than you zero. However Pete Carroll is not
Mucky Tundra (24-Jan) : Rude!
beast (24-Jan) : Martha? 😋
Zero2Cool (24-Jan) : Raiders hired someone from the elderly home.
dfosterf (24-Jan) : I'm going with a combination of the two.
beast (24-Jan) : Either the Cowboys have no idea what they're doing, or they're targeting their former OC, currently the Eagles OC
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious
beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
19m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

25-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

25-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.