Cam hasn't taken a step back

[King Taharqa]

Considering the fact that you are the king of trolls' date=' you have zero right to talk about how bannings should be handled.[/quote']

I dont troll or create multiple alts to spam the board with. I just raise levels of understanding and consciousness to the point posters like yourself have to get a new handle and start over.LOL.

[dimbee]

you could put it out of it's misery, but the same thing will happen to every thread that pffl enters and he'll keep on entering them until you guys figure out how to keep him out of the huddle.

I wish it was as simple as people here believe it to be to permanently ban some and/or their ip address. Trust me, it has been discussed ad nauseum.

Might as well try to confine it to one thread as much as possible.

Besides, I'm actually anxious to read more armchair Mod criticism from KT. :D

[King Taharqa]

Bring back the social darwinism of neg rep to Smack. If the mods cant handle weeding out the trolls and crossers, then let it be mob justice! Ive been on boards where mods let trolls ruin the community. All that happens is they end up getting their poo hacked, next thing you know theyre crying to Zod about lawsuits and how he didnt protect them or their familys privacy.

[dimbee]

You know what they say about crazies running the asylum...

[teeray]

You also continue to show incredibly poor logic in using statistics. 14.2 is not the minimum. It's the maximum for any one side of your team. You have no logistics in you. 7 points is the maximum you can get for 100 yards. What you are describing with your logic is being able to trade in 100 yards for more than 7 points. It's impossible. It's the highest you can score. The only way you can increase your efficiency over 100% is with help from some other side of your team so you can go "down" in yards.

And also it's not 14.2. Again you have NO LOGIC. 14.2 includes 2 teams, PAT unit and offense. For any one unit it's 6 points for 100 yards. or 16.67. You can average the two numbers and come up with 15.4

The higher the number the less "efficient" in YPP. Therefore 14.2 (or 16.6 if you wish) isn't 100% efficiency it is 1% efficiency. 100% efficiency in terms of YPP in a single drive would be .142 YPP (or .166) which is a 1 yard drive for a TD. Which means that a 99 yard drive is 1,000x less efficient than a 99 yard drive in value to YPP.

As far as you getting upset that I used 14.2 maybe you missed the part where I said "assuming you make the point after". Whether you count it or not it doesn't change the math or the point. Plus I use 99 yards because that is more accurate. Even if you are on the one inch line you get credit for 1 yard in total yards.

Which is also the average. http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/yards-per-point

See the average offenses:

14: 15.6

15: 16.0

16;16.0

See how my logic matches with REALITY and yours is just poo you make up?

That's why YPP is counter-intuitive for people like you. For the love of God stop arguing about things you have NO clue what they mean.

That's where YPP starts for an average offense. Your QB's offense efficiency starts at the 20 yard line. So for them and the PAT unit they will register 11.4 ypp if they score a touchdown. Compared to the average they will be 16/11.4 = 140% efficiency. This would easily put them on track for a winning record.

So every time the special teams or defense shortens their field position, their efficiency goes up. Likewise if they get STOPPED after driving 60 yards...they get nothing. The yards add up. If they drive the 80 on the next drive, they get 7 points for 140 yards. Their efficiency drops to 20.0. Losing offense.

True. But if your offense goes three and out and gets stopped it barely even matters.

And if your special teams or defense help you out a 60 yard drive from the 40 is a TD and a 8.57 YPP. A 60 yard drive from the 20 is a field goal and your YPP is 20. And that is how defense and special teams can indeed hurt YPP. Two drives for the same amount of yards yet one is great and the other is nearly disastrous.

For example let me ask you this. If a team only gains 7 yards on their first drive and gets stopped and then has an 80 yard TD drive and makes the point after they have a YPP of 12.42. Is it you contention that a team that has a 60 yard drive and flips field position but gets stopped then has an 80 yard TD drive is being less efficient than the team that had a three and out and a 80 yard TD??

And that's exactly what happened against the Lions. Our special team, Defense got the offense a lot of freaking help[.

Yep. That is what I have been saying since day one. Defense and special teams can really help your YPP. And when they are abysmal they really hurt it. You are finally getting it. YPP isn't offensive efficiency because all three facets impact it greatly.

[TrueDat]

Finally what kills me about you is you just argue to argue. You talk about our rankings but you never look at the values. Did you ever check? Special teams starting field position:

16th: 27.61 yards

Carolina 23rd: 26.74

This is from your site that you love so much. http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

So how much difference is our special teams losing versus the rest of the NFL? 0.97 yards? Our special teams starting field position accounts for 0.14 of a drive's efficiency ratio. What was your point again?

Statistical noise compared to what the offense does to its own efficiency. Not scoring on a 75 yard drive means your next drive is going to be 22.14. or a 6.7 point swing. How does that compare to your starting field position?

The stats tell me average starting field position doesn't help nor it but by about 0.14. As you can see turnovers and losing yards is what hurts an offense's efficiency ratio the most: itself. getting stopped. which is just as bad as a defense failure to stop a team.

Your logic is all backwards. Real life, football, as well as yards per point efficiency and the NFL see field position as help to an offense, not something that's mandatory. They are primarily responsible for doing their job without having to rely on other teams. That's why its only help.

And just so you know and remember. The only way a team can rank under that average, is if the offense itself screws up and gets stopped or turns over the ball. So if it's efficient sometimes special teams and defense can make up for it like they did Sunday. If it's inefficient it means the offense screwed up and the special teams defense can't make up for their screw ups.

Finally no I am saying our total scoring offense efficiency is our freaking total scoring offensive efficiency, yards per point. Which is exactly what it is. And you keep playing with words, which really makes it tedious arguing with you.

Seriously. I'm out.

PS: 99 is not more accurate. the full field is 100 yards. You measure statistics against the full field. It still must be traveled in it's entirety. Common sense tells you an offense who drives the full field and scores 7 points is perfect. It can't do any better. They crossed the full 100% for 7 points. That's 100%. So when they do it in 80, since they can't get any extra points, their efficiency goes up, even if the ratio number goes down, and the percentage simply goes UP.

80/7 = 11.4 You take the average. 15.4 And you divide it by your number 15.4/11.4 = 135%. It makes no sense to say it goes down. If you score the same points in less yards, this makes you more efficient. Over 100% since you can't get more than 7 points.

[teeray]

Finally what kills me about you is you just argue to argue. You talk about our rankings but you never look at the values. Did you ever check? Special teams starting field position:

16th: 27.61 yards

Carolina 23rd: 26.74

This is from your site that you love so much. http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

So how much difference is our special teams losing versus the rest of the NFL? 0.97 yards? Our special teams starting field position accounts for 0.14 of a drive's efficiency ratio. What was your point again?

That is the nearly difference of a football field for us. We have had 98 possessions (before this last week). That is an extra 95.06 yards we have had to travel to get to the endzone. Although we may be closer to the median after this week because we got some short fields.

Statistical noise compared to what the offense does to its own efficiency. Not scoring on a 75 yard drive means your next drive is going to be 22.14. or a 6.7 point swing. How does that compare to your starting field position?

The stats tell me average starting field position doesn't help nor it but by about 0.14. As you can see turnovers and losing yards is what hurts an offense's efficiency ratio the most: itself. getting stopped. which is just as bad as a defense failure to stop a team.

You still don't see the difference in a 60 yard drive from your 40 and a 60 yard drive from your 20?? One has a YPP of 8 the other 20.

Your logic is all backwards. Real life, football, as well as yards per point efficiency and the NFL see field position as help to an offense, not something that's mandatory. They are primarily responsible for doing their job without having to rely on other teams. That's why its only help.

And just so you know and remember. The only way a team can rank under that average, is if the offense itself screws up and gets stopped or turns over the ball. So if it's efficient sometimes special teams and defense can make up for it like they did Sunday. If it's inefficient it means the offense screwed up and the special teams defense can't make up for their screw ups.

Finally no I am saying our total scoring offense efficiency is our freaking total scoring offensive efficiency, yards per point. Which is exactly what it is. And you keep playing with words, which really makes it tedious arguing with you.

You have said repeatedly that it is offensive efficiency. It has only been since Sunday you have tried to amend it to be scoring efficiency. IO have said all along that scoring efficiency =/= offensive efficiency because it counts points not scored by the "QB offensive unit"

Seriously. I'm out.

I heard pantherstalk.com needs some traffic. I love your call out thread over there to me. I am already known on a board I don't even participate with. I must be famous!!

PS: 99 is not more accurate. the full field is 100 yards. You measure statistics against the full field. It still must be traveled in it's entirety. Common sense tells you an offense who drives the full field and scores 7 points is perfect. It can't do any better. They crossed the full 100% for 7 points. That's 100%. So when they do it in 80, since they can't get any extra points, their efficiency goes up, even if the ratio number goes down, and the percentage simply goes UP.

80/7 = 11.4 You take the average. 15.4 And you divide it by your number 15.4/11.4 = 135%. It makes no sense to say it goes down. If you score the same points in less yards, this makes you more efficient. Over 100% since you can't get more than 7 points.

It is only more accurate because you don't have 100 yard drives. You can only have a 99 yard drive and a minimum of a 1 yard drive no matter if you are on the one inch line.

[SZ James (banned)]

You know what they say about crazies running the asylum...

That's how it is now :/

[rayzor]

Finally what kills me about you is you just argue to argue.

anyone else think pffl saying this is funny?

Seriously. I'm out.

riiiight. :rolleyes:

PS: 99 is not more accurate. the full field is 100 yards. You measure statistics against the full field. It still must be traveled in it's entirety. Common sense tells you an offense who drives the full field and scores 7 points is perfect. It can't do any better. They crossed the full 100% for 7 points. That's 100%. So when they do it in 80, since they can't get any extra points, their efficiency goes up, even if the ratio number goes down, and the percentage simply goes UP.

80/7 = 11.4 You take the average. 15.4 And you divide it by your number 15.4/11.4 = 135%. It makes no sense to say it goes down. If you score the same points in less yards, this makes you more efficient. Over 100% since you can't get more than 7 points.

figured you weren't out.

you'll keep doing the same crap day after day week after week saying the same thing just with new alts.

you can't stop.

you're obsessed with trying to win and argument on the internet only time an again you do nothing but prove how small minded of a troll you are and instead of impressing people, you only make them point at you and laugh.

please keep it up, though. you are kind of entertaining...kind of like watching austin powers in a golf cart.

[chef17]

I hope you realize that every time you repeat some kind of stupid statement that started with Teeray and stats, you're spreading around stupidity.

Pleas stop. The dude can't even understand the charts he's reading, the rankings, what it means and what he's posting here. And he argues against me all day long just to try to learn something, instead of just asking.

Go read this. I wrote it just for you, Teeray and others who can't wrap their hands around YPP.

And stop trying to change the NFL's definitions. That is how the NFL tracks total points per game and total offense. They have a good reason for not including the yards. You can take the points out if you want. You can calculate YPP for anything you choose. Split it in 3, 5, 20 different YPP measurements for each side of your team, or player or whatever. It makes no difference in the end because they all have to be added back up together to get your total scoring offense. Because YPP measures an offense's efficiency in scoring. Not yards. Not points. It matters not if the yards are added.

But they already did the logic and research and know what the hell they are doing even though it's counter-intuitive to most people who do not understand this sport. Football is complex. But the way they track total offense and the reason you calculate ypp without touching anything is not just because that's how the NFL itself tracks the yards of a total offense as well as the points, but because it is the best way to do it without being redundant and without breaking the rules and logic of the sport. It's matching up to what they really define as total offense. Take the points away or add in the special teams yards, and you have a different measurement of ypp.

And any "per" stat is some sort of an efficiency ratio. Total Defense Yards Per Game: They refer to it as Total Defense(YPG). Total offense Yards Per Game: They refer to it as Total Offense(YPG). Neither one of those things are what the NFL defines as your real total offense or total defense. It's just yards.

An offense has 70 total offensive yards a game and scores 0 points but the defense gets a pick 6 and the extra point is made. According to YPP 70/7=10. Is that offense efficient?

[panthers55]

The higher the number the less "efficient" in YPP. Therefore 14.2 (or 16.6 if you wish) isn't 100% efficiency it is 1% efficiency. 100% efficiency in terms of YPP in a single drive would be .142 YPP (or .166) which is a 1 yard drive for a TD. Which means that a 99 yard drive is 1,000x less efficient than a 99 yard drive in value to YPP.

As far as you getting upset that I used 14.2 maybe you missed the part where I said "assuming you make the point after". Whether you count it or not it doesn't change the math or the point. Plus I use 99 yards because that is more accurate. Even if you are on the one inch line you get credit for 1 yard in total yards.

True. But if your offense goes three and out and gets stopped it barely even matters.

And if your special teams or defense help you out a 60 yard drive from the 40 is a TD and a 8.57 YPP. A 60 yard drive from the 20 is a field goal and your YPP is 20. And that is how defense and special teams can indeed hurt YPP. Two drives for the same amount of yards yet one is great and the other is nearly disastrous.

For example let me ask you this. If a team only gains 7 yards on their first drive and gets stopped and then has an 80 yard TD drive and makes the point after they have a YPP of 12.42. Is it you contention that a team that has a 60 yard drive and flips field position but gets stopped then has an 80 yard TD drive is being less efficient than the team that had a three and out and a 80 yard TD??

Yep. That is what I have been saying since day one. Defense and special teams can really help your YPP. And when they are abysmal they really hurt it. You are finally getting it. YPP isn't offensive efficiency because all three facets impact it greatly.

That is the nearly difference of a football field for us. We have had 98 possessions (before this last week). That is an extra 95.06 yards we have had to travel to get to the endzone. Although we may be closer to the median after this week because we got some short fields.

You still don't see the difference in a 60 yard drive from your 40 and a 60 yard drive from your 20?? One has a YPP of 8 the other 20.

You have said repeatedly that it is offensive efficiency. It has only been since Sunday you have tried to amend it to be scoring efficiency. IO have said all along that scoring efficiency =/= offensive efficiency because it counts points not scored by the "QB offensive unit"

I heard pantherstalk.com needs some traffic. I love your call out thread over there to me. I am already known on a board I don't even participate with. I must be famous!!

It is only more accurate because you don't have 100 yard drives. You can only have a 99 yard drive and a minimum of a 1 yard drive no matter if you are on the one inch line.

Teeray taking names and kicking Dats butt with his own logic. I have to admit though you are willing to go on and on forever. I did like the three and out and then a 80 yard drive example versus flipping the field and the same drive. Even casual football fans know that flipping the field is a good thing but in YPP parlance it is a bad thing unless you score. Of course I brought up the same kind of argument to him 200 posts ago.......

Just sayin............

[chef17]

If "total scoring offense" is anyone who scores a point then why don't defenders get receiving yards after an INT since they are a part of the offense? Why are they called defensive TDs instead of offensive TDs?

[TheRed]

This pffl guy has like a dozen alts and writes hundreds of literally novels for posts per thread about "stats" lmao.

Go get some ass truedat, by the truckload because you have alot of redeeming to do for your stat masturbating forum trolling.

[Fright]

I said the same thing in a game thread, saying that teams now have a lot more film on him and his stats will continue to be more realistic as teams can better prepare for him and his strengths....

all I got was a response from TheOracle saying that all teams have been able to watch film so that's not the issue....

I hate this place.