NFL 2014

[Dak]

They've played less than 30 games. You wouldn't count the Giants in the data since they haven't played the next week. However, I wouldn't expect someone dumb enough to believe in this theory to take that detail into consideration.

Oh boy. Your lack of reading comprehension and arithmetic ability are on full display here. Without these fundamental skills, it is difficult for a person to make sense of the world. I feel sorry for the difficulties that day to day living must present to you, and now understand why you find much of what I say untenable: You understand neither the premises nor the logic.

With Houston's fresh loss, the total W/L record for former Dallas opponents now stands at 19-27, or 46 total individual games. That there is some overlap does not matter for the purposes of this sort of analysis (ie, within those W/L Seattle has played St Louis). If I subtract all games actually played against the Cowboys, this still leaves 18-21. 39 games. If I subtract the literal next weeks games, that includes 1 win and 4 losses, so 17-17. An even .500. If we subtract St Louis/Seattle (already subtracted from Seattle as a post Cowboys game) and SF/Seattle just for the sake of argument (overlapping games), we subtract 2 wins and 1 loss, which leaves us at 15-16. 15+16=31. And no, I had no way to include a Giants game which hasn't occurred yet into W/L calculations. So even if I managed to have an error in there somewhere, you cannot claim neither failure to pay attention to detail nor including the Giants game, and we are still 2 games clear of "not even 30 games".

Maybe I need to put in big bold letters that I do not believe this theory. I merely hold that it is a possibility. Reminds me of an atheist calling an agnostic a theist.

I want to be clear I'm not even arguing about the theory itself. I'm merely pointing out your flawed argument. That you cannot differentiate between a bad argument and an incorrect conclusion is another problem. You could be right in your certainty that physicality of play in one week has no impact on the performance of a team in another week, but we have no way to be certain of that based on your argument.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Oh boy. Your lack of reading comprehension and arithmetic ability are on full display here. Without these fundamental skills, it is difficult for a person to make sense of the world. I feel sorry for the difficulties that day to day living must present to you, and now understand why you find much of what I say untenable: You understand neither the premises nor the logic.

With Houston's fresh loss, the total W/L record for former Dallas opponents now stands at 19-27, or 46 total individual games. That there is some overlap does not matter for the purposes of this sort of analysis (ie, within those W/L Seattle has played St Louis). If I subtract all games actually played against the Cowboys, this still leaves 18-21. 39 games. If I subtract the literal next weeks games, that includes 1 win and 4 losses, so 17-17. An even .500. If we subtract St Louis/Seattle (already subtracted from Seattle as a post Cowboys game) and SF/Seattle just for the sake of argument (overlapping games), we subtract 2 wins and 1 loss, which leaves us at 15-16. 15+16=31. And no, I had no way to include a Giants game which hasn't occurred yet into W/L calculations. So even if I managed to have an error in there somewhere, you cannot claim neither failure to pay attention to detail nor including the Giants game, and we are still 2 games clear of "not even 30 games".

You fucking idiot. Don't critique someone's arithmetic skills when you can't figure out the math for an argument you presented:

Doesn't work like that. To begin with, when looking at SoS, you need to remove the games that were actually played against the X team. Additionally, for the claim that playing the Cowboys causes further another in the proceeding week, you would need to also remove those games before making a counter claim about the SoS, based on win/loss %.

49ers have played 7 games
Titans have played 7 games
Rams have played 6 games
Saints have played 6 games
Texans have played 7 games
Seahawks have played 6 games

7x3= 21
6x3= 18

21+18=39

39-6 (games played vs. Cowboys)= 33

33-6 (games played week after Cowboys)= 27

The total remaining sample size is 27. Like I said, too small to be significant. But like I also said, you're so hard-headed that I'm sure you'll try and counter this, even though the math is indisputable.

I want to be clear I'm not even arguing about the theory itself. I'm merely pointing out your flawed argument. That you cannot differentiate between a bad argument and an incorrect conclusion is another problem. You could be right in your certainty that physicality of play in one week has no impact on the performance of a team in another week, but we have no way to be certain of that based on your argument.

In sum, your argument is based on one piece of correlation with no provided supporting evidence. You should expect to be mocked for that because it's such a fucking implausible idea that only the biggest homer would even mention it. That's why everyone laughed in your face.

 

[Nephilim96]

I don't know who to side with because tl;dr

 

[Dak]

You fucking idiot. Don't critique someone's arithmetic skills when you can't figure out the math for an argument you presented:

49ers have played 7 games
Titans have played 7 games
Rams have played 6 games
Saints have played 6 games
Texans have played 7 games
Seahawks have played 6 games

7x3= 21
6x3= 18

21+18=39

39-6 (games played vs. Cowboys)= 33

33-6 (games played week after Cowboys)= 27

The total remaining sample size is 27. Like I said, too small to be significant. But like I also said, you're so hard-headed that I'm sure you'll try and counter this, even though the math is indisputable.

The math is indisputable. Your selection of statistics isn't.

I see what you did there cf, and the lack of detail for someone charging lack of detail is amusing. You failed to account for the games of "prior opponent v prior opponent", but then entirely removed the Giants.

I included the Giants specifically regarding SoS arguments, to show that the Cowboys aren't beating teams which were, at the time, able to be considered "sucky". If you don't want to include the Giants at all because they "haven't lost the game after playing Dallas" that is fine, but I had two points to make, and so including Giants was purposeful for one. Besides, as I didn't include the Rams due to a bye after Dallas when looking at losses after Dallas, I wouldn't include the Giants either - as they have a bye this week. So if we disinclude the Giants entirely, this drops it down to 12-12. Doesn't really change my point about SoS, although it does drop it "under 30 games". I would grant you your point about "not enough games", but what about over 30 games? Obviously doesn't matter to you, because the theory is "implausible" - period. After any amount of games it would be a terrible explanation to you even if all Dallas opponents had lost all games to and after Dallas but won the rest of their games(of those not against each other).

More simply at this point: You cannot simultaneously claim there are other explanations and then also claim we don't have a large enough sample size to explain anything. Just saying "well the reason they lost is because they suck/the other team was better" is a tautology, not an explanation. Maybe the real reasons are more complex (better scheme, field conditions, luck of the bounce, etc) than simply "getting beat up", but then you cannot invoke occam's razor.

In sum, your argument is based on one piece of correlation with no provided supporting evidence.

I'm interested if you think there even is any potential supporting evidence, because at this point I don't think that you think there is. It's a disingenuous charge, even if correct. (There is nothing currently available other than the correlations of a drop in W/L record and then abduction when taking into account the style of play). You're an atheist arguing with an agnostic.

That's why everyone laughed in your face.

Every last one of all 5 people who post in this thread or whatever - all who hate the Cowboys. Speaking of sample sizes....

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Giants shouldn't be included at all. Good point about the Rams having a bye after the Cowboys, so they're out of the set as well. So now we're talking about teams being 1-4 after playing the Cowbpys. The odds of pure randomness now increase.

If at the end of the year, 1. the Cowboys opponents have 1-14 record or something of the like then maybe there's something to discuss; in other words considering the implausibility of the theory, the data needs to be staggering. A five game sample set is simply too small to be significant.

However, even if that were the case, I would cross check with other teams. If, for example, teams were also 2-14 after playing the Raiders this would imply the statistic was random.

If we really wanted to measure if the Cowboys were delivering an exceptionally physical toll on their opponents we would look at the following stat:

1. Average number of new players on an NFL injury report+ players put on IR per week. If we were being super thorough we would then go through and remove non-contact injuries.

2. Average number of new players on an injury report+IR after playing the Cowboys.

If the Cowboys' number was exceptionally higher than the mean, this would suggest they were leaving an exceptionally physical toll on their opponents.

It's imperfect, but at least it comes closer to isolating the factor in question. Of course, you still have other factors such as players' injury history, field conditions, etc. but there are certainly less factors than one finds in a team winning or losing a game.

 

[Dak]

Giants shouldn't be included at all. Good point about the Rams having a bye after the Cowboys, so they're out of the set as well. So now we're talking about teams being 1-4 after playing the Cowbpys. The odds of pure randomness now increase.

Not that 5 is that much greater than 4, but I would point out that the Saints of Brees and Graham, playing at home, needed overtime to beat Tampa of -bunch of nobodies- the week after playing Dallas for that 1 game in the W column.

If at the end of the year, 1. the Cowboys opponents have 1-14 record or something of the like then maybe there's something to discuss; in other words considering the implausibility of the theory, the data needs to be staggering. A five game sample set is simply too small to be significant.

However, even if that were the case, I would cross check with other teams. If, for example, teams were also 2-14 after playing the Raiders this would imply the statistic was random.

If we really wanted to measure if the Cowboys were delivering an exceptionally physical toll on their opponents we would look at the following stat:

1. Average number of new players on an NFL injury report+ players put on IR per week. If we were being super thorough we would then go through and remove non-contact injuries.

2. Average number of new players on an injury report+IR after playing the Cowboys.

If the Cowboys' number was exceptionally higher than the mean, this would suggest they were leaving an exceptionally physical toll on their opponents.

It's imperfect, but at least it comes closer to isolating the factor in question. Of course, you still have other factors such as players' injury history, field conditions, etc. but there are certainly less factors than one finds in a team winning or losing a game.

I'm fine with most of that, although I don't think that injuries are necessarily always the best measure of physicality, as many injuries are more or less of a "freak" nature in the NFL (guy rolls onto your leg, cleats get caught, etc). I don't think the effect of Dallas' style of play is something that is conclusively causally provable in an absolute sense (the reason for losses), but it could certainly evidence as a factor, which should show up in the post-play W/L column, or if better teams barely beat not good teams.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Not that 5 is that much greater than 4, but I would point out that the Saints of Brees and Graham, playing at home, needed overtime to beat Tampa of -bunch of nobodies- the week after playing Dallas for that 1 game in the W column.



I'm fine with most of that, although I don't think that injuries are necessarily always the best measure of physicality, as many injuries are more or less of a "freak" nature in the NFL (guy rolls onto your leg, cleats get caught, etc). I don't think the effect of Dallas' style of play is something that is conclusively causally provable in an absolute sense (the reason for losses), but it could certainly evidence as a factor, which should show up in the post-play W/L column, or if better teams barely beat not good teams.

I agree injuries are caused by many factors, including random events like the one's you mentioned. However, there are less factors involved in measuring injuries then there are in measuring a win or a loss. For example, Seahawks got outcoached on special teams and that's the most evident reason they lost last week. That has nothing to do with how beat up they were. The 49ers lost to the Bears by making a ton of mental errors and Marshall making a few exceptional plays. I guess you could argue that the 49ers made the mental errors because they were beat up from the week before, but it's more plausible that it was simply bad execution or poor preparation.

Ultimately, the problem with your theory is that it is 1. implausible and 2. unmeasurable.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

 

[Baroque]

I've got it, the teams Dallas' opponents played before Dallas beat them up so bad it caused them to lose to Dallas and the team after Dallas. This also explains why only the 49ers beat Dallas in week 1, they didn't have a regular season game before Dallas.

 

[Nephilim96]

SMOKEY MOTHER FUCKING BROWN!

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Big Ben is killing it!

 

[Dak]

How bout dem Cardinals!

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

BEN ROETHLISBERGER WTF BOOM

40-49 522yds 6tds

 

[crimsonfloyd]

How bout dem Cardinals!

I blame it on the Eagles getting beat up by the bye week.

 

[Dak]

Well some Eagles have complained about Chip Kelly's practice routine wearing them out

 

[Kara-Shehr]

I didn't think it was possible but the Steelers somehow someway beat the Colts. It wasn't pretty but it somehow happened and the the Steelers are actually two games over 500. Hell just froze over. Fucking literally.

 

[Baroque]

Redskins!

I didn't think they could actually do it.

 

[Dak]

Scott Linehan has done a pretty good job of adjustment this season, but not in this game. The loss of Durant and potential loss of Scandrick are going to hurt. I quit watching at halftime because I had to be up early, but I was not surprised at the result.

Haslett was big blitzing and the Dallas play calling was not adjusting sufficiently. Should have been killing them with screens, which they did a couple of times, but not consistently. The worst thing I read after is that twice they had two downs to get 3 yards and didn't hand it to the leagues leading rusher. wtf.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Giants just beat up the Cowboys too much last week. (No, this will never get old).

 

[Dak]

If you watched the game it would be pretty obvious that if anything about the outcome was related to beating up happening somewhere, it was the Redskins doing the beating up. But you are free to yuck it, and two can play the gotcha game. You know what else doesn't get old? Knowing there is no Lombardi Trophy in Philly.