Cole: A stat that indicates the 49ers wont win the SB

I think its important to realize this stat becomes a lot more meaningful after week 17 than it does after week 11.

I think both Green Bay and SF are going to greatly improve on this by the end of season. GB more than SF in all likelihood

Originally posted by danimal:
I think its important to realize this stat becomes a lot more meaningful after week 17 than it does after week 11.

I think both Green Bay and SF are going to greatly improve on this by the end of season. GB more than SF in all likelihood

GB will lose @NYG and could lose this weekend too.

Originally posted by global_nomad:

Originally posted by danimal:
I think its important to realize this stat becomes a lot more meaningful after week 17 than it does after week 11.

I think both Green Bay and SF are going to greatly improve on this by the end of season. GB more than SF in all likelihood

GB will lose @NYG and could lose this weekend too.

I agree, but even in the losing I think they are going to end up with this stat being much improved from what it is right now. Same goes for the Niners

meaningless stat when bottom line is, we control the clock, we have a 10 point spread in out points scored per game vrs points allowed per game.

Originally posted by danimal:
I think the crux of the story is that it is a pattern of past champions. Actually, how far back that trend goes is the real missing detail we need. As a guess I would say it goes back pretty damn far.

Its a damning stat for sure, anyone who just dismisses it is fooling themselves, which of course is going to account for 90% of zoners.

At this point in time I would say any objective Niner fan would agree that they hope the Niners improve that stat before the end of season and not rely so heavily on field position through ST and turnovers.

Last 5 super bowl champions

Green Bay (O)5.7 (D)6.2
NO(O) 6.2 (D)5.6
Pitt(O)4.9 (D)4.7
Giants(O)5.1 (D)4.9
Colts(O)5.8(D)5.4

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by danimal:
I think the crux of the story is that it is a pattern of past champions. Actually, how far back that trend goes is the real missing detail we need. As a guess I would say it goes back pretty damn far.

Its a damning stat for sure, anyone who just dismisses it is fooling themselves, which of course is going to account for 90% of zoners.

At this point in time I would say any objective Niner fan would agree that they hope the Niners improve that stat before the end of season and not rely so heavily on field position through ST and turnovers.

Last 5 super bowl champions

Green Bay (O)5.7 (D)6.2
NO(O) 6.2 (D)5.6
Pitt(O)4.9 (D)4.7
Giants(O)5.1 (D)4.9
Colts(O)5.8(D)5.4

good man. This is the statement where the author really left himself a lot of wiggle room. As you are showing there actually is a lot of variance. You probably have to use like the last 30 years for the average to get to the .6 he is focusing on. But I think the last 5 years is more important than the average over 30 years.

You proved that he is actually being misleading as f**k, and is assuming nobody would check for themselves after he posted such a vague statement

Championship teams are usually at .6 more yards per play

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by danimal:
I think the crux of the story is that it is a pattern of past champions. Actually, how far back that trend goes is the real missing detail we need. As a guess I would say it goes back pretty damn far.

Its a damning stat for sure, anyone who just dismisses it is fooling themselves, which of course is going to account for 90% of zoners.

At this point in time I would say any objective Niner fan would agree that they hope the Niners improve that stat before the end of season and not rely so heavily on field position through ST and turnovers.

Last 5 super bowl champions

Green Bay (O)5.7 (D)6.2
NO(O) 6.2 (D)5.6
Pitt(O)4.9 (D)4.7
Giants(O)5.1 (D)4.9
Colts(O)5.8(D)5.4

Cole is talking out of his ass and it stinks.

Well, I checked a few stats now and by my calculations, at least in the last years, it is a trend, but not as clear-cut as it may sound according to Jason Cole. The last three years, the 0.6 yards-per-play differential held up, but for example, from recent Super Bowl winning teams, the Giants (against a real stat monster, the 17-1 Patriots who posted a ridiculous 1.3 yards-per-play differential), the Ravens and interestingly, all three recent Patriot teams all fell short of that marker. The Giants even had the same exact 0.1 yards-per-play differential the Niners currently boast.

This means from the last ten Super Bowl winners, six had the differential, but four did not. Sure that is a trend, but in my opinion, a pretty weak one (it is only slightly above .500, after all). Why you would use that as your all-telling, final stat to determine or dismiss a championship team, I don´t really get.

It is not a good, strong indicator and even worse, a lot of teams scoring well at this stat fizzled out pretty badly, which makes you look kinda foolish if you only rely on that stat.

Originally posted by global_nomad:
A word of warning to San Francisco fans who are, rightfully, getting geeked up about the 49ers' 9-1 mark. One of the key stats in forecasting the possible playoff success of a team is how much of a differential there is between yards a team gains per play and how many it gives up. Championship teams are usually at .6 more yards per play. For instance, if a team allows 5.0 yards per play, a potential title team is usually around at least 5.6 yards gained per play. For the 49ers, they are only at .1, gaining a pedestrian 5.3 yards per play while allowing 5.2 yards per play. In short, the 49ers have the statistical numbers of a team that should be closer to 6-4 than 9-1.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AjxmsGi72f9Y4IxBksUxsqxDubYF?slug=jc-cole_direct_snap__andrew_luck_nfl_draft_112211

Thats all you got Cole

Well we lead the league in Turnovers so maybe we don't to gain a lot of yards on offense to get points!

The best quote in this is "The 49ers have the statistical numbers of a team that should be closer to 6-4 then 9-1" This could be the dumb quote of the year. We shall see. Top 5 for sure.

Originally posted by boast:

Originally posted by susweel:
Cole can suck it.

agreed

Indeed!

Originally posted by NoOffseason:
Well, I checked a few stats now and by my calculations, at least in the last years, it is a trend, but not as clear-cut as it may sound according to Jason Cole. The last three years, the 0.6 yards-per-play differential held up, but for example, from recent Super Bowl winning teams, the Giants (against a real stat monster, the 17-1 Patriots who posted a ridiculous 1.3 yards-per-play differential), the Ravens and interestingly, all three recent Patriot teams all fell short of that marker. The Giants even had the same exact 0.1 yards-per-play differential the Niners currently boast.

This means from the last ten Super Bowl winners, six had the differential, but four did not. Sure that is a trend, but in my opinion, a pretty weak one (it is only slightly above .500, after all). Why you would use that as your all-telling, final stat to determine or dismiss a championship team, I don´t really get.

It is not a good, strong indicator and even worse, a lot of teams scoring well at this stat fizzled out pretty badly, which makes you look kinda foolish if you only rely on that stat.

are you sure? I posted the last 5 super bowl winners in an earlier post... First set of numbers are the Offense yards per play, second numbers are the defense. Only the Saints in the last 5 years

Green Bay (O)5.7 (D)6.2

NO(O) 6.2 (D)5.6

Pitt(O)4.9 (D)4.7

Giants(O)5.1 (D)4.9

Colts(O)5.8(D)5.4


Only the Saints had a .6 differential

Originally posted by valrod33:
Last 5 super bowl champions

Green Bay (O)5.7 (D)6.2
NO(O) 6.2 (D)5.6
Pitt(O)4.9 (D)4.7
Giants(O)5.1 (D)4.9
Colts(O)5.8(D)5.4

Are you sure about those?

I just checked them on NFL.com and they say the Packers last season in the regular season had 5.7 on offense and 5.1 on defense, which would barely qualify. But those would be different numbers from yours. Also, the Steelers had 4.9 on offense in that year, but an incredibly good 3.9 on defense according to my check. That would also mesh with my memory of the Steelers having a ridiculously good defense that year and all the hype accompanying with it.

So something is odd here: I believe the numbers I checked are correct, but maybe there is an error somewhere I have not considered? How did you find yours?

But regardless, even with my numbers, Cole barely had a weak trend. If yours hold up, it gets even more ridiculously wrong. So in any way you slice it, he talks out of his ass

Val, maybe your stats are just on the SB game, or that post season.

I can't believe Cole would be allowed to get away with such a blatant lie

Originally posted by NoOffseason:

Originally posted by valrod33:
Last 5 super bowl champions

Green Bay (O)5.7 (D)6.2
NO(O) 6.2 (D)5.6
Pitt(O)4.9 (D)4.7
Giants(O)5.1 (D)4.9
Colts(O)5.8(D)5.4

Are you sure about those?

I just checked them on NFL.com and they say the Packers last season in the regular season had 5.7 on offense and 5.1 on defense, which would barely qualify. But those would be different numbers from yours. Also, the Steelers had 4.9 on offense in that year, but an incredibly good 3.9 on defense according to my check. That would also mesh with my memory of the Steelers having a ridiculously good defense that year and all the hype accompanying with it.

So something is odd here: I believe the numbers I checked are correct, but maybe there is an error somewhere I have not considered? How did you find yours?

But regardless, even with my numbers, Cole barely had a weak trend. If yours hold up, it gets even more ridiculously wrong. So in any way you slice it, he talks out of his ass

I used this site and I was wrong on the packers and steelers stats. I have no idea how i got my original numbers. checked again and it should be
http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/yards-per-play

Green Bay 5.7 and 5.1
No 6.2 and 5.6
Pitt 4.9 and 4.1
Giants 5.1 and 4.9
Colts 5.8 and 5.4


I was wrong