Niners vs Cowboys

[Melencause]

Which again isn't good against a super soft defensive front. If that stat was against the Cardinals or Carolina Seattle etc... that would be impressive and a good indicator... but against Dallas? One of the worst run defenses in the league... nope.

You just shifted the goalposts. You argued that the 9ers run defense was "stuffed...across the entire game." Now that the fallacy of that argument has been pointed out with actual statistics from the game, you've blithely decided that the new argument is that it doesn't count because the Cowboys run defense is bad.

You're now arguing 5.0 YPC would only count if it was against one of the top run defenses in the league? By this logic Marshawn's day against the Packers also doesn't count, as last year the Cowboys were 3rd worse in the leage against the run with 4.8 YPC, and the Packers were fourth worse against the run with 4.7 YPC, and were playing on thursday without the core of their run defense in BJ Raji.

I dunno. I think Marshawn's game counts. Maybe you don't.

Agreed with Marvin. This was my last post on this one. 9ers have some things to work on, as does every team, but this convo ain't going anywhere

Popeye you can't even find the goalposts right now. Only getting 5.0 ypc against the worst rushing stoppers in the game IS getting stuffed. You also need to learn a little bit about statistics and the usefulness of outliers. Gore averaged 4.1 Hyde averaged 7.something. Do you understand how averages work and how, in such small samples for such small numbers, 1 outlier can throw off an average?

I mean this is basic statistics like 8th grade stuff.

You are confused again. I said 5.0 would be impressive against the best run defenses in the league but not against the worst. I never said it didn't count? I also don't think Marshawn's game was particularly impressive with the packers injuries. I thought Marshawn broke alot of tackles but like anything in sports it was a team effort. I think Marshawn is going ot look ALOT better this year.... not necessarily because he is better but because out O-line is improved. But, again this has nothing to do with the Seahawks as much as you two can't seem to separate those two.

This isn't about comparing the Seahawks to the Niners kiddos. Its about comparing the Niners to the Cowboys... How is this confusing to you both?

Actually, Chicago and Atlanta were worse. GB averaged only 0.2 yards per carry less than Dallas last year in opp YPC. Sort of undermines the point you're making imo. I agree that Lynch's stats against a small d-line without Raji aren't very telling though.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/y ... 13/opp.htm

If I were SF I'd feel really good about the running game moving forward. Hyde looks terrific. The pass blocking however... not so much.

Dallas was the 28th worst against the Run last year. That also doesn't take into account losing one of their better linebackers this season. Either way bottom 5 run defense isn't something to brag about running over.

 

[Melencause]

Laloosh --

Just to be clear, I didn't introduce Lynch to downplay his game. I introduced him to make the rhetorical point that discounting above average performance simply because it's against below average competition isn't a good strategy to argue that a player or unit was ineffective.

Sure it is. The point is to find a true average. Above average stats against below average play isn't a true average.
This is why they have stats adjusted based on who you are playing. Not to mention that my argument was that the unit wasn't impressive. Not ineffective. Anything is effective against Dallas. Stop trying to skew my words. Impressive and Ineffective both start with I but in no way have the same meaning.

Technically, SF's run game was "above average" because they averaged more than 4.7 YPC (Dallas's number for 2013), no?

An average performance would have been to rush for 4.7, not 5.0. Below average would be a number less than 4.7. I'm not a statistician but that seems like simple logic.

Well if we want to actually get logical we can't predict this season based on last season at all. "One does not make the other" A doesn't equal B.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

You also need to learn a little bit about statistics

Heh.

FWIW I've taught both undergraduate and graduate level statistics.

FWIWx2 while you were typing this by chance I was running post-estimation tests for a fixed-effects model of 2.3 million bands nested in 332 meto areas.

Look for land, sailor.

This is pretty funny. :lol: I have a question for you, though. Your opinion on it.

If you see black come up 10 times in a row on a roulette board, do you think red's more likely to hit on the next spin?

[youtube]NbInZ5oJ0bc[/youtube]

 

[Laloosh]

Laloosh --

Just to be clear, I didn't introduce Lynch to downplay his game. I introduced him to make the rhetorical point that discounting above average performance simply because it's against below average competition isn't a good strategy to argue that a player or unit was ineffective.

Sure it is. The point is to find a true average. Above average stats against below average play isn't a true average.
This is why they have stats adjusted based on who you are playing. Not to mention that my argument was that the unit wasn't impressive. Not ineffective. Anything is effective against Dallas. Stop trying to skew my words. Impressive and Ineffective both start with I but in no way have the same meaning.

Technically, SF's run game was "above average" because they averaged more than 4.7 YPC (Dallas's number for 2013), no?

An average performance would have been to rush for 4.7, not 5.0. Below average would be a number less than 4.7. I'm not a statistician but that seems like simple logic.

Well if we want to actually get logical we can't predict this season based on last season at all. "One does not make the other" A doesn't equal B.

You can state that our offensive line is better based on a small sample size without using stats but Niner fans can't say that their run game was not "ineffective" by using stats based on a small sample size?

Logic cannot be used when comparing 2014 week 1 stats to 2013 season averages but generalities about 2013 results can be used to dismiss a 2014 week 1 performance by the SF run game?

Okay, I'm pretty sure that I'm done with this one as well. Hate it when I have to agree with Niner fans.

 

[Melencause]

You can state that our offensive line is better based on a small sample size without using stats but Niner fans can't say that their run game was not "ineffective" by using stats based on a small sample size?

Logic cannot be used when comparing 2014 week 1 stats to 2013 season averages but generalities about 2013 results can be used to dismiss a 2014 week 1 performance by the SF run game?

Okay, I'm pretty sure that I'm done with this one as well. Hate it when I have to agree with Niner fans.

There are basic expectations you have to follow when you are comparing un-quantifiable medium.

Our offensive line is better...presently I can't state they will continue to be better. Its an observation, not everything is fact. Okung and Unger can be injured again. No one knows what will happen but at a snapshot in time over all our O-Line is better. At some point you have to defer to SME's. As I said previously, my opinion was based on the observation of one game. I don't think the 49'ers offense or defense looked good in one game. I thought the Cowboys offense(mainly romo) and defense looked horrendous also. It is impossible to prove me wrong, as I offered an opinion of what I viewed in a game.

The 49er's defense didn't look great, as they allowed quite a bit more rushing yards than I would have expected. I can't get a fair assessment of their pass defense as Romo was too horrifically inaccurate to give them a fair shake.

The 49er's offense didn't look smooth at all. They were helped out tremendously by Dallas' terrible defense.

You can disagree with me but you need to provide viable reasons as to why the offense or defense looked snappy. To do so you need to take in the competition you were facing into the equation.

You 3 have a simple problem of being unable to support your own argument. All you seem to want to do is try to attack my argument. My argument is in defense of my opinion which is more than valid based on the evidence presented during the game. You can have a different opinion if you want, but you can't tell me I'm wrong... unless... you can prove it. (Which you 3 have shown to be incapable/unwilling to do.)

Rationalize your arguments and try again please. But, the fake exasperation just because you can't rationalize your points effectively is tiresome.

 

[Laloosh]

You can state that our offensive line is better based on a small sample size without using stats but Niner fans can't say that their run game was not "ineffective" by using stats based on a small sample size?

Logic cannot be used when comparing 2014 week 1 stats to 2013 season averages but generalities about 2013 results can be used to dismiss a 2014 week 1 performance by the SF run game?

Okay, I'm pretty sure that I'm done with this one as well. Hate it when I have to agree with Niner fans.

There are basic expectations you have to follow when you are comparing un-quantifiable medium.

Our offensive line is better...presently I can't state they will continue to be better. Its an observation, not everything is fact. Okung and Unger can be injured again. No one knows what will happen but at a snapshot in time over all our O-Line is better. At some point you have to defer to SME's. As I said previously, my opinion was based on the observation of one game. I don't think the 49'ers offense or defense looked good in one game. I thought the Cowboys offense(mainly romo) and defense looked horrendous also. It is impossible to prove me wrong, as I offered an opinion of what I viewed in a game.

The 49er's defense didn't look great, as they allowed quite a bit more rushing yards than I would have expected. I can't get a fair assessment of their pass defense as Romo was too horrifically inaccurate to give them a fair shake.

The 49er's offense didn't look smooth at all. They were helped out tremendously by Dallas' terrible defense.

You can disagree with me but you need to provide viable reasons as to why the offense or defense looked snappy. To do so you need to take in the competition you were facing into the equation.

You 3 have a simple problem of being unable to support your own argument. All you seem to want to do is try to attack my argument. My argument is in defense of my opinion which is more than valid based on the evidence presented during the game. You can have a different opinion if you want, but you can't tell me I'm wrong... unless... you can prove it. (Which you 3 have shown to be incapable/unwilling to do.)

Rationalize your arguments and try again please. But, the fake exasperation just because you can't rationalize your points effectively is tiresome.

Its like you don't understand basic football. Pushing a ball 1-2 yards... doesn't really tell a story of greatness. However having your run game stuffed mostly against a terrible Dline across an entire game does.
...

You didn't simply say "I wasn't impressed". You made a claim about what happened that appeared to be based on an opinion skewed by bias.

Niner fans provided actual numbers that effectively rebut your claim. 5.0 YPC over 23 carries is far from being "stuffed mostly" based on my homeristic, Seattle loving "opinion".

Your "opinion" based on "observation" strikes me as a less rational conclusion than the one provided by Marvin and Popeye.

It is my "opinion", based on "observation", that you have a hard time admitting that you might be wrong.

 

[Melencause]

You didn't simply say "I wasn't impressed". You made a claim about what happened that appeared to be based on an opinion skewed by bias.

Niner fans provided actual numbers that effectively rebut your claim. 5.0 YPC over 23 carries is far from being "stuffed mostly" based on my homeristic, Seattle loving "opinion".

Your "opinion" based on "observation" strikes me as a less rational conclusion than the one provided by Marvin and Popeye.

It is my "opinion", based on "observation", that you have a hard time admitting that you might be wrong.

5ypc against Dallas is being stuffed especially on a run first team. Especially when skewed by a large outlier.
Hyde had 7 carries. Gore averaged 4.1ypc. Gore's average was only that high because of 1 breakaway for a rather large run. The running game is about consistency 1 breakaway for 20 yards doesn't tell the tale but does inflate averages. Gore's runs was a high of 20, with one 12yard, Outliers...simple concept you would think you'd be able to understand it.

Also telling were the numbers that niners fans posted. If you looked up some information you would see some missing data. This is called cherry-picking.
Posting numbers is nice... try examining those numbers next time. You seem to be picking sides... yet you won't get the facts yourself. Are you arguing just to argue? Your opinion is uninformed..sadly. That is your right however.


Make a Normal Distribution out of this lol. In many cases mean data is more effective than averages. Sometimes a simple average doesn't tell the most accurate story... basic stats....smh

1st and 10 at SF 20 (12:59) F.Gore left tackle to SF 40 for 20 yards (B.Carter).
1st and 10 at DAL 46 (10:52) (Shotgun) F.Gore left tackle to DAL 43 for 3 yards (D.Coleman).
1st and 10 at SF 47 (2:48) F.Gore left tackle to SF 48 for 1 yard (R.McClain).
1st and 10 at DAL 30 (1:25) (Shotgun) F.Gore left end to DAL 24 for 6 yards (S.Moore; M.Claiborne).
2nd and 10 at SF 20 (14:54) F.Gore up the middle to SF 20 for no gain (J.Durant).
2nd and 4 at SF 16 (11:32) (Shotgun) F.Gore left tackle to SF 16 for no gain (J.Durant).
1st and 10 at SF 30 (9:52) F.Gore left tackle to SF 34 for 4 yards (B.Carter; R.McClain).
2nd and 6 at SF 34 (9:10) F.Gore left tackle to SF 35 for 1 yard (D.Coleman).
2nd and 3 at SF 27 (15:00) F.Gore up the middle to SF 27 for no gain (J.Durant). PENALTY on SF-J.Looney, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at SF 30.
1st and 10 at SF 36 (13:20) F.Gore left tackle to SF 34 for -2 yards (J.Mincey; N.Hayden).
1st and 10 at SF 41 (9:53) F.Gore right tackle to SF 47 for 6 yards (B.Carr).
1st and 10 at DAL 38 (8:32) F.Gore right end to DAL 26 for 12 yards (J.Wilcox, B.Church).
2nd and 6 at DAL 22 (7:12) F.Gore right guard to DAL 22 for no gain (R.McClain).
1st and 10 at DAL 48 (1:51) F.Gore right guard to DAL 44 for 4 yards (R.McClain).
2nd and 6 at DAL 44 (1:47) F.Gore right guard to DAL 41 for 3 yards (R.McClain).
3rd and 3 at DAL 41 (1:42) F.Gore right tackle to DAL 36 for 5 yards (B.Church; A.Hitchens).


Also fun how a 49ers fan left out series like this one. If I was being a homer trying to skew information i'd prob leave a 4 and out "out". also.

D.Bailey kicks 65 yards from DAL 35 to end zone, Touchback. Ball was kicked out of the end zone. 28 3
1st and 10 at SF 20 (15:00) C.Kaepernick pass incomplete short left to M.Crabtree (B.Carter). Pass was knocked down at the line of scrimmage.
2nd and 10 at SF 20 (14:54) F.Gore up the middle to SF 20 for no gain (J.Durant).
3rd and 10 at SF 20 (14:16) (Shotgun) C.Kaepernick pass incomplete short middle to V.Davis (B.Church). Pass was broken up at the SF 32
4th and 10 at SF 20 (14:10) (Punt formation) A.Lee punts 51 yards to DAL 29, Center-K.Nelson. D.Harris MUFFS catch, and recovers at DAL 30. D.Harris to DAL 30 for no gain (M.Wilhoite).



1st and 10 at SF 10 (12:11) (Shotgun) C.Hyde right end to SF 16 for 6 yards (B.Carr, J.Wilcox). 28 3
2nd and 4 at SF 16 (11:32) (Shotgun) F.Gore left tackle to SF 16 for no gain (J.Durant).
Timeout #1 by SF at 10:46.
3rd and 4 at SF 16 (10:46) (Shotgun) C.Kaepernick pass short left to A.Boldin to SF 25 for 9 yards (M.Claiborne). Pass complete on a "button hook."
1st and 10 at SF 25 (10:00) (Shotgun) C.Kaepernick pass incomplete short right to B.Lloyd. PENALTY on DAL-B.Carter, Defensive Holding, 5 yards, enforced at SF 25 - No Play.
1st and 10 at SF 30 (9:52) F.Gore left tackle to SF 34 for 4 yards (B.Carter; R.McClain).
2nd and 6 at SF 34 (9:10) F.Gore left tackle to SF 35 for 1 yard (D.Coleman).
3rd and 5 at SF 35 (8:25) (Shotgun) C.Kaepernick pass short left to S.Johnson to SF 47 for 12 yards (M.Claiborne). Pass complete on a "skinny post."
1st and 10 at SF 47 (7:46) C.Kaepernick pass incomplete deep left to V.Davis.
2nd and 10 at SF 47 (7:44) (Shotgun) C.Kaepernick pass intended for M.Crabtree INTERCEPTED by J.Durant [T.Crawford] at DAL 47. J.Durant to 50 for 3 yards. FUMBLES, RECOVERED by SF-M.Crabtree at SF 43. M.Crabtree to SF 43 for no gain (B.Carr). The Replay Official challenged the incomplete pass ruling, and the play was REVERSED. (Shotgun) C.Kaepernick pass incomplete to M.Crabtree (J.Durant) [T.Crawford].
3rd and 10 at SF 47 (7:38) (Shotgun) C.Kaepernick pass incomplete short left to B.Lloyd. Pass incomplete sideline; Durant closest defender at the Dallas 40.
4th and 10 at SF 47 (7:33) (Punt formation) A.Lee punts 40 yards to DAL 13, Center-K.Nelson, fair catch by D.Harris.
SF DRIVE TOTALS: 9 plays, 37 yards, 4:46



D.Bailey kicks 65 yards from DAL 35 to end zone, Touchback. 28 10
1st and 10 at SF 20 29) (Shotgun) C.Kaepernick pass short middle to A.Boldin to SF 27 for 7 yards (J.Durant).
END QUARTER 3
4th Quarter Play-by-Play
San Francisco at 15:00 SFO DAL
2nd and 3 at SF 27 (15:00) F.Gore up the middle to SF 27 for no gain (J.Durant). PENALTY on SF-J.Looney, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at SF 30. 28 10
2nd and 10 at SF 20 (14:35) C.Kaepernick pass short right to V.Davis to SF 27 for 7 yards (S.Moore).
3rd and 3 at SF 27 (13:49) (Shotgun) C.Kaepernick pass short right to A.Boldin pushed ob at SF 36 for 9 yards (B.Carr). Pass complete on a "corner route."
1st and 10 at SF 36 (13:20) F.Gore left tackle to SF 34 for -2 yards (J.Mincey; N.Hayden).
2nd and 12 at SF 34 (12:43) (Shotgun) C.Hyde up the middle to SF 39 for 5 yards (R.McClain).
3rd and 7 at SF 39 (12:00) (Shotgun) C.Kaepernick pass short left to V.Davis to DAL 29 for 32 yards (J.Wilcox). PENALTY on SF-B.Lloyd, Offensive Pass Interference, 10 yards, enforced at SF 39 - No Play.
3rd and 17 at SF 29 (11:28) (Shotgun) C.Kaepernick scrambles up the middle to SF 37 for 8 yards (J.Durant).
4th and 9 at SF 37 (10:51) (Punt formation) A.Lee punts 46 yards to DAL 17, Center-K.Nelson. D.Harris MUFFS catch, ball out of bounds at DAL 9.
SF DRIVE TOTALS: 7 plays, 17 yards, 4:47

 

[Wagon12]

You can state that our offensive line is better based on a small sample size without using stats but Niner fans can't say that their run game was not "ineffective" by using stats based on a small sample size?

Logic cannot be used when comparing 2014 week 1 stats to 2013 season averages but generalities about 2013 results can be used to dismiss a 2014 week 1 performance by the SF run game?

Okay, I'm pretty sure that I'm done with this one as well. Hate it when I have to agree with Niner fans.

There are basic expectations you have to follow when you are comparing un-quantifiable medium.

Our offensive line is better...presently I can't state they will continue to be better. Its an observation, not everything is fact. Okung and Unger can be injured again. No one knows what will happen but at a snapshot in time over all our O-Line is better. At some point you have to defer to SME's. As I said previously, my opinion was based on the observation of one game. I don't think the 49'ers offense or defense looked good in one game. I thought the Cowboys offense(mainly romo) and defense looked horrendous also. It is impossible to prove me wrong, as I offered an opinion of what I viewed in a game.

The 49er's defense didn't look great, as they allowed quite a bit more rushing yards than I would have expected. I can't get a fair assessment of their pass defense as Romo was too horrifically inaccurate to give them a fair shake.

The 49er's offense didn't look smooth at all. They were helped out tremendously by Dallas' terrible defense.

You can disagree with me but you need to provide viable reasons as to why the offense or defense looked snappy. To do so you need to take in the competition you were facing into the equation.

You 3 have a simple problem of being unable to support your own argument. All you seem to want to do is try to attack my argument. My argument is in defense of my opinion which is more than valid based on the evidence presented during the game. You can have a different opinion if you want, but you can't tell me I'm wrong... unless... you can prove it. (Which you 3 have shown to be incapable/unwilling to do.)

Rationalize your arguments and try again please. But, the fake exasperation just because you can't rationalize your points effectively is tiresome.

Its like you don't understand basic football. Pushing a ball 1-2 yards... doesn't really tell a story of greatness. However having your run game stuffed mostly against a terrible Dline across an entire game does.
...

You didn't simply say "I wasn't impressed". You made a claim about what happened that appeared to be based on an opinion skewed by bias.

Niner fans provided actual numbers that effectively rebut your claim. 5.0 YPC over 23 carries is far from being "stuffed mostly" based on my homeristic, Seattle loving "opinion".

Your "opinion" based on "observation" strikes me as a less rational conclusion than the one provided by Marvin and Popeye.

It is my "opinion", based on "observation", that you have a hard time admitting that you might be wrong.

Wow... never thought I would see two of our own arguing about a Niners performance... LOL

That being said, Laloosh, I believe you have nailed it. Typical passive/aggressive post that since got completely debunked by numbers and facts, and then the back-peddling commences...

Anyway, moving on...

 

[Laloosh]

Melencause, please define, "stuffed".

I think a definition is required because copy/paste from the play log isn't giving me wood.

How many yards, on any given play, must be gained to get out of the "stuffed" range? Does down and distance matter?

Here's a more legible play log in case you need it...

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... r_by=yards

 

[Melencause]

You can state that our offensive line is better based on a small sample size without using stats but Niner fans can't say that their run game was not "ineffective" by using stats based on a small sample size?

Logic cannot be used when comparing 2014 week 1 stats to 2013 season averages but generalities about 2013 results can be used to dismiss a 2014 week 1 performance by the SF run game?

Okay, I'm pretty sure that I'm done with this one as well. Hate it when I have to agree with Niner fans.

There are basic expectations you have to follow when you are comparing un-quantifiable medium.

Our offensive line is better...presently I can't state they will continue to be better. Its an observation, not everything is fact. Okung and Unger can be injured again. No one knows what will happen but at a snapshot in time over all our O-Line is better. At some point you have to defer to SME's. As I said previously, my opinion was based on the observation of one game. I don't think the 49'ers offense or defense looked good in one game. I thought the Cowboys offense(mainly romo) and defense looked horrendous also. It is impossible to prove me wrong, as I offered an opinion of what I viewed in a game.

The 49er's defense didn't look great, as they allowed quite a bit more rushing yards than I would have expected. I can't get a fair assessment of their pass defense as Romo was too horrifically inaccurate to give them a fair shake.

The 49er's offense didn't look smooth at all. They were helped out tremendously by Dallas' terrible defense.

You can disagree with me but you need to provide viable reasons as to why the offense or defense looked snappy. To do so you need to take in the competition you were facing into the equation.

You 3 have a simple problem of being unable to support your own argument. All you seem to want to do is try to attack my argument. My argument is in defense of my opinion which is more than valid based on the evidence presented during the game. You can have a different opinion if you want, but you can't tell me I'm wrong... unless... you can prove it. (Which you 3 have shown to be incapable/unwilling to do.)

Rationalize your arguments and try again please. But, the fake exasperation just because you can't rationalize your points effectively is tiresome.

Its like you don't understand basic football. Pushing a ball 1-2 yards... doesn't really tell a story of greatness. However having your run game stuffed mostly against a terrible Dline across an entire game does.
...

You didn't simply say "I wasn't impressed". You made a claim about what happened that appeared to be based on an opinion skewed by bias.

Niner fans provided actual numbers that effectively rebut your claim. 5.0 YPC over 23 carries is far from being "stuffed mostly" based on my homeristic, Seattle loving "opinion".

Your "opinion" based on "observation" strikes me as a less rational conclusion than the one provided by Marvin and Popeye.

It is my "opinion", based on "observation", that you have a hard time admitting that you might be wrong.

Wow... never thought I would see two of our own arguing about a Niners performance... LOL

That being said, Laloosh, I believe you have nailed it. Typical passive/aggressive post that since got completely debunked by numbers and facts, and then the back-peddling commences...

Anyway, moving on...

Show me how haha. Linking numbers doesnt define proof. Also there is nothing passive about my posting.. at all.

 

[Laloosh]

Show me how haha. Linking numbers doesnt define proof. Also there is nothing passive about my posting.. at all.

Provide your definition and I'll see what I can do. While you're at it. Please define, "mostly". Is that like, more often than not?

That should help to frame how we can determine success or failure on any given run play.

 

[Popeyejones]

You also need to learn a little bit about statistics

Heh.

FWIW I've taught both undergraduate and graduate level statistics.

FWIWx2 while you were typing this by chance I was running post-estimation tests for a fixed-effects model of 2.3 million bands nested in 332 meto areas.

Look for land, sailor.

This is pretty funny. :lol: I have a question for you, though. Your opinion on it.

If you see black come up 10 times in a row on a roulette board, do you think red's more likely to hit on the next spin?

Independent events, my man.

That said, for the real world application you have to ask yourself if there's greater or less than a 0.07% chance that the wheel is broken or rigged. So, if you're at the Wynn bet on whatever the hell you want, bit if you're in a back alley in Tijuana you might want to think about betting on black (non-independance of events). In neither context would you predict a red, though.

 

[Scottemojo]

The Niners did not get stuffed.

Did they underperform vs that D, whom I suspect will get slaughtered all year? Yes, yes they did. Except for Hyde. He kicked ass. And Vernon Davis juggled his way to fantasy greatness too.

 

[Melencause]

Melencause, please define, "stuffed".

I think a definition is required because copy/paste from the play log isn't giving me wood.

How many yards, on any given play, must be gained to get out of the "stuffed" range? Does down and distance matter?

Here's a more legible play log in case you need it...

Distance doesn't matter much its not a telling stat. Breaking through or away from the defense matters... the yards you get after... that's just stat stuffing. Just like passing yards... not really indicative of great play. What matters more is catching vs drops and catching in traffic etc. Its competition. If your catch is competitive it matters. Like Calvin Johnson's first touchdown the other day... granted he probably would have caught it if contested but he was so incredibly wide open... and it wasn't indicative of his ability but just how badly the secondary failed.

Stuffed is a loose term and how I used it was they didn't play as well as I thought they would... which was described in my original post. Gore has 2 break aways for good yardage but the vast majority of his rushing was under 4 yards with a surprising amount at no gain or a loss. I'm not really going into Hyde at all because 7 carries in your career isn't enough to get any impression. I think the 49ers being a run first team should have had way more impressive rushing stats, and being a great defense still allowed 130 yards rushing.
Not impressed... not saying they won't be good/better just that this game did nothing to impress me. (Only the 8th time I said that) Somehow that isn't okay with marvin tho. LOL

 

[Laloosh]

Plenty of us weren't impressed and said so. In short, you embellished and rather than say that you misspoke, decided to argue a point that you knew to be inaccurate.

Gotcha.

 

[Melencause]

Plenty of us weren't impressed and said so. In short, you embellished and rather than say that you misspoke, decided to argue a point that you knew to be inaccurate.

Gotcha.

nah

 

[Laloosh]

Plenty of us weren't impressed and said so. In short, you embellished and rather than say that you misspoke, decided to argue a point that you knew to be inaccurate.

Gotcha.

Deleted for attacking poster

I used the term loosely... The way I used it is that you "stuffed" your foot into your mouth and then continued talking like it wasn't there.

 

[Marvin49]

Laloosh..I applaud the effort, but its really pointless. Goalpost keeps moving. Niners were stuffed and then when numbers say otherwise he says they weren't as impressive as they SHOULD have been. Anytime you provide a fact or a stat he just refuses to acknowledge the statistic and says you've provided nothing.

IE, he makes a statement (Niners were stuffed, time of possession an indicator of underperformance) and then when you thoroughly discredit the notion he moves the argument on you and says that was the argument all along. Its like nailing down Jello.

Even when fans of his own team challenge him he refuses to give in because he refuses to admit he's wrong.

I know you are doing it for you and certainly not for me, but I appreciate it nonetheless. He's just a lost cause. He will most likely go into another load of BS about this post that will be full of assumptions that he'll call facts and then say all of us can't comprehend what he's saying. He'll be right too. We can't comprehend nonsense.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Independent events, my man.

That said, for the real world application you have to ask yourself if there's greater or less than a 0.07% chance that the wheel is broken or rigged. So, if you're at the Wynn bet on whatever the hell you want, bit if you're in a back alley in Tijuana you might want to think about betting on black (non-independance of events). In neither context would you predict a red, though.

I was actually thinking about chaos theory and the randomness you tend to see in roulette "streaks" in regards to the question posed. Yes, the spins are independent. Doesn't change the fact that you see a few of one color then a few of the other alternating FAR more than you see 10 of either color in a row, despite identical statistical likelihood of both outcomes. Know what I'm saying?

 

[Melencause]

Laloosh..I applaud the effort, but its really pointless. Goalpost keeps moving. Niners were stuffed and then when numbers say otherwise he says they weren't as impressive as they SHOULD have been. Anytime you provide a fact or a stat he just refuses to acknowledge the statistic and says you've provided nothing.

IE, he makes a statement (Niners were stuffed, time of possession an indicator of underperformance) and then when you thoroughly discredit the notion he moves the argument on you and says that was the argument all along. Its like nailing down Jello.

Even when fans of his own team challenge him he refuses to give in because he refuses to admit he's wrong.

I know you are doing it for you and certainly not for me, but I appreciate it nonetheless. He's just a lost cause. He will most likely go into another load of BS about this post that will be full of assumptions that he'll call facts and then say all of us can't comprehend what he's saying. He'll be right too. We can't comprehend nonsense.

You can claim you have facts...but facts doesn't mean you have evidence. No goal posts have been moved you just failed to properly identify what the goal posts were from the beginning. Its pathetic really Aristotle is rolling over in his grave with your improper use of logical fallacy.

Time of possession is a definite indicator of under performance of at least one side of your team , can you guess which? Can you guess how it varies on a throw first or a run first team? Am I arguing with a toddler?

I can't control your inability to read or think. Make a logical point and we can have a discussion you are just providing inane banter at this point.

I made a reasonable observation based on what I saw in a game. You tried to tell me my opinion was wrong with insufficient evidence.