NFL 2012 Week 14 - We want a good snow game !

[Mexal]

where does that come from?

Profootballfocus - by comparison, RG3's adjusted accuracy is 80% and Wilson's is 76%.

Yeah, I don't think stats will count for much in OROY. If Luck gets the Colts to the playoffs and RGIII doesn't, he wins. Might not have played better to deserve it, but he'll get it nonetheless.

Dalton didn't win it over Newton despite getting his team to the playoffs. Stats matter more than anything.

[Independent George]

PPP's second annual poll on Americans' favorite NFL teams finds a tie at the top. 12% each pick the Cowboys and Packers as their favorite team, followed by the Broncos and Bears at 10%, Giants and Steelers at 8%, Patriots at 6%, Saints at 5%, and Redskins at 4%.

...................................

There's still no contest when it comes to the country's most hated NFL team. 18% pick the Cowboys to 11% for the Bears, 10% for the Patriots, 8% for the Broncos, 7% for the Steelers, 5% for the Redskins, and 4% each for the Packers, Giants, and Saints. Hating the Cowboys is one of the rare things that can bring Americans together across party lines- Democrats, Republicans, and independents all say that they're their less favorite franchise.

The two are related: division rivalry aside, the biggest reason I hate the Cowboys is because their fandom is wildly over-represented with the absolute worst combination of loud, dumb, and bandwagon. Philly fans might be obnoxious and violent, but by and large I can at least respect them as true fans of their team.

Every time I meet a gathering of Dallas fans, at least 40% of them can't tell me who their starting OL or their nickel DB are. Dallas fans tend to be inch-deep and mile-wide, but somehow try to make up for that by being loud and obnoxious.

It's not a Texan thing, either, because the majority of Longhorns fans I've met have been happy to expound at length about next year's recruiting class. I respect that. I admire that. Something about Dallas, though, just attracts loud idiots whose sole knowledge of their team comes from Sportscenter (no disrespect intended for Howdyphillip, to whom this description clearly does not apply).

[awesome possum]

Dalton didn't win it over Newton despite getting his team to the playoffs. Stats matter more than anything.

That speaks more to the type of numbers Newton put up as a rookie. And he, like Luck, was the more hyped of the two (though RGIII is closer in hype to Luck than Dalton was to Newton).

[Bronn Stone]

Dalton didn't win it over Newton despite getting his team to the playoffs. Stats matter more than anything.

Dalton toiled away quietly and attracted no attention. Buzz mattered there, not the stats. The statistical difference between Luck and RG3 might send the FO crowd into a frenzy, but it isn't enough to turn the general voter. I think if the vote happened today, RG3 would win narrowly. But if the Redskins fade and Luck marches on (which I expect), I would anticipate a reversal.

[Kalbear]

That speaks more to the type of numbers Newton put up as a rookie. And he, like Luck, was the more hyped of the two (though RGIII is closer in hype to Luck than Dalton was to Newton).

It's more to do with the fact that in the NFL you can't possibly succeed if you're a ginger.

[Mexal]

Dalton toiled away quietly and attracted no attention. Buzz mattered there, not the stats. The statistical difference between Luck and RG3 might send the FO crowd into a frenzy, but it isn't enough to turn the general voter. I think if the vote happened today, RG3 would win narrowly. But if the Redskins fade and Luck marches on (which I expect), I would anticipate a reversal.

Well yea. Dalton was the 5th QB taken, a 2nd rounder and played on the Bengals. I'm not surprised he didn't win. I'm just saying stats matter more than wins. He had everything going against him that you possibly could (ginger, average arm strength, average height, on a small market team, not a first rounder and no pre-draft hype).

I don't think the Skins will fade (at worst, they'll win 8 games) and I don't think Luck marches on easily. He still plays the Texans twice and the Titans next week. Those are games he could and probably should lose (maybe not the Titans but I can see them beating the Colts).

Either way, we'll see. Still think if Luck won, it'd be wrong.

[Bronn Stone]

Better Dead than Red!

I think the Colts end up 11-5. The last game might matter to them but not to the Texans. Houston already has the division and the HFA tie-breaker over Denver, but is likely to lose it to New England this week. That would mean the Pats either lose this week or one of the next two (SF and @Jax, former much more likely of course).

[Mexal]

Better Dead than Red!

I think the Colts end up 11-5. The last game might matter to them but not to the Texans. Houston already has the division and the HFA tie-breaker over Denver, but is likely to lose it to New England this week. That would mean the Pats either lose this week or one of the next two (SF and @Jax, former much more likely of course).

The problem with the Colts is that they're not good enough for me to definitively say they'll win a game. I can see them losing every game or potentially winning them. I think 10-6 is the most likely result. They're not good enough to be 11-5.

[Jaime L]

Dalton toiled away quietly and attracted no attention. Buzz mattered there, not the stats. The statistical difference between Luck and RG3 might send the FO crowd into a frenzy, but it isn't enough to turn the general voter. I think if the vote happened today, RG3 would win narrowly. But if the Redskins fade and Luck marches on (which I expect), I would anticipate a reversal.

Hope you're wrong about the Skins fading, but I agree with the rest.

I think if the Colts win 10, and with Luck's hype (as opposed to Dalton's), he wins the award. It's a little like the Cabrera vs. Trout voting for MVP - the old school sportswriters will focus on traditional stats and which guy made the playoffs and ignore the kind of stats which are better tools to isolate the guy's performance from everything around him. And even where RG3's traditional stats are better, I can already see the kind of "RG3 puts up gaudy stats, but Luck just cares about winning" type false dichotomies which I can just feel brewing down the pipe. I shudder in anticipation.

Like the Cabrera vs. Trout voting, I don't think it's a travesty if it goes the other way. There's more than enough reasons there for why you can make a completely rational, very strong case for Luck (or even Wilson). I just think there's less evidence in each of those directions. I try to be as much as possible a pure 'let's isolate the guy's performance from everything around him as best we can and really try to figure out who is better" guy. Here it's kinda impossible, because I'm obviously biased, but I think even if I was able to be perfectly objective I'd still say RGIII has had the better rookie year once you separate out all the noise.

[Kalbear]

They don't have to be good enough; they just have to be playing worse teams than them. Which is pretty possible, given that they play the Titans (remember how we thought the Titans might be a good team this year?)

[Bronn Stone]

Like the Cabrera vs. Trout voting, I don't think it's a travesty if it goes the other way. There's more than enough reasons there for why you can make a completely rational, very strong case for Luck (or even Wilson). I just think there's less evidence in each of those directions. I try to be as much as possible a pure 'let's isolate the guy's performance from everything around him as best we can and really try to figure out who is better" guy. Here it's kinda impossible, because I'm obviously biased, but I think even if I was able to be perfectly objective I'd still say RGIII has had the better rookie year once you separate out all the noise.

I don't very often quote a comment just to say I agree wholeheartedly, but this one really nails it, IMO. The difference to me is that the Colts were just so bad last year. But part of me also points out they were expected to be good with Peyton and the two wins thing was as much an indicator of gutless play as it was bad QB play (though they had both in spades).

And anything that helps get this thread to 400 posts faster so we can lose that gawdawful thread subtitle is good for me.

[Mexal]

They don't have to be good enough; they just have to be playing worse teams than them. Which is pretty possible, given that they play the Titans (remember how we thought the Titans might be a good team this year?)

But my point is that worse teams can still win games and with the Colts and their inconsistency, it's easy to see the Titans, in a division game, playing the Colts tough to spoil them. I mean, the Colts only beat the Titans in overtime the first time they played. Who's to say that the Titans don't play them strong again? My point was simply that the Colts aren't good enough in my eyes for me to look at that game and definitively say that Colts will win.

[Fez]

Shit.

After mulling the most important decision of his head-coaching career, Rex Ryan decided to stick with embattled starting quarterback Mark Sanchez, the team announced Wednesday morning.

It's the expected move. After all, Sanchez is due $8.25 million next year guaranteed; but the dude's just done, he's horrible. McElroy might not cut it as a starter, but hell, why not see what he has? Or throw Tebow in there, if his ribs are better, see what he can do? Despite the 5% chance that footballoutsiders see for Jets to still make the playoffs, the season's basically over.

[Kalbear]

Sorry fez, but the season was over as soon as Revis got injured.

[Maithanet]

Like the Cabrera vs. Trout voting, I don't think it's a travesty if it goes the other way. There's more than enough reasons there for why you can make a completely rational, very strong case for Luck (or even Wilson). I just think there's less evidence in each of those directions. I try to be as much as possible a pure 'let's isolate the guy's performance from everything around him as best we can and really try to figure out who is better" guy. Here it's kinda impossible, because I'm obviously biased, but I think even if I was able to be perfectly objective I'd still say RGIII has had the better rookie year once you separate out all the noise.

I am not usually a stats guy, but I don't agree that you can make a completely ration, strong case for Luck based on stats. You have to use some other metric, namely your feeling that Luck has had a better year because he has led his team to more victories, and been excellent late in games. I personally think that is a poor criteria to use in determining ROY, but to each his own. I also agree that if RGIII is only good, rather than great, then Luck could outperform him statistically these coming weeks, in which case I would better understand if Luck won.

But if the vote were done today based on the first thirteen weeks, I would be very dissapointed if Griffin didn't win, and would absolutely feel robbed. I don't think it is nearly as close as Trout v Cabrera.

[Fez]

Sorry fez, but the season was over as soon as Revis got injured.

Revis is a great, great player; the best player on the Jets and probably the best CB in the league. But even without him the Jets pass defense is still ranked 4th in the country. Cromatie is also a very good CB and Kyle Wilson is definitely above average. The loss of Revis is not why the season will end poorly.

The season was going down the tubes when it on the 3-game losing streak to the Patriots, Dolphins, and Seahawks, but it wasn't really over they got embarrassed in the second game against the Patriots on Thanksgiving. And sure the Jets gave up a lot of points in those games, but that's more due to the fact that the run defense is horrible and the Jets offense can do nothing and goes on so many 3-and-outs that the defense can't get enough time to recover from the last drive.

[Reposado]

are we really saying the dalton should have competed for ROY against Newton last season? this is crazy. Dalton wasn't the best rookie on his own team. Did we not see AJ Green put up the best rookie season for a wr since 98(Moss, obviously) if i had a vote last season, it would have been green than newton, than a huuuuge gap.

this year, luck and griffin are currently close. the last 4 games could well decide it.

[Mexal]

are we really saying the dalton should have competed for ROY against Newton last season? this is crazy. Dalton wasn't the best rookie on his own team. Did we not see AJ Green put up the best rookie season for a wr since 98(Moss, obviously) if i had a vote last season, it would have been green than newton, than a huuuuge gap.

this year, luck and griffin are currently close. the last 4 games could well decide it.

No. Bronn made the point that wins matter more than stats. I used Dalton as an example of why that's not true. Then we discussed the hype factor.

[Jaime L]

I am not usually a stats guy, but I don't agree that you can make a completely ration, strong case for Luck based on stats. You have to use some other metric, namely your feeling that Luck has had a better year because he has led his team to more victories, and been excellent late in games. I personally think that is a poor criteria to use in determining ROY, but to each his own. I also agree that if RGIII is only good, rather than great, then Luck could outperform him statistically these coming weeks, in which case I would better understand if Luck won.

I don't think there is a statistical argument in favor of Luck at this point. I do think there is a rational argument you make about the guy beyond what stats can you tell you in football.

As much as I love all the new advanced metrics you see in football from FO and PFF and all the rest, there hasn't been (and won't be) a stat devised that tells you the entire story. While in baseball, stats exist that can almost perfectly pinpoint Mike Trout's value to his team vs. Miguel Cabrera, football is the ultimate team game. And there is no way to completely separate RGIII or Andrew Luck's performance out from the O-lines that block for them, the receivers that run routes for them, the RBs that pick up yards for them, the coaches that devise schemes for them and the defenses and special teams which get them the ball back.

That's where subjective evaluation comes into play. And if I'm being fair, I have to say RGIII has gotten more help from his O-line (Williams and Montgomery are playing at a probowl level, both guards have also been good, only Polumbus is a bit of a turnstile), his RB and the scheme that is perfectly tailored to his gifts. Luck's stats don't come close to measuring up, but I do think he's on a bit more of an island, and he's forced to press a bit more as a result. That, to me, isn't enough to explain away the yawning statistical chasm between the two, but when I'm evaluating who has been more valuable, that factors in.

Stats obviously matter a lot but can't just look at stats alone. I think these last couple years Jay Cutler has played the best football of his career, but he looks way less efficient than his Denver days because he went from being behind one of the best O-lines in football to maybe the worst. That's the subjective element and the case for Andrew Luck. It shouldn't win out for a few reasons IMO, but there is the ability to make a reasonable case for Luck.

[Maithanet]

I would agree that Green would have been a better choice than Dalton last year, and if it hadn't been for Newton's fantastic (and surprising) rookie campaign, I think he would have won it. WR is a tough position for first year players, and his production was pretty awesome.