Swamp Eagle

"...before Stidham was allowed to target the intermediate passes..." 

Allowed by whom...UCF defense or AU offensive staff?

On ‎11‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 9:34 PM, caleb1633 said:

Despite the passing grade on special teams, I think Fountain needs to go. If not for Carlson, our ST would have been a dumpster fire this year.

EDIT: Horton. Not Fountain.

How's about we just give ST to someone else and keep Horton just the same? He does pretty well with RB's...jes sayin'

On ‎11‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 8:58 PM, screwtape said:

Pretty sure it was declined.

Did it have to be declined if there is a 10-second runoff? Also, it was a loss of down penalty.  I'd love for the stats to have to be amended...

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Am I a drama queen or are you a bit thin skinned and defensive? Speaking of, I'm dying to know who brought up effort, because it certainly wasn't me. But that's the thing about tired cliches from the Generic Message Board Tough Guy Handbook- they're usually misapplied and off the mark.

Enjoy having the last word here. 

I don't need the last word, Im just enjoying you making a perpetual ass of yourself.

3 hours ago, McLoofus said:

"I'm not disputing it, just calling it useless." Cool.

Play out over time? Like 8 games and two top 5 teams? Possibly 2 first round quarterbacks? Yeah, let's fold our arms and wait for 'em to show us somethin'.

You're a bit of of a drama queen, no?  And please brush up on your reading comprehension.  Not once was the effort of the D called into question by me; only the statistical method of point-to-yards ratio. 

On 11/2/2016 at 11:03 AM, McLoofus said:

I'm guessing that Stat was hoping that people would take such obvious concepts into account when assessing the value of the numbers. Also, Stat didn't say that we have the best defense in the country. He said we are currently leading in a meaningful category and that we are currently ranked 36 spots higher than we finished last year. Surely you agree that our defense has significantly improved since last year? I hope so, because it has in almost every other metric out there- dramatically in some cases.

Also, you might notice that most, if not all of the top 10 teams in the playoff rankings are on that list. It would seem that there is at least some correlation between being ranked highly on this list and winning football games. 

Also, everybody is now at least 7 games deep into the season. Everybody has played a few crappy teams and likely a couple good teams. We have played Clemson, TAMU and Ole Miss- all pretty good offenses. In fact, we only face one more offense this season that is on par with those. 

 

There was a reason I said I'm not disputing it but I'd like to see this play out over time, but you get the StatTiger brownie post of the day...so you've got that going for you.

On ‎10‎/‎31‎/‎2016 at 3:54 PM, StatTiger said:

It factors in total defense and scoring defense because it is a yards to point ratio. Like any other stat, you have to consider the level of competition. A team like Vanderbilt is ranked higher than Alabama because they have not faced very many quality offenses.

So if you play a weak schedule with a high ratio, doesn't that somewhat distort any true evaluation of the strength of a defense for the purposes of predicting future outcomes?  I understand the concept, but if you have a "bend but don't break" D against weak offenses, you can't expect that to factor into any predictions of future opponents of higher quality.  It's an interesting statistic, but I'd have to see some results over time that support it being a good measure for rating how good a defense actually is.  I'm not disputing it, because you do an amazing job with stats...I just see some holes in this one.