On 1st and 10, Ron played for a 50 yard game winning FG with 2 minutes left

[panthers55]

1 hour ago, Zaximus said:

That's the mindset of someone that is OK with mediocrity.  

No that is someone who understands football, logic and reality. No one wants to lose and I was at the game and spent 300 dollars to be there. I was certainly not ok with the outcome. But that doesn't make me settling or happy with mediocrity when I use logic and reality based thinking in crafting my arguments. That cop out comment really is really overblown and inaccurate.

[miko dawg]

15 hours ago, CPcavedweller said:

What kind of logic? You have a hypothesis but unless you want to put it all in a spreadsheet and enter all data, I'd recommend that you not make decisions based on what seems mathematically logical. 

 

if you took all the games decided by 7 pts or less and for all NFL teams , during Ron's tenure, the average record for all coaches/teams would be .500.  I think what is more telling about Mr. Gantt's statistic is the number of close games Ron has coached.  Better coaches/teams play less close games.  Ron is an average coach.

[Zaximus]

1 hour ago, panthers55 said:

No that is someone who understands football, logic and reality. No one wants to lose and I was at the game and spent 300 dollars to be there. I was certainly not ok with the outcome. But that doesn't make me settling or happy with mediocrity when I use logic and reality based thinking in crafting my arguments. That cop out comment really is really overblown and inaccurate.

Good coaches beat middle of the road/bad teams by a decent lead.     Ron doesn't.    No lead has ever been safe under him, no matter the team or their record.     When you look at 29-28-1, you shouldn't see "well gee golly at least we were close in all those games" you should see "This is a coach that just hasn't figured out how to keep leads and manage games".   

[panthers55]

Just now, Zaximus said:

Good coaches beat middle of the road/bad teams by a decent lead.     Ron doesn't.    No lead has ever been safe under him, no matter the team or their record.     When you look at 29-28-1, you shouldn't see "well gee golly at least we were close in all those games" you should see "This is a coach that just hasn't figured out how to keep leads and manage games".   

That is the thing about opinions. They are based on what we already believe to be true and then we pay attention to those things that reinforce what we already believe. You don't like Rivera and think he does a poor job. I think he is a good coach who.like most folks is fallible and makes mistakes. We can both find evidence for our point of view. Do I think he takes his foot off the gas too often and let's other teams hang around. Actually I do. But that isn't enough for me to say he is a poor coach or change my mind.

[panthers55]

1 hour ago, miko dawg said:

if you took all the games decided by 7 pts or less and for all NFL teams , during Ron's tenure, the average record for all coaches/teams would be .500.  I think what is more telling about Mr. Gantt's statistic is the number of close games Ron has coached.  Better coaches/teams play less close games.  Ron is an average coach.

Any evidence to prove that hypothesis? Do they play less close games or win more than half? Does it matter which division you play in and the level of your competion? If you want to be believed some facts to back up your point not suppositions and hypotheses.

[trueblade]

1 hour ago, miko dawg said:

if you took all the games decided by 7 pts or less and for all NFL teams , during Ron's tenure, the average record for all coaches/teams would be .500.  I think what is more telling about Mr. Gantt's statistic is the number of close games Ron has coached.  Better coaches/teams play less close games.  Ron is an average coach.

When Gantt started posting Ron's record in close games, it was way under .500. Gantt's continued to update it after each close game. Ron got back to and then over .500 during the better seasons, especially 2015. It could be seen as something of a regression to the mean?

[miko dawg]

On ‎11‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 11:04 AM, panthers55 said:

Any evidence to prove that hypothesis? Do they play less close games or win more than half? Does it matter which division you play in and the level of your competion? If you want to be believed some facts to back up your point not suppositions and hypotheses.

Fair point.  No, I do not have the direct evidence.  But we are essentially talking about point differential.  I am assuming teams with a higher positive point differential win more games,  teams with a more negative point differential lose more games, teams with a  point differential closer to zero, close games, are about .500.

if you are playing a close game, for what ever reason, talent, coaching, division strength, karma, luck, then .500 would be an expected outcome.

On Average

 

[panthers55]

2 hours ago, miko dawg said:

Fair point.  No, I do not have the direct evidence.  But we are essentially talking about point differential.  I am assuming teams with a higher positive point differential win more games,  teams with a more negative point differential lose more games, teams with a  point differential closer to zero, close games, are about .500.

if you are playing a close game, for what ever reason, talent, coaching, division strength, karma, luck, then .500 would be an expected outcome.

On Average

 

Games arent won based on total points scored versus total points given up over a season. Pittsburgh blowing us out and showing a huge point differential didn't help them when they lost last Sunday. It is game by game results which can vary widely. I suspect if you outscore your opponents by 200 points over 16 games you probably won more than you lost but honestly points differential isnt a great predictor of overall  success unless it is game specific when it is the only true measure of winning or losing. 

[miko dawg]

Just now, panthers55 said:

Games arent won based on total points scored versus total points given up over a season. Pittsburgh blowing us out and showing a huge point differential didn't help them when they lost last Sunday. It is game by game results which can vary widely. I suspect if you outscore your opponents by 200 points over 16 games you probably won more than you lost but honestly points differential isnt a great predictor of overall  success unless it is game specific when it is the only true measure of winning or losing. 

Sure, you can dissect and point out individual games, but the sport is based on points scored, hence my caveat "on average".

[panthers55]

2 minutes ago, miko dawg said:

Sure, you can dissect and point out individual games, but the sport is based on points scored, hence my caveat "on average".

Winning and losing is based on individual point differential for each game. Rankings which mean nothing are based on averages 

[miko dawg]

50 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Winning and losing is based on individual point differential for each game. Rankings which mean nothing are based on averages 

Then what is the point of Mr Gantt's tweet?

He took a subset of games based on a common criteria, 7 point or less,  could be described as an average.

[panthers55]

1 hour ago, miko dawg said:

Then what is the point of Mr Gantt's tweet?

He took a subset of games based on a common criteria, 7 point or less,  could be described as an average.

The point of his tweet was information which he has been gathering for years. The interpretation is up to each person to decide. But it doesn't mean anything to me and has little to do with our record from year to year. 

[miko dawg]

1 hour ago, panthers55 said:

The point of his tweet was information which he has been gathering for years. The interpretation is up to each person to decide. But it doesn't mean anything to me and has little to do with our record from year to year. 

I agree, which was the point of my original post. His tweet, on the surface, my seem insightful but has little substance.