Okay, what are your theories for difference?

[mwald]

That's one way to do it. Though I've always liked seasonal predictions (especially made before the preseason starts, to 'live' even more dangerously), specifically enjoy SB predictions (mine, as always documented here, was Seattle v. NE, if NE doesn't win Sunday then that'll break my streak of having at least one SB participant correct every year since 2011).

Though week-to-week is done also. I have some of my totals (if you or anyone else cares to share theirs?), since this thread has gone sideways anyways, may as well go off topic. It was slightly a down year (specifically college) for me but you are what your record says you are.

NFL straight-up (to date, including playoffs): 164-100
NFL ATS: We turn in our sheets weekly so I'd have to later add up the season total but i know 100% it's a handful of games better than above. Which is the usual for me (and opposite of most people i know who do worse ATS.)
College ATS: 170-120 (we pick Pac-12 and Top 25 games weekly)
College Bowl games (no spread): 26-15

I do one thing and one thing only (in terms of prognostication; have other research projects going on): I pick every single game on the NFL slate against the spread.

Well, that's not quite true. I am in a mock-up of the Hilton Supercontest (now known as the Westgate supercontest) but I consider that a fun thing among friends. But in my view if you want to do this the right way you have to put your butt on the line every game.

Last year I finished 56 percent against the spread. This year I'm flirting with 57 percent, picking every game. I had been flirting with 58 percent, but the wild card round dropped me back down. The remaining three games will determine where I end out in 2015.

Horn tooting: 56 percent ATS is akin to batting .380 in baseball. I know of only one documented example of someone going 57 percent against the spread in pro football picking every game (it was Jim Barnes, actually, a dedicated handicapper and the guy who invented the Statis Pro Baseball board game). It's possible to achieve a higher ATS percentage picking less games, of course.

All my picks are documented and time stamped (otherwise anyone could claim this) on a Twitter site, but I'd rather not give out the handle on this forum at this particular time.

Picking college games is much easier because the lines are looser. The NBA is easier, also. The NFL is the toughest ATS nut to crack by far. Just love the challenge and I must say it's responsible for my dropping many sacred cows about the forces that win and lose pro football games.

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

I add this comment reluctantly, as someone who never played QB in high school, and would have difficulty taking a snap from a shotgun formation, let alone under center...

When you compare Brady's years versus the league average in one year versus another, you have to understand that all averages are not created equally. 2007 saw a much higher rate of mid-season turnover rate at the QB position than 2006 -- eleven QBs started 16 games in 2007 versus sixteen in 2006. Twenty-four started 10 games or more, versus twenty-nine in 2006.

It's one thing to compare Brady to Michael Vick or Steve McNair. It's another thing to compare Brady to Joey Harrington, Chris Redman, Byron Leftwich, Steve McNair, Kyle Boller, and Troy Smith. "Oh look, his rating was 35% above the league average compared to 19% above league average the year before."

For all the simplicity of the obvious answer, it's really impossible to quantify most of the other factors. But here's one that can maybe be quantified: the revenge factor. From 2003 to 2006, when the Pats were up by 14 points, the run-pass was approximately 4:3, 2:1, 4:3, 3:2, respectively. They scored 4, 5, 5, and 8 touchdowns, respectively. In 2007, as we all know, they poured it on. The run-pass ratio was 1:1, they added 22 touchdowns and more than 2100 total yards when up by 14.

So when Brady is piling on yards and touchdowns in the fourth quarter against teams that are already thoroughly defeated and just want to go home, does that make him a better QB than he was the year before?

[JohnTurney]

I add this comment reluctantly, as someone who never played QB in high school, and would have difficulty taking a snap from a shotgun formation, let alone under center...

When you compare Brady's years versus the league average in one year versus another, you have to understand that all averages are not created equally. 2007 saw a much higher rate of mid-season turnover rate at the QB position than 2006 -- eleven QBs started 16 games in 2007 versus sixteen in 2006. Twenty-four started 10 games or more, versus twenty-nine in 2006.

It's one thing to compare Brady to Michael Vick or Steve McNair. It's another thing to compare Brady to Joey Harrington, Chris Redman, Byron Leftwich, Steve McNair, Kyle Boller, and Troy Smith. "Oh look, his rating was 35% above the league average compared to 19% above league average the year before."

For all the simplicity of the obvious answer, it's really impossible to quantify most of the other factors. But here's one that can maybe be quantified: the revenge factor. From 2003 to 2006, when the Pats were up by 14 points, the run-pass was approximately 4:3, 2:1, 4:3, 3:2, respectively. They scored 4, 5, 5, and 8 touchdowns, respectively. In 2007, as we all know, they poured it on. The run-pass ratio was 1:1, they added 22 touchdowns and more than 2100 total yards when up by 14.

So when Brady is piling on yards and touchdowns in the fourth quarter against teams that are already thoroughly defeated and just want to go home, does that make him a better QB than he was the year before?

You make good points, using stats, how dare you? Again, stats are not everything but they are something. Brady's stats from 2001-06 have a low standard deviation, meaning he was a consistent performer. From 2007-2014 it was also pretty low, though not as uniform as 2001-06. There was a jump in 2007, but the jump stayed. Also, I have compared the passer rating of the top 10 and top 20 and all qualifiers as well as the entire league. So, the competition becomes tighter, but there still is that difference in consistency.

Frankly, the stats are straight forward, once the league average is accounted for, there is a rise in Brady's stats. Some may argue it means little, that's fine, but there also is reasonable evidence that it means something. better workouts, getting smarter, better weapons, i.e. Welker, Moss,Gronk, etc ...all the things that have been suggested.

Not everyone will agree, but the evidence is there to show there was a difference.

[oldecapecod11]

Statistics and bikinis... both cause drooling by those who are little more than stats rats. So, wipe your chins.

Ask this question of anyone who played the game. (Yes; for the rats only group, it is a prerequisite.)

Would you rather have great stats and play on a mediocre team that watches the play-offs on their "devices;"
or,
would you rather have mediocre stats and play on a great team that has a chance to win it all?

Ask friend and foe alike and the honest answers will be the latter.

We have posted this before but: statistics are like bikinis - what they reveal may be appealing but what they conceal is vital.
"Vital" in Sports - including Football - is W-L-T and the ultimate statistic that matters annually is a Super Bowl victory.

Losers will show you their statistics; winners can show you their rings.

Melvin Earl "Bud" Biddle (November 28, 1923 – December 16, 2010) was a United States Army soldier and a recipient of the United States military's highest decoration—the Medal of Honor—for his actions in World War II...
...By December 23, 1944, Biddle was serving in Europe as a private first class in Company B of the 1st Battalion, 517th Parachute Infantry Regiment...
...For his actions during the battle near Soy, Biddle was awarded the Medal of Honor at the White House on October 30, 1945,
by President Harry Truman. When presenting the medal to Biddle, Truman whispered
"People don't believe me when I tell them that I'd rather have one of these than be President."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvin_E._Biddle

A similar statement can be made about a Super Bowl ring.

[ChrisBabcock]

So when Brady is piling on yards and touchdowns in the fourth quarter against teams that are already thoroughly defeated and just want to go home, does that make him a better QB than he was the year before?

^^^ This... is an excellent point.

There's another forum I'm on that has a few more little yellow smiley face options. Reading the last 7 pages of posts, I'd love to insert the smiley chomping away on a red and white striped movie theatre style bag of popcorn.

[Reaser]

Picking college games is much easier because the lines are looser.

The only type of game that gives me consistent trouble is actually the obvious blowouts. The margin is so wide it's nothing but a guess whether a team is going to win by an easy 21 or run it up to 42. I would never choose to bet on that game in vegas, but has to be picked in our group (all but my weekly work NFL ATS pool is done on yahoo, so easily 'documented') ...

[Reaser]

"Oh look, his rating was 35% above the league average compared to 19% above league average the year before."

For all the simplicity of the obvious answer

as we all know, they poured it on.

So when Brady is piling on yards and touchdowns in the fourth quarter against teams that are already thoroughly defeated and just want to go home, does that make him a better QB than he was the year before?

Good stuff. Didn't need the stats to make the point - as you said, we all know they poured it on - but adds some context. Certainly beats what other people were throwing out, stats wise.

[mwald]

Would you rather have great stats and play on a mediocre team that watches the play-offs on their "devices;"
or,
would you rather have mediocre stats and play on a great team that has a chance to win it all?

OCC, your posts usually have a flake of gold in them that would stand out as a nugget were you to pitch much of the mud surrounding them.

Great question. I'll riff on it a bit by saying 1) a team of well-coached mediocre players will beat great players with bad coaching, and 2) when the former happens the mediocre players create great stats and are then assumed to be great players.

It's a no-win chicken/egg argument but it has a lot to do with why I rarely look at the output.

[JohnTurney]

Brett Favre on the 2009 season, "It’s probably, of all the years I played, considering all the circumstances, it was my best year individually in how I played.” he also was quotes as saying "Brett Favre has won a Super Bowl and three MVP awards, but he never has had a passing season like this one."

Now. Favre has played the game, knows who take a snap from center. What is he saying? Is he looking at stats?

Stats are not something to be ignored. Stats, yes, can be used errantly, to make false comparisons, for example.

Yes, it was a great passing season, as I noted. Was passing easier in 2009 than in the 90's? Hmm ...

Was he looking at stats? I don't know, you tell me, you're apparently best friends.

Have you ever taken a snap from center? (since you're stuck on and mentioned multiple times a throwaway comment that was about people who create statistical categories, which Favre did not do, which makes your response odd, as well as false) ...

Yes, false comparisons, like applying raw numbers from one significantly different passing era to another and saying "look guys, the numbers are higher", when all passing numbers are higher.

by dividing at 2007 you ignore a real change in Brees career, which was the move to NO. In his case the jump is his productivity was a coach change, scheme change and all the is easily seen.

Brees moved to NO in 2006. I noted the 1st-team all-pro. I also noted how 2006 was behind 2007-2015 in TD passes and yards per game. So ... not ignored.

With Favre the lie was picking a long end and short end to compate. Stats didn't do that, people did.

You'll note I noted the difference between 2006 and 2007. "completion percentage went from 56.0% to 66.5% and from 2006 to 2007 his passer rating went from 72.7 to 95.7" ...

So, what you have failed to do is explain how rule changes and how the game is played caused the jump for Brady in 2007, I thought we agreed there were reasons he was more accurate, doubled TDs, lowered INTs. You primary premise was "how the game is played" with a splash of Welker and Moss. Now, it seems you are back to there is no difference. Maybe Iam reading your sarcasm wrong, but by bringing examples your attack is on stats, it seems.

I haven't failed to do anything, your article failed. I have not said "there is no difference" or gone back to "there is no difference", I never even said that anywhere? I said how the game is played has changed (it has, correct), 2007 he got Moss and Welker (he did, correct) and overall the raw stats are comparing one passing era to another (with many changes in between the short period of time. As previously said, there isn't one line of demarcation in this period in regards to rule changes and how they increased passing statistics, there's multiple.)

Bill Belichick who told someone I know that anything that compares TD passes to INTs has value in his book, meaning the passer rating has some value as a metric to him.

Belichick - and hundreds of coaches/GMs/scouts/players - has said that sacks are overrated. Yet you give them weight. Almost as if you have your own opinion, but can't think for yourself on topics where it's not convenient for you to do so, or am I reading you wrong and using that as an excuse to make unnecessary comments?

I actually love to learn things who played the NFL game.

Oh, I'm definitely impressed by your dropping of names. But yes, me too. Learn from coaches also. I have talked to former NFL players (and college players and high school players) as well, and - gasp! - I've even played against players that are in the NFL, including a player who will be playing this Sunday, and I learned how to play the QB position from a Rose Bowl winning QB, and myself was a QB for - to date - a third of my life, and played at a decent enough level to be recruited by lower level colleges. I have even coached QB's. If we're bringing football resumes into this for some unknown reason. I guess that's fair, does yours include "taking snaps from center"?

Man. Quite a response. Backwards to forwards, sacks do have weight, since those with sacks also have, usually, the most pressure. Rare is there a guy with 10 sacks in a season with few hurries or pressures. They are related. And I've mentioned the king of sacks, Deacon Jones telling me (name drop) that he'd rather get 40 hurries and no sacks than 2 sacks and no other hurries. I learned that simple concept long, long, long ago. However, through watching things I see that those with the most sacks are the ones with the most hurries. Pressure matters and sacks are pressure.

So, then I have addressed that, you failed to address Belichick saying the usefulness of statistical formulas that take into account TDs and INTs, etc. Says a lot.

If I misinterpreted your position, I am sorry. But you are not exactly clear. But what I would like to see is what changes in how the game was played happed at the juncture of 2006 and 2007. You have not offered any evidence. You seem to be suggesting that there were different era. Okay, name them.

2001 to 2002? 2003 to 2004? When and why? What are the "multiple" lines of demarcation? Be specific. And I just don't take the "take your word for it"

I am well aware of the changes, I know the emphasis on rules, but my take may be different. Use some evidence, what year did passer ratings jump? And why? I think you are locked into a position that isn't fitting in this case. We're not talking 1977 to 1978. We're talking a steady rise in NFl passer rating. Not a jump. With Brady his increases are stark, and that is why it stood out.

Love the comments about your career, good for you. Sounds great. I would just hope you allow others the respect that one does not have to have taken snaps from center to understand these things. I respect the opinion of those here who have commented and didn't play. They are valid opinions given by good and honest PFRA members. I think we can agree on that.

[Reaser]

Statistics and bikinis... both cause drooling by those who are little more than stats rats. So, wipe your chins.

Ask this question of anyone who played the game. (Yes; for the rats only group, it is a prerequisite.)

Would you rather have great stats and play on a mediocre team that watches the play-offs on their "devices;"
or,
would you rather have mediocre stats and play on a great team that has a chance to win it all?

Ask friend and foe alike and the honest answers will be the latter.

We have posted this before but: statistics are like bikinis - what they reveal may be appealing but what they conceal is vital.
"Vital" in Sports - including Football - is W-L-T and the ultimate statistic that matters annually is a Super Bowl victory.

Losers will show you their statistics; winners can show you their rings.

Melvin Earl "Bud" Biddle (November 28, 1923 – December 16, 2010) was a United States Army soldier and a recipient of the United States military's highest decoration—the Medal of Honor—for his actions in World War II...
...By December 23, 1944, Biddle was serving in Europe as a private first class in Company B of the 1st Battalion, 517th Parachute Infantry Regiment...
...For his actions during the battle near Soy, Biddle was awarded the Medal of Honor at the White House on October 30, 1945,
by President Harry Truman. When presenting the medal to Biddle, Truman whispered
"People don't believe me when I tell them that I'd rather have one of these than be President."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvin_E._Biddle

A similar statement can be made about a Super Bowl ring.

Arguably the best post in this thread, so far.