- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Buddy's Week 7 NFL Rankings
Posted on 10/28/09 at 10:38 am to rondo
Posted on 10/28/09 at 10:38 am to rondo
quote:
Supa, after seeing all these peoples responses, I apologize for ever being on their side of the fence.
reading some people's incredibly emotional takes on this, you would think we were trying to come up with a ranking system for everyone's kids
all this was supposed to be was discussion fodder for the MSB, something different to look at and evaluate, and the potential for a foundation for an evolving system that we might be able to use for gambling purposes in the future. the reason it is a blog is so it is centralized in one place and not scattered on threads all over the MSB
0
Posted on 10/28/09 at 10:49 am to supatigah
quote:
Posted by SwampDonks on 10/27 at 4:36 p.m.
Another thing I don't like about this blog is that he only picks the obvious games that anyone with a right mind would be able to pick but the games that could go either way, he stays away from.
Which in return is the main way his record of predicting games is so good.
It's an admission that over the years anytime two teams are within 4 slots of each other they end up splitting the wins and losses
This post was edited on 10/28/09 at 10:55 am
Posted on 10/28/09 at 10:53 am to supatigah
Instead of bitching, why don't you decide to learn something?
The week 7 rankings admitted 2 games were too close to call
the rest of the games went 9-2-
evidently that's not worth a shite to tigerinatlanta
does he think the giants being ranked above the cardinals
was wrong when they went out and turned the ball over 4 times?
does he think the bears being ranked above the bengals was wrong?
not if he read my blogs. When the bears played the lions, they cleaned up
on the numbers I measure and that pushed them up the ladder temporarily.
At the same time, the bengals played down to their competition when they
played the lions and gained no points so they didn't rank well.
I have been saying the bengals record was out of order with their
efficiency number and something had to give. This week it did, and they
have moved way up in the rankings for next week.
Why supatigah keeps posting my hobby on your board, I have no idea.
I wouldn't give you the time of day.Seems to be a lot of
tiny little minds encapsulated with emotion with no football
common sense.
The week 7 rankings admitted 2 games were too close to call
the rest of the games went 9-2-
evidently that's not worth a shite to tigerinatlanta
does he think the giants being ranked above the cardinals
was wrong when they went out and turned the ball over 4 times?
does he think the bears being ranked above the bengals was wrong?
not if he read my blogs. When the bears played the lions, they cleaned up
on the numbers I measure and that pushed them up the ladder temporarily.
At the same time, the bengals played down to their competition when they
played the lions and gained no points so they didn't rank well.
I have been saying the bengals record was out of order with their
efficiency number and something had to give. This week it did, and they
have moved way up in the rankings for next week.
Why supatigah keeps posting my hobby on your board, I have no idea.
I wouldn't give you the time of day.Seems to be a lot of
tiny little minds encapsulated with emotion with no football
common sense.
Posted on 10/28/09 at 10:53 am to LSUgrasshopper
quote:
So they both get blown out, but because indy only had a slight lead in TOP Cleveland is somehow worse?
no it was an example to show a slice of St Louis game performance that they are still playing hard (Jackson had 134yrds rushing in the Indy game) but Cleveland has quit. So if the trend continues you should the gap between st louis and cleveland stretch out, even though they are 31 and 32 in the league in this ranking and cleveland has a win but st louis does not.
Bulger was playing hurt from week one, then Bulger and Boller were playing, then Boller was playing and now Bulger is back with Jackson is getting more carries. Do you have a way to track the Rams overall team performance that includes the differences in the Bulger/Boller offenses, the lack of Jackson getting carries earlier in the season but recently he has been getting more carries and the amazingly putrid defense they have had all year? If so, then let's see it.
quote:
And again, giving them a score of 1 to 32 is a terrible way to rank teams. It won't reward dominance, and will over separate teams in the middle.
your opinion is duly noted
Posted on 10/28/09 at 11:02 am to gettingold
quote:
Why supatigah keeps posting my hobby on your board, I have no idea.
because it is fun to see people get bent out of shape with emotional reactions when this system has no emotion in it at all.
just like the broncos argument where people were questioning you having them so high from early on in the season but now the broncos are still undefeated and no one is whining about the broncos rank any more
and as the weeks pile up and the stats numbers become bigger the rankings will create a measure of consistency and we won't see wild swings where teams jump up or fall down based on one good or bad game
quote:
Seems to be a lot of
tiny little minds encapsulated with emotion with no football
common sense.
when it comes to setting lines, Vegas has no emotion
This post was edited on 10/28/09 at 11:06 am
Posted on 10/28/09 at 11:58 am to gettingold
quote:
evidently that's not worth a shite to tigerinatlanta
You must still be pissed that I called you out for being a liar in your first visit here.
Is 9-2 impressive? Depends on what that's relative to.
9-2 with 2 too close to call, or minus the disclaimers, your system was 9-4 this week.
75% of the 973 TD posters in the NFL pickem went 9-4 or better this week. 45% went 10-3 or better.
What's your take on the Saints now? Your first thread here looks even more ridiculous now. I'm not asking where they rank on your list, but you had some pretty specific analysis that you took as bad signs for the Saints.
quote:
This chart tells us to get to the playoffs you need 10 wins, and to get 10
wins, you need to be in the top 47% in points allowed ranking.
Saints are 6-0 but are 18 out of 32 (56%) in points allowed per game.
Some of your other gems from that thread:
quote:
Result? The points allowed defense ranked 26th in week 1. Not a thing has changed.
If I was a Saints fan, I would be looking for a bayou to throw some coaches and one
owner in.
Before you think I am over reacting to one game, you haven't looked at the numbers
like I do. This has been a cancer with the Saints for a lifetime and they have never
hired anyone to fix the problem. Til they do, they go nowhere- but they go with the
flair and exuberience they always do.
...So where are the Saints after their glorious win over the Lions?
Right where they were 27 other years. How many 10 win seasons from there?
NONE-ZERO (0/27 = 00.0%)
...Is it wrong to admit they have a problem they need to address? One big hit on Brees and the offense has to depend on the defense to carry them
You feel secure with that? just asking
...after 2 weeks it still looks the same to me
This post was edited on 10/28/09 at 12:08 pm
Posted on 10/28/09 at 12:21 pm to TigerinATL
I imagine the Saints will be getting 10 wins.
Really, less than 12 is hard to imagine.
Really, less than 12 is hard to imagine.
Posted on 10/28/09 at 12:25 pm to gettingold
quote:
the rest of the games went 9-2
And how does that compare with just looking at the vegas line?
Posted on 10/28/09 at 12:36 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
Some of your other gems from that thread:
I forgot how much venom was spewed in that thread.
Posted on 10/28/09 at 12:42 pm to supatigah
What are the 6 rankings?
Posted on 10/28/09 at 12:54 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
TigerinATL
Posted on 10/29/09 at 5:34 pm to herbstreit4
Herbestrit If you see this shoot mr and email please allstarmjm@hotmail.com. I wanted to ask you a couple questions bout thr poker thing.
Posted on 11/2/09 at 11:30 am to supatigah
original:
I wanted to see what the rankings Buddy does would look like with a SOS component so i added the overall 2009 strength of schedule rank from espn LINK to make 7 categories. This is what week 7 rankings would have looked like with a SoS component:
1) Pats 48
2) Saints 58
3) Giants 65
4) Broncos 67
5) Colts 70
6) Eagles 81
7) Packers 82
8) Cowboys 86
9) Jets 89
9) Dolphins 89
11) Steelers 91
12) Ravens 100
13) Vikes 106
14) Bengals 107
14) Panthers 107
16) Falcons 112
17) Cardinals 119
18) Chargers 120
18) Texans 120
20) Redskins 122
21) Jags 126
22) Bills 128
23) Seahawks 129
24) 49ers 131
25) Titans 145
26) Bucs 150
27) Bears 153
28) Lions 167
29) Chiefs 173
30) Raiders 175
31) Rams 179
32) Browns 192
the only way I know how to rank strength of schedule during the ongoing season would be to compute the opp's winning % for each team for each week then rank them 1-32
I will try that with the week 8 rankings and see what it looks like
quote:
1. pats........45
2. broncos.....48
3. saints......50
4. packers.....52
5. giants......55
6. colts.......57
7. steelers....62
8. ravens......72
8. eagles......72
10. vikings.....75
10. cowboys.....75
12. jets........82
13. bengals.....85
14. dolphins....88
15. cardinals...92
16. chargers...103
17. 49ers......105
17. texans.....105
17. panthers...105
17. seahawks...105
21. redskins...106
22. falcons....108
23. jaguars....114
24. bears......121
25. bills......122
26. titans.....131
27. bucs.......145
28. lions......146
29. raiders....156
29. chiefs.....156
31. rams.......157
32. browns.....167
I wanted to see what the rankings Buddy does would look like with a SOS component so i added the overall 2009 strength of schedule rank from espn LINK to make 7 categories. This is what week 7 rankings would have looked like with a SoS component:
1) Pats 48
2) Saints 58
3) Giants 65
4) Broncos 67
5) Colts 70
6) Eagles 81
7) Packers 82
8) Cowboys 86
9) Jets 89
9) Dolphins 89
11) Steelers 91
12) Ravens 100
13) Vikes 106
14) Bengals 107
14) Panthers 107
16) Falcons 112
17) Cardinals 119
18) Chargers 120
18) Texans 120
20) Redskins 122
21) Jags 126
22) Bills 128
23) Seahawks 129
24) 49ers 131
25) Titans 145
26) Bucs 150
27) Bears 153
28) Lions 167
29) Chiefs 173
30) Raiders 175
31) Rams 179
32) Browns 192
the only way I know how to rank strength of schedule during the ongoing season would be to compute the opp's winning % for each team for each week then rank them 1-32
I will try that with the week 8 rankings and see what it looks like
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News