Dick Has Choked on This!

[okbills]

<!-- message --> Let's take some time and talk about the following charts which highlight Dick Jauron's career turnover ratio and how it relates to wins and loses.

For the purposes of this discussion, a turnover ratio means the ratio of how many times you lose the ball (fumbles or interceptions) and the amount of times you get it by fumbles or interceptions. For example, if you had 20 turnovers on offense, and on defense you took the ball away 21 times, the turnover ratio would be +1 in your favor.

What importance does turnover margin play in the win's and losses column and making the playoffs!? ALOT.

Anytime your turnover margin is below zero, the statistical data says you are probably not going to win ten games. In fact, you will probably not win 8 games. If you keep your turnover ratio at zero or move in a positive direction, you have the opportunity of winning more games (there are exceptions and you'll have to think those through yourself).

Notice this chart which correlates wins with turnover ratios:
http://i544.photobucket.com/albums/hh352/ottocsmit/WinsbyTurnoverMargin.gif

Conclusion: The higher the turnover ratio, the more wins. The lower the turnover ratio, the more loses.

Now notice this chart. This chart compares Dick Jauron's turnover ratio against five other coaches, some future hall of famer's, all Superbowl winners.
http://i544.photobucket.com/albums/hh352/ottocsmit/ComparingDickJauronsTurnoverRatio.gif

Did you notice a pattern? Shocked? I would be. Outraged? I am.

Out of the eight years of coaching illustrated by this chart, Dick Jauron has 6 years of negative turnover margins. Compare Dick Jauron's turnover ratio against all the other coaches listed on this chart. Dick Jauron's teams dominate the negative turnover ratio!!! This comparison also shows how the great coaches are able to generate takeaway's and take care of the football.

What lessons can we take away from this:

1. Dick Jauron coaches undisciplined teams.
2. Dick Jauron does not enforce accountability.
3. Dick Jauron accepts mediocrity or is blind to it or does not know how to coach out of it.
4. Dick Jauron does not produce mentally tough teams.
5. Dick Jauron is not a top flight coach.
6. Dick Jauron's median turnover ratio shows that, generally, he will always be a 10 wins or less coach.

Thoughts?
<!-- / message --><!-- sig --> __________________

[yordad]

I'm convinced. Dick sucks.

[jamze132]

:penalty:

[jamze132]

Let's not forget that Dick Jauron had the misfortune of inheriting the human turnover machine, JP Losman.

[okbills]

And he could not bench him? How does that account for Dick's other years?

[okbills]

I'm convinced. Dick sucks.

Appaling isn't it?

[Mitchy moo]

Dick was handed a QB that RW paid for already. Old people never like to let anything go, that's why I plan on having Dick for years to come. Focus on the real problem, the owner.

RW will never allow the spotlight to be taken off himself. His name is on the door and when he speaks after every game, it makes the paper. He prefers anarchy to sound decisions. It amuses him and keeps of interesting, like his salt tabs.

I plan on another few years of losing, at least until Ralph lays down for the last time.

[Ingtar33]

the problem with your chart is it highlights the fault of your analysis.

Statistical probability over such a small sample size means nothing.

example, in 2007 the bills had a fairly high turnover rating, yet we wound up at 7-9.

this year we'll have a worse turnover margin by nearly a net change of -20 turnovers (it's a little less, but who knows, NE probably will take the ball from us 4 or 5 times)... to the negative from last years total, in short, we'll have done 20 turnovers worse, in our turnover margin from the previous season, and the worse we can do is 7-9... we might even get to 8-8


as a result, while turnover margin is important it's hardly the be-all-end-all of football stats.

here is another example, in 2006, the year the colts won the superbowl, the Colts finished the season at 12-4 with a +7 turnover margin , the Bills in 2007 had a +8 and went 7-9

when you have a statistical variation of MORE 50% in predicted results, the stat has little to any value for predictive analysis.

I've always believed turnover margin, like sacks has more to do with your team's overall record... or more accurately with how often you lead by a fair amount, then any other factor; as turnovers like sacks tend to occur at a much higher rate per down when your team is trailing by more then 1 score, then they do at any other point in the game.

[Mitchell55]

I think you wrote the title backwards.

[elltrain22]

What a dick we have for a coach

[okbills]

the problem with your chart is it highlights the fault of your analysis.

Statistical probability over such a small sample size means nothing.

example, in 2007 the bills had a fairly high turnover rating, yet we wound up at 7-9.

this year we'll have a worse turnover margin by nearly a net change of -20 turnovers (it's a little less, but who knows, NE probably will take the ball from us 4 or 5 times)... to the negative from last years total, in short, we'll have done 20 turnovers worse, in our turnover margin from the previous season, and the worse we can do is 7-9... we might even get to 8-8


as a result, while turnover margin is important it's hardly the be-all-end-all of football stats.

here is another example, in 2006, the year the colts won the superbowl, the Colts finished the season at 12-4 with a +7 turnover margin , the Bills in 2007 had a +8 and went 7-9

when you have a statistical variation of MORE 50% in predicted results, the stat has little to any value for predictive analysis.

I've always believed turnover margin, like sacks has more to do with your team's overall record... or more accurately with how often you lead by a fair amount, then any other factor; as turnovers like sacks tend to occur at a much higher rate per down when your team is trailing by more then 1 score, then they do at any other point in the game.

For many reasons for which I don't have time to relate here, I don't agree with you.

[DynaPaul]

Thoughts?
<!-- / message --><!-- sig --> __________________

You pretty much have it nailed right there.

[Ingtar33]

For many reasons for which I don't have time to relate here, I don't agree with you.

fair enough.

-welcome to the board

[X-Era]

<!-- message --> Let's take some time and talk about the following charts which highlight Dick Jauron's career turnover ratio and how it relates to wins and loses.

For the purposes of this discussion, a turnover ratio means the ratio of how many times you lose the ball (fumbles or interceptions) and the amount of times you get it by fumbles or interceptions. For example, if you had 20 turnovers on offense, and on defense you took the ball away 21 times, the turnover ratio would be +1 in your favor.

What importance does turnover margin play in the win's and losses column and making the playoffs!? ALOT.

Anytime your turnover margin is below zero, the statistical data says you are probably not going to win ten games. In fact, you will probably not win 8 games. If you keep your turnover ratio at zero or move in a positive direction, you have the opportunity of winning more games (there are exceptions and you'll have to think those through yourself).

Notice this chart which correlates wins with turnover ratios:
http://i544.photobucket.com/albums/hh352/ottocsmit/WinsbyTurnoverMargin.gif

Conclusion: The higher the turnover ratio, the more wins. The lower the turnover ratio, the more loses.

Now notice this chart. This chart compares Dick Jauron's turnover ratio against five other coaches, some future hall of famer's, all Superbowl winners.
http://i544.photobucket.com/albums/hh352/ottocsmit/ComparingDickJauronsTurnoverRatio.gif

Did you notice a pattern? Shocked? I would be. Outraged? I am.

Out of the eight years of coaching illustrated by this chart, Dick Jauron has 6 years of negative turnover margins. Compare Dick Jauron's turnover ratio against all the other coaches listed on this chart. Dick Jauron's teams dominate the negative turnover ratio!!! This comparison also shows how the great coaches are able to generate takeaway's and take care of the football.

What lessons can we take away from this:

1. Dick Jauron coaches undisciplined teams.
2. Dick Jauron does not enforce accountability.
3. Dick Jauron accepts mediocrity or is blind to it or does not know how to coach out of it.
4. Dick Jauron does not produce mentally tough teams.
5. Dick Jauron is not a top flight coach.
6. Dick Jauron's median turnover ratio shows that, generally, he will always be a 10 wins or less coach.

Thoughts?
<!-- / message --><!-- sig --> __________________

Last year we had a very positive ratio yet we had a 7-9 record.

1) he coaches young teams because we refuse to pay big dollars for ENOUGH proven talent with vet experience. The youth is undisciplined due to lack of experience.
2) He may or may not, we dont know what happens in the lockeroom.
3) I agree with this statement, he is not as driven as I would like.
4) I disagree, last years team was emptied due to injuries and played tough in many many games.
5) Agree, hes not.
6) Conjecture, you can read the stats like reading Tarot cards, its one factor out of dozens.

Jauron is part of the problem and part of the solution. Hes just a part of a whole. If other areas are made drastically better, we could still win with Jauron. Alternately, if we made a big upgrade to Jauron, we could win that way too.

The real issue is that we wont significantly upgrade anything, its not the Bills style. And when we don't, we will get what we always got, mediocrity.

I hope and pray they change their approach to all of it.

[more cowbell]

remember when the bills were 4-0 and we werent making graphs, talking about firing the coach, the gm...or how much ralph sucks?

[X-Era]

remember when the bills were 4-0 and we werent making graphs, talking about firing the coach, the gm...or how much ralph sucks?
Yeah, too bad the season wasnt 4 games long.

Damn 16 game season... and then damn 3 more games, maybe 4

[Jan Reimers]

I think TO ratios fall into one of those "all other things being equal" categories. If you're getting an equal or greater number of sacks than your opponents, controlling, or at least neutralizing, the clock with your running game, or continually winning or holding your own in the field position battle, TOs can be critical.

If you're losing these other key statistical battles, they are not as important.

[X-Era]

I think TO ratios fall into one of those "all other things being equal" categories. If you're getting an equal or greater number of sacks than your opponents, controlling, or at least neutralizing, the clock with your running game, or continually winning or holding your own in the field position battle, TOs can be critical.

If you're losing these other key statistical battles, they are not as important.

Its like looking at a piece of **** car and going on and on about the bumper being rusty.

[Ingtar33]

Its like looking at a piece of **** car and going on and on about the bumper being rusty.


lol. maybe not completely accurate but definitely funny

[PECKERWOOD]

Dick was handed a head coaching job here, nobody here wanted him as HC before he was hired, although most of us were willing to give him a fair shake. I thought hiring Dick Jauron was a bad choice when it happened and I still think hiring Dick Jauron was a bad choice now. Who knows what the **** Ralph is thinking when he brings in Dick Jauron of all people to come coach his franchise? Are you serious Ralph? How do you have a billion dollars more than me? Holy crap... I would say that Dick Jauron has exceeded most fans expectations but that still isn't saying much.