Wys- now that Minesota beat Green Bay,

[Judge]

is the Bills' road win at Minnesota a "quality win" in your book?

My point: your relative statistical analysis is meritless. What is discounted 1 week becomes a virtue the next, simply because the NFL has such a high level of parity. You call the Jets "on a major roll" simply because they've averaged 26 points the last couple of weeks. So what? Past performance is not indicative of what the team will do in the future.

I haven't looked at the Jets' schedule- tell me who is on their list that counts as a "quality win" as opposed to the Bills' list?

[Judge]

I'll answer my own question- San Diego.

That's it- the Jets' only "quality win". It's a good one, but big deal in this era of parity.

The Jets prove that "quality wins" is a relative debate based on what just happened, and that teams can go from being crappola to quality in 1 week.

That's why Wys's argument about who the Bills beat is crappola too- it means nothing. The only thing that matters is winning, no matter who you play.

[lunatic_bills_fan]

WOW, you know a lot of big words. Good point too. I think you and Wys would make good lawyers.

Your Witness Mr. Wys

[EricStratton]

Judge, let's toss the Rams into your mix.

The entire NFL is gushing over 5 in a row and the "great" QB they found and yet of the 5 they have 1 "quality" win, that being the Chargers in St. Louis.

That's the NFL in the parity world. Every win counts the same whether it's a great team or a crap team you beat.

At the end of the year count 'em up and head for the playoffs.

[Judge]

Originally posted by EricStratton
Judge, let's toss the Rams into your mix.

The entire NFL is gushing over 5 in a row and the "great" QB they found and yet of the 5 they have 1 "quality" win, that being the Chargers in St. Louis.

That's the NFL in the parity world. Every win counts the same whether it's a great team or a crap team you beat.

At the end of the year count 'em up and head for the playoffs.

Outstanding example.

[EricStratton]

Originally posted by Judge


Outstanding example.


I'm sure someone will poke holes in it.

[lunatic_bills_fan]

Damn Wys, get in here and lets get this thing heated up.

[WG]

If a good record necessarily entails a good team, then I'm a monkey's uncle.

The Bears were 13-3 last season based on beating nobodies all season long. They got dusted in the playoffs and they suck now.

Lo and behold, look at how good they really seem to be now that they have a schedule. This argument is lame. I get lambasted all the time for throwing up a handful of things. Here Judge tosses up one game and it's supposed to be the standard for the year, indirectly I might add, for how good the Bills are.

Somebody wake me up when we beat a caliber team w/ all of their players on the field.

:z:

For those of you think our team is good, good for you! ;)

[Judge]

Originally posted by Wys Guy
If a good record necessarily entails a good team, then I'm a monkey's uncle.

The Bears were 13-3 last season based on beating nobodies all season long. They got dusted in the playoffs and they suck now.

Lo and behold, look at how good they really seem to be now that they have a schedule. This argument is lame. I get lambasted all the time for throwing up a handful of things. Here Judge tosses up one game and it's supposed to be the standard for the year, indirectly I might add, for how good the Bills are.

Somebody wake me up when we beat a caliber team w/ all of their players on the field.

:z:

For those of you think our team is good, good for you! ;)

Do you even believe what you write? It's hard to believe you listen to yourself or read it before you post something.

So now you're saying that Chicago was never any good, simply because they were 13-3 last year and now have hit the skids? Was New England any good when they won the Super Bowl? Who cares? They won a Super Bowl!

Your argument makes no sense.

You're the person who keeps harping and crying about the records that the teams the Bills have beaten have, not me. Now that you are confronted by the ludicrous nature of your argument, you try to twist it around.

Lame.

Is there anyone on here's who is worth arguing with? Wys can't seem to hack it.

[lordofgun]

Originally posted by Judge
Is there anyone on here's who is worth arguing with? Wys can't seem to hack it.

I'd argue, but I agree. Sorry Judge. Plus I'm not worth arguing with anyway.

[EricStratton]

I'll fight with you Judge, just for sport.

[colin]

Originally posted by Judge
is the Bills' road win at Minnesota a "quality win" in your book?

My point: your relative statistical analysis is meritless. What is discounted 1 week becomes a virtue the next, simply because the NFL has such a high level of parity. You call the Jets "on a major roll" simply because they've averaged 26 points the last couple of weeks. So what? Past performance is not indicative of what the team will do in the future.

I haven't looked at the Jets' schedule- tell me who is on their list that counts as a "quality win" as opposed to the Bills' list?

While you are correct that poor statistical analysis is meritless, past performance IS indicative of what a team will do in the future.

[WG]

Originally posted by Judge


Do you even believe what you write? It's hard to believe you listen to yourself or read it before you post something.

So now you're saying that Chicago was never any good, simply because they were 13-3 last year and now have hit the skids? Was New England any good when they won the Super Bowl? Who cares? They won a Super Bowl!

Your argument makes no sense.

You're the person who keeps harping and crying about the records that the teams the Bills have beaten have, not me. Now that you are confronted by the ludicrous nature of your argument, you try to twist it around.

Lame.

Is there anyone on here's who is worth arguing with? Wys can't seem to hack it.

No Judge, actually that's very clearly not what I said. So really no sense in arguing any further.

I would like to clarify however; what you are saying in all of that is that a record defines a team regardless of who they've played, won, and lost to. Is that it?

[WG]

No response Judge?

[lunatic_bills_fan]

I new I could count on Wys

Wys :peck: Lunatic

[dolfan25]

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20021117/5011170.asp

[Cntrygal]

Originally posted by lunatic_bills_fan
Wys :peck: Lunatic

:eek:

[The Natrix]

I had the same reaction Cntrygal

[Judge]

Originally posted by Wys Guy


No Judge, actually that's very clearly not what I said. So really no sense in arguing any further.

I would like to clarify however; what you are saying in all of that is that a record defines a team regardless of who they've played, won, and lost to. Is that it?

Yes. That's all that matters in the NFL. This isn't division 1 football and the BCS system.

I said a win is a win is a win. I don't care who it's against, how many points are scored, how big the point differential is, where it occurs, or how good/bad a team plays.

As long as the team wins in the NFL, any win is a quality win.

You're the one who has been crying and moaning about "quality wins" and BS like that, as if certain wins count less than others, right? Or are all your posts about quality wins just BS that you don't even believe?.

[WG]

Well, OK then.

I would suggest that teams, exactly such as Chicago last year and as further evidenced this year, that simply beat up and can only win against teams weaker than they are, are really not as good as their records.

I guess you'll have to be content w/ a simple disagreement on the matter then.

;)

[Earthquake Enyart]

Originally posted by Wys Guy
Well, OK then.

I would suggest that teams, exactly such as Chicago last year and as further evidenced this year, that simply beat up and can only win against teams weaker than they are, are really not as good as their records.

I guess you'll have to be content w/ a simple disagreement on the matter then.

;)


Why do you keep picking on my poor Bears?

They had a 5th place schedule last year. All the stars aligned, and they were lucky as hell. But they beat SF, and TB twice. They lost in the playoff game because Jim Miller got knocked out.

Last year they were virtually injury free, this year they have been creamed. Their biggest mistake was overestimating how good both lines were. They let Brockermeyer go, now their O line is just horrible. Their 1st round pick has been a buster, then he got his knee blown out last Monday. They overestimated Bryan Robinson, now they can't sign Colvin who is at or near the top of the league in sacks (note to TD, go after Colvin). That ands Big Ted's injury have severelyu weakened the D. In preseason, with everyone healthy, they manhandled the Rams. With everyone healthy, this is a winning, playoff caliber team.

Now, for our beloved, there are no more 5th place schedules. There are only 2 games different between a 1st place schedule and a 4th place schedule.

[EricStratton]

Just doing a quick statistical check concerning scoring.

NFL Teams (not counting Houston) are averaging 22.1 ppg this year compared to 20.2 last season, a difference of 9%.

Buffalo is allowing 28.6 ppg this year compared to 26.3 last year, a difference of 9%. That’s consistent with the NFL average so numbers wise our D is the same.

We are scoring 26.4 ppg this year compared to 16.6 last year, a difference of a whopping 59%.

Show me again how we are worse off.

[timfromjersey]

Being naturally competetive, slightly irascible and generally combatative, I should like to enter the fray. There is an analogy in the argument between Judge and Wys to be used when discussing the main points of their arguments. Wins against good or bad teams are indeed the goal for a specific team in that given week and as judge alludes, is the most important outcome week to week and by seasons end, helping that team achieve its overall goal of MAKING THE PLAYOFFS. This is why Judge is correct.

But, there are many factors involved in getting a win. With a team for any given week, There are general strengths and weaknesses, overall talent on the field, specific matchup problems, injuries, good and bad game planning, and perhaps most importantly, the effort the team may feel like putting out that week ie. letdowns or grudgematches, etc. Even how a team responds to being at home or away.

All these things can be analyzed and charted, which may demonstrate trends a team has with these factors. That is how Wys can predict overall success a team can have. Take this Minnesota vs Green Bay game being mentioned. With the change of so much personnel and the loss of their premier running back, it was easy to predict the lack of success Minnesota was going to have this season. The opposite could be said of Green Bay. Yet if you look at the history of these two teams at the Metrodome with Farve at QB, it was easy to predict the Minnesota upset (which I did last week in the pickem) Does that make the Vikings a better team? Overall no. In the Metrodome yes. Will that win get the Vikes in the playoffs. No. The Vikings have too many flaws, too many negative trends in the factors influencing a game result, like those mentioned above. Same with the Bills. This is why Wys is right.

Both arguments have their flaws just like the Bills, which will be most evident when the Bills beat a good team one week and not make or lose in the playoffs down the road.

Maybe Judge won this one argument based on his Viking-Packer example, but I not sure if he can take wys by the end of the season.

[Judge]

Originally posted by timfromjersey
Being naturally competetive, slightly irascible and generally combatative, I should like to enter the fray. ...


Maybe Judge won this on argument based on his Viking-Packer example, but I not sure if he can take wys by the end of the season.

Good post- Thanks for giving me a TKO!



and I'm up for the chalklenge of continually knocking Wys's reasoning senseless the rest of the season!:bravo: