Congrats Rex

[OpIv37]

Has anyone demonstrated any correlation between preseason play time and team success in the regular season?

My guess is there is zero. It's all old timey wisdom that is backed by things like gut feeling and outdates concepts of being "tough" and not actual data and science. The same way we all cringe when we hear about NFL coaches wanting to play smashmouth football.

I did find this tidbit that is slightly unrelated but interesting:

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comment...ation_between/

Yeah, why does a team that was mediocre last year need to practice? They didn't add talent and they didn't work but they will magically be better!

[stuckincincy]

Yeah, why does a team that was mediocre last year need to practice? They didn't add talent and they didn't work but they will magically be better!

It was likely a directive from above...don't put our contractual obligations at risk. Rex was hired to be the bombastic mouthpiece that grabs attention and so deflect criticism of the inner circle.

Rex's statement re game 3, "Looks like a stupid decision to play him (Taylor)," Ryan said, "because I never expected him to get hit." was ludicrous.

[Skooby]

Well, it didn't work, following the CW or not. In this age of numerous NFL rules targeting parity, the only explanation that makes sense is that the fans keep filling up the stadium while fans of other moribund teams did not.

IMO, Pegula bought the Sabres for that reason - a steady cash cow, a good place to park money with a reliable cash flow.

CIN was a joke franchise throughout the '90's and what changed them was that the children of the owner took over and showed the old man that he doesn't own a club in a big market, so the local gate matters to the bottom line. And if you don't field a competitive team in the B'gals market, folks just won't show up. Not unique - CIN fans still don't trust the owner, and they as well as a couple of other playoff teams were sweating playoff game sell-outs last year.

NFL franchises are billionaires' toys. Nothing is gonna change until the fans stop showing up, and lift their leg on the owner's precious ego.

If Pegula wanted to make money, he'd drill a hole. He loves Buffalo and the sports teams, overpaying for both of them so don't ever think it's all for money. He's a billionaire so he's good there, I just hope he gets the franchises successful. So far, they've both languished under his ownership.

[stuckincincy]

If Pegula wanted to make money, he'd drill a hole. He loves Buffalo and the sports teams, overpaying for both of them so don't ever think it's all for money. He's a billionaire so he's good there, I just hope he gets the franchises successful. So far, they've both languished under his ownership.

Hire the NFL version of the cartoon character Foghorn Leghorn and then hire his brother? Along with retaining Brandon and Whaley?

It's gonna be another long season...

[YardRat]

Well, it didn't work, following the CW or not. In this age of numerous NFL rules targeting parity, the only explanation that makes sense is that the fans keep filling up the stadium while fans of other moribund teams did not.

IMO, Pegula bought the Sabres for that reason - a steady cash cow, a good place to park money with a reliable cash flow.

CIN was a joke franchise throughout the '90's and what changed them was that the children of the owner took over and showed the old man that he doesn't own a club in a big market, so the local gate matters to the bottom line. And if you don't field a competitive team in the B'gals market, folks just won't show up. Not unique - CIN fans still don't trust the owner, and they as well as a couple of other playoff teams were sweating playoff game sell-outs last year.

NFL franchises are billionaires' toys. Nothing is gonna change until the fans stop showing up, and lift their leg on the owner's precious ego.

I think the rule changes over the last couple of decades (especially the last 10-15 years) indicate a philosophy that has moved the priority of the league away from parity and toward bigger money, and bigger money comes from marketing. There really isn't parity anymore, for the most part there are a few teams that are hopeless, a few that are the cash cows and have marketable stars and continuosly make the playoffs, and a bunch of teams that are, and will remain, mediocre until they latch on to somebody (like a QB) that the league can make money off of. Sure, there is parity with all of the middlin' team that go 6-10 to 9-7 every year, and I guess the hopeless ones can be included because they manage to grow to mediocre and 'fight' for a wild card until the last couple of weeks, but there is definitely an elite class that has been established that belies any evidence of true parity.

Buffalo fans have been clamoring for a QB for years now, but we don't need one because his skill set is important as much as we need one that can be sold nationwide for a profit.

[SpikedLemonade]

If Pegula wanted to make money, he'd drill a hole. He loves Buffalo and the sports teams, overpaying for both of them so don't ever think it's all for money. He's a billionaire so he's good there, I just hope he gets the franchises successful. So far, they've both languished under his ownership.

I wish he would and bury Rex in it.

[Jan Reimers]

Hire the NFL version of the cartoon character Foghorn Leghorn and then hire his brother? Along with retaining Brandon and Whaley?

It's gonna be another long season...

Brandon has nothing to do with the football side of the operation. Firing him will not make us better on the field.

As far as this thread in general, can anyone really blame Rex for sitting our starters, given the number of serious injuries we have already suffered?

[jamze132]

Gees guys I was just really pissed that I purchased NFL Gamepass to watch the "dress rehearsal" and I see a bunch of backups running around missing tackles. Cancel that ****!

[BuffaloRedleg]

Yeah, why does a team that was mediocre last year need to practice? They didn't add talent and they didn't work but they will magically be better!

I asked for stats, and you gave me conventional wisdom.

You're more like Rex Ryan than you'd like to admit.

[BuffaloRedleg]

It was an interesting read. Thing is, there are too many randoms if you want to go data and science and not enough info unless you can find more pertinent data which I haven't looked for. I didn't say anything about winning, an injury damaged team can still be very successful with mitigating factors. I was talking about rust and injuries. A rusty team can also be very successful if slow out of the gate, so it was a little more than slightly unrelated.

Can the Bills specifically overcome rust and injuries ? I don't know that.

Better teams are more likely to win against bad ones regardless, teams with better offseason conditioning programs are likely to have better conditioned athletes who don't need playing time, more astute coaches are likely to have a better feel for which player needs what prep, and players themselves are going to apply different focus and attention to their conditioning. I don't know how this applies to this years team.

That's why this year I concluded the coaching staff has to be presumed to know better. Whether they do or not will be proven when the Bills either come out of the gate rusty and have a bunch of conditioning injuries, or fresh and energetic. Means it worked fine if it works, didn't if it doesn't.

Has nothing to do with gut instinct though.

I think if we stink it will be tough to prove that it had anything to do with how much the starters did or did not play in preseason. People around here tend to project a lot of things on the team that aren't backed by any kind of seriously rigorous analysis, they just fulfill some sort of emotional need of the poster- which is fine. The stats are out there I wish I had time to run a regression on it. I'd be willing to bet that there is absolutely no correlation between preseason play time and team success.

Do already-good teams play their starters less? I imagine so. Do teams get good by playing their starters more? I imagine not, but I really don't have any stats to back that up unfortunately.

For what it's worth I agree with you and I think he smartly played Tyrod very little this preseason. I'm sure someone will start a thread when were finish 8-8 about how the fact that Tyrod didn't play a lot in preseason made him rusty, backed with no evidence other than "he didn't play a lot in preseason and then we stunk so therefore that is the reason." People forget the days when preseason was not even something that was talked about- it was more practice than something fans hyper-analyzed. That's just the NFL machine tricking us into watching and paying attention to something that in reality has far less value than we think.

Edit: I did find this about correlation between preseason and regular season records http://duelingdata.blogspot.com/2014/09/nfl-preseason-performance-doesnt-matter.html

The Bills have never gone over .500 in preseason since 2004, and each time they went .500 they actually did worse in the regular season!

And this, which I haven't finished reading but actually looks slightly counter to my point http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/p...-has-a-new-qb/

Love this stuff.

[mdcas22]

What was Marvs preseason record, 2-38?

Bill Belichick's is 38-30 so whats the point?

[Mace]

I think if we stink it will be tough to prove that it had anything to do with how much the starters did or did not play in preseason. People around here tend to project a lot of things on the team that aren't backed by any kind of seriously rigorous analysis, they just fulfill some sort of emotional need of the poster- which is fine. The stats are out there I wish I had time to run a regression on it. I'd be willing to bet that there is absolutely no correlation between preseason play time and team success.

Do already-good teams play their starters less? I imagine so. Do teams get good by playing their starters more? I imagine not, but I really don't have any stats to back that up unfortunately.

For what it's worth I agree with you and I think he smartly played Tyrod very little this preseason. I'm sure someone will start a thread when were finish 8-8 about how the fact that Tyrod didn't play a lot in preseason made him rusty, backed with no evidence other than "he didn't play a lot in preseason and then we stunk so therefore that is the reason." People forget the days when preseason was not even something that was talked about- it was more practice than something fans hyper-analyzed. That's just the NFL machine tricking us into watching and paying attention to something that in reality has far less value than we think.

Edit: I did find this about correlation between preseason and regular season records http://duelingdata.blogspot.com/2014/09/nfl-preseason-performance-doesnt-matter.html

The Bills have never gone over .500 in preseason since 2004, and each time they went .500 they actually did worse in the regular season!

And this, which I haven't finished reading but actually looks slightly counter to my point http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/p...-has-a-new-qb/

Love this stuff.

Oddly, I read John Harbaugh complaining about preseason games today. And even more oddly I found myself finally agreeing. They really could do the same with controlled scrimmages and maybe only 2 practice games. Article I read Suggs said they really do need a prep game or two.

I'd probably bet that like I said, better teams with better motivated players, better training and conditioning staffs, and more astute coaches will do better with less. One of the best comments I ever read was Carson Palmer commenting on a woeful preseason, said something like preseason is I try what i don't think I can do anyway, take risks and see what happens.

I just really see the preseason as practice games, and it comes back to having to trust the staff on who needs what practice I suppose.

Enjoyed the reads muchly.